CHAPTER XVII.

Loose statements with regard to the loss of life at sea, and other matters—“Coffin ships”—Great improvement of our ships and officers in recent years—Duties of the Board of Trade with regard to wrecks—Return of lives lost and saved between 1855 and 1873, _note_—Wreck chart; but the extent of loss not sufficiently examined—Danger of too much Government interference—Loss of life in proportion to vessels afloat—Causes of loss—More details required—Improvement in lighthouses, buoys, and beacons—Harbours of Refuge—Extraordinary scene in the House of Commons on the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill, 1875—Another Bill introduced by Government—Its conditions—Unusual _personal_ power granted to Surveyors—Propriety or not, of further legislation considered—Compulsory load-line—Mr. J. W. A. Harper’s evidence—Mr. W. J. Lamport and others—Opinion of the Commissioners—Voluntary load-line—Its value questionable—All ships should be certified as seaworthy—How can this be accomplished?—Opinion of Mr. Charles McIver, _note_—Registration Associations—Lloyd’s Register, its great importance—Improvement of seamen by better education—Evil effects of advance notes, confirmed by the opinion of the Commissioners—Over-insurance—Views of Mr. T. H. Farrer—Evidence of other witnesses—Opinion of the Commissioners—Too much legislation already—The necessity of a Mercantile Marine Code, and more prompt punishment in criminal cases—Concluding remarks on the extraordinary progress of British shipping, and the dangers of over-legislation.

[Sidenote: Loose statements with regard to the loss of life at sea, and other matters.]

Although one or two of the more important questions with which the Commissioners had to deal, cannot be materially advanced without an arrangement with other nations, there are others entirely within our own power. To retrace our steps, therefore, with regard to some of these is as worthy of consideration as to devise any new enactments. But these subjects can only be properly dealt with in a calm and impartial spirit. So many exaggerated statements have been recently made, in and out of Parliament, with reference to the extent of the loss of life caused by men being sent to sea in “coffin ships,”[267] as if such occurrences had no existence except in our own time, and were the creation of a prevailing eagerness to be rich too soon, that it is, above all things, necessary to adhere strictly to facts, in considering further legislation, should such be necessary, and to regulate any measures to be enforced on this subject by such facts alone. Nothing can be more dangerous than legislation founded on sentimental or sensational reports.

[Sidenote: “Coffin ships.”]

[Sidenote: Great improvement of our ships and officers in recent years.]

But if “coffin ships” still exist, and I fear they do, this cannot arise from lack of legislative enactments. Indeed, the wisdom of Parliament has, for the last quarter of a century, been seriously directed every Session to the improvement of our ships and of their crews.[268] Nor have individual efforts of the most effective and laudable description been wanting to prevent the construction of vessels of an unseaworthy character:[269] while it is _not_ the case, as has been alleged, that, either our ships or the officers by whom they are navigated have deteriorated. On the contrary, they have, within the last quarter of a century, vastly improved in almost every respect. If any of my readers have any doubts on this question, let them refer to the answers to Mr. Murray’s circular of 1843,[270] and to those sent by our consuls abroad to Mr. J. G. Shaw Lefevre’s circular of 1872.[271] It may be that our seamen do not “hand, reef, and steer,” with the same alacrity as they did in the days of our forefathers, simply because such duties are less required now than they were then; but our masters and mates are infinitely superior to what they were a short time since, and in our regular lines of steamers and packet-ships, there are to be found a class of seamen much more sober and steady than could be found in any merchant service twenty-five years ago. Men now exist, who are quite as competent for the duties required of them, as any seamen of the days of Duncan or Nelson, and far more to be depended on for the performance of their duties on board of merchant ships than was the case in my own boyhood, although there are, still, far too many who are inefficient, drunken, and worthless. There are likewise still many ships lost which ought not to be lost, but the assertions which have been made with regard to an increase in the amount of loss during recent years have been greatly exaggerated, as I shall now endeavour to show.

[Sidenote: Duties of the Board of Trade with regard to wrecks.]

Among the multifarious duties imposed on the Board of Trade, not the least important is that connected with wrecks, casualties, and collisions of ships at home and abroad. For many years, a sort of record had been kept of those casualties, but it is not until 1855, when the duty devolved on the Board of Trade, that we have any reliable statistics.[272]

Of course the number of wrecks, casualties, and collisions reported for any one year, increases or diminishes according to the prevalence or absence of gales of remarkable violence and duration. These sometimes tell in an appalling manner, in the greatly increased loss of life which occurs in one year over another. A Table,[273] copied from the wreck returns of the Board of Trade of 1874, classifies the reports so far as regards the loss of life, showing how far one year has been more disastrous than another; for instance, in 1859-60, the number of lives lost was five times greater than in the previous year, and three times more than in the year following, arising, in a great measure, from the disastrous gale in October 1859 in which 343 lives were lost in the _Royal Charter_, wrecked on the Anglesea Coast. Again, in 1867-68, nearly double the number of lives were lost than during any year either before or since: in fact, no less than 326 vessels were lost or damaged, and 319 lives sacrificed by tempest, between the 1st and 3rd December inclusive of the former year.

But, though between 1855 and 1873, 13,466 lives were lost on the coasts of the United Kingdom, more than 71,000 lives were saved,[276] during the same period, from the shipwrecked vessels; and, though the duty of a seafaring man is proverbially a dangerous one, and the navigation of our coasts is attended with greater perils than those in any other parts of the world, it is astonishing how small is the percentage of loss either of life or property, when compared with the amount of shipping frequenting our shores.

[Sidenote: Wreck chart; but the extent of loss not sufficiently examined.]

In the frontispiece to this volume will be found a wreck chart of the British Islands, prepared from the last Board of Trade Returns for the year 1873-4. A red dot signifies a case of total loss; a blue dot signifies a case of partial damage. The first glance of this chart is very appalling; but it becomes less so when we consider the enormous number of vessels annually frequenting our coasts. Many hundreds of vessels at times leave the northern coal ports, alone, in one day; and I estimate that, in the year to which this chart refers, no less than 500,000 vessels of 90,000,000 tons! including their repeated voyages, frequented the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland.[277]

But, however startling these figures as a measure of the immense number of vessels frequenting our coasts, they affect the mind much less than a glance at the actual facts, the fleets themselves. Until I made a course from the Thames to the Tyne, and saw the sea covered with ships, steamers, and fishing boats, of all kinds and sizes, and saw what an industry even the fishing alone employed, I never had clearly in my own mind a notion of what our mercantile marine really was. Let anyone survey from the fort of Tynemouth and ancient churchyard adjoining—a favourite walk of mine when I represented that borough in Parliament—and see from 200 to 300 ships going out at one tide, or watch the passing ships from Flamborough Head or from the cliffs of Dover, or let him steam through the endless crowd of herring boats off the Scotch coast, and he will have a stronger impression of the magnitude of the mercantile marine of Great Britain than can be derived from the most careful study of all our Blue Books on the subject.

In dealing with this question, it becomes our duty to consider carefully such realities as these. We should not be led astray by a mere glance at the wrecks and casualties which appear on the face of the chart—a chart which has too frequently been used as a picture to alarm the public mind, and induce people, _who will not take the trouble to inquire for themselves_, to believe that the question of the loss of life and property at sea has not received that consideration from Government or Parliament which its great importance demands.

[Sidenote: Danger of too much Government interference.]

I have frequently remarked, in the course of this work, that, however great our exertions have been to save human life, more might still be done, but, without all the facts, further legislation, based on general impressions, and still more so on popular clamour (valuable in itself, though but too often deplorable in its results), will prove of the most mischievous character. We must, also, remember that every act fettering free navigation, renders our Shipowners less able to compete with those of other countries, and, if it does not forward the main object in view—the safety of life—must be a clear national loss, because it renders us less able to make our ships a source of profit, a result which, if not carefully watched, might easily be carried to such an extent as to discourage investments in British shipping.[278]

Now if we take the total disasters on our coasts, including trivial accidents, it does not amount to anything like one-half per cent. per annum, and to not three out of every thousand of the vessels frequenting these shores; indeed, when we consider the dangerous character of these shores, the rocks and shoals with which they are surrounded, the storms with which we are visited, the frequency and uncertainty of these storms, and the dense fogs which often prevail, we may, so far from being startled by the sight of the wreck chart, be surprised that the casualties are not far greater. But, to arrive at the true bearing of the case, it is desirable to analyse the disasters. Besides the red and blue dots on the chart, indicative of total loss or partial damage to vessels, I have indicated by similar dots, with a cross above, the number of disasters in the course of the year, which were attended with _loss of life_. When my readers examine these, they will be still more agreeably surprised. From the Frith of Forth to Spurnhead, a distance of somewhere about 150 miles of the most rugged, unprotected, and dangerous coast in the world, where numerous fleets of vessels are constantly wending their way, and in every description of weather, there were only seven vessels wrecked with loss of life during 1873-4, and two of these were partial losses. In calling attention to this fact, I must remind my readers that, on the part of our coast in question, the most inferior description of vessels, and the most deeply laden, carry on their hazardous trade. If we next cast our eye over the line of coast extending from London to the Lizard Point, and embracing the whole coast of the English Channel, a distance of somewhere about 400 miles, we will see that during the whole of the same year there were only fifteen wrecks with loss of life, and seven of these were partial. Nor is the proportion greater on any other portion of the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland.

[Sidenote: Loss of life in proportion to vessels afloat.]

[Sidenote: Causes of loss.]

But we should do well to inquire still further, and not merely compare the present number of disasters with those of former years, but likewise their extent and character; and, as far as is practicable, the different causes of loss, so as to endeavour to apply, to the best advantage, any further remedies that may be necessary. I have shown[279] that the average loss of life during the three years ending 1835 was 894 per annum, when we owned 2,780,000 tons of shipping; but the loss of life for the year 1873-4, when our Merchant Shipping had increased to 7,294,230 tons, of which no less than 1,825,738 tons consisted of steamers, in which the risk of navigating our coasts is greatly increased, amounted only to 506, of whom 103 were lost in foreign vessels. Many of the remaining 403 were lost on fishing boats, and other vessels not registered under the Merchant Shipping Act.[280] Very material progress towards the saving of life on our coasts has, therefore, been made during the last forty years—a progress which will appear the more striking when I direct attention to the fact, that, while the entrances and clearances of British ships engaged in the foreign trade were, in 1835, not much more than 4,000,000 tons, they had increased to more than 26,000,000 tons in 1873-4.[281] Of the 506 lives lost, 61 were lost in vessels that foundered; 76 through vessels in collision; 200 in vessels that stranded or were cast ashore derelict; and 101 in missing vessels. The remaining 68 lives were lost from various causes, such as by being washed overboard and by other accidents on board. The whole of the above lives were lost in 130 vessels, 87 of which were laden, and 40 in ballast. It is not known whether the remaining three were laden or light.

If we take the last five years from 1869 to 1873-4 inclusive, we find the total number of wrecks and casualties of vessels of every kind, arising from all causes and including collisions, amounted to 8952, giving an annual average of 1791; the average loss of life in these vessels during the five and a half years, including the disastrous half-year 1873, being 755 per annum. Although no return is kept in minute detail of the approximate cause of these disasters, we learn from the wreck register, that in the year 1873-4, 381 were from collisions, and 1422 from wrecks and casualties other than collisions; 346 were wrecks, &c., resulting in total loss; and 1076 partial damage more or less serious. Of the total losses, 128 happened when the wind was at “force 9 or upwards” (a strong gale), and they are classed as having been caused by stress of weather; 93 from inattention, carelessness, or neglect; 30 from defects in the ship or equipments (and of these thirty, 19 appear to have foundered from unseaworthiness); the remainder seem to have arisen from various other causes. Of the 1070 casualties, 525 arose from stress of weather; 180 from carelessness; and 91 from defects in equipments; and the remainder from various other causes. In 1873-4, there were, on or near the coasts of the United Kingdom, 165 wrecks and casualties to smacks and other fishing vessels, which are included in the above returns, and in these, 76 lives were lost, while 195 lives were lost in vessels of the collier class.

[Sidenote: More details required.]

These returns are, no doubt, very valuable as far as they go, and have become more so since they were extended to the loss of _all_ British ships, and, where practicable, to the cause of the loss. But the class of the vessel, whether built of wood or iron, and the draught of water when she left her last port, might be added to advantage. Nor should we omit the familiar S.S. to distinguish steam from sailing ships. However, they amply show that no charge can be justly made against either the Government or the Legislature of any dereliction of duty in their endeavours to save the life of all persons who “go down to the sea in ships.” Nor can we charge the people of this country with any callousness or want of sympathy for the seafaring portion of the population. The number of Acts of Parliament passed in recent years, and the grants of public money voted for the purpose of saving life, are an answer to all such charges; while noble private institutions, like the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society, the Lifeboat Establishments, the Royal Alfred Asylum, besides various other charitable associations for the benefit of seamen, testify in this respect to the liberality of the public.[282]

[Sidenote: Improvement in lighthouses, buoys, and beacons.]

[Sidenote: Harbours of Refuge.]

Nor have the lights, beacons, and buoys on our coast, all tending materially, as they do, to save life, been neglected. On the contrary, while we have greatly reduced the charges, we have increased the number and highly improved the quality of our lights. By the Act passed in 1836,[283] a number of lighthouses, which formed part of the hereditary estate of the Crown and had been allowed to get into the hands of private persons, were transferred to the Trinity House, provision being made for reducing the exorbitant tolls previously levied. By an Act of 1853,[284] the expenditure of the Trinity House on lighthouses, and that of the Scotch and Irish lighthouse boards, was subjected to the control of the Board of Trade, and, since then, the reduction on the charges for lights, buoys, beacons, &c., has been fully 75 per cent. Nor has the question of Harbours of Refuge been overlooked; for, besides the construction of various national harbours, large sums of public money have been advanced at a low rate of interest for the improvement of local harbours, expressly for the benefit of merchant ships and seamen, and these, while facilitating commerce, have, in no small degree, tended to the safety of life and property.

Indeed, so anxious has Government been to rectify any shortcomings in legislation, which might tend to the loss of life, or inflict a hardship on seamen, that the Bill of Mr. Fortescue (now Lord Carlingford), passed in 1873,[285] contained not merely clauses about “load-lines” and “clear sides,” but a provision giving seamen a claim for compensation when, having been detained on a charge of desertion, the ship, upon survey, was shown to be unseaworthy. This Act further contains a provision, strengthening the power of the Board of Trade to detain unseaworthy ships, whereby that “Board are enabled to act of their own accord, and without complaint from without,” the result of which has been that, up to the last return,[286] out of the 474 vessels detained and surveyed by the Board of Trade under this Act, 435 have been on the report of their own officers, and 39 only on complaints made _ab extra_.[287] To these facts I may add, as having a very important bearing on the opinions I have hitherto ventured to express, that only 24 out of the 474 vessels were detained _because_ they were overladen; and that, out of these, not a single vessel detained was alleged to be overladen on information given by the crews, notwithstanding the encouragement they had to become informers against their employers. This power to detain is extended to cases of overloading and improper stowage or imperfect loading, and the conditional orders of release are of a very elaborate character, while the provisions concerning payment of expenses, and the mode of appeal, are made far more full and explicit.

This Act further gives power to vary the requirements contained in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 with regard to boats—requirements, I may add, which it had been found practically impossible to comply with. It likewise contains a clause, which ought to have been the law long since, making it criminal (though the dictates of humanity, it had been thought, were in themselves sufficient), in a master, after collision with another vessel, not to stand by and render assistance. In the same statute, a code of signals of distress has been adopted and very properly enforced, as well as a general code of pilot signals.

Many losses having occurred from spontaneous combustion of coal on board ship, Government, in 1874, appointed, on the recommendation of Lloyd’s Committee, a Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Childers, to inquire into this subject, but this Commission has not yet concluded its labours.

[Sidenote: Extraordinary scene in the House of Commons on the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill, 1875.]

Early in the Session of 1875, the Government introduced another Merchant Shipping Bill, containing various amendments of the then existing law, and among them a special clause which had for its object the abolition of all advance notes. This Bill met with very considerable opposition (partly of a frivolous character), rendering its progress through the House so slow, that Government found it desirable to withdraw it, more especially as the Bill had been materially altered and curtailed in the course of various divisions, especially in the clauses referring to the advance notes and other matters of importance.

When Government intimated its intention of withdrawing the Bill of which they could no longer approve, and which they had not time to pass, a scene arose[289] happily of rare occurrence in the debates of the British Parliament. It was closed, however, with great dignity by the Prime Minister and leader of the Commons. He had introduced such a measure as he no doubt, after grave consultation with his Cabinet, considered necessary and sufficient. The House, and more especially those members of it who were more immediately interested in maritime affairs, and who either approved or opposed the views of Mr. Plimsoll had so mutilated the Government measure, that Mr. Disraeli would no longer be responsible for it. To use his own words, he “declined to deal with the subject in that fragmentary manner,” and no man of prudence or common sense can blame him for the course he adopted under these circumstances.[290]

[Sidenote: Another Bill introduced by Government.]

Unfortunately, however, the popular outcry was so great against the course he had adopted, aroused as this had been for the moment by the well-meaning but rhapsodical protests of Mr. Plimsoll, backed, as they no doubt were, by many really benevolent men, that Mr. Disraeli, in the end, considered it expedient to introduce another Bill, embodying a portion of his own views together with those of the philanthropists. Although this Act contains some necessary and useful provisions, it is not a wise measure, nor can the Government have considered it perfect, as it was hurriedly passed so late in the Session as the 6th of September, and is only to remain in force until the 1st of October 1876.[291]

[Sidenote: Its conditions.]

[Sidenote: Unusual personal power granted to Surveyors.]

This Act confirms the powers previously given to persons, specially appointed by the Board of Trade, to detain what they consider unseaworthy ships, _without previous orders from the Board_, an addition which, however necessary, ought not to have been conceded to any individuals without much further consideration and discussion than it received. This addition opens the door to corruption in its most pernicious and dangerous forms, by giving, as it does, to each one of a great number of subordinate officers, _personal_ authority to detain “unseaworthy vessels,” thus transferring to a single person a power the Board of Trade alone possessed under the Act of 1873, and laying down a principle contrary to all good government, while relieving that Board of its administrative responsibility. Otherwise the Bill contains some useful provisions, and none more so than where it prohibits the carriage of a cargo of which more than one-third consists of grain, &c., unless the grain is secured from shifting by suitable boards or otherwise. But, while this clause may be necessary or right in itself, its meaning may be misconstrued, and it may lead to further and more detailed legislation, making its vague language specific, and calling on Government officers in _Foreign_ ports to enforce its provisions.[292]

The Act also amends the clause in the Act of 1871, which makes the sending an unseaworthy ship to sea a misdemeanour, by providing—

(_a._) That criminal liability shall attach to any one who attempts, or is party to an attempt, to send such a ship to sea, and to a master who knowingly takes such a ship to sea.

(_b._) That every ship shall have a registered managing owner, and that if she is sent to sea from any port in the United Kingdom in an unseaworthy state he shall be liable, unless he proves that he has done all he can to prevent it.

The Act further provides that every British ship shall be marked permanently with lines on her sides showing the position of her decks.

It also provides that the owner of every foreign-going British ship shall, before clearance outwards from any port in the United Kingdom, mark upon her sides a maximum load-line, and shall insert the distance between this and the deck marks in the entry outwards at the Custom House and in the agreement with the crew.

The Act further stipulates that every contract with a seaman shall imply an obligation on the part of the owner and his agents to use all reasonable efforts to make and _keep_[293] the ship seaworthy. The effect of this clause is to give the seaman or his family a remedy against the owner. But it does not extend to damage or loss of life caused by the act of a fellow seaman other than the master.

Happily it is not necessary, in reviewing the recent changes in our Mercantile Marine Laws, to notice those personal matters which have unfortunately been raised in the course of their discussion, except to express regret that Mr. Plimsoll in dealing with a subject of such great public importance should have made grave assertions and charges alike against Government and private individuals, too many of which he has not merely entirely failed to prove, but has neglected to withdraw.

Had Government been persistently neglectful of its duty in its endeavours to mitigate the loss of life and property at sea, there might have been an excuse for some of these charges, especially if it had neglected necessary legislative enactments.[294] But such has not been the case. On the contrary, Parliament of late years, while producing some excellent measures, has interfered far too much with the details of the affairs of individuals connected with Merchant Shipping: and, though yielding for the moment to a popular cry, Mr. Disraeli may well have had reasonable doubts whether further legislation might not, so far from lessening, tend to increase those dangers and disasters which must ever attend the navigation of the ocean.

[Sidenote: Propriety or not, of further legislation considered.]

Having, however, officially announced his intention to review the whole subject, and to consider it in all its bearings, I venture to invite the attention of my readers to the more important points now pending. They are: a compulsory load-line, and the production of an official certificate of seaworthiness by all ships before they are cleared at the Custom House.

[Sidenote: Compulsory load-line.]

[Sidenote: Mr. J. W. A. Harper’s evidence.]

So far as regards the proposed compulsory load-line, a very competent and intelligent witness who gave his evidence before the Royal Commission on unseaworthy ships, says,[296] “I think nothing could be more serviceable and nothing more excellent than to obtain and, if it were possible, enforce a load-line; but I also think there is nothing more impossible. A load-line, do what you may, is the opinion of an expert. How can you, by authority, enforce the opinion of an expert? I have had before me,” he continues, “a great many proposals for ascertaining load-lines for ships. Some of them are very ingenious. By the best of them you may get, with considerable accuracy, the cubical displacement of the empty ship, the displacement of the cargo, and so you may arrive at the cubical space left in the ship available for floating. And getting that you get a valuable and useful fact for some objects. _But the supreme difficulty remains untouched, viz., What ought the floating capacity to be?_ I cannot imagine it possible to enforce by any Government intervention a rule _which must depend in every individual case upon the opinion of an expert_.”

[Sidenote: Mr. W. J. Lamport and others.]

[Sidenote: Opinion of the Commissioners.]

Such, also, was the purport of the evidence of the great majority, if not of all the witnesses examined before the Commission; but I quote that of Mr. Harper, because he is not merely thoroughly competent to offer an opinion on the subject, but is altogether disinterested. Indeed, from the appointment he holds, it would be to his interest to recommend a compulsory load-line, and he would no doubt have done so, had he not thought that any such legislative measure would be likely to aggravate the evils sought to be remedied. In fact, the whole tenor of the evidence is that a fixed load-line would do more harm than good.[297] And such was the opinion of the Commissioners, who state, “that any rule of freeboard founded on surplus buoyancy gives to a vessel of light scantling an advantage over a stronger vessel. Thus the inferior ship would by law be allowed to carry the heavier cargo. Such an enactment would not contribute to the safety of life at sea. From all the evidence we have collected on this subject, we are of opinion that an Act of Parliament enforcing any scale of freeboard would be _mischievous_.”... “A law presenting such a rule would therefore _enhance the perils of a seafaring life_.”

Nor can impartial persons who have studied this question arrive at any other conclusion, for as the Commissioners justly add, “There is no general agreement as to a rule by which the requisite amount of _reserve_ buoyancy could be determined, and it appears that, except under definite circumstances, it is not a determinable problem. The proper load-line in each particular case depends not only upon the principal dimensions of the ship, but also upon her form and structural strength, the nature of her cargo, the voyage, and the season of the year.”

[Sidenote: Voluntary load-line.]

The Commissioners, consequently, limited their recommendation so far as regards freeboard to the extent that “every merchant ship should have marked upon each of her sides amidships, a vertical scale of feet downwards from the edge of her main-deck,” and that a note of her draught of water “should be entered in the log after the vessel has received her full load, immediately before the time of her starting on her voyage, which should, wherever practicable, be left with the officer of Customs or with the British Consul, by whom it should be recorded.”

[Sidenote: Its value questionable.]

This recommendation was proposed to be carried out in the Government Bill which was withdrawn, but, in the Act now temporarily in force, the provisions are somewhat different. The advantages of either system are problematical. Shipowners will continue, as they have hitherto done, to load their vessels to such draught as they consider prudent, and if one of their vessels is lost, and other persons remark that she was too heavily laden, the answer will either be that the draught was as usual, or that safety in proportion to depth is a matter of opinion depending on many varying circumstances. The mere fact of publicly recording the draught of water would, it is to be feared, have little effect on unprincipled or avaricious Shipowners, against whom alone the law is aimed. Practically, I think the system of marking now in force will be of little or no avail, and that the result will not be as the framers of the law intended. A Shipowner being now required by law to mark upon the sides of the vessel amidships a circular disc 12 inches in diameter, to be so placed that “the centre of the disc shall indicate the _maximum_ load-line in salt water to which the owner intends to load the ship for that voyage,” will perceive that to place the disc only slightly above the usual line of load draught would, on the one hand, fetter him to some extent; while, on the other hand, he would incur no disadvantage by placing it so much higher as to ensure its being well clear of the water under any circumstances of loading. A maximum load-line will, therefore, in practice mean the line down to which the ship will certainly _not_ be loaded. Indeed, from the information I have gained on the subject, the practice with some Shipowners seems already to be that the discs are placed one, two, and in some cases, three and even four feet above the water-line. The mere marking it would, therefore, appear in a great measure worthless, as surveyors will still require to wait until a ship has her cargo on board and is ready for sea, before they can form any opinion as to her safety. Whether it is wise, on the part of Shipowners, to place the disc so far above the vessel’s ordinary water-line as to make it meaningless has been doubted by many, but the fact remains that it is so placed in very many instances. It would, certainly, have been better to have omitted from the clause of the Act I have just quoted the word “maximum,” as few Shipowners would have placed their discs too high if, by doing so, this indicated an intention on their part to overload their vessels.

However, if it can be shown that this new mode of marking the sides of a ship tends in any degree towards the greater safety of life and property at sea, the shipping community, generally, will not complain of the expense and trouble. In all good governments there is a pervading principle to which all classes submit, that the interests of the few must be made subservient to the good of the many, and that, especially where life is at stake, no reasonable trouble or expense should be spared to preserve it. But if, on the other hand, it is found that this system of marking or registering the draught of water is useless, or even injurious, Shipowners will have great cause of complaint against Government for an unnecessary interference with their business, provided they can show that they have made an earnest endeavour to apply the provisions of the Act fairly and in the spirit in which they were framed.[298]

The other important point on which Mr. Plimsoll insisted is of a different character. But to carry it out in the way suggested, or as it was argued in the House of Commons and before the Royal Commission, would be impracticable, and even if practicable, it would be most mischievous: the Commissioners in their Report state the question as follows:—“With the view of providing for the greater safety of life at sea, it has been suggested that the Board of Trade shall superintend the construction, the periodical inspection, the repair, and the loading of all British Merchant Ships.” Considering the extent of our mercantile marine and the mode in which business must, necessarily, be conducted if we desire to maintain our present high position as a maritime nation, any such suggestion is simply absurd and, if carried into effect, would be most ruinous. That we have already too much legislation in matters of detail the Commissioners themselves admit. Referring to the pernicious effects of inquiry into such matters by Government surveyors on Emigrant ships, they say, and from the evidence before them they would have been justified in expressing their opinion in still stronger terms, “We consider it to be a question worthy of serious consideration, whether, in the case of passenger ships, the certificate of the Board of Trade, so far as regards specific approval, should not be expressly confined to the number of passengers to be allowed, and to the accommodation for their health, comfort, and general security; all questions of unseaworthiness of hull, machinery, and equipment being left to the owners, subject only to a general power of interference in case of danger, sufficiently apparent to justify special intervention.”

[Sidenote: How this can be accomplished.]

I have been unable to ascertain who made the extraordinary proposal, that every ship from the time her keel was laid until she was loaded and ready for sea should be under the superintendence of officers appointed by the Board of Trade. In justice to Mr. Plimsoll I must state that, though I have read his book, and nearly all his speeches, I cannot trace any recommendation that the merchant ships of this country should be placed, either as regards construction, inspection, or repair, altogether, under the control of the Board of Trade or of any other Government department.[299] What Mr. Plimsoll mentions seems to me, to be a matter to which I have often referred in the course of this work, that we do not utilise to anything like the extent we might the vast private resources within ourselves, and that we might do so to advantage, so far as regards _the survey of our merchant ships_, not one of which he suggests should be allowed to go to sea unless she is _seaworthy_. Now this is a suggestion which few men would be bold enough to decline to consider, and Mr. Plimsoll points out how this may be secured by means already at our disposal. Perhaps in the way he puts it, the difficulties with which it is surrounded could not be overcome; but the maxim cannot be ignored, as it is sound in principle.

To leave the survey of our ships to any one private institution, not on a sufficiently broad basis, such as Lloyd’s Register, might create as many evils as a general Government survey, and, besides creating jealousy on the part of other somewhat similar institutions or associations, might be considered contrary to the rules of sound government. But these institutions could be enrolled and licensed, as various other associations now are, and empowered to grant certificates of seaworthiness, which every ship above a certain tonnage would require to produce before she was cleared at the Custom House. Or they might be welded into one great national institution directly controlled by all the various branches of the shipping community in harmony with their sentiments, and alive to the wants and necessities always arising through the growth and development of trade and commerce.

Individuals may do wrong, and, though it may be for their interests to have a good sound ship, there is no denying the fact that ships are sent to sea which are not seaworthy; but corporations and associations cannot do wrong with the same impunity. If they did, they would be deprived of their licence, and there would be a check, one against the other, which is not the case with individuals. Or, on the other hand, a great representative institution would be efficiently checked and influenced by public opinion, and the voice of those immediately concerned. Were Government to require these associations to _classify_ ships, then I agree with the Commissioners, that it is not its province “to ascertain whether a ship is fit for the conveyance of dry and perishable goods,” but, from the debates in Parliament, and numerous articles in the public press, it is clear that many persons are of opinion, that it is the duty of Government to be reasonably satisfied that a ship is _seaworthy_ before she proceeds to sea. We exercise this duty in the case of railways, mines, and manufactures of various kinds, and events have shown, however much we may have already done to save life and property at sea, that the exercise of a similar duty, if practicable, is at least worthy of consideration in the case of ships.

As the great bulk of the vessels belonging to the United Kingdom are already classed, the certificate of classification they now hold would suffice as a certificate of seaworthiness. Those which are not now classed in Lloyd’s Register, or in any other association, but which belong to the great steam companies, or to very large shipowners, are so well known for their good qualities as not to require classification, and for this reason classification, or, at least, survey for seaworthiness, even if compulsory, could not be a serious hardship to them.

Practically the number of vessels now unclassed is confined to the very good or to the very bad ships. With the owners of the former I should think there would be no difficulty in dealing; they do not class their ships either because they do not care to incur the expense (underwriters being ready to insure them at the lowest current premiums), or because they think they can construct ships, in their own way, superior to those which are built to rules for classification. But such men, while they might protest, and justly so, against being interfered with in a business they more thoroughly understand than any government or private surveyor, and in which they take a laudable pride (for such men are the pillars of our maritime greatness), would, I doubt not, have no objection to an authorised surveyor inspecting their ships, and would readily pay the moderate fee required to cover the cost of a certificate of _seaworthiness_.[300]

For the information of the general public I may state that there is a very great difference between the highest grades of vessels and those which any surveyor who knew anything about his business would pronounce to be _unseaworthy_. In the case of classed ships, the certificate of classification would suffice; but, from the owners of ships who do not class, many intelligent persons are of opinion that a certificate of _seaworthiness_ should be required. They argue, and with great force, that those persons who do not class their ships, because they will not bear inspection, have no right to imperil the lives of others for their own gain. Life is not a thing of price; if it were, the rich would live, and the poor would die. And when a Shipowner declines to bear the expense of making his vessel seaworthy, he places in jeopardy the life of the sailor to benefit himself.

[Sidenote: Registration Associations.]

[Sidenote: Lloyd’s Register, its great importance.]

There are very easy means of ascertaining the seaworthiness of a ship, _when first sent afloat_, already at our disposal, as those of my readers, who are not conversant with this subject, will find by referring to the Appendix,[301] where a history of Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping will be found. That association has a well-organised and extensive staff of surveyors, through whom, at a very small cost, this fact could be ascertained. My readers will also there see the immense advantage that association has afforded in the improvement of our ships and the power it possesses of rendering still greater public service. But while rivalry amongst associations for classification is unquestionably injurious,[302] it may not be considered advisable that Lloyd’s Register alone should issue certificates of seaworthiness. There are other similar associations whose certificates would answer the object in view equally well, and it is for Government to decide (should an attempt be made to carry this principle into practice) what associations shall be empowered to issue the requisite certificates.

But while I cannot ignore the principle that no unseaworthy vessel should be allowed to leave our ports, I cannot hide from myself the fact that there would be numerous difficulties (but far from insurmountable) in the way of carrying it fully into practice. It might be argued that if the Board of Trade enrolled the associations named, and, more especially, if it took them under its _immediate_ control, they would in a few years, instead of being private Institutions, be mere servants of the Board, and, through the Board, of a sensational House of Commons. But that argument may be met by the Shipowners saying to the Board of Trade, “We do not wish to be under your immediate control at all. Why should we not be allowed to manage our own affairs, as all other branches of the community now do,—subject, in our case, as in that of all others, to such enactments only as may be necessary for the public safety? We ought to know our own business a great deal better than any of your surveyors can teach us; and, if we think proper to form ourselves into an association, or associations, to manage our own affairs, and if we do what the country requires, why should we be interfered with by the Government as to the manner in which we think proper to build, equip, and navigate our ships, any more than other traders in the management of their affairs? Enrol us, if we think proper to associate, as you do joint-stock concerns or other associations; let us form a board with members elected by the persons interested, such, for instance, as the Metropolitan Board of Works, to manage our own concerns, with specific rules for the protection of the public, which, if we violate, you will punish us as you would do any other class of the community.”

Now, arguments such as these are really unanswerable. Statesmen and others, who have to encounter the harassing difficulties of official life, and who know that all executive power _must_ be exercised by a minister, or by individuals responsible to him, and, through him, to the public, might say, “How are we, unless all ships are under our immediate control, to meet questions put to us in the House of Commons, such as, ‘Whether such and such a society licensed by Government had the folly and audacity to allow of spring safety-valves, or of boats not fitted with Clifford’s Patent?’ or how could we justify a licence granted to an association which showed such flagrant disregard of modern inventions and of seamen’s lives?” But the reply to all this is that it is _not the province of Government to legislate on such details as these_, any more than it would be to dictate by Act of Parliament, how the details of any other branch of trade or manufacture are to be carried out. The duties of Government have long since been defined, and it is because Government, of recent years, has gone far beyond its duties in the case of Shipowners, that Shipowners complain, and justly complain, against Government for a “meddling and muddling” in matters alike beyond its province and its knowledge.

Reverting to the principle which so many persons now say should be enforced by legislative enactment, the seaworthiness of every ship, there would be great difficulty in carrying that out _by Government_, as seaworthiness is not definable. That is to say, though a vessel may be seaworthy, when launched, (even then it would depend upon the trade in which she was to be employed), she might not be so at the end of her first voyage, or she might be so for one trade in summer, but not in winter, or with one description of cargo, but not with another; or, in fact, with the same cargo if properly stowed,[303] but not otherwise, and so forth. The details are so numerous that it would be impossible to enter upon them within my limits, and for the same reasons, if the principle is to be carried out, it can only be by the association of competent individuals with the necessary staff under their control, possessing that knowledge which long experience alone can give. I mention these points in case the Legislature consider it necessary to enforce this principle; for, if it is to be carried out, it should be in such a manner as will satisfy the public with the least possible interference with the duties of the Shipowner.[304]

[Sidenote: Improvement of seamen by better education.]

In the meantime I must direct the attention of my readers to the unseaworthiness of too many of our seamen, which is of really greater national importance than the unseaworthiness of our ships. However desirable it may be to make certain, if we can, that no unseaworthy ships shall leave our ports, the incompetency, carelessness, and drunkenness of seamen demand much more seriously our attention; and, as all legislative enactments have hitherto failed to raise them to the requisite standard, we ought to direct our attention more earnestly than we have yet done to their _education_. If education is necessary on shore, it is still more so with seamen, and yet we have done, practically, nothing, as a Nation, to assist them in gaining knowledge, and, especially, that description of knowledge required in their calling. Indeed, we have not seriously attempted any great practical scheme for their education or for the amalgamation of the services of the Royal Navy and those of the mercantile marine, which, while invaluable to us as a nation, would tend so much to elevate the social position of that neglected portion of their class, who, not having the good fortune to be enrolled in the Navy or on the lists of the large Shipowners, must seek their daily bread at sea in any ship where employment can be found.

[Sidenote: Evil effects of advance notes]

On the contrary, we have, in some respects, pandered to their pernicious habits. For instance, when a clause in the first Government Bill of last Session (1875) was introduced to render advance notes illegal, the House of Commons rejected it. From my own experience I can have no hesitation in stating that the system of advance notes (I do not include the _allotment notes_, which are most useful) tends to lower the character of seamen, promotes intemperance and insubordination, and has been the indirect means of far more disasters at sea than either overladen or otherwise unseaworthy vessels.

Besides, any such system is unknown to any other class of the community. What should we think of a mechanic or house servant who could not enter our service unless we paid him a month’s wages in advance? We should have nothing to say to him—1st, because we should not care to trust our money to a person who, on some frivolous excuse, might decline to repay us by his faithful service; and (2ndly) because we should, naturally, consider anyone requiring such an advance an improvident if not a worthless person. These advances must, necessarily, discourage frugality and prudence; while, in the case of seamen, they most assuredly lead, directly, to intemperance and vice. Nor is there any real occasion for making advances in their case. The mechanic or the house servant may have been for some time out of employment, and, as his wages are paid weekly or monthly, he may not have laid by anything; but, in the case of seamen, their wages are paid at the end of the voyage, often in large sums, and by means of savings-banks and money-order offices, specially established for their use, they have every facility afforded them for retaining their earnings. But they do not. Why? Because the Legislature has encouraged their natural and _proverbially_ improvident habits, by acknowledging a system of advance of wages unknown to any other class of workmen, on which advance they depend for an outfit, after too frequently squandering the wages they had earned on a previous voyage.

But I should prefer my readers considering carefully the Report of the Commissioners on this subject instead of my own views, and therefore I do not hesitate to give these conclusions at length,[305] as a large mass of evidence was brought before them. They, as statesmen and philanthropists, had no object in view beyond the national good, and, more especially, the welfare of the seafaring population.

[Sidenote: confirmed by the opinion of the Commissioners.]

“The evidence before us leads to the conclusion that the system of advance notes is one great obstacle to the amelioration of the condition of merchant seamen. All the witnesses whom we have examined admit that the system is most pernicious, but it is defended on the ground that, without this advance, the sailor could not pay for his lodging on shore, or procure the clothes requisite for him when he joins a ship.

“In practice it seems that the advance note is handed over to the lodging-house keeper, not usually in exchange for cash, but in discharge of debts which the sailor has been induced to incur. The lodging-house keeper charges a heavy discount, and the sailor is frequently brought on board half-clad and intoxicated.

“Shipowners and captains of merchant ships concur in stating that a large portion of the ship’s crew is very often brought or even lifted on board in a condition of helpless drunkenness, that the vessel must often be detained for twenty-four hours in order that the men may be so far recovered as to be able to get her under weigh, and that there is great risk of life and property at the commencement of the voyage from the consequent inefficiency of the seamen.

“The advance note is not payable until some days after the sailing of the ship; but if the ship then puts back or touches at another port, the seaman often takes the opportunity of making some complaint, in order to get free from his engagement, and will even incur a month’s imprisonment with this object, whilst the Shipowner or the person who has cashed the note loses the money which has been paid in advance.

“It is said that if there were no advance note, the crimp in a foreign or colonial port would not have the same inducement to entice the sailor to desert.

“After careful consideration of the numerous evils attending this mode of prepayment, we recommend that advance notes should be declared illegal, that no payment or order for payment made in advance for wages shall be a discharge for the payment of any portion of a seaman’s wages when due, and that no money paid by a Shipowner to or for a seaman shall be debited to the seaman, except wages already earned, the allotment notes, and the cost of such supplies as the seamen may receive after joining the ship.

“There will be some inconvenience felt at first from the abolition of the existing system of advance notes, and there will be perhaps considerable opposition to the change in the ports, and amongst the lodging-house keepers, who profit by these notes. We feel, however, convinced that unless this mischievous mode of payment be discontinued, the seamen will never be raised from their servile dependence on crimps, and taught to rely on their own industry and intelligence.”[306]

[Sidenote: Over-insurance.]

But there is a question of quite as great importance to which I shall again have occasion to refer when I review the history of our steam companies, and show the remarkably small amount of loss that some of them have sustained through the system and order prevailing on board their vessels. _There we shall see how losses are prevented._ In the meantime, we should do well to inquire how losses are encouraged by allowing policies of insurance to be effected for a greater amount than the value of the ship or the cargo she contains.

[Sidenote: Views of Mr. T. H. Farrer.]

A contract of marine insurance is in its essence a contract of indemnity, and the spirit of the contract is violated if the assured can make the occurrence of a loss the means of gain. But the law has allowed a very considerable deviation from this fundamental principle. Mr. T. H. Farrer, in his evidence, happily illustrates this in the case of a ship with a chartered freight, bound from London to Calcutta and back.[307] He supposes her to be lost on her outward passage in the Bay of Biscay. Presuming that the owner only insured her prudently and not exorbitantly, he would recover in this case not merely the value of the ship at the commencement of the voyage, but also the freight of the outward and homeward voyages, while he would be exempted from paying the seamen’s wages from the date of the disaster, the expenses necessary to carry his ship to Calcutta, to remain there, and to return on her homeward passage, so that he would be, actually, a very considerable gainer by the loss.[308] Nor is the matter less flagrant in the case of valued policies, when the value of the property is fixed by agreement beforehand between the assured and the underwriter. The effect of this, as the Commissioners justly remark,[309] is, “that unless the policy is altogether void, on account of fraud, or the concealment of a material fact, the assured can, in the case of a total loss, receive the value which has been stated in the policy, however much it may exceed the actual worth of his property.” In confirmation of their opinion, they add “that, in certain decided cases, the Shipowner has been allowed to recover 50 and even 100 per cent. more than the actual value of his vessel.”

[Sidenote: Evidence of other witnesses.]

Various witnesses recommended that, in case of a total loss, the underwriter should be allowed to question a valued policy, when he considered that the value had been overstated; but many Shipowners and underwriters objected to this proposal, contending that, where a value had been agreed on between the Shipowners and underwriter, subsequent interference would be mischievous or futile, as it might induce Shipowners to insure abroad. It was contended that the value of a ship might depend on a variety of circumstances; for instance, the loss of a steamer to a Shipowner, about to start a new line of steam communication, would be inadequately replaced by the cost of the vessel, though estimated values of this sort are very problematical.

As regards insurance of freight, it was further suggested that the Shipowner should not, in case of total loss, be entitled to recover his freight, without deducting the expense saved to him by reason of the loss of the vessel. On the other hand, it was alleged that the necessity of estimating these uninsured expenses would give rise to doubt, difficulty, and litigation, and that, if the suggestion were adopted, the Shipowner would be to a great extent deprived of the legitimate advantage he now enjoys of being able to obtain with facility an advance on his freight.

[Sidenote: Opinion of the Commissioners.]

After carefully considering all these matters, the Commissioners arrived at the conclusion that they ought not to recommend any alteration of the law with regard to valued policies in cases of total loss, as there were weighty reasons against any interference on the part of the Legislature with contracts made by persons capable of taking care of their own interests, without carefully ascertaining the effect this interference was likely to produce on the entire system of law relating to such contracts. But they were of opinion that the “whole system of insurance law requires complete revision, for not only does it allow the assured, in some cases, to recover more than the amount of the loss actually sustained by him, but it also, on the other hand, deprives him of an indemnity in cases in which he ought to be protected by his insurance.”

The Commissioners, however, with great force, remark, that “a complete and thorough revision of our laws relating to marine insurance is a task of equal importance, difficulty, and delicacy, requiring evidence of an extensive character, and necessitating a very lengthy and careful investigation, and it touches directly on so many subjects unconnected with the security of life at sea, on which it has only an indirect and somewhat remote bearing, that we do not think it properly falls within the scope of our commission. We should also have been reluctant to undertake the complete revision of our system of marine insurance law, because, for many reasons, it appears to us to be important that, before such a task is undertaken, an attempt should be made to induce foreign nations to concur with us in framing and adopting a general code of insurance law. To alter the English law of marine insurance to any considerable extent, might have the effect of throwing the business of insurance into the hands of foreigners, and there is so much insurance of foreign property in England, as well as of English property abroad, that it is most desirable that the law of insurance should, as far as possible, be the same among all commercial nations. An examination of the foreign codes leads us to hope that there would be found no insuperable difficulty in the way of attaining this important object.”

Although the Commissioners do not at present recommend any alteration to be made in the law relating to valued policies, they think that the Shipowner should not be able to recover his insurance, whether under a time or voyage policy, in cases where it is shown that he or his agent had not done everything reasonably within their power to make and maintain the ship in a seaworthy condition, where that unseaworthiness occasioned the loss. They further consider that the Shipowner’s liability for damage to property or person should be unlimited in cases involving the death of the seaman or the damage to person or property. They are also of opinion that the present system by which insurance cases are tried before a judge and jury is altogether unsatisfactory, as a single judge and two assessors would constitute a far better tribunal. In conclusion, they recommend that the Marine Department of the Board should be revised and strengthened by having a legal adviser exclusively attached to it (a recommendation which has been since carried out). “It will,” they remark, “be the duty of the Board of Trade to check the negligent and to punish the culpable shipowner, but it is desirable that these functions should be performed without harassing the great body of Shipowners, who, by their ability and indefatigable energy, have contributed to the prosperity of the empire.”

I have now endeavoured to give as succinct an account of the whole course of the maritime legislation of the British Empire and its effects upon ships, seamen, and commerce as my space will permit, from the earliest period up to the close of the year 1875. Although it is not the province of an historian to enter upon controversial questions, much less to dive into the future, yet history is of little value unless we can gain knowledge from the past which can be made useful hereafter. I may therefore be permitted to close this volume with a few remarks on the subject of further maritime legislation, especially as the subject is one to which an unusual amount of public attention has been devoted during the last two or three years, and as it has been, officially, announced that it will be again dealt with by Government in the ensuing Session of Parliament.

[Sidenote: Too much legislation already.]

Shipowners say that there is far too much legislation already, and I certainly agree with them; but when they charge the Government as they do, and especially the Board of Trade, or rather Mr. T. H. Farrer, as its permanent Secretary, with forcing all this over-legislation upon them, I must remind them of the facts. What Government did, and did wisely and well, as I have endeavoured to show, was to frame such mercantile marine laws as had become essential after the repeal of the Navigation Laws. The laws then passed have, unquestionably, been of great service, not merely to the nation, but to Shipowners themselves. Having completed all that was considered necessary, Government directed its attention to the amendment, as cases for its necessity arose, and to the consolidation of existing laws; and I can, of my own knowledge, state that Mr. Farrer has, since then, opposed all further legislation which had for its object the interference with the details of a Shipowner’s duty. But the House of Commons would not allow Government to rest with its good work. “Independent members” of that House, actuated by various motives, some of them not very clearly defined, commenced to “amend” (?) in their own way, these laws (see Hansard’s ‘Reports of Parliamentary Proceedings’), by proposing numerous fresh clauses and fresh Bills which, if Government had not resisted, would most likely have doubled the existing number of the mercantile marine statutes. They next commenced to introduce Bills of their own, to teach Shipowners how to construct and equip their vessels. Among the first of these measures was the Act to test chains and anchors, introduced by Sir J. D. H. Elphinstone and the late Mr. John Laird. So far from that Bill receiving the approval of Government, when I moved its rejection,[310] was strongly supported by Mr. Milner Gibson, the then President of the Board of Trade. We were, however, defeated, and the Bill passed and became law.

Encouraged by this success, other independent members followed, and, since then, most of the measures connected with the mercantile marine of this country have been forced upon Government either by Bills introduced by individual members, or by questions asked, or by deputations from interested constituencies, or “philanthropists,” who, however good in their intentions, are, too frequently, mischievously ignorant of the subjects they force upon the attention of Parliament. No one of my readers conversant with these matters can say that the Bills of the last three or four years, except so far as necessary amendments, were Government measures. They were nearly all forced upon the executive, while the only real and valuable measure of Government, the consolidation and codification of existing laws, has been, Session after Session, rejected, or, at least, “shunted” aside by the House of Commons.

For more than two centuries we attempted to regulate our maritime commerce by means of the Navigation Laws and their innumerable additions and amendments, the fallacy of which I have endeavoured in these volumes to expose; yet we are now following the same course our forefathers adopted by attempting, by means of a library of Mercantile Marine Laws, to regulate the details of the business of our Shipowners. Commerce, in all its branches, flourishes most when left alone. Leave our Shipowners alone, except when they do wrong. Leave them to manage their own affairs in such a manner as they consider most conducive to their own interests, and we may rest assured that, if they have a fair and free field and no special favours, they will maintain, against all nations, the maritime supremacy of England.

[Sidenote: Necessity of a Mercantile Marine Code,]

My advice, therefore, to the House of Commons, if an old member may venture to give it, would be to do nothing next Session in the way of fresh legislation, but to confine itself to necessary amendments, and to the codification of existing laws, so that Shipowners may have one law for their guidance; at present they are bewildered by the numerous fragmentary laws now in force. But, in addition to whatever reorganisation and changes may be found necessary, increased facilities would still seem requisite for the immediate payment of seamen’s wages on their discharge; and, though the mode of inquiry into the causes of the loss of life and property at sea has already been altered, greater rigour is still demanded for such inquiries, and more prompt means of detecting and punishing persons who ignorantly or negligently lose the vessels in which they serve. In cases of wilful loss, which I hope and believe are of rare occurrence, the law cannot be too prompt, too stringent, nor too severe. A man who _wilfully_ loses his ship, I rank without hesitation with the “villain and the murderer.”

[Sidenote: and of more prompt punishment in criminal cases.]

Nor should I have much more mercy on the Shipowner who recklessly loses his ship, or who is accessory to her loss; and I should subject to punishment, though in a different and more modified form, any Shipowner who, either ignorantly or negligently, sends his ship to sea in an unseaworthy state. In these matters, the law is still open to improvement, both as regards greater facilities for the discovery of crime and its prompt punishment, arising, as this does, in no small degree, from its too complex character.

Although the Shipowner is now made liable for criminal neglect, and cannot, by contract, relieve himself from this liability, such neglect is difficult of proof, and a jury deciding against a Shipowner on a question of damages, may, often, hesitate to make him criminally responsible. If it were possible to enforce this liability in all cases where guilty; if every Shipowner were made to feel that the proper construction, equipment, loading, manning, and navigation of his ship were matters to which it was his duty to attend, and if these duties were enforced, it would produce much more salutary effects in the way of saving life and property at sea than any Government surveys with a legion of inspectors at their back: each one of these relieves the Shipowner from a duty which belongs to him alone, and relieves, or, at the least, might relieve, him from a part of his responsibility; for if, as in the case of compulsory pilotage, a Shipowner is relieved from responsibility in case of accident, he cannot, in common justice, be held criminally liable when he has acted in conformity with such laws as have been passed for his guidance and control.

Whether it would be possible, as has been recommended, to establish by positive enactment an absolute and indefeasible obligation on the part of every Shipowner to his shippers, passengers, and underwriters, that he and the agents to whom he trusts his ships, shall do all in their power to make and _keep_ his ship seaworthy, is a problem I am not, at present, prepared to solve; moreover, it raises numerous questions of great difficulty and delicacy.

Some amendments may be, also, required in the tonnage and measurement law, which, though, as I have already explained, now a vast improvement on any previous law, still presents features of hardship alike on Shipowners and seamen, as, in the case of the latter, frequent instances occur where the law is evaded by the stowage of cargo or stores in spaces appointed by the present Act for the accommodation of the crew.

Such are the leading measures which may still require the attention of the Legislature; but, before closing my remarks, I desire my readers to recollect the existence of a Merchant Shipping Code, which has not yet become law. It embraces all the laws relating to Merchant Shipping, and if the First Minister would take up this Bill and amend it in detail, he would not merely confer a boon on the largest shipping community the world has ever seen, but one by which his name would be long remembered.

If the Legislature did nothing else during the ensuing Session, it would be a Session well spent: ten clear sittings[311] would, however, suffice, if there was a determination on both sides of the House to allow no party spirit to interfere. Nor should any such feeling be displayed, for the questions now to be considered are almost wholly of an executive and not of a political character; while all the materials are now ready, the lengthened inquiries and discussions to which almost every point except insurance (and on this there must be further inquiry before there is any legislation) has been already subjected, render further discussion, in a great measure, unnecessary.

[Sidenote: Concluding remarks on the extraordinary progress of British shipping.]

I have endeavoured to show how much progress has been made during the last quarter of a century—a progress eminently due to the repeal of our Navigation Laws and to many of the earlier measures of the Board of Trade, in confirmation of which I may point to the magnificent ships now produced, to the enormous extent of our mercantile fleets,[312] as compared with those of all other nations, and to the superiority of our officers to what they were before the repeal of the Navigation Laws.

There is, nevertheless, a wide and noble field in which the statesman might employ his power and genius to great advantage, and earn for himself an imperishable name. The means are now in a great measure at his disposal. But he must decide between two principles. He must not, on the one hand, give way to the question of sentiment or to the popular cry that merchant ships and their cargoes shall be under Government survey, and, at the same time, hold Shipowners responsible for acts which legislation has placed beyond their control. If he adopts the former course, he must double or treble the existing staff of officials; but I venture to warn him that, in so doing, he will place a canker-worm at the root of our maritime greatness, which will as surely destroy the mighty fabric we have raised by individual genius, energy, and skill, as ever did the “dry rot” in our wooden ships of war and commerce.

Seeing what our Shipowners have already accomplished, he might to advantage afford them facilities for _self-government_. The means, as I have shown, are already at his disposal. We have Lloyd’s Register, with its large staff of competent surveyors ready to aid, at our disposal, as also a similar association in Liverpool. We have mercantile marine boards, elected by popular constituencies, at all the leading seaports in the kingdom, under whose supervision the shipping officers are now placed, as well as the examination of all masters and mates. Leave them as they are; but, as I understand that these boards are not overburdened by the duties now devolving on them, could not their duties in relation to the crews be extended and some arrangement be made whereby these different institutions, formed into one, two, or more central and district boards, might perform all the work of detail now required by Parliament? By some such amalgamation everything the country requires could be done more economically and efficiently than at present.

Lloyd’s Registry now tests all anchors and chains as required by Parliament, without any disturbance of their functions or the work for which they were originally constituted, the voluntary classification of ships. Why should we not place in their hands such duties connected with the ship herself as the regulation of load-lines, certification of seaworthiness, if found expedient, and the supervision of all matters of detail which Parliament may consider necessary, in the construction, equipment, loading, and navigation of our ships? All these matters would be much better done by a popularly elected board chosen from merchant Shipowners and underwriters than by any Department of the Government. In their hands might be safely placed the appointment of surveyors: one Department of this new Board attending to the hull of the ship, the other to her navigation, as at present; all these matters being subject, of course, to such regulations as Parliament might consider it expedient to impose, and represented in Parliament by the President of the Board of Trade, or, in lieu thereof, by a Secretary of State for Commerce, should that be desirable.

I merely throw out these remarks for consideration, being aware that many obstacles, though few real difficulties, would require to be overcome in carrying out some such re-organisation as I venture to suggest. But whatever changes Ministers may consider most expedient to adopt, they must not lightly tamper with the merchant fleets which the skill and genius of our people have created, or with the position they have achieved since relieved from those legislative enactments, by which they were bound for more than two centuries. These fleets are now the largest, and unquestionably the finest, in the world, and instead of foreigners overstocking our own ports as was prophesied, we now conduct the greater portion of the maritime commerce of foreign nations.[313] It is, therefore, no idle boast to say, that while the sun never sets on the dominions of our Queen, there is no ocean, no sea, and, I might add, were it not for the exclusive policy of the United States and of France, with a few other insignificant exceptions, no lake, no river, where the British flag is not unfurled, and where it does not shed its civilising and beneficial influence, over many peoples of varied tongues, who might otherwise still be living in darkness, if not in barbarism.

It behoves, therefore, our Statesmen to take care how they deal with this great interest—made great by the freedom of our laws and by the energy of our people; and, whatever further legislation may be necessary, it is seriously to be hoped that Government will confine its measures to their legitimate object; viz. the clear definition of the legal duties and responsibilities of Shipowners, the maintenance of lighthouses, buoys and beacons on our coasts, the general regulations necessary for the proper conduct of maritime commerce, the investigation into the true cause of all accidents at sea, and the prompt punishment of all persons who wrongfully and wilfully violate the law.

FOOTNOTES:

[267] This term had its origin in the early part of the present century, when so many of H.M.’s 10-gun brigs, employed in carrying the mails, or on other short services, were lost, especially on their Atlantic voyages, that they got the name of “_coffins_.”

[268] See Appendix, No. 13, p. 634, where a list will be found of the different Acts of Parliament which have been passed relating to merchant shipping since 1849.

[269] See ‘History of Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping,’ Appendix, No. 12, p. 624.

[270] See _ante_, vol. iii. pp. 48 and 50.

[271] See Parl. Paper C. 630, 1872.

[272]

+---------------------------------------------------+ | WRECKS, &C., OTHER THAN COLLISIONS IN THE | | UNITED KINGDOM. | +-------------+-----------+----------------+--------+ | Year. |Total Loss.| Partial Damage.| Total | +-------------+-----------+----------------+--------+ | 1856 | 368 | 469 | 837 | | 1857 | 384 | 482 | 866 | | 1858 | 354 | 515 | 869 | | 1859 | 527 | 540 | 1,067 | | 1860 | 476 | 605 | 1,081 | | 1861 | 513 | 658 | 1,171 | | 1862 | 455 | 695 | 1,150 | | 1863 | 503 | 830 | 1,333 | | 1864 | 386 | 653 | 1,039 | | 1865 | 470 | 832 | 1,302 | | 1866 | 562 | 876 | 1,438 | | 1867 | 656 | 1,020 | 1,676 | | 1868 | 527 | 841 | 1,368 | | 1869 | 606 | 1,047 | 1,653 | | 1870 | 411 | 730 | 1,141 | | 1871 | 398 | 826 | 1,224 | | 1872 | 439 | 1,110 | 1,549 | | 1873 }| | | | |Jan. to June}| 212 | 522 | 734 | | +-----------+----------------+--------+ | Total | 8,247 | 13,251 | 21,498 | +-------------+-----------+----------------+--------+

Annual average of 17 years, 472-11/17 total wrecks, and 748-13/17 casualties resulting in partial damage.

_Note._—In the above statistical statement no earlier date than 1856 is taken, as the machinery had not in 1855 being sufficiently organised to ensure that nearly all the wrecks, &c., in that year were reported; and there is reason to believe that some may not have been reported in the years 1856, 7, and 8.

[273]

[Sidenote: Return of lives lost and saved between 1855 and 1873.]

The following table shows the number of lives saved, and the number of lives lost on and near the coasts of the United Kingdom, 1855-1873.

-------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------- | LIVES SAVED. | +------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+ Year. | By |By Rocket,|By Luggers,|By Ships| By | By | By | Total | | Life |and Mortar| and | and | Ships’ |Individual| other | Lives | |Boats.|Apparatus,|Coastguard | Steam | own |Exertion. | means. | Saved. | Lives | |Lines, &c.| and other | Boats. | Boats. | | | | Lost.[274] | | | Boats. | | | | | | -------+------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+-------- 1855-6 | 336 | 499 | 1351 | 489 | | 22 | | 2,697 | 485 1856-7 | 634 | 383 | 606 | 587 | | 21 | | 2,231 | 521 1857-8 | 120 | 149 | 683 | 244 | | 17 | | 1,213 | 539 1858-9 | 220 | 154 | 878 | 622 | | 16 | | 1,890 | 353 1859-60| 367 | 407 | 681 | 769 | 951[275]| 9 | | 3,184 | 1,647 1860-1 | 771 | 415 | 467 | 858 | 1,499 | 14 | 362[275]| 4,386 | 537 1861-2 | 322 | 415 | 371 | 919 | 1,425 | 27 | 396 | 3,875 | 884 1862-3 | 291 | 252 | 414 | 1,319 | 1,289 | 9 | 531 | 4,105 | 690 1863-4 | 472 | 256 | 424 | 1,533 | 1,465 | 10 | 439 | 4,599 | 620 1864-5 | 293 | 347 | 338 | 1,003 | 1,459 | 22 | 232 | 3,694 | 516 1865-6 | 480 | 490 | 462 | 1,000 | 2,195 | 7 | 374 | 5,008 | 698 1866-7 | 378 | 527 | 385 | 986 | 2,728 | 13 | 765 | 5,782 | 896 1867-8 | 377 | 310 | 843 | 1,060 | 1,902 | 6 | 660 | 5,158 | 1,333 1868-9 | 504 | 333 | 317 | 719 | 2,062 | | 561 | 4,496 | 824 1869-70| 532 | 354 | 383 | 714 | 2,067 | 8 | 443 | 4,501 | 933 1870-1 | 473 | 203 | 500 | 1,062 | 2,795 | 2 | 459 | 5,495 | 774 1871-2 | 403 | 293 | 265 | 990 | 1,737 | | 245 | 3,933 | 626 1872-3 | 548 | 715 | 582 | 647 | 1,888 | 6 | 388 | 4,774 | 590 -------+------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+-------- Total | 7521 | 6502 | 9950 | 15,522 | 25,462 | 209 | 5855 | 71,021 | 13,466 -------+------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+----------+----------+--------+--------

[274] The figures in this column show the number of lives lost between the 1st January and 31st of December in each year. The number of lives lost during the first six months of 1873 is 728.

[275] No record kept for former years.

[276] We expended between 1555 and 1873 143,660_l._ (see ‘Wreck Returns, 1874,’ p. 11) in providing apparatus for saving life, and in rewards to individuals as well as awards of the National Lifeboat Institution (apart altogether from the efforts of that noble Society, about which see _ante_, note, p. 315), and Her Majesty was graciously pleased (12th April, 1867) to issue her warrant instituting two decorations, the “Albert Medal of the first class,” and the “Albert Medal of the second class,” to reward brave men, who have been conspicuous for saving life at sea or on the coast.

[277] The total number of vessels and their tonnage, including their repeated voyages, that entered and cleared at the ports in the United Kingdom with cargoes and in ballast from and to foreign countries and British possessions for the year 1873 was 130,075, of 44,439,986 tons; the entrances and clearance coastwise with cargoes only, 332,148 vessels, of 40,632,014 tons. If I add to these the coasters in ballast and those with the description of cargo of which no note is taken at the Customs, as also the vessels frequenting the Channel, and bound for Hamburg, Bremen, and the Northern ports of Europe, which do not enter any of the ports of the United Kingdom, of which no return is kept, it will be found that I have not over-estimated the number which now annually pass along or frequent our coasts.—‘Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the Year 1873.’ Presented to Parliament, 1874.

[278] This point involves many grave questions. Happily, men do not altogether live for the purpose of making money—they have other and far nobler objects in view. Some, indeed, but they are rare and grand characters, live altogether for the benefit of mankind and the progress of the human race. There are others who follow a business or profession, not altogether because it yields them profit, but because it affords them pleasure. Such is the case to a large extent in this country. We are a seafaring people, and we pursue occupations in connexion with it frequently as much for pleasure as for profit. We enjoy the business of Shipowners, because it is natural to us, and we take a delight in improving the forms of our ships. I have seen a captain whose heart was in his ship, caress her!—yes, caress her, by clapping the taffrail where he stood when she was performing her work to his satisfaction, as if she had been a living thing, and heard him exclaiming, “Go a-head, my beauty!” just as many persons may have been heard extolling the performance of a favourite horse. Care must, therefore, be taken not to interfere by _unnecessary legislative enactments_ with what is not merely our business but our pride and pleasure, or we may be driven, to the serious loss of the nation, to seek other investments for our capital. We have now arrived at that point where competition has become so close that if we tax our Shipowners to any greater extent than they are now taxed, directly or indirectly (interference with their affairs is the heaviest as well as the most obnoxious of all taxes), we shall most assuredly drive their ships from the trades in which they are now engaged, or compel them to submit to the humiliation of seeking a Foreign register, and hoisting a Foreign flag.

[279] See _ante_, p. 465.

[280] The year previous to 1873-4 was a much more disastrous one than the year before it, as there were 728 lives lost in the six months ending 30th June, 1873, which is in some measure accounted for by the wreck of the ship _Northfleet_, when 293 lives were lost.

[281] See Parl. Paper, 214, 1875, pp. 4 and 11.

[282] As it has often been broadly stated that employment in British ships is much more dangerous now than it was in 1836, when the first Committee sat to inquire into the cause of shipwrecks, I may reply that the most careful analysis shows that, while the losses were then on the average of the three previous years 3·72 percentage of the number of vessels (or rather of their tonnage) employed, they were for the three years previous to 1873 only 2·95 per cent., although these years were exceptionally fatal to ships laden with timber, grain, and coal (see Appendix to ‘Commission on Unseaworthy Ships,’ pp. 780 and 791), arising from the enormous increase in the oversea trade of these articles. For instance, while in 1861, 57,745,993 cwts. of corn were imported, the imports in 1872 amounted to 97,765,298 cwts. The imports of timber rose between the same periods from 3,358,589 to 4,949,786 loads; and the oversea exports of coals from 7,934,832 in 1861 to 13,198,494 tons in 1872.

[283] Lighthouses, 6 & 7 Wm. IV. cap. 79.

[284] Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 16 & 17 Vict. cap. 131.

[285] Merchant Shipping Act, 36 & 37 Vict. cap. 85.

[286] Parl. Paper, C. 1152, 1875.

[287] However beneficial in its results, it may well be questioned if any body of surveyors ought to be empowered at their pleasure, without complaint, to thus retard trade and stop the ordinary course of commerce; and I am disposed to question alike the policy and the wisdom, as well as the necessity, of this regulation. There appear to be now employed in these questionable operations, no less than 117 Government surveyors, “shipwrights,” and “engineers,” stationed at different ports in the United Kingdom, twelve of whom are retired officers of the Royal Navy, besides a good many so-called “shipwrights,” who can have very little knowledge of the construction of merchant ships or of their requirements.[288] In making these appointments, the fact seems to have been overlooked that, at all our ports, there are the surveyors of Lloyd’s Register, or of other similar associations, whose services might have been utilised with a great saving of public expenditure, and with, perhaps, greater efficiency. Yet I read, to my astonishment, in the public journals not long since a letter (6th August, 1875) from Mr. Plimsoll, addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, in which, among much irrelevant matter, he urgently recommends eighteen more surveyors to be appointed by Government, at a salary of not less than 1000_l._ per annum. I sincerely trust no such appointments will be made; but that Government will direct its attention to other more economical and more efficient modes of removing the evils of which Mr. Plimsoll complains, if indeed they exist at all to the extent alleged. There is no use hiding the fact that all such appointments must be filled, in a great measure, through patronage, and that it would be impossible to find men, even at the tempting salary named, competent for the numerous technical and responsible duties that would be required of them. But if such men could be found, are we to hand over the whole of the vast maritime interests of this country, from the time the keel is laid to the despatch of the ship to sea, to the supervision and control of a certain number of Government officials, however competent? As it is, the duties of the surveyors, already appointed, are too frequently as ludicrous as they are questionable. I daresay Mr. Plimsoll must have felt this when he recommended in his letter to Sir Charles Adderley, that “we ought not to have less than four detaining officers in Ireland, four in Scotland, and ten in England, and that the _minimum average(?)_ salary should be 1000_l._ per annum.” Of course he meant them to look after the officers already appointed as well as after the ships; and that they should be “apart altogether from the Permanent Secretary, and the Secretary of the Marine Department,” whom he charges, in the same letter, without, by the way, one tittle or shadow of evidence, with the grossest dereliction of duty.

[288] The staff of the Board of Trade, and its cost for salaries, in 1875 were as follows:—

---------------------------------------------------+-------+--------- | |Aggregate Employment. |Number.| Salary. ---------------------------------------------------+-------+--------- | | £ In the Board of Trade and registry of seamen | 237 | 48,760 Examinations | 13 | 3,355 Mercantile marine offices | 237 | 24,416 Surveyors, emigration officers, tonnage measurers,}| | recorders of draught of water }| 154 | 30,078 Nautical assessors | | 3,000 +-------+-------- Total | 641 | 109,609 ---------------------------------------------------+-------+---------

[289] I feel no hesitation in giving, from the public journals, an account of this most extraordinary and unusual scene, not merely as an episode in the history of Merchant Shipping, but to explain the circumstances under which the temporary Act now in force was passed at the close of the Session of 1875:—

“Mr. CHARLEY asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could hold out any hopes of being able to afford facilities for the third reading of the Infanticide Bill in time to enable the House of Lords to consider it this Session.

“Mr. DISRAELI said he thought he could hold out some hopes to the hon. member. He felt some difficulty on Monday in stating the intentions of the Government, but this arose from their desire to pass the Merchant Shipping Bill this Session; but, finding it impossible to get through the committee on the Agricultural Holdings Bill this week, they had come to the conclusion to abandon the Merchant Shipping Bill. It had been submitted to the Government that they might pass the Bill in a modified form, but he declined to deal with the subject in that fragmentary manner. All he could say was that they would take the earliest opportunity of bringing forward the measure next Session.

“Mr. GOSCHEN, speaking on behalf of the shipping interest, expressed his extreme regret that the Merchant Shipping Bill had been sacrificed for the Agricultural Holdings Bill.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL earnestly entreated the Government not to consign thousands of their fellow-creatures to an undeserved grave. There were, he said, shipowners of murderous tendencies—(‘Order, order!’)—who had frustrated the passing of the Bill by protracted debates. The secretary of Lloyd’s had assured a friend of his that he did not know of a single ship which had been broken up during the past thirty years because it was worn out. The result was that hundreds of brave fellows were sent to unhallowed graves by these speculative scoundrels—(cries of ‘Order!’ and uproar).

“The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that his remarks were out of order. When the Merchant Shipping Bill, which was on the orders of the day, came up for consideration he would have an opportunity of addressing the House.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL said he would give notice that on Tuesday next he would put a question to the President of the Board of Trade with reference to certain vessels which had been lost, entailing a great sacrifice of human life, and would ask whether those vessels were not owned by Mr. Edward Bates, the member for Plymouth, or a person bearing the same name. He should also have some questions to put, with respect to members on the Liberal side of the House, for he was determined to unmask the villains who sent these people to their death—(cries of ‘Order!’ and tremendous uproar).

“The SPEAKER said: The hon. member has used the term ‘villains.’ I trust that he did not apply it to any members of this House.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL: I did, sir, and I shall not withdraw it.

“The SPEAKER: The conduct of the hon. member is altogether unparliamentary, and I call on him to withdraw the language—(cheers).

“Mr. PLIMSOLL (excitedly): And I must again decline to withdraw it.

“In reply to a third interrogation by the Speaker, the hon. member again declined to withdraw. The SPEAKER: The hon. member declines to withdraw, and I must submit his conduct to the judgment of the House.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL, standing in the centre of the House, said he would submit to the judgment of the House. Once more approaching the table, holding a paper in his hand, said, ‘This, sir, is my protest,’ and was proceeding to address the House, but in obedience to loud cries of ‘Order!’ he took his seat on the front bench below the gallery.

“Mr. DISRAELI rose and said that the conduct of the hon. member was almost unparalleled.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL, jumping up and interrupting: ‘And so is that of the Government’—(tremendous uproar).

“Mr. DISRAELI, continuing, said: I feel that it is my duty, as far as I can, to uphold the dignity and honour of the House; for the conduct of the hon. member has been not only violent, but so offensive, that it is impossible for the House to pass it over. As the hon. member has declined to withdraw the word used, it is my duty to move that he be reprimanded by the Speaker for his disorderly and violent conduct—(loud cheers).

“The SPEAKER said that according to the practice of the House the hon. member for Derby would answer in his place, and then withdraw.

“Mr. PLIMSOLL retired to the bar, and as he reached it, turned round apparently with the intention of saying something, but the members there prevailed on him to pass out, and as he did so, he exclaimed: ‘You do not know the men as well as I do. This will cost the lives of thousands.’ The hon. member then left the House.

“The Marquis of HARTINGTON rose and was about to address the House, but was informed by the Speaker that the motion before the House was, that the hon. member for Derby be reprimanded.

“The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he need hardly state that he should support the motion—(cheers). It was evident that the hon. member was labouring under great excitement, but he was not justified in using the language he had employed. No doubt, when he had a little time for reflection, he would see his conduct in a different light—(cheers).

“Mr. SULLIVAN said the scene they had witnessed was without precedent in the House, but he appealed to the House to be indulgent to the hon. member. He was aware that the hon. member was extremely ill, and his state of mental excitement arose from his overstrained feelings. Without seeking to justify the transgression of the hon. member, he wished the House would allow him to have a week’s rest, by which time he would be in a position to apologise for his misconduct. He (Mr. Sullivan) held in his hands the documents which had wrought the hon. member up to his present state of excitement, and for some time past his friends had been caused the most serious uneasiness by the deplorable state of his mind. If the House would afford him a few days’ rest, he would no doubt be able to set himself right—(cheers).

“Mr. DISRAELI then moved that the hon. member for Derby be requested to attend in his place on this day week—(loud cheers).

“Mr. FAWCETT said that Mr. Plimsoll was at present in an extremely painful state of excitement. He had gone out to him in the lobby, and found him in the most lamentable condition. By great effort he had persuaded him to take a walk in the open air—(great laughter). At the end of a week there was little doubt that he would withdraw the violent expressions he had used—(cheers).

“Mr. BASS, as the colleague of Mr. Plimsoll, offered his grateful acknowledgments to the House for the course they had taken—(cheers).

“The matter then dropped.

“On the motion for discharging the Merchant Shipping Bill,

“Mr. BATES said that he wished, with the indulgence of the House, to make a statement with respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Derby earlier in the sitting. All who had witnessed the extraordinary exhibition would agree with him that the hon. member for Derby was not responsible for his actions. With respect to himself it was unfortunately true that he had lost during the last two years five ships; but ships better found in every respect were never sent to sea. They were all of them iron ships, and classed A 1. To himself, personally, pecuniarily the loss was very severe, as he never insured his ships for more than one-half or two-thirds of their market value. That was not so much the matter; but he did deplore the loss of his men, and his only consolation was that, as far as human foresight could go, the ships were as good and as safe as man could make them. He felt assured that the statement of the hon. member for Derby would be looked upon by all, as he looked upon it, with pity—(cheers).

“The House shortly afterwards adjourned.”

Mr. Plimsoll subsequently apologised for his conduct to the House. But it is much to be regretted, _on his own account_, that he neither attempted to substantiate the charges he had brought against Mr. Bates, nor asked leave to withdraw them.

[290] When the Bill was withdrawn there stood upon the orders of the day of the House of Commons no less than 178 amendments to it, many of them on subjects of great importance and difficulty, as well as of great intricacy. See _Times’_ report of Mr. Disraeli’s speech at the Mansion House, 4th August, 1875.

[291] ‘Unseaworthy Ships,’ 38 & 39 Vict. cap. 88.

[292] Already there seems to be a misapprehension. Mr. Plimsoll, as would appear by the newspapers, has been spending his vacation on the shores of the Black Sea and Danube, visiting the grain ports, and instructing the masters of all vessels loading grain how to stow it in accordance with the conditions of the new Act. That he is clearly of opinion that inspectors should be appointed is evident from the fact that he appointed forty of them! and that the Foreign Office approves of what he has done! What next and next? But the Board of Trade, by the correspondence which has been published, is of an entirely different opinion, and maintains that the Act of Parliament gives no such power. Nor does it! Nor should it! It is not the duty of Government to appoint inspectors to see that its laws are carried into effect. I say nothing as to the expense and impracticability of having surveyors at every port in the world where a ship is to load grain; but, if such is the meaning of the Act as applicable to grain ships, where is this sort of legislation to end? Are we to have Government inspectors to see to the loading of all our ships at home and abroad? And if so, why should this new system not be applied to every branch of commerce? Nay, why should it not extend into our houses? Surely heavy penalties would, in the case of grain ships, be a much more effectual mode of enforcing the conditions of the Act. Is there to be no end to the folly of unauthorised individuals appointing surveyors to inspect the loading of our ships abroad, or interfering with duties alone within the power of the Executive Government? It is high time we put a stop to these well-meaning, but Quixotic, proceedings.

[293] I cannot understand what is meant by the word “keep.” A ship sails in a seaworthy condition, but an accident happens on the voyage which _may_ render her “unseaworthy”: is the master, under such circumstances, to put back to the nearest port for repairs? and if he does not do so, and his ship is lost, it may be from causes wholly different, is his policy of insurance to be invalid, and is he to be responsible for any loss of life that may thus occur?

[294] In Mr. Plimsoll’s protest, which, as the rules of the House of Commons would not allow him to present, he either threw upon the table, or had dropped into the House from one of the galleries,[295] he says, “I charge the Government that they are wittingly and unwittingly, for they are both, playing into the hands of the maritime murderers inside the House and outside the House to secure a further continuance of the present murderous system.”... “I desire to unmask the villains who sit in the House, fit representatives of the more numerous, but not greater, villains who are outside the House.” I offer no comment on this language. It tells its own tale of the state of mind of its author.

[295] The disgraceful scenes in the House of Commons could not have arisen from Mr. Plimsoll’s momentary excitement, when the Government announced the withdrawal of its Bill, but must have been premeditated, as this carefully prepared protest too clearly shows.

[296] Mr. John W. A. Harper, Secretary to the Salvage Association. See Question 8769, p. 311.

[297] See also evidence, W. J. Lamport, Question 5556, p. 192. With regard to the question of overloading, Mr. Lamport made a remarkable statement, which I do not hesitate to give at length, because it differs entirely from an opinion prevailing at present in the public mind.

The CHAIRMAN asked (Question 556): “From your knowledge of the shipping in Liverpool during forty years, Do you think that there has been a great deal of overloading?”—“Since it was intimated to me that I was to be asked to give evidence in this room, I have been trying to task my memory for cases in which when vessels had foundered or had not been heard of, I myself had felt a reasonable suspicion that the cause was overloading. I have not been able to bring to my recollection a single instance of the kind. Now this result, I must confess, was a little startling to myself, and in order to check it I spoke to the overlooker of my firm, who is a man older than myself, who has had longer experience than I have had, and who, from his outdoor business, would probably hear of such things more frequently than I should. The overlooker told me that he himself did not remember a single instance, in which he had suspected that any vessel which had left the port of Liverpool had been lost because of being overloaded.”

I may add, from my intimate knowledge of Mr. Lamport, which extended over a period of thirty years up to his untimely death, that these were no mere words of course. Indeed, the statement agrees with my own experience; and, from the inquiries I have made elsewhere, there are comparatively very few ships lost from overloading, except in the coasting and short-voyage trades. In confirmation of this opinion, the Commissioners, in their final report, state that “It is chiefly among the small coasting vessels that any habitual overloading prevails,” and “that there are a large number of ships in ballast annually lost, while the losses from collisions show that the management and negligence of sailors are not less disastrous than the carelessness of shipowners.”

[298] It appears to me to be a grave mistake to require the insertion in the ship’s articles of the draught of water. These articles are an agreement between owner, master, and crew, and are binding on all. How can a drowned sailor’s family claim compensation for a vessel being loaded to a draught the sailor himself agreed to?

[299] Mr. Gray, the Assistant-Secretary to the Board of Trade, stated (Question 10,088) that the Board had received a letter from Mr. Plimsoll, suggesting that the Department should employ the staff of ‘Lloyd’s Register’ to assist in the survey of certain merchant ships.

[300]

[Sidenote: Opinion of Mr. Charles McIver.]

In going carefully through the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, I cannot find that any witness objects to the principle that no ship should be allowed to proceed to sea that is unseaworthy, nor do I find that any Shipowner would object to a survey of his ship for the purpose of ascertaining her seaworthiness. Indeed, Mr. Charles McIver, of Liverpool, the senior partner of the Cunard Company, and a gentleman of great experience, though he does not class any of his ships for somewhat the same reason as I have stated, considers it advisable that all ships should be _classed_—not merely certified as seaworthy, but _classed_. The Chairman (Question 9245, p. 331) remarked: “You said you would not have any objection to have your vessels classed;” and then he asked, “Do you think it advisable that all ships should be classed?—I think so, from what I have seen in the last two or three years. If you will allow me, I will give another reason. I once got nearly cast away in an unclassed vessel about forty years ago. I was going to the States. She was a wooden vessel. I had taken a passage in her along with my sister, because I knew the captain of the ship. She was loaded with steam-engines and coals. I shall not mention the ports or the owners, because they are all dead and gone, the captain included. Off the Azores we fell in with a gale of wind. It only lasted for twelve hours; but, if it had lasted for twenty-four hours, she would have gone down. The captain came to me, and said, ‘If I had known that she was as bad as this, I would not have let you come.’ He said, ‘Her beams are away from the sides.’ I said, ‘I know that she is making water very rapidly, because it is coming out as clear as it went in,’ and they were pumping every two hours, and so forth. Now, I do not mean to say that there may not be culpability in the owner, but, sometimes, it is ignorance. So it was in that case; they did not believe that the ship was as bad as she was. My remark to the captain was, ‘When you go home you had better throw up command of this vessel or you will lose your life.’ He did so; but, in some way or other, he mixed up Mr. McIver’s name with it. The owner said, ‘Mr. McIver is frightened.’ The captain said, ‘No, he is not frightened, but he knows too much.’ He said, ‘I will give up the ship.’ Now, to show you that I did not think that there was any intentional culpability on the part of the owner, but simply ignorance, or simply that they could do what I could not do, because I knew too much, they gave that ship to the mate, and sent that vessel away in his charge for a long voyage abroad, and she did it safely. The next voyage she was never heard of. Now, any sort of classing, I think, would have prevented that ship from going to sea.”

[301] Appendix No. 12, p. 624.

[302] The writer of a letter which appeared in the ‘Nautical Magazine,’ headed “‘Lloyd’s Register’ and the Great Steam Lines,” and which was afterwards published separately (Pewtress & Co. London. 1872), says, “It is very remarkable that the classing of large steamers with Lloyd’s was nearly wholly omitted until 1870;” arising, I may add, from the fact that the ‘Liverpool Register’ allowed, in such ships, scantlings and arrangements of which Lloyd’s surveyors disapproved. “But,” continues the same writer a little further on, “it is much more remarkable that February 1870 is the date of Lloyd’s new rules, which are, it is supposed, an abandonment of the principle and scantlings of the old rules.” We have here exemplified in the most forcible manner the evils of competing classification associations.

[303] Safety depends much more on the nature of the cargo, and the manner in which it is stowed, than most people, or even some shipowners, suppose. Dead weight, when stowed close and very low, while it makes a vessel stiff—that is, “stand up” to a heavy pressure of canvas, makes her roll in a calm when there is a heavy swell (like the pendulum of a clock), to the injury of her spars and rigging, and, not unfrequently, to roll her masts overboard. Railway and other bar iron, which is now a very common description of cargo, should always be stowed in a triangular form, and the heavier the bars the wider should be the angles. Ores of every description, on an oversea voyage, should be stowed in a boxed hold, or on platforms in the centre of the ship, thoroughly blocked from the sides. In a word, the proper stowage of a ship, whether as regards her form or the nature of her cargo, is a science which has not been sufficiently studied.

[304] We must ever remember that although, since we relieved our Shipowners of all the restrictions to which they were subjected by the Navigation Laws, they have advanced above all other nations, the shipping of many of those nations are now running them a very close race. If we burden them with load-lines, which prevent them from carrying as much cargo with safety as a foreign vessel would be allowed to do—half a foot, or even three inches less depth may deprive them of all their profit—or saddle them with charges for surveys and so forth, already very heavy, and to which their competitors are not subjected, we, in either case, drive them from the trade. We must further, if we adopt the principle of a certificate of seaworthiness, recollect the interests of a great number of small coasters, and carefully consider if it would not _seriously_ affect them.

[305] See ‘Final Report of Royal Commissioners on Unseaworthy Ships,’ p. 15.

[306] The following graphic description of the state of too many of our ordinary merchant vessels when they sail is so true that I do not hesitate to transfer it to these pages. I do so with the hope that the Legislature may direct its earliest attention to the improvement of the lamentable state of things here described, and with the conviction that the first step towards that improvement would be the abolition of the system of advances to seamen: “The ship is about to leave the dock, when the crew, generally of a very inferior description, are brought on board, and, frequently, in such a state of intoxication that they are worse than useless during that day, and the ship must anchor for the night. Next day the motley crew commence work reluctantly, in a thoroughly strange ship, under strange officers, and are strangers to each other. The chief officer has the unenviable task of getting them into order, not having a man that he can depend upon. Yet it is from that strange crew he must select look-out men, helmsmen, and leadsmen during the ten or twelve hours’ darkness of the following night.”—Extract of letter from Captain H. A. Moriarty, R.N., to the ‘Nautical Magazine’ for November 1875.

[307] My readers should be informed that a premium of insurance on chartered freight out and home is much higher in proportion, than if insured out only, and then, after arrival at port of destination, home only.

[308] Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, Appendix to the Report No. 51, and Questions 11,516 and 13,072.

[309] See ‘Final Report,’ p. 16.

[310] See _ante_, p. 318, note, and p. 480.

[311] See _ante_, p. 321. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which is quite as large as the Merchant Shipping Code Bill, now ready, passed through Committee in one forenoon sitting.

[312]

------+--------------------------------+------------------------------ Years.| Ships belonging to the British | British Steam Vessels Entered | Empire at the end of each Year,| and Cleared in the Foreign | 1850 to 1874 inclusive. | Trade in the United Kingdom, | | 1850 to 1874 inclusive. ------+--------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------- | Number. | Tons | Number. | Tons. 1850 | 34,281 | 4,232,962 | 8,350 | 1,802,955 1852 | 34,402 | 4,424,392 | 7,059 | 1,980,473 1860 | 38,501 | 5,710,968 | 12,777 | 4,186,620 1862 | 39,427 | 6,041,358 | 15,201 | 5,239,493 1870 | 37,587 | 7,149,134 | 29,369 | 13,341,058 1872 | 36,804 | 7,213,829 | 35,570 | 17,430,029 1873 | 36,825 | 7,294,230 | 37,175 | 18,943,653 1874 | 36,935 | 7,533,492 | 37,606 | 19,408,527 ------+--------------+-----------------+--------------+---------------

[313] See Appendix No. 14, p. 637. Tonnage entered and cleared in the United Kingdom, United States, France, Holland, Norway, Prussia, and Sweden, distinguishing between national and foreign ships from 1850 to 1873.

APPENDICES.

No. Page

1. CONVENTION OF COMMERCE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE, 1826 563

2. LETTER FROM MR. W. S. LINDSAY TO LORD LYONS, BOSTON, U.S., 1860 567

3. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FOREIGN OFFICE RESPECTING THE LIABILITY OF BRITISH SHIPOWNERS IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 571

4. LETTER TO THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NAVIGATION LAWS OF FRANCE, 10TH JANUARY, 1861 582

5. LETTER FROM M. FLEURY AND REPLY, 17TH AND 23RD JUNE, 1862 590

6. LETTER TO THE COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION, LISBON, 28TH JANUARY, 1863 596

7. SUMMARY OF THE ACTS PASSED FOR THE REGULATION OF PASSENGER SHIPS 600

8. PASSAGES OF CLIPPER SHIPS ENGAGED IN THE TRADE WITH CHINA 611

9. LOG OF THE SAILING SHIP ‘THERMOPYLÆ’ 613

10. STATISTICS OF TONNAGE BELONGING TO GREAT BRITAIN, UNITED STATES, FRANCE AND HOLLAND, FROM 1821 TO 1874 618

11. EXEMPTION IN FAVOUR OF CERTAIN BRITISH SHIPS FROM LOCAL PORT CHARGES IN 1852 620

12. HISTORY OF LLOYD’S REGISTER OF BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHIPPING 624

13. ACTS OF PARLIAMENT PASSED BETWEEN 1849 AND 1875, INCLUSIVE, RELATING TO BRITISH SHIPS AND SEAMEN, AND OTHER PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS REFERRING THERETO 634

14. TONNAGE OF SHIPPING ENTERED AND CLEARED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES, FRANCE, HOLLAND, NORWAY, PRUSSIA, AND SWEDEN, DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN NATIONAL AND FOREIGN SHIPS FROM 1850 TO 1873 637

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX No. 1.

_Convention of Commerce between his Britannic Majesty and the most Christian King, together with two additional Articles annexed, signed at London, 26th January, 1826._

Article 1.—French vessels coming from or departing for the ports of France, or if in ballast, coming from or departing from any place, shall not be subject in the ports of the United Kingdom, either on entering into or departing from the same, to any higher duties of tonnage, harbour, lighthouse, pilotage, quarantine, or other similar or corresponding duties, of whatever nature, or under whatever denomination, than those to which British vessels, in respect of the same voyages, are or may be subject, on entering into or departing from such ports; and, reciprocally, from and after the same period, British vessels coming from or departing for the ports of the United Kingdom, or if in ballast, coming from or departing for any place, shall not be subject, in the ports of France, either in entering into or departing from the same, to any higher duties of tonnage, harbour, lighthouse, pilotage, quarantine, or other similar or corresponding duties, of whatever nature, or under whatever denomination, than those to which French vessels, in respect of the same voyages, are or may be subject on entering into or departing from such ports, whether such duties are collected separately or are consolidated in one and the same duty, his most Christian Majesty reserving to himself to regulate the amount of such duty or duties in France, according to the rate at which they are or may be established in the United Kingdom, at the same time, with a view of diminishing the burdens imposed upon the navigation of the two countries. His most Christian Majesty will always be disposed to reduce the amount of the said burdens in France in proportion to any reduction which may hereafter be made of those now levied in the ports of the United Kingdom.

2. Goods which can or may be legally imported into the ports of the United Kingdom from the ports of France, if so imported in French vessels, shall be subject to no higher duties than if imported in British vessels; and, reciprocally, which can or may be legally imported into the ports of France from the ports of the United Kingdom, if so imported in British vessels, shall be subject to no higher duties than if imported in French vessels. The produce of Asia, Africa, and America, not being allowed to be imported from the said countries, nor from any other in French vessels, nor from France in French, British, or any other vessels into the ports of the United Kingdom for home consumption, but only for warehousing and re-exportation, his most Christian Majesty reserves to himself to direct that in like manner the produce of Asia, Africa, and America shall not be imported from the said countries, nor from any other, in British vessels, nor from the United Kingdom in British, French, or any other vessels into the ports of France for the consumption of that kingdom, but only for warehousing and re-exportation.

With regard to the productions of the countries of Europe, it is understood between the high contracting parties that such productions shall not be imported in British ships into France for the consumption of that kingdom, unless such ships shall have been laden therewith in some port of the United Kingdom; that his Britannic Majesty may adopt, if he shall think fit, some corresponding restrictive measure with regard to the productions of the countries of Europe imported into the ports of the United Kingdom in French vessels, the high contracting parties reserving to themselves the power of making by mutual consent such relaxation in the strict execution of the present article as they may think useful to the respective interests of the two countries upon the principle of mutual concessions, affording each to the other reciprocal or equivalent advantages.

3. All goods which can or may be legally exported from the ports of either of the two countries shall on their export pay the same duties of exportation, whether the exportation of such goods be made in British or French vessels, provided the said vessels proceed, respectively, direct from the ports of the one country to the other. And all the said goods so exported in British or French vessels shall be reciprocally entitled to the same bounties, drawbacks, and other allowances of the same nature which are granted by the regulations of each country respectively.

4. It is mutually agreed between the high contracting parties that in the intercourse of navigation between the two countries the vessels of any third power shall in no case obtain more favourable conditions than those stipulated in the present convention in favour of British and French vessels.

5. The fishing-boats of either of the two countries which may be forced by stress of weather to seek shelter in the ports or on the coast of the other country shall not be subject to any duties or port charges of any description whatever; provided the said boats when so driven in by stress of weather shall not discharge or receive on board any cargo, or portion of cargo, in the ports or on the parts of the coast where they shall have sought shelter.

6. It is agreed that the provisions of the present convention between the high contracting parties shall be reciprocally extended and in force in all the possessions subject to their respective dominions in Europe.

7. The present convention shall be in force for a term of ten years from the 5th April of the present year; and further, until the end of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its intention to terminate its operation; each of the high contracting parties reserving to itself the right of giving such notice to the other at the end of the said term of ten years, and it is agreed between them that at the end of twelve months’ extension agreed on both sides this convention and all the stipulations thereof shall cease and determine.

8. The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in London within the space of one month, or sooner if possible.

In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the seals of their arms.

Done at London on 26th day of January, 1826.

GEORGE CANNING.

WILLIAM HUSKISSON.

LE PRINCE DE POLIGNAC.

_Additional Articles._

Article 1.—French vessels shall be allowed to sail from any port whatever of the countries under the dominion of his most Christian Majesty, to all the colonies of the United Kingdom (except those possessed by the East India Company) and to import into the said colonies all kinds of merchandise (being productions the growth or manufacture of France) with the exception of such as are prohibited to be imported into the said colonies, or are permitted to be imported only from countries under the British dominion; and the said French vessels, as well as the merchandise imported in the same, shall not be subject in the colonies of the United Kingdom to other or higher duties than those to which British vessels may be subject, or importing the same merchandise from any foreign country, or which are imposed on the merchandise itself.

2. French vessels shall be allowed to export from all the colonies of the United Kingdom (except those of East India Company) all kinds of merchandise which are not prohibited to be exported from such colonies in vessels other than those of Great Britain; and the said vessels, as well as the merchandise exported in the same, shall not be subject to other or higher duties than those to which British vessels may be subject on exporting the said merchandise, or which are imposed on the merchandise itself, and they shall be entitled, to the same bounties, drawbacks, and other allowances of the same nature to which British vessels would be entitled on such exportation. These two additional articles shall have the same force and validity as if they were inserted word for word in the convention signed this day. They shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at the same time.

In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the seals of their arms.

Done at London, 26th January, 1826. GEORGE CANNING. LE PRINCE DE POLIGNAC. WILLIAM HUSKISSON.

A Treasury letter, dated 28th March, 1826, directs that French vessels and their cargoes legally imported or exported on board the same, according to the terms of the convention in the preceding pages, are from 5th April, 1826, to be charged with such and like duties only of whatever kind they may be that are charged on British vessels and similar cargoes laden on board thereof, and in like manner the same bounties, drawbacks, and allowances are to be paid on articles exported in French vessels that are paid, granted, or allowed on similar articles exported in British vessels. And the necessary instructions are to be transmitted to the officers in the colonies for carrying into effect the stipulations contained in the two additional articles of the said convention respecting French vessels and their cargoes from 1st October, 1826.

APPENDIX No. 2.

Boston, United States, 21st September, 1860.

MY LORD,

Mr. Hammond was good enough to read to me a letter which Lord John Russell had addressed to your Lordship on the subject of my visit to the United States. As reports have been current since then that my visit to this country was one of a semi-official character, I may remark that I am here merely in search of a little recreation after the labours of the session. But as I am intimate with many of the leading Shipowners and merchants of this country, Lord John Russell was pleased to furnish me with copies of the correspondence which had passed between our own Government and that of the United States with regard to various maritime questions (to which, as your Lordship may be aware, my attention has for some years been directed), in the hope that I might be able to aid your Lordship in their settlement.

These papers I have studied on the passage to this place. I see they deal with questions of very considerable importance to both countries; but there are also others which equally impede our commercial intercourse, and all these various questions are well worthy of consideration, and should be adjusted as soon as possible. They are:—

1st. The rules of the road at sea and collisions.

2nd. Signal lights.

3rd. Limitation of Shipowners’ liability.

4th. The Foreign Deserter’s Act.

5th. The punishment of offences committed on the high seas.

6th. The settlement of disputes between the masters of ships and their crews in foreign ports; and the extension of the use of our shipping offices to the vessels of the United States.

There are, besides these questions, others of a much more difficult and delicate character, such as belligerent rights of sea, the coasting trade of the United States, and the registration in America of British-built ships, all of great political as well as commercial importance, and therefore I fear my services in their solution can be of little value. It is, however, my intention to enter into conversation bearing upon all these questions with the leading merchants and Shipowners to whom I am known; and with the Presidents of the Chambers of Commerce of this and other places, including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Portland, and various seaports in the New England States to whom I have letters of introduction. I shall at least ascertain their views, and may thus be enabled to pave the way to the settlement of some of those questions. And if I find that their views can be brought into harmony with those entertained by our own Government, I shall endeavour to prevail upon the different bodies to memorialise their Government on the subject.

My first, and I fear imperfect, impressions in regard to the questions I have named may be briefly stated as follows:—

1st. _The rules of the road at sea._—I think these rules should be the same for the vessels of all nations. Different opinions prevail in regard to our own rules; but, though they differ from the old maritime law (acted upon by almost every other nation and at times by ourselves), and are an improvement upon it, the decisions in our Admiralty Courts are too often conflicting. Our rules, as a whole, are perhaps, however, more satisfactory than those of any other. But be that as it may, it would be most desirable if all nations would agree to adopt one and the same rule of road at sea, and would tend greatly to the safety of life and property.

2nd. _Signal lights._—Our recent regulations in regard to lights have answered very well, and have been adopted by the owners of steam-vessels belonging to the United States. The application of these rules to sailing vessels is all that is now necessary, and is very desirable.

3rd. _The limitation of shipowners’ liability._—This is a question of great importance, and the laws in regard to it are in an unsatisfactory state. May I refer your Lordship to the evidence taken last session before the select committee on merchant shipping on this subject, and to their report? From the correspondence I have read I think the Government of the United States might be induced to adopt the principles laid down in that report. If so, it might then (as the laws of each country are similar) be mutually arranged by a convention, or otherwise, to place our ships and those of the United States respectively, on an equal footing with regard to claims raised in the courts of either country in respect of any loss of life or personal injury arising from collisions at sea, so as to limit such claims to the same extent in each case, and also that the mode of procedure shall be as provided by the laws of the country where the claim is made.

4th. _The application of our Foreign Deserter’s Act to the ships of the United States._—As your Lordship is aware, the United States Government has positively declined to become a party to this Act, because it contains the words “not being slaves,” which were inserted, I believe, after the Bill was introduced. Now it appears to me that there is no necessity for these words. The Act is meant to deal solely with voluntary agents, who, having of their own free will entered into an agreement, break it at foreign ports. I think the case would be met if instead of the words “not being slaves” there were substituted the following words—“seamen who have voluntarily engaged themselves in, or apprentices duly indentured to, the sea service.” I question if there are any cases on record where slaves have been shipped as seamen to English ports.

5th. _Offences committed on the high seas._—Your Lordship cannot fail to be aware of the unsatisfactory state of the law in regard to these offences. Why, _on the representation of the ministers or consuls_, should the courts of England and of the United States not have jurisdiction over offences committed on board of vessels of the respective countries? I ask this question because I can at present see no objection to the principle I have ventured to lay down, though the mode of putting it into practice would require some consideration, and could best be dealt with by the legal authorities of the two countries. The same may be said with regard to the settlement of disputes between masters and crews in the ports of either country.

6th. _The extension of our shipping offices to the vessels of the United States._—If the Government of the United States would not agree to establish similar offices and a machinery somewhat in accordance with our own (I see no reason why such offices which have answered so well in England should not be adopted), then we might stipulate that all British seamen entering the service of American Shipowners in the ports of Great Britain should be engaged before our shipping masters, and we might grant to American shipowners the privilege of engaging _all_ the seamen their vessels required (when in any of the ports of Great Britain), through the medium of our offices, on the same conditions as our own shipowners now engage their seamen. This would pave the way to an international arrangement, and tend to abolish the system of crimpage which still prevails to a great extent in our ports, and is alike injurious to the interests of British and American shipowners.

Though belligerent rights, the coasting trade, and the admission of British-_built_ ships to American registration are difficult questions for me to deal with, involving as they do the policy of the respective nations bearing upon other interests than those of commerce, I may remark that it is easy of proof in regard to the two latter that the policy of the United States, while it is unjust towards England, is injurious to the people of America, and contrary to the principles laid down by their own most eminent statesmen in their intercourse with other countries. Nevertheless, I fear the Government of the United States will not be disposed to make concessions unless we are prepared to make a _bargain_ with them. With that object in view, I think if we agreed to relieve the shipowners of the United States from the charge of light dues on our coast (which have been the source of great complaint), and also from compulsory pilotage as recommended in the merchant shipping report; provided they opened to us the trade between their eastern and western ports, _viâ_ Panama and round Cape Horn, if not prepared to throw open entirely their coasting trade, some progress might be made. The Government of the United States might also be induced to make some concession with regard to the registration of British-built ships, for through the want of _iron screw_ vessels (which cannot be produced at as moderate a price in the States) they are fast losing the most valuable portion of the trade between England and this country. And their coasting trade (especially that on the inland lakes) is not developed to one-half the extent it would be if the Shipowners of America were allowed to own the description of vessels I have named. They are also losing the share they once had of the Newfoundland fisheries from the fact that we can produce in the colonies vessels adapted for that trade at 25 per cent. less cost than they can build and equip similar vessels.

I daresay your Lordship can form little idea of the hindrance to commerce and the constant irritation the questions I have named create on both sides of the Atlantic; and I hope by holding intercourse with the people of this country to pave the way, as I have said, for the settlement of at least _some of them_. With that object I shall take notes of the opinions entertained by the members of the different Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade throughout this country, and also the views of those members of the government whom I may meet, and which I shall forward to your Lordship, and if you think any satisfactory results are likely to follow, you may then deem it desirable to communicate with Lord John Russell, with a view of entering into formal negotiations with the Government of the United States. I have for many years anxiously desired to see settled these various questions, considering their settlement of great importance to both countries; and if I can, in the way I propose, aid your Lordship in this good work, my long promised visit to this country, though made with no such object, will not be made in vain.

I am, my Lord, Your faithful and obedient servant,

(Signed) W. S. LINDSAY.

To His Excellency LORD LYONS, H. B. Majesty’s Minister, &c. &c. &c., Washington.

APPENDIX No. 3.

Foreign Office, 21st September, 1866.

SIR,

I am directed by Lord Stanley to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, in which you call his Lordship’s attention to the state of relations existing between this country and the United States with regard to the Navigation Laws; and in expressing to you Lord Stanley’s thanks for this further communication, I am to inform you that the same has been referred to the Board of Trade, whose observations thereupon will be communicated to you as soon as their answer shall have been received; and the delay in receiving their report is the reason for your letter not having been sooner acknowledged.

I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

E. C. EGERTON.

To W. S. LINDSAY, Esq., Manor House, Shepperton.

Foreign Office, 26th September, 1866.

SIR,

With reference to my letter of the 21st instant, I am directed by Lord Stanley to state to you that his Lordship is fully alive to the importance of the points on which you have urged that a satisfactory understanding is desirable with the United States, but that since the date of your letter to Lord Lyons of the 21st of September, 1860, the first two of the seven questions enumerated in it have been settled by the adoption of one uniform system of rules of the road, and of lights to be carried at sea by maritime nations generally, including the United States.

As regards the third question, viz., the limitation of shipowners’ liability, the Lords of Trade have pointed out to Lord Stanley that the law of this country has undergone some modification since 1860. By the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Act, 1862, the limit of such liability was readjusted, and the limitation was extended to foreign ships in cases arising in British courts concerning matters within their jurisdiction.

Inasmuch, however, as this extension was not made specially for the benefit of foreigners, but with the view of establishing a just and uniform rule of law, no steps were taken to secure reciprocal legislation in foreign countries.

If the law at present in force in the United States is liable to the same objection as the law formerly in force in this country, and is found to be attended with the inconveniences which were experienced here, it may be presumed that the United States Government will probably find it for their interest to amend it in a similar sense and on similar grounds; but Lord Stanley sees no reason at present for opening special communications with that Government on the subject.

With respect to the remaining four questions alluded to in your letter, I am to state to you that the matters to which they relate are under consideration.

I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

E. C. EGERTON.

To W. S. LINDSAY, Esq., Manor House, Shepperton.

Manor House, Shepperton, Middlesex, 29th September, 1866.

MY LORD,

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letters of 21st and 26th inst., and I am glad to learn that two of the questions to which I ventured to direct your Lordship’s attention have, since 1860, been settled in a satisfactory manner.

As regards the third, viz., the limitation of shipowners’ liability, may I trouble you with an extract herewith[314] from the ‘New York Herald’ of 10th October, 1860, as the question is therein, I think, correctly stated. Since then I am aware that there has been an amendment in our law relating to the liability of Shipowners; but it would appear from the communication you have received from the Lords of Trade that while we have extended the limitation to foreign ships in cases arising in British courts, we have overlooked altogether the still more important part of the question so far as this country is concerned, and that is the unlimited liability of British shipowners in cases arising in foreign courts. If such is the fact, then we, I fear, have neglected a favourable opportunity of inviting foreign nations to place our ships in their courts on the same terms as we had placed their ships when thrown into our courts. Had we done so, I think the Government of the United States would have readily met us in so just and reasonable a request.

Considering, then, the position in which British shipowners would be placed if an action was raised against them in foreign courts for the recovery of claims arising through a collision at sea, your Lordship will perceive that this is not a question in which foreigners alone are interested, for we have given them all they asked in our courts, but one which deeply affects the interests of British subjects, and which, now more than ever, requires adjustment by special communication with the United States and those other countries where the responsibility of British shipowners is still unlimited. Since we have conceded all they require, it may be found more difficult now to obtain the necessary alterations in their law than it would have been at the time to which my previous communications referred; but I daresay that when the justice of our claim is represented, steps will still be taken to grant in their courts the same limitation of responsibility to our Shipowners as we have granted to their Shipowners in our courts.

I am gratified, to learn that the other questions are under consideration, and

I remain, my Lord, Your most obedient humble servant,

W. S. LINDSAY.

To the Right Hon. Lord STANLEY, M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c. &c. &c.

Foreign Office, 3rd October, 1866.

SIR,

I am directed, by Lord Stanley, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter and its inclosure of the 29th ultimo, respecting the liability of British shipowners in suits arising in foreign courts out of collisions at sea; and I am to acquaint you in reply, that Lord Stanley will not fail to give this question due consideration, and will communicate with you further on the subject after he has consulted the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade.

I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

E. C. EGERTON.

To W. S. LINDSAY, Esq.

Foreign Office, 14th November, 1866.

SIR,

With reference to your letter of the 29th September last regarding the laws of the United States and of other foreign countries, with regard to the liability of British shipowners in cases of loss by collisions at sea, I am directed by Lord Stanley to inform you that his Lordship learns from the Lords of Trade that, by the common law of this country, and by the maritime law, as administered in our Admiralty Courts, the Shipowner was formerly personally liable to the whole extent of his fortune for any damage done by his ships through default of his servants. The legislature, however, long since passed statutes limiting the liability, and the limitation, with some variations, still continues.

It was, however, held that the statutes being municipal laws, did not affect cases where foreign ships were concerned, and where the collision or casualty happened on the high seas, but that such cases must be governed by the general maritime law of the world, which was assumed to be the same with our common law. This was, perhaps, too hastily assumed, inasmuch as most maritime countries adopted the principle of limiting the Shipowners’ liability much earlier, and to a greater extent than Great Britain.

The consequence was, that if a collision happened between two British ships, the British law of liability applied, and whichever might be in fault, the liability was limited. On the other hand, if a collision happened between a British and a foreign ship on the high seas, or between two foreign ships on the high seas, and the case came into our courts, then whichever was in fault, the liability was unlimited.

This law was unequal, but in no way specially injurious to the foreigner. The British ship, if in fault, was equally liable with the foreigner; and as the British ship is generally to be found at home, and as the British shipowner resides here, the British shipowner being thus more likely to be the defendant, was likely the more often to suffer.

The law was consequently altered by making the limitation of liability apply in all cases coming into our courts, whether the ships were both British or both foreign, or one British and one foreign.

And as the change was simply an improvement of our own law, and conferred no especial advantage upon foreigners, it was not thought necessary or desirable to delay it for the purpose of obtaining similar changes when desirable in the laws of foreign nations.

I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

JAMES MURRAY.

To W. S. LINDSAY, Esq.

Manor House, Shepperton, Middlesex, 28th November, 1866.

MY LORD,

I received in due course your Lordship’s letter of the 14th inst., which does not, however, appear to me to touch the main point of my previous communication, viz., the unlimited liability to which our Shipowners would still be subjected in cases of collision arising in various foreign courts. For instance, if one of our Transatlantic steam ships engaged in the conveyance of our mails came into collision—a very possible event—with one of the numerous steam vessels owned in the United States, freighted with passengers, cargo, and specie, of great value, the consequences, under the existing law of that country, might prove not only most disastrous to the owners of the British ship, but also very detrimental to the public service.

As I understand the law of the United States, the owners of our mail steamer, if at fault, would be responsible to the full extent of their means for all the loss the owners of the American steamer had sustained; if so, the result would be the seizure of the British steamer whenever she reached an American port; and, possibly, if the loss sustained was very great, the seizure of all the vessels in port belonging to the same owner, and thus our mail service for the time might be suspended.

It is to this grave contingency I am anxious to direct your Lordship’s attention, in the hope that you may see the urgent necessity of taking such steps as you may deem most expedient to induce the Government of the United States to place our vessels in their courts on the same footing in regard to the limitation of liability as we now place the owners of their vessels in our courts.

I am, my Lord, your most obedient humble servant,

W. S. LINDSAY.

To the Right Hon. the Lord STANLEY, M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c. &c. &c.

Board of Trade, Whitehall, 25th February, 1867.

SIR,

With reference to your letter of the 29th September, 1866, addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to previous correspondence upon the subject of the law of the United States as affecting the liability of the Shipowner in cases of loss by collision at sea, I am now directed by the Board of Trade to transmit to you the accompanying copy of a despatch and inclosures received through the Foreign Office from her Majesty’s Minister at Washington upon this subject.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,

THOMAS GRAY.

To W. S. LINDSAY, Esq., Manor House, Shepperton.

(Copy.—M. 1268.)

Washington, 23rd January, 1867.

MY LORD,

In reply to your Lordship’s despatch, marked “Commercial No. 7,” of the 14th November last, on the liability imposed by the laws of the United States on Shipowners in cases of collision, I have the honour to enclose copy of an opinion of Mr. Carlisle, the legal adviser of this Legation.

Your Lordships will gather from it that the principle of limited liability has been adopted by the laws of the United States, and is applied in the Federal courts. But the injured party may apply to a State court if the defendant is within its jurisdiction, and bring an action on the case, and it is doubtful whether such a court would limit the measure of damages by the principles contained in the Act of Congress.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) F. W. A. BRUCE.

To Lord STANLEY, &c. &c.

(Copy.)

Washington, 22nd January, 1867.

SIR,

I have the honour to return herewith the papers in relation to the question of the liability of Shipowners in cases of collision.

The only Act of Congress touching the subject is that of March 3rd, 1851, which in its third section limits the liability in such cases. A copy of this section is enclosed herewith. This language is explicit and comprehensive, making no distinction on account of the nationality of the ship; nor have I been able to find that such a distinction has been suggested in any adjudicated case under this statute.

For my own part I entertain no doubt that the limitation of liability which it prescribes would be held in all _courts of the United States_ as applying equally to foreign as to American ships.

The Courts of Admiralty are, by the constitution of the United States, exclusively of the Federal Government. If therefore the remedy in cases of collision were exclusively in Admiralty Courts, the Act of 1851 would completely cover the question.

But there is a remedy at common law, which is open to the injured party at his election. He may maintain his action on the case, which is a transitory action, wherever he can find the owner of the offending vessel, in the same manner and to be determined by the same principles as if the plaintiff’s coach or his person had been injured by a collision occasioned by the unskilful driving of the defendant’s coach.

Such an action may be brought in any court of general jurisdiction in any of the States of the Union; and it may be doubted whether this Act of Congress would be available to limit the measure of damages in these courts, though undoubtedly a convention between Great Britain and the United States, with a proper Act of Congress to carry it into effect, would accomplish the object.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) J. M. CARLISLE.

To Sir F. BRUCE, S.S.B., &c. &c. &c.

(Copy.)

_An Act to limit the Liability of Shipowners and for other purposes._

(Approved March 3, 1851.)

SECTION 3.—_And be it further enacted_, That the liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel for any embezzlement, loss, or distinction by the master, officers, mariners, passengers, or any other person or persons of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board of such ship or vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending.

IX. Statutes at Large, ch. xliii., page 635.

(M. 1266.)

Manor House, Shepperton, Middlesex, 26th February, 1867.

SIR,

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of yesterday’s date, with copy of a despatch and inclosures, received through the Foreign Office from her Majesty’s Minister at Washington. By these documents it would appear that the laws of the United States of America, so far as regards the responsibility of British Shipowners in their courts, are the same as they were in 1860, and that, practically, our responsibility is there still unlimited. This is a very unsatisfactory state of things, and, as I have already explained to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, might produce the most disastrous results to some of our Shipowners in their intercourse with the United States. I, therefore, trust that the Board of Trade may be induced to use its best efforts to obtain as soon as possible a convention, whereby our ships frequenting the ports of the United States may, so far as regards responsibility, be placed upon the same footing as we have now placed in all our courts the vessels belonging to that country.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

W. S. LINDSAY.

To the ASSISTANT SECRETARY, Marine Department, Board of Trade.

(M. 1766.)

Board of Trade, Whitehall, 6th March, 1867.

SIR,

I am directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, stating, with reference to the question of the liability of British Shipowners in the United States, that that liability appears to be practically unlimited, and trusting that this Board may take steps to obtain complete reciprocity.

In reply, I am to point out to you that the principle of limited liability has been adopted in the Federal Courts, and is applied in all the Federal Courts of the United States—_i.e._ in all Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Courts, to foreign as well as American ships.

It seems true, however, that an injured person may possibly maintain an action against the owner of an offending vessel in a State Court, and it must depend on the law of each State in that case, whether the measure of damages would be limited. But not to mention the difficulty of first ascertaining, and procuring the alteration of the law of each State, it is to be observed that to maintain such action the owner of the offending vessel must be found within the jurisdiction of the State Court. This, in fact, amounts to a practical limitation, seeing that he has all the advantages of limited liability so long as he keeps away from the United States, or is not to be found within the jurisdiction of the court in question.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

THOMAS GRAY.

To W. S. LINDSAY, Esq., Manor House, Shepperton, Middlesex.

(M. 1766.)

Shepperton, Middlesex, 14th March, 1867.

SIR,

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th inst., but it is very little satisfaction to know that the principle of limited liability is applied in all the Federal Courts of the United States to British Shipowners, whilst in all the State Courts of that country their responsibility is altogether unlimited. To say that they have the advantages of limited liability, so long as they keep away from the ports of that country, is to suggest that if we wish to avoid unlimited responsibility, we must renounce our carrying-trade with America.

The Board of Trade would also appear to be under the impression that there is so little chance of any serious claim ever being made, that the alteration of the law of the States is of little consequence to us, and that it is not worthy of the trouble it would involve; but a case in point has just come under my notice which signally illustrates the force of the remonstrative observations I have ventured to make.

The screw steam-ship _Keder_, belonging to Messrs. G. and I. Burns, of Glasgow, and their partners, sailed from New York 31st August, 1864, and on the following day came into collision with the _Czarina_, an American barque, of from 500 to 600 tons, which had on board a cargo of sulphur, shumac, and fruit. The _Czarina_ was abandoned in a sinking state. As the evidence shows that the _Keder_ was not to blame, the owners of that vessel hoped that nothing more would be heard of the matter; but only a few days ago they received a letter from Sir Edward Cunard, their correspondent at New York, stating that he had just been called upon to give bond for one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, on account of the cargo of the _Czarina_, and adding that he had also been called upon to give bond for the vessel, though the amount in the latter case is not mentioned. It is estimated that the value put on the _Czarina_ and cargo will be something like 40,000_l._ Supposing the _Keder_ to be in fault, her liability, according to British law, would be restricted to 8_l._ per ton of her own gross tonnage, viz. 14,264_l._, whereas, according to the law of the State of New York, she may be held liable in this case for 40,000_l._, being more than double her value; and if the _Czarina_ and cargo had been more valuable than they are stated to be, the liability of the owner of the _Keder_ would of course have been correspondingly increased. In a word, _it would have been practically without limit_.

I am aware that there may be some difficulty in obtaining an alteration of the law, but this ought not to be any obstacle when the interests at stake are so very large and of so grave a character. If the proper representation is made, I think the Government of the United States cannot now hesitate to place our vessels in _all_ their courts on the same terms as we have recently placed their vessels in all our courts, and if the executive is prepared to enter into a convention, having that object in view, it will no doubt be confirmed by Congress.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

W. S. LINDSAY.

To the ASSISTANT SECRETARY, Marine Department, Board of Trade.

_Note._—This correspondence was not at all satisfactory to me, but as I was then in a very precarious state of health, I sent copies of it to Mr. John Burns, whose firm (the Cunard Company) was more deeply interested in the matter to which it refers than any other. He followed it up with his usual energy and ability, and through his exertions the responsibility of British Shipowners has now been limited in the _States_, as well as in the Federal Courts of the United States of America, to the same extent as the Shipowners of that country would be held liable in an action, through loss at sea by collision or otherwise, brought against them in this country. See Parliamentary Papers, ‘British Ships in American Waters,’ No. 236, 17th May, 1871; and ‘United States Liability of Shipowners’ Collision,’ No. 173, 18th May, 1874.

W. S. L.

APPENDIX No. 4.

(Copy.)

(Inclosure in No. 53.)

MR. LINDSAY to HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH.

Paris, 10th January, 1861.

SIRE,

In accordance with your Majesty’s desire, expressed at the interview with which you honoured me this morning, I may here recapitulate the facts which I then brought under your notice.

In the early part of last session of Parliament I brought under the consideration of the House of Commons the following resolution:—

“That an humble address be presented to her Majesty praying that she may 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.”

That resolution received the unanimous approval of both Houses of Parliament, and was submitted for your Majesty’s consideration through his Excellency Earl Cowley in the usual form. And, now I have to thank your Majesty very cordially for granting me an audience together with his Lordship, so that I might explain more fully the object of that resolution in its relation to the maritime commerce of France. Sire, the Navigation Laws of France may be divided into five distinct heads:—

1st. The coasting trade, which is confined entirely to French ships, all other vessels entering it being, I believe, liable with their cargoes to confiscation, with the exception of Spanish vessels employed on a particular branch of that trade.

2ndly. The colonial trade, that is, the trade between the colonies and possessions of France and the mother country, which is also confined entirely to the ships of France.

3rdly. The foreign trade, as, for instance, the trade between France and America, or between France and the Brazils, and other foreign countries, which is confined to the ships of France and those of the respective nations with which France has entered into treaties of reciprocity.

4thly. The direct trade with England, which comprises commerce carried on between the ports of Great Britain and the ports of France. This trade is confined to the vessels of England, and France, and the ships of the respective countries are, with some slight exception, placed on the same footing in the ports of either country.

5thly. The direct trade between France and the colonies and possessions of Great Britain, which, practically, is confined to the ships of France, as the differential duties, to which I shall hereafter refer, on nearly every article of produce are so high as against English ships that they are prevented from entering the trade.

Now, it is a remarkable fact that in those branches of trade where French shipping is placed in competition with the shipping of other nations, it is making more progress than in those branches of trade where it is protected, at an enormous cost to the people of France. Indeed, the French shipping employed in those carefully protected branches of commerce has, as appears by the returns, in some instances actually declined. But this state of things is not confined merely to the shipping of France. It has been so throughout all time and with all nations. I shall endeavour to illustrate this to your Majesty by reference to the official returns of the progress of shipping belonging to my own country. Going as far back as 1720, I find that there cleared outwards from the ports of Great Britain, 430,000 tons of British shipping.

In 1810 the clearances amounted to 1,600,000 tons.

Ten years afterwards, in 1820, they had only increased to 1,670,000 tons, but in 1850 they had reached 4,700,000 tons.

That increase, however great, is nevertheless small when compared with the increase which took place after Great Britain, in 1850, swept away the last remnants of her Navigation Laws, and threw open her ports unreservedly to the ships of the world. In 1858, the clearances of British ships outwards employed in the over-sea trade, to which these returns alone have reference, reached 6,400,000 tons.

Thus it appears that in ninety years of the closest protection, when we guarded our ships with the most unusual care, and protected them in every branch of our trade to the detriment of our revenue, and by increased taxation upon the people, our shipping increased only 1,170,000 tons; whereas, in thirty years of partial free-trade, during which we entered into treaties of reciprocity with almost every nation, our shipping increased 3,000,000 tons, and in eight years of perfect free trade, that is, from 1850, when our Navigation Laws were entirely repealed, our shipping increased 1,740,000 tons, or, in round numbers, 600,000 tons more than it increased in ninety years of the closest protection. But it may be well to compare the relative progress of French and British shipping. By comparing the tonnage owned by the respective countries in 1838 and 1858, your Majesty will find that in the last twenty years France has increased her sailing vessels by 370,000 tons, and her steam ships by 50,000 tons. But England, during the same period, has increased her sailing vessels by no less than 2,800,000 tons, and her steam ships by 400,000 tons. Thus the Shipowners of England, who are left to depend upon their own energies and their own resources, are moving onwards at a rate eight times greater than that of the Shipowners of France, who, by means of protection, are taught to depend upon the State instead of upon themselves and upon the vast natural resources which their country affords. It is a mistake to suppose, as many persons do, that France has not facilities for carrying on a great maritime commerce. Her seaboard is almost as great as our own; she has no less than 150 leagues of coast in the Channel, 130 leagues on the Atlantic, and 90 leagues of coast on the Mediterranean. Along her seaboard there are many fine harbours, some of them easy of access, and at points convenient to the great markets of the world. I need hardly mention the position of Havre as affording great facilities for carrying on a large commerce with the United States and the continent of America, generally, nor that of Marseilles, in its contiguity with India, and the vast commerce of the East. But allow me to direct your Majesty’s attention to a remarkable contrast which may be drawn between two great branches of the trade of your own dominions. While your shipping is comparatively at a standstill, your special commerce is increasing with considerable rapidity, for I find that in ten years, from 1827 to 1836, the increase was 10,000,000 francs; from 1837 to 1846, 15,000,000 francs, but from 1847 to 1856 the increase was 22,000,000 francs in that particular branch of commerce, which is confined entirely to the produce and manufactures of France. To carry on this important and steadily increasing trade your Majesty is obliged to depend very materially upon the shipping of other countries, for I find that in 1858, while the total entries at French ports amounted to 4,162,000 tons, no less than 2,550,000 tons consisted of foreign shipping.

It is hardly possible to conceive the amount of money which the people of France are annually paying in, as it appears, a vain attempt, to encourage its shipping: I use the word “vain” because it is clear, if the experience of other nations, or the experience of your own nation is of any value, that all the money paid to “encourage shipping” is actually lost, for French ships, with all this protection, do not increase at the same rate as other nations, or at the same rates in the branches of your own trade, where they are guarded with unusual care, as they do in those branches where they are thrown into competition with the shipping of other countries. It would be impossible to ascertain the loss the people of France annually sustain, directly and indirectly, through the operation of its Navigation Laws. I have, however, analysed it in one small branch of trade. In 1858, there cleared from the Island of Mauritius, 180,000 tons of shipping. The trade which that island carries on with France is, through the operation of the differential duties, confined to the vessels of France. In a word, they have a monopoly of it. Analysing the commercial circulars issued at that island, I find that the excess of freight paid at the Mauritius to French ships for “a market,” or for the ports of France, amounted in that year to 300,000_l._ more than the people of England paid for a similar quantity of sugar imported from the Mauritius.

I have mentioned to your Majesty the differential duties still in force, but which in practice are unproductive to the revenue, because, as you will see by the following scale, they are so great that merchants are prohibited from shipping in any other than French bottoms. For instance, sugar pays a duty of 68_s._ per 100 kilogrammes if imported in French vessels, but 84_s._ if in English, from any of our colonies and possessions. Coffee in French ships is charged 48_s._ per 100 kilogrammes, and 84_s._ if in English vessels. Tobacco, if imported in French ships, pays 4_s._ per kilogramme, but double that duty if imported in English vessels. Other articles, the produce of our Eastern possessions, are taxed in somewhat similar proportions, so that your Majesty will see that your merchants and manufacturers are thus practically prohibited from using any other than French vessels to convey whatever produce they may require from the colonies and possessions of Great Britain.

Your Majesty has just concluded a Treaty of Commerce with England, which I feel certain will benefit alike the people of Great Britain and of France, and no doubt develop the trade of the respective countries to a far greater extent than many persons suppose; above all, it cannot fail to strengthen the friendly relations now happily existing between the Governments of the two countries, and which I most sincerely trust may long continue. That treaty will, however, be seriously clogged in its operations, unless there is a change in the Navigation Laws of France. I shall endeavour to show how.

The produce and manufactures of France will not, in all cases, be paid for either in coin or by the produce and manufactures of Great Britain, but in many instances by the produce of India, Australia, and Canada. Yet, by the French Navigation Laws, that produce which your own people require, cannot be imported into France in the ships belonging to those parties who buy the produce and the manufactures of France. No nation, as your Majesty is well aware, can produce all that is necessary to employ, to feed, and to clothe her own people. All nations must, to a greater or less extent, depend upon other countries for those necessary articles of existence. France, to keep her people employed, must have the wools of Australia and the timber of Canada, as well as various descriptions of raw materials which India alone affords, or produces in greater abundance and at lower prices, than other countries. Nevertheless, the Navigation Laws of France prevent those articles which are required for the very existence of the people of France from being imported in the ships of the country whose possessions produce them. India, as your Majesty is aware, has, within the last two years, become virtually, since the abolition of the charter of the East India Company, an integral part of the British Empire: therefore I trust your Majesty will see the justice as well as the policy of at least placing the shipping of England and France engaged in that trade on the same footing as they have been for many years in the trade between those two countries. Such a change would entail no loss of revenue, nor would it, I conceive, require more than your Majesty’s decree to effect. This change, in my humble judgment, is indeed necessary on even more urgent grounds than the development of the Commercial Treaty which has recently been concluded. The shipping of the world has just passed through an ordeal of great depression. The losses which Shipowners of all countries have sustained during the last four years have been so great, that capital has, to a considerable extent, ceased to flow in that direction, so much so that, by returns now before me, I find that the tonnage built during the year 1860 in the United States, in Canada, in New Brunswick, in Norway, in England, and in other great producing countries, falls far short of what it was either in 1859, or in any one of the previous years of depression. But, on the other hand, the general commerce of the world has, during that period, increased enormously. For instance, by our Board of Trade returns, the imports of cotton into Great Britain, which amounted to about 8,000,000 cwt. in the eleven months ending November 30, 1859, exceeded 10,000,000 cwt. in the eleven months ending November 30, 1860.

I need not call your Majesty’s attention to the vast increase in the imports of grain, or to the remarkable increase in the exports of manufactures, or to the greatly extended consumption of coal at remote stations. In a word, while the bulky articles which require ships for their conveyance to distant parts of the world have enormously increased, the shipping of the world has been comparatively stationary during the past year, and the many losses and disasters at sea during 1860 have tended materially to diminish the already scanty supply of shipping necessary to conduct the oversea trade of the world. All this will, without doubt, right itself in time, but it will take one year, if not two years, to do so. In the mean time, it might so happen that the artisans of France may be thrown out of employment for the want of French ships to bring them those raw materials necessary to keep them employed; or, what will amount to nearly the same, the increased cost to the manufacturer of the raw material, through the laws of France compelling him to bring it in her ships, might be so great that he would be unable to compete in price with his rivals in other countries, and, consequently, be obliged to close his mills or his workshops, as the case might be, for want of remunerative employment.

Might I, therefore, venture to impress upon your Majesty the desirability, I may even say the necessity, of at least placing the carrying-trade between France and the possessions of Great Britain on the same footing as it now exists between the mother countries. Your people would be immense gainers by this change, and your Shipowners would not suffer, for, independent altogether of the facts which I have stated in regard to the advantages which they, as carriers, derive above all others from the policy of Free-trade, there will be for the next twelve months at least ample employment for the shipping of all nations. I cannot close this, I fear too lengthy a letter, without calling to your Majesty’s attention a remarkable instance of the injury which even the Shipowners of that great maritime country, the United States, sustain by protection. While in 1856, 1857, and 1858, the tonnage owned in England increased 335,000 tons, the tonnage of America in those same years actually decreased 67,000 tons.

In a recent visit which I made to that country, I did not fail, in the many opportunities afforded me, to impress upon its Shipowners that they were more interested in the removal of all barriers to free intercourse than any other class of the community; for, as those barriers which they still maintain along their coast retard their commerce, and consequently limit the exchange of the different articles produced in the various districts, the employment of their vessels must necessarily be more curtailed than it would otherwise be if greater facilities were afforded for the transmission of those articles which one district produces in greater abundance than another.

To those maritime questions I have long devoted my attention, and I have often been struck at the circuitous course which ships, by the laws which nations adopted, have been obliged to follow. The ocean was meant to be free to mankind, but one nation by its laws dictates the course which the ships of other nations must follow; another nation, by way of retaliation, lays down the only course which it will allow its competitors to adopt. Thus we see ships, for instance, allowed to follow one track with cargo, but compelled to return by the same track, in ballast. We see the wool which your own people require, instead of being imported, as it ought to be, direct from Australia to the ports of France, sent, by the Navigation Laws of France, to the ports of England, and from thence imported at greatly enhanced prices to the consumers. It is the same with the produce of India. Those lines of steamers belonging to England, which run weekly from Calcutta and Bombay, and all the great ports of the East to Great Britain, passing Marseilles and the other seaports of France, are not allowed to land, for the use of its people, the very articles of which they may be in urgent want. All experience has proved that while those restrictions do great injury to the commerce of all nations, they inflict the largest amount of injury upon the people of the nation that imposes them.

The feeble efforts of so humble an individual as myself, may be of little avail in the removal of those pernicious restrictions, but I will never cease those efforts till the ocean, which was meant for the use of mankind in general, is as free as the waves which roll over it, and the gale which hurries them along. And if your Majesty would grant me your powerful aid by making one step in the direction I have so imperfectly ventured to point out, I feel that other nations will follow the example of a Sovereign so enlightened and so exalted, and thus I may live to see the object I have so anxiously in view crowned with success.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) W. S. LINDSAY.

APPENDIX No. 5.

(Translation.)

Inclosure 1 in No. 73.

M. Fleury to Mr. Lindsay, M.P.

Londres, 17th June, 1862.

SIR,

The ‘Moniteur’ of the 2nd of May last published a report submitted to the Emperor by the Minister of Agriculture, Commerce, and Public Works, relative to the state of the French mercantile marine and the law by which it is governed.

In conformity with the suggestion of this report, which has been approved by his Majesty, the _Conseil Supérieur_ of Commerce is instructed to prosecute an inquiry for the purpose of furnishing the Imperial Government with the data which it needs in order to enable it to judge between the diversity of opinion which has arisen on this grave question.

In the inquiry, as in that which has been presented on the reform of our Customs legislation, it will be advantageous that the principal maritime places in Foreign States should be represented, and the statements of their representatives heard side by side with those of French merchants and Shipowners. This is why the Minister of Foreign Affairs invites me to inform those principally interested here that the _Conseil Supérieur_ will begin its sittings about the 10th of next month.

M. Thouvenel adds that in case, as he hopes, the merchants of London, appreciating the importance of the questions to be raised in this inquiry, will express their intention to respond to the invitation of the French Ministry, I should communicate their names to him, so that he may invite them to present themselves at the Ministry of Agriculture, Commerce, and Public Works, Department of Foreign Commerce, Rue de Tarennes 78b. M. Rouher will take the necessary measures that they may be summoned before the Upper Council with all due promptitude.

I think, Sir, I cannot do better than communicate this invitation to you, requesting you to inform me whether it will be agreeable to you to accede to it yourself. I shall, moreover, be much obliged by your communicating with the merchants or Shipowners in the City, and forwarding to me the names of such as may wish to take advantage of it. I shall take care to let you know later the precise date when the sittings of the Council will open.

Believe me and the _Conseil Général_,

FLEURY.

(Copy.)

Inclosure 2 in No. 73.

Mr. Lindsay, M.P., to M. Fleury.

8, Austin Friars, London, 23rd June, 1862.

SIR,

I have read with no ordinary interest the letter you did me the honour to address me on the 17th instant, and I shall be happy to forward the object your Government has in view by every means in my power. So far as I am concerned, you have merely to name the time when my presence is again required in Paris. In regard to other witnesses, the publication of your letter to me would enable you to obtain a greater amount and variety of evidence than could possibly be obtained through my own unaided exertions. I am glad your Government has decided upon an open inquiry, for thus all the important facts bearing upon the subject can be brought to light. The knowledge of these facts will greatly facilitate the inquiry about to be instituted. For instance, I dare say your Shipowners think (as our Shipowners thought in 1849) that any material relaxation of the Navigation Laws of France would ruin them. The arguments used against the repeal of our laws in 1849 were very plausible, but not very profound; for what are the facts? The repeal of our Navigation Laws came into operation on the 1st January, 1850; the aggregate tonnage of the merchant navy of the British empire at that time was 4,232,962 tons. It had risen from 2,681,276 tons in 1815. So that the increase, under the guardian care of the State, had in the previous thirty-five years been 1,551,686 tons. That increase was then considered very great; and, as we could not look into futurity, much stress was laid upon the argument that if protection were removed from British shipping, any increase would in future be monopolised by the ships of foreign nations. But the Legislature had other interests to consider besides that to which I belong. Protection was, therefore, swept away, and Shipowners were left to depend upon their own exertions, instead of depending upon the State. Their desponding was great, but so far from being “ruined,” they are richer now than ever they were at any former period, if I may judge of their wealth by the extraordinary increase of our shipping. On the 1st January, 1860 (ten years after all protection had been removed), we owned 5,710,968 tons. Thus, in ten years of Free-trade our increase was about as great as it had been in thirty-five years of protection; but the increase in the amount of business carried on in British ships is even more remarkable. Here are the facts:

In 1842, there were entered and cleared at our ports of British shipping 6,669,995 tons; 1850, 9,442,544 tons; 1861, 15,420,532 tons; the increase being 2,772,549 tons during nine years of protection, and 5,977,988 tons during eleven years of Free-trade.

In 1812 we built 129,929 tons of shipping; in 1849 only 117,953 tons. In 1850, we built 133,695 tons, and in 1861, 310,900 tons; showing an annual decrease between the former periods of 11,976 tons, but an annual increase between the latter of 177,205 tons.

The reason of these extraordinary results is obvious. Shipping is not the parent, it is the child of commerce. If your Government apply to its merchant shipping the principles we have adopted, you will find that the results will be very much the same, for these principles are applicable to all countries. Shipping has no creative power in itself, like land, or manufactures, or minerals; it depends, entirely, upon other interests for its existence. If a country produced what was necessary for its own wants and no more, it would not require any ships. If France had no commerce with other countries, and no trade along its own shores, there would be no employment for its shipping in its own trade. Now, though France has, I daresay, within herself the means of producing what other nations require to nearly as great an extent as the United Kingdom, and, though she requires as much or even more from other countries than we do, yet her sea-borne commerce is very limited as compared with her resources and her powers of consumption. Turning to the ‘Tableau Général du Commerce de la France,’ I find that, in 1860, the entrances and clearances with cargoes only in your foreign and colonial trades, and the entrances in your coasting trade, including the ships of France and of every nation trading with her, amounted to 9,773,865 tons, whereas, in the same year, it required 37,841,329 tons of shipping to transport the cargoes which entered and cleared from the ports of the United Kingdom. But, curiously enough, though the ships of all nations are allowed to enter our ports (and our consumers invite them to do so), there was, in 1860, in our foreign trade, only 4,294,444 tons of foreign shipping with cargoes as against 5,760,537 tons of British shipping; whereas, in your foreign trade, in the same year, there was 2,348,261 tons of foreign shipping with cargoes as against 1,663,615 tons of your own.

It is, thus, evident that any restriction you impose on the freedom of intercourse with other countries, while it curtails the operations of your merchants, likewise enhances the price of the raw material to your manufacturers; and while it increases the cost of the commodity to your people, curtails the employment of your Shipowners. But, even if those restrictions and differential duties (which you still maintain without any advantage to the revenue) benefited your Shipowners, which they do not, why should your merchants and manufacturers, and landowners and farmers, and, above all, your hardworking people, be made to suffer, so that your Shipowners might be enriched? So long as all the producing classes were protected, the Shipowners might have had some right to say that, as they were obliged to pay, for the benefit, real or imaginary of others, enhanced prices for all articles of consumption, they were consequently entitled to some compensating protection; but, since the recent relaxations of the French tariff, and, now that the producing classes are exposed to the competition of other countries, these classes have unquestionably a right to insist on free navigation.

No doubt your Shipowners will consider, as ours did, that their class was entitled to claim peculiar privileges, because the merchant service is the legitimate nursery of the seamen for the navy necessary for the protection of the State; but we have 20,000 more seamen now in our merchant service than we had in 1849. Free intercourse with other countries gave increased employment to our shipping, and therefore we required more seamen. So it will be with your country when you adopt a similar policy.

But, however fallacious the arguments have proved which were used against the repeal of our Navigation Laws, it is hardly possible to conceive anything so pernicious and absurd as the law itself which you still maintain. By way of illustration, may I direct your attention to the line of steamers trading between Southampton and the various ports in India, _viâ_ the Mediterranean? These vessels pass Marseilles every week laden with articles of which your people may be greatly in want, but the differential duties which the laws of France levy are so high on these articles (because they happen to be in English ships) that they cannot be landed, consequently they are carried through the Straits of Gibraltar, and across the Bay of Biscay to Southampton, and from thence by rail to London, and there shipped in either English or French bottoms to some port in France. Could anything be more absurd? The price your people pay for this folly is well illustrated by the startling fact that in 1860 France imported from the United Kingdom 8,000,000 lbs. of silk, 4,000,000 lbs. of coffee, 16,000,000 lbs. of wool, and 116,000 cwt. of cotton, not an ounce of any of these articles having been produced in this country.

For the protection and “benefit” of your Shipowners, which is purely imaginary, as I will show, your people were compelled to pay greatly enhanced prices upon an enormous quantity of articles necessary for their existence.

A few facts will now suffice to prove that your Shipowners have not profited by protection any more than our Shipowners when they were under the guardian care of the State.

Your coasting trade is confined strictly to French vessels. The vessels of all other nations are actually prohibited from entering it. In that trade there were entered and cleared in 1850, 2,447,556 tons of shipping. In 1860, 2,917,823 tons were entered and cleared. In your trade with the United Kingdom your Shipowners have had to contend on equal terms with the owners of British shipping, yet what are the results? In 1850 there were entered and cleared in that trade 594,640 tons of French shipping, cargoes, and ballast, but in 1860 the entrances and clearances of your own shipping in the same trade had increased to 1,017,617 tons. Thus, while the vessels in your closely protected trade increased 20 per cent., those engaged in the unprotected trade were nearly doubled!

I fear I weary you with figures, but allow me to give one more instance of the pernicious effects of a protective policy on both English and French shipping, as shown by a return of the tonnage of ships built for or otherwise added to the merchant navies of the United Kingdom and France in the following years. (_See_ Table, p. 595.)

These figures speak for themselves. The comparative annual progress of the shipping of both countries was not worthy of notice during the first period, when both were protected by the laws of the respective countries. You made a start when between 1849 and 1850 our Navigation Laws were repealed, but when the impetus which that repeal gave to our commerce came into play, and when our Shipowners felt that they had to depend upon themselves, and not upon the State, we shot ahead at an amazing rate during the second period, while the annual increase of your shipping remained stationary.

+----------------------++---------------------+ |To the United Kingdom.|| To France. | +----------+-----------++----------+----------+ | | Tons. || | Tons. | | In 1842 | 129,929 || In 1842 | 30,923 | | ” 1849 | 117,953 || ” 1849 | 32,223 | | ” 1850 | 133,695 || ” 1850 | 43,474 | | ” 1860 | 211,968 || ” 1860 | 43,192 | +----------+-----------++----------+----------+

When in Paris last month, I had occasion to converse with many of your merchants and others in regard to the effect produced by the recent commercial treaty. They were satisfied, but they felt that something more was wanted, though they could not exactly say what it was. Now, though both countries have every reason to be much satisfied with that treaty, the want is to me very apparent. Free navigation must accompany freedom of commerce. The ramifications of commerce are so numerous and the competition so close that the slightest hindrance to its natural flow, or the smallest increase of freight, either retards, paralyses, or destroys vast branches of it. The trade which your people are now carrying on with England and its colonies and possessions is greatly retarded by the restrictions of the Navigation Laws. The produce of France which we buy is not in all cases paid for by the produce or manufactures of this country. We wish you to take in exchange for your wines and for the other productions of France which we require, and you desire in many cases to receive in payment for those productions, the produce of our colonies and possessions; but your Navigation Laws raise, as I have shown, the price of all such importations, so as to affect, most unfavourably for your people, the conditions of exchange, and, consequently, our commercial intercourse with each other is much more limited than it would be under a system of free navigation. I most sincerely trust that these restrictions may soon be removed; I do so, not merely on account of my countrymen, but for the benefit of your people, who will be large gainers by the change.

We were the first nation, I regret to say, to raise barriers to free intercourse with other nations. It was Great Britain which first set up laws to dictate the course which the ships of other nations should follow upon the ocean meant to be free for the use of mankind.

We maintained that wretched policy for centuries to the injury of others, but not to our own gain.

At last we discovered that the poverty of our neighbours did not enrich ourselves. Twelve years ago we changed our policy, and I have given you an outline of the happy results. Your country is still pursuing the same mistaken policy, but I think the day is not far distant when your enlightened Monarch will sweep away all the ancient barriers which hamper his commerce, and thus give to his people that freedom of intercourse which, while it tends to promote peace and goodwill, cannot fail to develop to an extent hitherto unknown the vast natural resources of your country.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) W. S. LINDSAY.

APPENDIX No. 6.

Letter to the Commercial Association, Lisbon.

Braganza Hotel, Lisbon, 28th January, 1863.

SIR,

My engagements have been such that it has not been in my power till now to answer your letter of the 20th instant. I have, however, in the interval been endeavouring to obtain statistical information in regard to the amount of tonnage belonging to this country, and the entrances and clearances of ships at its ports. I have obtained that information so far as regards the commerce of Lisbon and Oporto, but I cannot find that any returns are published of the general commerce of Portugal or of its shipping. I am therefore unable to offer an opinion to the members of your association respecting the effect produced upon your shipping, and on the sea-borne commerce, by your navigation and commercial laws. The trade of Lisbon, however, so far as the entries inwards and outwards are concerned, shows little or no increase these last six years.

Considering the geographical position of Portugal and its natural resources, you seem to have more to gain by free intercourse with other nations than most other countries. The magnificent Tagus offers facilities which few harbours in Europe possess. Yet, with these great natural advantages, you do not appear to be doing one-half the amount of trade you might do, and I believe this arises in a great measure from the restrictive nature of your Navigation Laws, and the cumbrous, slow, and harassing character of your Customs’ regulations.

England maintained somewhat similar Navigation Laws up to 1869. At that time the aggregate tonnage of the merchant navy of the British Empire was 4,232,962 tons. It had risen from 2,681,276 tons in 1815, showing an increase of 1,551,686 tons in thirty-five years of Protection, and it was, therefore, argued by many persons that the repeal of those laws, while it would benefit the Shipowners of other nations, would be suicidal to our own. But our leading statesmen were of a very different opinion. They felt that it was for the interest of the people of Great Britain to have the freest possible intercourse with all nations; to import what they required, and export what they had to sell at the lowest cost; and, as shipping is not the parent but merely the child of commerce, they foresaw that it must increase with the increased intercourse with other nations. The result has proved the wisdom of their opinions. A reference to our Board of Trade returns (a copy of which I will send to you on my return to England) shows the enormous increase of our commerce, and the consequent increase of the wealth and prosperity of our people.

Since the 1st of January, 1850, ships of all nations have been allowed to enter and leave our ports, and to trade to our colonies and possessions on the same terms in all respects as our own vessels. And while our people have been large gainers by the repeal of the Navigation Laws, an Act which that year came into operation, our Shipowners have been greatly benefited, for in 1860 we owned 5,710,968 tons of shipping, showing an increase in ten years of Free-trade nearly as great as the increase during thirty-five years of Protection.

But the increase in the amount of business carried on in British ships to and from the ports of Great Britain is even more remarkable.

In 1842 there were entered and cleared at our ports of British shipping, 6,669,995 tons.

In 1850 there were entered and cleared at our ports of British shipping, 9,442,544 tons.

In 1861 there were entered and cleared at our ports of British shipping, 15,420,532 tons.

The increase being 2,772,549 tons during nine years of Protection, while it was no less than 5,977,988 tons during eleven years of Free-trade.

But experience has proved that restrictive laws are injurious to all countries which maintain them. It is verified in your our own case. See what the trade of the Tagus has become to that of the Thames or Mersey, though the former affords much greater natural facilities for shipping and commerce. It has long been apparent in Spain; and though the wealth and great natural resources of that country are now in course of development by means of railway communication, its intercourse with other countries is still very limited, and must remain so while they continue to maintain high differential duties, which yield little or no revenue, and seriously curtail their intercourse with the world.

Even France is a striking example of the loss a nation sustains by endeavouring by means of Protection to shut herself up within herself.

It is thus evident that every restriction a country imposes upon its freedom of intercourse with other countries—while it curtails the operations of its merchants, and enhances the price of the raw material to its manufacturers, increasing also the cost of the commodity to the people—must necessarily curtail the employment of its Shipowners.

These restrictive laws often compel merchants to buy what they require, at greatly enhanced prices, articles not produced in the country from whence they are imported; as is the case in your importations from England of cotton, sugar, coffee, hemp, jute, silk, foreign wool, and numerous other articles, all arising in a great measure from the fact that the differential duties[315] imposed by your Navigation Laws oblige you to import foreign manufactures or produce, either in your own ships or in the ships of the country where the articles were produced. Consequently the people of Portugal pay much higher prices than we do for almost every article they require to import from other countries, for the exclusive benefit of your Shipowners, who do not increase the number of their vessels. But these restrictive laws retard the natural progress of commerce in ways too numerous to mention within the limits of a letter, and they are as absurd as they are pernicious. Their absurdity becomes apparent when you ask yourself the question, why should the merchants of either France or Portugal not be allowed, when it suits their purpose, to import direct, in any ships they please, the produce of Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, instead of importing it through England or through any other country where it is _not_ grown?

France, as you are aware, has recently made great changes in her commercial tariff, and ere long she will, I daresay, make as great changes in her Navigation Laws. I can offer no opinion to your Chamber of Commerce beyond advising its members in the interests of their country to urge the Legislature by petitions and by every constitutional means within their power _to remove every restriction in your Customs’ regulations not absolutely necessary for the protection of the revenue, to reduce the duties upon all articles of large consumption, to abolish all differential duties which yield little or no revenue, and to repeal your Navigation Laws, which do the people great injury, and do not benefit your Shipowners except in rare instances_.

I am thoroughly convinced that by some such changes as these much of your ancient greatness and grandeur would be restored. Unwise laws, combined with other matters too delicate for me to name, have done perhaps more to retard your progress than the loss of your possessions in the East, or your severance from the Brazils. Indeed, had Portugal adopted Free-trade measures at the time of that severance she would have retained the bulk of the Brazilian commerce; but your Protection laws set up barriers at all your ports, through which very few ships but your own could enter—they drove trade from your cities, and the very bread from the mouths of your children. No wonder that the glory of Portugal passed away; and that your merchants, who were, indeed, princes in the days of Vasco de Gama, are now almost unknown in the markets of Europe.

Even, in spite of your restrictive laws, the natural facilities of the Tagus are still so great and so many that vessels from the Brazils are beginning to make it their port of call, and if the changes I have ventured to name are carried into effect, I am certain that Lisbon, from its position, is destined to carry on a very extensive traffic with the world. It may even become one of the great entrepôts for the supply of many of the European markets, as the railways now in course of construction will afford facilities for conveying its imports, not merely to the interior of Portugal and to Spain, but also to more distant parts of Europe.

It is, indeed, sad to look, as I now do, from the window of my hotel upon the beautiful but lifeless Tagus—to think what it _is_ by nature, what it _was_ in commerce, and what it might be under wise and liberal laws. The future is in the hands of your own people, and the members of your chamber might become instruments of great good by the dissemination of statistical and other information bearing upon the questions on which you have invited my opinion. You have happily a free press, which will enable your chamber to do so to great advantage. I return to England to-morrow. When I reach home I shall forward to you copies of the works you desire to possess, as also other publications which may be of service to you. Much useful information might also be obtained from the various ministers and consuls resident in this city; and I am sure they will only be too happy to assist you in the laudable object you have in view, for the countries they represent, especially England and France, are deeply interested in every measure tending to create greater intercourse between your country and their own.

I am, Sir, Your very obedient and faithful servant,

W. S. LINDSAY.

To A. J. P. SERZEDELLO, junior, Esq., &c. &c. &c., Secretary to the Commercial Association, Lisbon.

APPENDIX No. 7.

_Summary of the Acts passed for the Regulation of Passenger Ships._

The first separate Act for regulating passenger ships was the 43 Geo. 3, cap. 56. By this Act the number of passengers to be carried in any British vessel was limited to one person, including the crew, for every two tons of the unladen part of the ship, and in foreign ships two persons for every five tons. Vessels to North America were required to be victualled for twelve weeks, so as to afford a daily allowance for each person of ½ lb. of meat, 1½ lb. of biscuit or oatmeal, with ½ pint of molasses, and 1 gallon of water. Regulations were prescribed for mustering the passengers and for promoting cleanliness on the voyage, and a surgeon was to be carried. The master and surgeon were obliged to give bond in the sum of 100_l._ severally to keep a true journal, which journal was, on the return of the vessel, to be delivered to the officer of Customs and verified on oath. Bond was likewise to be given by the owners or master for the seaworthiness of the ship and the delivery of the passengers at their destined ports. An abstract of the Act was to be hung up on board.

Some slight amendments of detail were made in this law in 1813 by the 53 Geo. 3, cap. 36; and in the year 1816 it was further amended by the Act 56 Geo. 3, caps. 83, 114. By the first of these Acts, which is confined in its operation to Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador, the tonnage check was omitted, and the limitation was changed to the check by space, viz. 6 feet in length by 2 feet in breadth for each passenger, with the full perpendicular height between the two decks in vessels having two decks, and 5 feet perpendicular between the cargo and deck when there was no second deck.

The dietary scale was increased to

1 lb. of bread or biscuit, } per day, 1 lb. of beef, or ¾ lb. of pork } per passenger; 2 lbs. of flour, } 3 lbs. of oatmeal, } weekly; ½ lb. of butter, }

but the allowance of water was reduced from 8 to 5 pints.

[Sidenote: 57 Geo. 3. c. 10; 1817.]

In 1817 the original Act (43 Geo. 3, cap. 56), which had been previously repealed in respect of Newfoundland and Labrador, was repealed in respect of the rest of British North America by the 57 Geo. 3, cap. 10. By this Act the number of passengers was limited to one passenger for every 2½ tons burthen—and in ships partly laden with goods, in the same proportion for the unladen portion only. A distinction in computation was, for the first time, made between children and adults; three children under fourteen being reckoned, for space purposes, as one adult. The dietary was the same as in the repealed Act of 56 Geo. 3, cap. 83. The Shipowner was to give bond for the number of passengers on board, and for their being landed at the proper port. An abstract of the Act was to be hung up on board.

[Sidenote: 4 Geo. 4, c. 84; 1823.]

[Sidenote: 6 Geo. 4, c. 116; 1825.]

In 1823 the preceding Acts were repealed, and their principal provisions embodied in the 4 Geo. 4, cap. 84, which enacted that vessels should not carry to any place out of Europe more than one person, including master and crew, for every 5 tons, without special permission or licence from the Commissioners of Customs. The licence would only be granted, in the case of British ships, to vessels having two decks, with 5 feet 6 inches in height between them. Vessels carrying goods were permitted to take passengers in the proportion of one adult to every 2 tons of unladen space, provided that to each passenger there should be allotted an “integral” space of 6 feet in length by 2 feet 6 inches in breadth, and 5 feet 6 inches in height between the decks, or from cargo to deck, when there was no second deck. Two children under fourteen, or three under seven, were to be computed as one adult. Bond was to be given in the sum of 20_l._ for each passenger, that the vessel was seaworthy and properly stored with water and provisions, and provided with a surgeon, in case there were fifty persons, including the crew, on board. Passengers could only be embarked at a Custom-house port. A penalty of 50_l._ was imposed for each passenger in excess of the licence. The allowance of provisions, &c., was—

Water 5 pints } Bread or biscuit 1 lb. } Beef (or) 1 lb. } Daily. Pork ¾ lb. } Flour 2 lbs. } Oatmeal, peas, or pearl barley 3 lbs. } Weekly. Butter ½ lb. }

And a penalty of 500_l._ was imposed for re-landing provisions, &c. Rules for cleanliness and fumigation were established; ships carrying passengers were to be marked with a “P.” if there were more than one person, including the crew, to every 5 tons on board. The Act did not apply to vessels engaged in the Newfoundland fishery. The Commissioners of Customs at home, the local authorities in the colonies, and the officers of the navy and consuls abroad were to execute the Act. This law having been repealed in 1825 by an Act to repeal the several laws relating to the customs, was re-enacted the same year with some slight modifications by the 6 Geo. 4, cap. 116.

[Sidenote: 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 19; 28 May, 1827.]

By the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, cap. 12, this, and all other Acts affecting the carriage of passengers, was repealed, and the trade left unrestricted by law.

[Sidenote: 9 Geo. 4, c. 21; 23 May, 1828.]

The total absence of any legislative regulations having led to great abuse, the 9 Geo. 4, cap. 21, was passed, to reimpose the necessary limitations in the passenger trade. This Act was restricted in its operation to the continent and islands of North America. The limit upon the numbers to be carried was three persons for every 4 tons burthen. Ships carrying passengers were to have a height of 5½ feet between the decks or between the platform and the deck. Two children under fourteen, or three between one and seven, were to be computed as one adult. Fifty gallons of water and 50 lbs. of bread, biscuit, or oatmeal, were to be put on board for each passenger. Provisions, water, or stores were not to be carried on that part of the ’tween decks appropriated to the emigrants. Passengers were not to be landed at the places not contracted for, and the masters were to enter into bond for the due performance of the regulations prescribed by the Act.

[Sidenote: 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 53; 31 Aug. 1835.]

By the 5 & 6 Will. 4, cap. 53, the Act of 1828 was repealed, and further provisions made for the regulation of the carriage of passengers. No ship was allowed to sail with more than three persons for every 5 tons of burthen, and was required to have a height of 5½ feet between decks, and for every passenger carried 10 clear superficial feet of space on the lower deck or platform. Ships having two tiers of berths were to have 6 inches between the bottom of the lower berths and the deck. The quantity of water and provisions to be put on board was 5 gallons of water, 7 lbs. of bread, biscuit, or oatmeal, or bread-stuffs, for each passenger per week, the length of the voyage being computed as follows, viz.:—

Weeks. To North America 10 To South America on the Atlantic, or to the West Coast of Africa 12 To Cape of Good Hope 15 To Mauritius 18 Any other voyage 24

The officers of Customs were to examine the provisions and water. A table was to be made out and hung up of the prices at which provisions were to be sold on board to the passengers. The seaworthiness of the ship was to be ascertained by survey. Copies or abstracts of the Act were to be kept on board. Ships carrying 100 passengers were to carry a medical man, duly authorised by law to practise in this country as a physician, surgeon, or apothecary, and a proper supply of instruments, medicines, &c.; and ships carrying less than 100 passengers were to have a proper supply of medicines and other things adequate to the probable exigencies of the voyage. Passenger ships were prohibited from carrying spirits as stores in larger quantities than 10 per cent. more than the quantity allowed by the Customs for the use of the crew. Lists of passengers, with their names, ages, and occupations, were to be made out and delivered to the chief officer of Customs. Passengers were not to be landed at ports not contracted for without their consent. Two children under fourteen, or three between one and seven, were to be reckoned as an adult. Infants under twelve months were not to be counted. The passengers were to be victualled, or receive each a shilling a day in lieu thereof, for every day they were detained before the sailing of the ship, provided the detention did not arise from stress of weather, or other unavoidable cause; they were also entitled to remain on board forty-eight hours after the arrival of the ship, except where the ship proceeded to another port, in prosecution of her voyage. Masters were to give bond for the due performance of the regulations prescribed by the Act.

[Sidenote: 3 & 4 Vict. c. 21; 4 July, 1840.]

By the 3 & 4 Vict. cap. 21, the provisions of the preceding Act were made applicable to intercolonial voyage in the British colonies in the West Indies, South America, the Bahamas, and Bermuda.

[Sidenote: 5 & 6 Vict. c. 107; Aug. 1842.]

The two preceding Acts were repealed by the 5 & 6 Vict. cap. 107, which enacted that no vessel should carry more than three persons (master and crew included) to every 5 tons burthen, nor, whatever be the tonnage, more than one passenger to every 10 superficial feet of the space appointed for the use of the passengers, under a penalty not exceeding 5_l._ for every passenger in excess. The lower deck was not to be less than 1½ inch in thickness, and secured to the hold beams. The height between decks was to be 6 feet at least; there were not to be more than two tiers of berths; the bottom of the lower tier to be 6 inches above the deck; the berths were not to be less than 6 feet in length and 18 inches in width, for each passenger, and to be securely constructed. At least 3 quarts of water per diem was to be issued to each passenger, and a supply of provisions, not less often than twice a week, at the rate of 7 lbs. of bread-stuffs per week, half at least to be bread or biscuit, the other half might be potatoes, of which 5 lbs. were to be reckoned equal to one pound of bread-stuffs. The length of the voyage to be computed as follows:—

Weeks. For a voyage to North America, except the west coast thereof 10 For a voyage to the West Indies, including under that term the Bahama Islands and British Guiana 10 For a voyage to any part of the continent of Central or South America, except the west coast thereof, and except British Guiana 12 For a voyage to the West Coast of Africa 12 For a voyage to the Cape of Good Hope or the Falkland Islands 15 For a voyage to the Mauritius 18 For a voyage to Western Australia 20 For a voyage to any other of the Australian colonies 22 For a voyage to New Zealand 24

Two children under 14 were to be computed as one passenger; children under one year were not to count.

The provisions and water were to be inspected and surveyed by the Government emigration agents, or in their absence by the officer of Customs. Seaworthiness of vessels was to be ascertained by those officers, who might order a survey if necessary. Boats were to be taken in the following numbers, viz.:—

Ships between 150 and 250 tons, two boats.

Ships between 250 and 500 tons, three boats.

Ships of 500 tons and upwards, four boats; one of them to be a long-boat, of the proper size.

Copies of the Act were to be kept on board, to be produced to the passengers on demand. A proper supply of medicines, &c., with directions for their use, was to be provided for the voyage to North America; and on other voyages, ships carrying 100 passengers, or fifty, if the voyage were longer than twelve weeks, were also required to have on board a duly-qualified medical practitioner. The sale of spirits to the passengers was prohibited. Parties contracting to find passages to North America were to give written receipts for moneys received in a prescribed form. No person, except owner or master of the ship, was allowed to act as a passage-broker, unless licensed by the magistrates at the petty or quarter sessions. In case the contract for a passage were not performed, the aggrieved parties, unless maintained at the contractor’s expense, and provided within a reasonable time with a passage to the same place, might recover any passage-money they had paid, with a sum not exceeding 10_l._ as compensation. Passengers were to be victualled during detention of ships; but if detention (except caused by wind or weather) exceeded two clear working days, they were to receive instead 1_s._ per diem, unless suitably lodged and maintained with their own consent by the contractor. Passengers were not to be landed against their consent at any place other than the one contracted for, and were to be maintained on board for forty-eight hours after arrival, unless the ship, in the prosecution of her voyage, quitted the port sooner. The Act extended to foreign as well as to British ships, but not to vessels carrying fewer than thirty passengers, nor to cabin passengers. The enforcement of the law rested with the Government emigration agents and officers of Customs.

[Sidenote: 10 & 11 Vict. c. 103, and 11 Vict. c. 6; July 1847 and 1848.]

[Sidenote: 28 March, 1848.]

The 5 & 6 Vict. cap. 107, was amended by the 10 & 11 Vict. cap. 103, and 11 Vict. cap. 6. The first of these Acts brought within the full operation of the law such ships as carried more than one passenger for every twenty-five tons of registered burthen. It gave power to the Commissioners to vary the diet. It prohibited the carriage of gunpowder, vitriol, or green hides as cargo. It gave power to ensure ventilation between decks, a survey of the ship, and a proper crew. Ships putting back were to replenish their provisions. In case of wreck, or other accident, the passengers were to be provided with a passage in some other vessel. The second amending Act, which was confined to North America, required that a ship carrying more than 100 passengers, should have a cook and proper cooking apparatus; and if she did not carry a medical practitioner, that the superficial space for each passenger should be 14 instead of 12 feet. Passengers were to be examined by a medical practitioner, and persons affected with contagious or other disease likely to affect the health of the other passengers were not allowed to proceed. The passage-money of persons re-landed was made recoverable from the ship. The Queen in Council was empowered to issue rules and regulations for the preservation of order on board. Ships carrying fewer passengers than one to twenty five tons were exempted from the Act.

[Sidenote: 12 & 13 Vict. c. 33; 13 July, 1849.]

The three last-mentioned Acts were repealed, and their provisions consolidated and amended by the 12 & 13 Vict. cap. 33. The principal additions were—that an adequate ventilating apparatus should be put on board all ships carrying 100 or more passengers; and that adult persons of different sexes, unless husband or wife, should not be placed in the same berth. A lifeboat and two properly fitted life-buoys were to be provided; and the following increased dietary scale was prescribed:—

3 quarts of water daily. 2½ lbs. of bread or biscuit (not } inferior to navy biscuit), } 1 lb. wheaten flour, } per week. To be 5 lbs. oatmeal, } issued in advance, 2 lbs. rice, } and not 2 oz. tea, } less often than ½ lb. sugar, } twice a week. ½ lb. molasses, }

[Sidenote: Passage broker’s bond, 200_l._]

5 lbs. of potatoes may be substituted for 1 lb. of oatmeal or rice; and in ships sailing from Liverpool, or from Irish or Scotch ports, oatmeal may be substituted in equal quantities for the whole or any part of the issues of rice. The Emigration Commissioners, with the authority of the Secretary of State, may substitute other articles of food. The regulations for preserving order, cleanliness, and ventilation were made applicable to all British ships proceeding to any of the British possessions abroad, and not confined, as formerly, to those proceeding to North America. Parties acting as passage-brokers in respect of passages to North America were required, for the first time, to give bond to the Crown in the sum of 200_l._, for the due observance of such requirements of the Act as relate to their proceedings. And the right of emigrant runners to recover from any emigrant, broker, or other person, any reward for services in the way of information or assistance, was taken away, unless such runner was acting under the written authority, as the agent or servant of the licensed passage-broker.

[Sidenote: 14 Vict. c. 1; 1851.]

[Sidenote: Bond from masters of foreign ships.]

By an Act, 14 Vict. cap. 1, the Consolidated Act of 1849 was amended, so as to enable the Emigration Commissioners to fix a different length of voyage for steam-and sailing-vessels, and to allow the use of an alternative diet scale in all passenger ships. Vessels putting back into any port in a damaged state were prohibited from putting to sea again until effectually repaired. And bond is required to be given by masters of foreign ships carrying passengers to the British possessions abroad, that they will submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the colonial courts in the same manner as if they were British subjects.

[Sidenote: 15 & 16 Vict. c. 44; 30 June, 1852.]

[Sidenote: Shipwrecked passengers may be forwarded by public officers at the expense of the shipowner, &c.]

[Sidenote: Emigrant runners.]

By an Act passed in June, 1852, the two previous Acts of 1849 and 1851 were repealed, but their provisions were re-enacted in a consolidated and amended form, with some alterations and additions. The following are the main differences introduced by the Act of 1852: It empowered the Emigration Commissioners to sue and be sued, by their secretary or one of themselves, and exempted them from personal liability in respect of all acts done in their official capacity. It forfeited “passenger ships” putting to sea without obtaining a clearing certificate from an emigration officer; it required ships taking additional passengers at outports to obtain a fresh clearance from the emigration officer; it punished, by fine or imprisonment, stowaways and their abettors; it required the survey of ships to be undertaken by _two_ (instead of one, as in the previous Act) or more surveyors, and provided for an appeal against their decision; it required that single men should be berthed in a separate compartment in the fore-part of the ship; it provided for hospital accommodation and privies; it extended the boat scale, and required night-signals and fire-engines to be carried; it added to the articles expressly prohibited as cargo—horses, cattle, and lucifer-matches—and prohibited the carriage of cargo on passenger decks, unless stowed so as not to interfere with light and ventilation or the comfort of the emigrants. It fixed different lengths of voyage for steam- and sailing-vessels, and increased, from seventy to eighty days, the length of voyage to North America for ships sailing between the middle of October and the middle of January; in other respects, the prescribed length of voyage remained substantially the same as in the Act of 1852. It required that the provisions of the crew should not be inferior to those of the passengers, and empowered the emigration officers to reject bad provisions. The dietary scale (with the exception of substituting a small allowance of salt for molasses) was the same as in the Act of 1849, but a greater variety of articles was allowed to be substituted for oatmeal, rice, and potatoes. It required the provisions to be issued in a cooked state, and daily instead of twice a-week, as in the Act of 1849. It provided for the appointment of passengers’ stewards, and interpreters when required, and for the medical inspection of the crew as well as of the passengers. It extended, from forty-eight hours to ten days, the time within which a Shipowner may forward passengers who had not obtained passages in the ships for which they contracted. It required masters of ships putting back for the purpose of repairing damages, to maintain the passengers, or pay them subsistence money, until the ship is ready for sea or they are provided with passages in some other eligible ship. It further empowered the Secretary of State, Governor of a Colony, or British Consul, to defray the expenses of rescuing, and—if the master fails to do so—forwarding shipwrecked passengers, and constitutes such expenses a debt to the Crown, to be recovered from the owner, charterer, or master of the ship. The prohibition against acting as a passage-broker without a licence, which was formerly restricted to passages to North America, was now extended to passages to any place out of Europe, not being in the Mediterranean; and the amount of the passage-broker’s annual bond was increased from 200_l._ to 500_l._ It empowered trustees of docks to pass bye-laws for regulating the landing and embarking of emigrants, and for licensing emigrant runners—who were for the first time brought under legal control by being compelled to take out an annual licence, and to wear a badge.

[Sidenote: 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119; 14 Aug. 1855.]

The Act of 1852 was repealed and amended by the Act of 1855, which is the chief Act now in force. It is in the main similar to the previous Act, but contains several additions, which are fully shown in the preceding memorandum. The principal of them relate—

1. To the reduction of the number of passengers required to bring a ship within the operation of the Act.

2. To the reduction of the age of a “statute adult” from 14 to 12 years.

3. To the distinction between the upper and lower passenger deck.

4. To the increase of space allowed to passengers.

5. To certificates of exemption for mail steamers.

6. To appeals from the decision of an emigration officer who may decline to grant a clearing certificate.

7. To the stowage of cargo.

8. To the dietary scale for Australian voyages.

9. To the increase in the amount of detention money.

10. To the rights of passengers in case of the wreck or destruction of a passenger ship before the commencement of the voyage.

11. To contract tickets for cabin passengers in “passenger ships,” and a summary remedy before magistrates for enforcing the contract.

12. To emigrant runners.

13. To agents of licensed passage brokers.

[Sidenote: 26 & 27 Vict. c. 51; 1863.]

The material alterations introduced into the Act of 1855 by the amending Act of 1863 may be classed under the seven following heads:—

1. The number of passengers necessary to bring a ship within the operation of the law is increased from two to three _statute adults_ for every 100 tons, and from 30 to 50 _passengers_ in all.

2. The exemption heretofore enjoyed by certain mail steamers is withdrawn.

3. The tonnage check on the number of passengers to be carried is abolished, leaving the space check only to operate.

4. Cabin passengers are to be included in the lists to be furnished to the officers of Customs, and such passengers are now entitled to a return of half their passage money in case they are prevented by an emigration officer from undertaking their voyage on account of the state of their health.

5. Under certain restrictions the carriage of a limited number of horses, cattle, and dogs in passenger ships is allowed.

6. In case of wreck or damage to the ship the same regulations are extended to passengers whose passages have been provided for them by others, as were applicable under the Act of 1855 to passengers who had contracted for their own passages.

7. The bond to be given by the master and another surety to the Crown is increased from 200_l._ to 500_l._ in the case of ships of which neither the owner nor charterers reside in the United Kingdom, and the obligors are made liable for expenses incurred in rescuing and forwarding shipwrecked passengers.

APPENDIX No. 8.

_Passages of Clipper Ships engaged in the Trade with China._

The following Tables, showing the dates of starting and arrival of ships from the China ports during the years 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872, is abridged from ‘Naval Science’ for July, 1873.

---------+--------------+--------------+----------+--------- Date of | | | Date of | Sailing. | Ship’s Name. | Port. | Arrival. | Passage. ---------+--------------+--------------+----------+--------- 1868. | | | | May 28 | Taeping | Foo-chow-foo | Sept. 7. | 102 ” 30 | Lahloo | Foo-chow-foo | ” 8 | 100 June 7 | Yang-tsze | Foo-chow-foo | Oct. 7 | 122 May 28 | Sir Lancelot | Foo-chow-foo | Sept. 3 | 98 June 11 | Forward Ho | Shanghai | Oct. 17 | 128 ” 13 | Titania | Shanghai | ” 17 | 126 May 30 | Undine | Whampoa | Sept. 11 | 104 ” 28 | Ariel | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 97 ” 29 | Spindrift | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 97 June 1 | Serica | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 113 ” 2 | Fiery Cross | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 121 July 10 | Challenge | Shanghai | -- | 131 | | | | 1869. | | | | July 9 | Taeping | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 107 ” 2 | Lahloo | Foo-chow-foo | Oct. 12 | 102 ” 16 | Sir Lancelot | Foo-chow-foo | ” 14 | 90 June 10 | Forward Ho | Shanghai | ” 2 | 114 ” 16 | Titania | Shanghai | Sept. 22 | 98 April 2 | Undine | Shanghai | Aug. 2 | 122 June 30 | Ariel | Foo-chow-foo | Oct. 12 | 104 July 4 | Spindrift | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 106 ” 27 | Serica | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 110 ” 1 | Leander | Foo-chow-foo | Oct. 12 | 103 Aug. 6 | Challenge | Shanghai | -- | 148 July 28 | Falcon | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 110 ” 3 | Thermopylæ | Foo-chow-foo | Oct. 2 | 91 June 21 | Taitsing | Shanghai | -- | 115 | | | | 1870. | | | | June 5 | Taeping | Whampoa | Sept. 29 | 116 Oct. 13 | Lahloo | Foo-chow-foo | Jan. 18 | 97 Aug. 2 | Sir Lancelot | Foo-chow-foo | Nov. 12 | 102 June 28 | Forward Ho | Shanghai | Oct. 25 | 119 ” 14 | Titania | Hankow | ” 8 | 116 July 30 | Undine | Shanghai | Nov. 13 | 106 June 28 | Serica | Shanghai | Oct. 14 | 112 Sept. 15 | Fiery Cross | Whampoa | Jan. 10 | 117 Oct. 6 | Leander | Foo-chow-foo | ” 17 | 103 Aug. 30 | Windhover | Foo-chow-foo | -- | 100 Sept. 2 | Falcon | Foo-chow-foo | Dec. 20 | 109 July 29 | Thermopylæ | Foo-chow-foo | Nov. 12 | 106 June 24 | Cutty Sark | Shanghai | Oct. 14 | 112 Nov. 3 | Taitsing | Foo-chow-foo | March 4 | 121 | | | | 1871. | | | | -- | Taeping | -- | -- | -- July 27 | Lahloo | Foo-chow-foo | Nov. 15 | 111 June 24 | Forward Ho | Shanghai | Oct. 20 | 118 July 1 | Titania | Foo-chow-foo | ” 2 | 93 June 27 | Undine | Shanghai | ” 16 | 111 Sept. 4 | Ariel | Shanghai | Dec. 26 | 113 June 22 | Thermopylæ | Shanghai | Oct. 6 | 106 Sept. 2 | Cutty Sark | Shanghai | Dec. 21 | 110 | | | | 1872. | | | | July 7 | Sir Lancelot | Foo-chow-foo | Nov. 6 | 122 May 25 | Titania | Whampoa | Sept. 19 | 116 June 24 | Undine | Shanghai | Oct. 17 | 115 Dec. 4 | Fiery Cross | Shanghai | April 2 | 119 Aug. 3 | Falcon | Whampoa | May 22 | 111 June 18 | Thermopylæ | Shanghai | Oct. 11 | 115 ” 17 | Cutty Sark | Shanghai | Oct. 18 | 122 | | | Lost her Rudder. Aug. 8 | Taitsing | Shanghai | Nov. 30 | 114 ---------+--------------+--------------+----------+---------

APPENDIX No. 9.

_Log of the Passages of the Sailing Ship ‘Thermopylæ’ from London to Melbourne, thence to Newcastle (N.S.W.), thence to Foo-chow-foo, and thence to London, 1868-69._

LONDON TO MELBOURNE. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- Date. | Lat. | Long. |Distance.| REMARKS. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- | N. | W. | | Nov. 5 | -- | -- | -- | 5.30 P.M. at Gravesend. ” 6 | -- | -- | -- | ” 7 | -- | -- | -- | 5 A.M. left Gravesend. ” 8 | -- | -- | -- | 6 P.M. Lizard, N. 20 miles. ” 9 | 48·30 | 7·2 | 168 | Var., moderate. ” 10 | 45·38 | 13·16 | 274 | S.E., N.W., fresh. ” 11 | 43·13 | 15·38 | 213 | Var., moderate. | | | |{ S.S.E. Lost Peter Johnson ” 12 | 41·11 | 19·24 | 194 |{ overboard, ship hove-to for | | | |{ an hour, without success. ” 13 | 39·44 | 22·10 | 138 | S.S.E. strong gales. ” 14 | 38·40 | 22·58 | 69 | Var., moderate. ” 15 | 35·12 | 21·54 | 213 | North-westerly, strong. ” 16 | 30·39 | 22·55 | 279 | North-westerly, fresh. ” 17 | 29·9 | 23·43 | 99 | N., S.E., moderate. ” 18 | 27·38 | 26·5 | 200 | South-westerly, moderate. ” 19 | 26·45 | 24·12 | 112 | South-westerly, light. ” 20 | 26·32 | 24·39 | -- | South-westerly, light. ” 21 | 25·14 | 24·32 | 68 | Easterly, light. ” 22 | 21·39 | 26·5 | 228 | E., fresh. ” 23 | 17·18 | 26·25 | 268 | North-easterly, fresh. ” 24 | 13·18 | 25·32 | 250 | E., fresh. ” 25 | 10·6 | 24·33 | 210 | Easterly, moderate. ” 26 | 6·53 | 23·32 | 202 | South-easterly, moderate. ” 27 | 4·27 | 24·3 | 140 | South-easterly, heavy squalls. ” 28 | 1·23 | 25·50 | 228 | South-easterly, moderate. | | | | | S. | E. | | ” 29 | 2·13 | 29·0 | 271 | South-easterly, fresh. ” 30 | 6·30 | 21·8 | 288 | South-easterly, strong. Dec. 1 | 11·22 | 31·28 | 293 | Easterly, variable. ” 2 | 16·14 | 31·25 | 294 | Easterly, strong. ” 3 | 20·24 | 30·26 | 256 | Easterly, moderate. ” 4 | 23·0 | 29·0 | 176 | Easterly, light. ” 5 | 24·32 | 27·39 | 118 | Easterly, light. ” 6 | 25·53 | 27·8 | 81 | Northerly, light. ” 7 | 27·22 | 26·28 | 96 | Northerly, light. ” 8 | 29·4 | 25·10 | 123 | Northerly, light. ” 9 | 32·24 | 22·35 | 240 | North-westerly, fresh gale. ” 10 | 26·26 | 18·51 | 224 | South-westerly, blowing a gale. ” 11 | 38·34 | 13·2 | 303 | South-westerly, strong. ” 12 | 39·38 | 6·34 | 314 | W.S.W., strong. ” 13 | 40·34 | 0·25 | 324 | S.W., strong. ” 14 | 40·51 | 6·33 | 280 | Var., moderate. ” 15 | 41·51 | 11·19 | 230 | Northerly, fresh. ” 16 | 42·29 | 17·30 | 282 | North-westerly, moderate. ” 17 | 43·6 | 23·41 | 278 | North-westerly, strong. ” 18 | 43·9 | 28·29 | 211 | North-easterly, fresh. ” 19 | 43·44 | 34·56 | 284 | North-easterly, strong. ” 20 | 43·57 | 40·30 | 240 | Northerly gale. ” 21 | 43·35 | 47·34 | 305 | Northerly gale. ” 22 | 43·45 | 54·18 | 290 | Northerly gale. ” 23 | 42·57 | 61·17 | 310 | Northerly gale. ” 24 | 43·6 | 67·21 | 266 | Northerly, strong. ” 25 | 42·57 | 74·26 | 312 | Northerly, strong. ” 26 | 43·22 | 80·28 | 265 | Northerly, fresh. ” 27 | 43·15 | 85·41 | 229 | Northerly, fresh. ” 28 | 43·22 | 90·40 | 222 | Easterly, fresh. ” 29 | 43·40 | 94·55 | 185 | N.E., light. ” 30 | 43·11 | 102·11 | 320 | S.W., gale. ” 31 | 43·4 | 106·43 | 200 | N.N.W., moderate. | | | | 1870 | | | | Jan. 1 | 43·10 | 111·54 | 228 | N.N.W., moderate. ” 2 | 43·7 | 117·14 | 248 | N.N.W., fresh. ” 3 | 42·7 | 124·36 | 330 | Northerly, strong. ” 4 | 40·39 | 131·18 | 326 | Northerly, strong. ” 5 | 39·48 | 136·14 | 225 | South-westerly, moderate. ” 6 | 38·41 | 140·18 | 202 | S.E., Percy Island. ” 7 | -- | -- | -- | Cape Otway, N. ½ W., 12 miles. ” 8 | -- | -- | -- | Calm and light. ” 9 | -- | -- | -- |{ 7 P.M., came to anchor in Port | | | |{ Phillip Harbour. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- NEWCASTLE TO SHANGHAI. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- Date. | Lat. | Long. |Distance.| REMARKS. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- | S. | E. | | Feb. 10 | 7·30 | A.M. | -- | Left the harbour. ” 11 | -- | -- | 60 | E.N.E. to S.E., calm. ” 12 | 32·46 | 156·3 | 152 | N.E. and E., very unsteady. ” 13 | 32·13 | 158·26 | 125 |{ N.E. and N., Passed Lord | | | |{ Howe’s Island. ” 14 | 28·30 | 160·55 | 250 | N., strong, squally. ” 15 | 23·32 | 162·16 | 300 | N., clear. ” 16 | 19·47 | 161·58 | 230 | N.W., clear. ” 17 | 15·36 | 162·11 | 251 | N. ½ E., heavy, squally. ” 18 | 13·31 | 163·24 | 145 | N.N.E., thunder and lightning. ” 19 | 12·16 | 163·17 | 75 | N., heavy rain. ” 20 | 8·35 | 164·0 | 224 | N., heavy rain and thunder. ” 21 | 4·16 | 165·24 | 262 | N. and E., lightning. ” 22 | 1·35 | 166·48 | 180 | N.N.E., heavy squalls. ” 23 | 0·19 | 166·50 | 75 | { N.W. by W. Off Pleasant Head, | | | | { got quantity of jugs and | | | | { cocoa-nuts. | N. | | | ” 24 | 1·14 | 165·5 | 130 | N.W. ” 25 | 3·24 | 162·25 | 200 | N.W. ½ W., squally. ” 26 | 6·47 | 159·58 | 250 | N.W. by N., clear. ” 27 | 10·28 | 156·35 | 297 | N.W. by W., fresh. ” 28 | 13·28 | 152·4 | 298 | N.W. by W., fresh. Mar. 1 | 15·54 | 148·25 | 256 | N.W. by W., squally. ” 2 | 17·14 | 146·2 | 160 |{ N.W. by W., passed between | | | |{ Faraltan and Guguants. ” 3 | 19·56 | 142·35 | 255 | N.W. by W. ½ W., squally. ” 4 | 21·46 | 139·48 | 200 | N.W. by W. ½ W., light. ” 5 | 22·23 | 138·19 | 82 | N.W. by W., light. ” 6 | 23·32 | 136·43 | 110 | N.W. by W., light and variable. ” 7 | 25·23 | 133·34 | 202 |{ N.N.W., passed _Golden_, | | | |{ Sydney to Shanghai 59 days. ” 8 | 26·57 | 129·26 | 239 | W.N.W., passed Fok Island. ” 9 | 29·30 | 126·11 | 230 | { W. by N., heavy squalls, | | | | { thunder and lightning. ” 10 | 31·20 | 124·0 | 200 |{ W.N.W. Off Vido. Got pilot. | | | |{ Passage pilot to pilot 28 | | | |{ days, quickest on record. ” 13 | -- | -- | -- | Shanghai. Thick and calm. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- FOO-CHOW TO LONDON. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- Date. | Lat. | Long. |Distance.| REMARKS. ---------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------------- | N. | E. | | July 3 | -- | -- | -- | 5 A.M., proceeded down in tow. ” 4 | -- | -- | -- | Pinnacle Island, W. by N. ” 5 | -- | -- | -- | 3 P.M., passed Adams Point. ” 6 | 23·6 | 126·32 | 174 | South-westerly, fresh. ” 7 | 23·2 | 126·1 | 48 | Var., moderate. ” 8 | 21·13 | 123·59 | 157 | South-easterly, squally. ” 9 | 19·13 | 120·28 | 233 | South-easterly, fresh. ” 10 | 18·36 | 118·37 | 115 | South-westerly, light. ” 11 | 18·16 | 116·2 | 148 | South-easterly, fresh. ” 12 | 17·37 | 112·38 | 200 | Southerly, fresh. ” 13 | 16·43 | 109·49 | 176 | Southerly, fresh. ” 14 | 15·43 | 109·5 | 63 | South-easterly, light. ” 15 | 14·6 | 110·7 | 114 | South-westerly, light. ” 16 | 12·37 | 109·29 | 96 |{ South-westerly, light, Cape | | | |{ Varella, 6 miles. ” 17 | 11·47 | 109·30 | 50 | South-westerly, light. ” 18 | 8·16 | 109·49 | 212 | Westerly, strong and squally. ” 19 | 5·9 | 109·21 | 191 | South-westerly, strong and squally. ” 20 | 4·16 | 109·17 | 53 | South-westerly, moderate. ” 21 | 3·28 | 109·22 | 48 | South-westerly, light. ” 22 | 2·40 | 109·54 | 58 | South-westerly, light. ” 23 | 2·6 | | | Var., light. ” 24 | 0·51 | 108·40 | | Boorang Island, E. by S., 10 m. | | | | | S. | E. | | ” 25 | 0·45 | 108·34 | 96 | South-easterly, light. ” 26 | 1·28 | 107·48 | 63 | Var., light. ” 27 | 3·15 | | |{ Spoke _Achilles_, 10 days out | | | |{ from Foo-chow. ” 28 | | | | 6 A.M. Anger Light, S.S.W., 8 miles. ” 29 | 7·54 | 101·56 | 223 | South-easterly, fresh. ” 30 | 9·22 | 97·21 | 284 | South-easterly, squally. ” 31 | 10·59 | 93·10 | 267 | South-easterly, fresh. Aug. 1 | 12·42 | 88·43 | 290 | S.S.E., strong. ” 2 | 14·31 | 83·28 | 318 | E.S.E., strong. ” 3 | 16·5 | 79·44 | 236 |{ South-easterly, moderate. | | | |{ Spoke _Leander_. ” 4 | 17·30 | 76·33 | 203 | S.E. moderate, _Leander_, 10 miles. ” 5 | 18·45 | 72·58 | 217 | S.E., fresh, _Leander_, 14 miles. ” 6 | 19·16 | 71·26 | 97 | S.E., light. ” 7 | 19·4 | 68·28 | 170 |{ S.W. to S.E., heavy gale, and sea | | | |{ washed away head rail. ” 8 | 21·11 | 63·53 | 249 | S. by E., under topsails and courses. ” 9 | 23·4 | 59·0 | 295 | S. by E., strong. ” 10 | 24·30 | 54·55 | 246 | S. by E., all plain sail. ” 11 | 26·9 | 51·23 | 216 |{ S. by E., var., plain sail and port | | | |{ studding-sails. ” 12 | 27·25 | 48·30 | 185 | E.N.E., moderate. ” 13 | 29·7 | 45·24 | 192 | E., light. ” 14 | | | 170 | W.S.W., var. ” 15 | 30·23 | 38·29 | 200 | S., strong gale with squalls. ” 16 | 31·20 | 35·0 | 198 | E., light. ” 17 | 34·20 | 33·35 | 110 |{ S.E., steamer astern like _Achilles_; | | | |{ sunset, breeze increasing, leaving | | | |{ her out of sight. ” 18 | 34·2 | 29·39 | 270 | N.N.E., fresh. ” 19 | 35·6 | 24·0 | 240 |{ S.W. by S., fresh, strong current to | | | |{ S.W. ” 20 | 35·8 | 20·4 | 196 | N.E., fog and calm at noon. ” 21 | 34·45 | 18·10 | 100 |{ W.S.W. increasing, rounded Cape of | | | |{ Good Hope, heavy sea. ” 22 | 31·53 | 13·26 | 302 | S., all plain sail set. ” 23 | 29·9 | 9·29 | 262 |{ S.S.E., all plain sail set and studding | | | |{ sails. ” 24 | 26·14 | 5·19 | 284 | S.E., all possible sail. ” 25 | 23·13 | 1·50 | 264 | S.E. by S., all possible sail. ” 26 | 20·44 | 0·53 | 212 | N.E., and backing to S.E. | | | | | W. | | | ” 27 | 19·9 | 2·49 | 146 | S.E., light. ” 28 | 17·29 | 4·58 | 158 | S.E., light. ” 29 | 15·36 | 7·33 | 187 | S.E., light. ” 30 | 13·19 | 10·5 | 201 | S.E., light. ” 31 | 11·16 | 12·16 | 190 | S.E., light. Sept. 1 | 9·6 | 14·8 | 164 | S.E. by S., light. ” 2 | 7·11 | 16·0 | 158 | S.E. by S., light. ” 3 | 5·9 | 18·2 | 172 | S.E. by S., light. ” 4 | 3·19 | 19·51 | 156 | S.E. by S., light. ” 5 | 1·10 | 21·46 | 172 | S.E. by S., light, strong current to W. | | | | | N. | | | ” 6 | 0·55 | 23·4 | 146 | S.E., light. ” 7 | 2·57 | 25·4 | 174 | S.E. by S., light. ” 8 | 5·51 | 26·7 | 184 | S.S.W., fresh. ” 9 | 10·0 | 27·6 | 257 | S.W., very squally. ” 10 | 12·16 | 27·16 | 140 | S., light var. ” 11 | 13·10 | 27·0 | 60 | N.N.E., var., squally. ” 12 | 16·33 | 30·9 | 273 | N.E., trade winds. ” 13 | 20·5 | 32·58 | 270 | N.E., trade winds. ” 14 | 24·0 | 35·23 | 272 | N.E. by E., trade winds. ” 15 | 26·45 | 36·15 | 172 | E. by N., light. ” 16 | 27·39 | 36·18 | 54 | E. by N., light and calm. ” 17 | 28·0 | 36·23 | 21 | E. by N., light and airy. ” 18 | 28·56 | 36·5 | 58 | S., light. ” 19 | 30·18 | 35·45 | 52 | S., light. ” 20 | 32·37 | 35·5 | 144 | S., light. ” 21 | 33·45 | 34·18 | 85 | W., light rain. ” 22 | 36·4 | 34·4 | 140 | W., light breeze. ” 23 | 39·18 | 33·30 | 200 | S.W., squally, rain. ” 24 | 42·37 | 30·17 | 245 | W., squally, heavy sea. ” 25 | 44·10 | 26·16 | 200 | W., light and variable. ” 26 | 45·14 | 22·59 | 158 | S.W. to N.W. ” 27 | 46·8 | 18·34 | 200 | W., bar falling rapidly. ” 28 | 47·15 | 14·0 | 202 | S.W., bar falling rapidly, very low. ” 29 | 48·30 | 9·13 | 200 | S.W., bar falling rapidly, very low. ” 30 | -- | -- | 200 | S. by E., noon Lizard, N., 8 miles. Oct. 1 | | | |{ Beechy Head, E., 20 miles at noon, | | | |{ 5 P.M., Dungeness, got pilot. ---------+--------+--------+-------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX No. 10.

_Statistics of Tonnage belonging to Great Britain, United States, France, and Holland, from 1821 to 1874._

-----+-----------------------+---------------------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+----- | | UNITED STATES. | | | | +----------------------+----------------------+ | | Year.| BRITISH EMPIRE. | Registered Vessels- | Enrolled Vessels- | FRANCE. | HOLLAND. | Year. | | Foreign Trade. | Coasting Trade. | | | +-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+ | Steam. | Total. | Steam. | Total. | Steam. | Total. | Steam. | Total. | Steam. | Total. | -----+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----- | | Steam and | | Steam and | | Steam and | | Steam and | | Steam and | | | Sailing. | | Sailing. | | Sailing. | | Sailing. | | Sailing. | 1821 | -- | 2,560,203 | -- | 619,896 | -- | 612,712 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1821 1822 | -- | 2,519,044 | -- | 628,150 | -- | 634,619 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1822 1823 | -- | 2,506,760 | -- | 639,921 | -- | 634,035 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1823 1824 | -- | 2,559,587 | -- | 669,973 | -- | 657,642 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1824 1825 | -- | 2,553,682 | -- | 700,787 | -- | 657,899 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1825 1826 | -- | 2,635,644 | -- | 737,978 | -- | 730,172 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1826 1827 | -- | 2,460,500 | -- | 747,170 | -- | 806,986 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1827 1828 | -- | 2,518,191 | -- | 812,619 | -- | 862,171 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1828 1829 | -- | 2,517,000 | -- | 650,143 | -- | 588,357 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1829 1830 | -- | 2,531,819 | -- | 576,475 | -- | 591,447 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1830 1831 | -- | 2,581,904 | -- | 620,452 | -- | 620,017 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1831 1832 | -- | 2,618,068 | -- | 686,990 | -- | 723,689 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1832 1833 | -- | 2,634,577 | -- | 750,027 | -- | 825,196 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1833 1834 | -- | 2,716,100 | -- | 857,438 | -- | 869,382 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1834 1835 | -- | 2,783,761 | -- | 805,822 | -- | 906,612 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1835 1836 | -- | 2,792,646 | -- | 897,775 | -- | 952,527 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1836 1837 | -- | 2,791,018 | -- | 810,447 | -- | 1,051,011 | -- | 696,978 | -- | -- | 1837 1838 | 82,716 | 2,890,601 | 2,791 | 822,592 | 190,632 | 1,133,999 | 9,693 | 679,863 | -- | -- | 1838 1839 | 86,731 | 3,068,433 | 5,149 | 834,245 | 199,789 | 1,221,902 | 9,810 | 673,308 | -- | -- | 1839 1840 | 95,807 | 3,311,538 | 4,155 | 899,765 | 198,184 | 1,240,860 | 9,535 | 662,500 | -- | -- | 1840 1841 | 104,845 | 3,512,480 | 746 | 945,803 | 174,342 | 1,147,913 | 10,183 | 590,262 | -- | -- | 1841 1842 | 118,930 | 3,619,850 | 4,701 | 975,359 | 224,960 | 1,084,669 | 9,757 | 589,517 | -- | -- | 1842 1843 | 121,455 | 3,588,387 | 5,373 | 1,009,305 | 231,494 | 1,115,028 | 9,536 | 599,707 | -- | -- | 1843 1844 | 125,675 | 3,637,231 | 6,909 | 1,068,765 | 265,270 | 1,173,538 | 9,293 | 604,637 | -- | -- | 1844 1845 | 131,202 | 3,714,061 | 6,492 | 1,095,172 | 319,527 | 1,282,344 | 9,390 | 611,492 | -- | -- | 1845 1846 | 134,784 | 3,817,112 | 6,287 | 1,130,287 | 341,606 | 1,399,290 | 10,921 | 633,359 | -- | -- | 1846 1847 | 156,557 | 3,952,524 | 5,631 | 1,241,313 | 399,210 | 1,554,252 | 12,567 | 670,260 | -- | -- | 1847 1848 | 168,078 | 4,052,160 | 16,038 | 1,360,887 | 411,823 | 1,747,632 | 13,152 | 683,298 | -- | -- | 1848 1849 | 177,310 | 4,144,115 | 20,870 | 1,438,942 | 441,525 | 1,848,235 | 13,391 | 680,565 | -- | -- | 1849 1850 | 187,631 | 4,232,962 | 44,942 | 1,585,711 | 481,005 | 1,899,555 | 13,925 | 633,153 | 3,672 | 396,124 | 1850 1851 | 204,654 | 4,332,085 | 62,390 | 1,726,307 | 521,217 | 1,992,333 | 19,460 | 704,036 | 3,692 | 421,506 | 1851 1852 | 227,306 | 4,424,362 | 79,704 | 1,899,448 | 563,536 | 2,183,226 | 22,171 | 721,384 | 3,950 | 448,864 | 1852 1853 | 264,336 | 4,764,422 | 90,520 | 2,103,674 | 574,098 | 2,242,622 | 26,399 | 762,415 | 4,452 | 479,202 | 1853 1854 | 326,484 | 5,115,846 | 95,036 | 2,333,819 | 581,571 | 2,411,135 | 35,098 | 819,762 | 5,064 | 579,016 | 1854 1855 | 408,290 | 5,250,553 | 115,045 | 2,535,136 | 655,240 | 2,615,731 | 45,093 | 872,156 | 5,868 | 551,854 | 1855 1858 | 417,717 | 5,312,436 | 89,715 | 2,491,403 | 583,362 | 2,337,886 | 63,926 | 998,996 | 10,428 | 593,384 | 1856 1857 | 453,966 | 5,531,887 | 86,873 | 2,463,968 | 618,911 | 2,438,370 | 71,979 | 1,052,535 | 13,302 | 621,102 | 1857 1858 | 488,415 | 5,609,623 | 78,027 | 2,499,742 | 651,363 | 2,502,086 | 66,587 | 1,049,844 | 13,768 | 621,306 | 1858 1859 | 472,764 | 5,660,402 | 92,747 | 2,507,402 | 676,004 | 2,586,967 | 65,006 | 1,025,942 | 14,340 | 611,350 | 1859 1860 | 500,144 | 5,710,968 | 97,296 | 2,546,237 | 770,641 | 2,752,938 | 68,025 | 996,124 | 13,746 | 588,772 | 1860 1861 | 561,023 | 5,895,369 | 102,608 | 2,642,628 | 774,596 | 2,839,399 | 73,267 | 983,996 | 13,012 | 572,434 | 1861 1862 | 597,932 | 6,041,358 | 113,998 | 2,291,251 | 596,465 | 2,772,005 | 78,981 | 982,571 | 12,636 | 554,244 | 1862 1863 | 657,026 | 6,624,403 | 133,215 | 2,026,114 | 439,755 | 3,076,193 | 84,918 | 985,235 | 13,994 | 539,844 | 1863 1864 | 769,398 | 7,103,261 | 106,519 | 1,581,894 | 853,816 | 3,352,471 | 97,884 | 998,519 | 15,862 | 542,952 | 1864 1865 | 902,052 | 7,322,604 | 98,008 | 1,602,583 | 969,131 | 3,454,093 | 108,328 | 1,008,084 | 15,068 | 538,676 | 1865 1866 | 952,318 | 7,297,984 | 198,289 | 1,492,926 | 885,023 | 2,778,537 | 127,777 | 1,042,811 | 16,184 | 540,084 | 1866 1867 | 973,415 | 7,232,671 | 198,115 | 1,568,032 | 993,765 | 2,695,368 | 133,158 | 1,048,679 | 20,694 | 540,164 | 1867 1868 | 977,292 | 7,236,916 | 221,939 | 1,565,732 | 977,476 | 2,733,167 | 135,259 | 1,058,548 | 22,194 | 535,192 | 1868 1869 | 1,033,247 | 7,185,430 | 213,252 | 1,566,422 | 890,316 | 2,526,093 | 142,942 | 1,074,656 | 22,568 | 528,196 | 1869 1870 | 1,202,134 | 7,149,134 | 192,544 | 1,516,800 | 882,551 | 2,677,940 | 154,415 | 1,072,396 | 26,394 | 528,578 | 1870 1871 | 1,411,803 | 7,142,891 | 180,914 | 1,425,142 | 906,723 | 2,805,274 | 160,478 | 1,077,611 | 36,644 | 521,098 | 1871 1872 | 1,640,639 | 7,213,829 | 177,666 | 1,410,648 | 933,887 | 2,971,309 | 177,462 | 1,089,075 | 46,370 | 522,368 | 1872 1873 | 1,825,738 | 7,294,230 | 173,423 | 1,423,288 | 963,020 | 3,215,915 | 185,165 | 1,068,031 | -- | -- | 1873 1874 | 1,987,235 | 7,533,492 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 194,546 | 1,037,272 | -- | -- | 1874 -----+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+-----

APPENDIX No. 11.

_Table showing at what Ports Exemptions existed, &c., in 1852, in favour of certain British Ships, &c._

-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+-------------------- | | | Amount of | When Exemption will Name. | Persons, &c., exempt. | How exempt. | Tax. | expire. -----------------+-----------------------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+-------------------- | | | £ _s._ | Faversham | Vessels belonging to residents are exempt | Favour of Lord of | 19 0 | May cease at any time at | from anchorage duty levied by authority | the Manor. | | will of lord. | of the Lord of the Manor. | | | | | | | Chichester | Freemen, from one-half quay dues, levied by | -- | 136 0 | Extinction of class of | prescriptive right of the Corporation. | | | freemen. | | | | Southampton | Vessels belonging to the port, from tonnage | -- | 4,350 0 | | and other dues. | | | | | | | Cowes | Vessels registered at Cowes, from harbour | -- | 58 0 | | dues. | | | | | | | Newport | Freemen of Newport, from dues | -- | 230 0 | Ditto. | | | | Exeter | Freemen of Exeter, from town dues | Under Charter | 716 0 | | | | | Teignmouth | Vessel belonging to the port, from anchorage | -- | 2 9 | | dues. | | | | | | | Torquay | Ditto, pay annually 8_d._ per ton, while | -- | 2,510 0 | Completion of new harbour. | others pay 4_d._ each time. | | | | | | | Plymouth | Cinque Ports vessels, from anchorage dues | Charters | 282 0 | | | | | Brixham | Resident owners, from harbour dues | -- | 648 0 | | | | | Totness | Freemen of Totness, from quay dues | -- | 346 0 | Extinction of class of | | | | freemen. | | | | Fowey | Vessels belonging to Fowey and the Cinque | -- | 32 0 | | Ports, from anchorage dues. | | | | | | | Falmouth | Vessels belonging to Falmouth, Truro, and | -- | 313 0 | | Cinque Ports, from anchorage and flag | | | | money. | | | | | | | Penryn | Local vessels, from mastage dues. | | | | | | | St. Michael’s | Fish belonging to inhabitants, from dues on | -- | 157 0 | Mount | goods. | | | | | | | Bideford | Barnstaple Corporation, from imports and | -- | 97 0 | | tonnage duties. | | | | | | | Bristol | Freemen of Bristol, London, and Liverpool, | -- | 4,389 0 | Ditto. | from town dues on goods imported from | | | | foreign ports. | | | | | | | Swansea | Freemen of Swansea, from dues on certain | Ancient customs | 1,564 0 | Ditto. | goods. | | | | | | | Carmarthen | Freemen of Carmarthen, from dues on | Under the Municipal | 76 0 | Ditto. | certain goods. | Acts. | | | | | | Beaumaris | Burgesses of the old Corporation, from town | -- | 350 0 | Extinction of old Corporation, | dues. | | | when the | | | | town dues will expire. Liverpool | Freemen of Liverpool, London, Waterford, and | Ancient charters or |144,100 0 | | Wexford, being inhabitant householders, | customs. | | | from town and anchorage dues. | | | | | | | Lancaster | Freemen of Lancaster, from anchorage dues | -- | 8 0 | | | | | Newcastle | Freemen of London, Dover, Rye, Faversham, | By prescription |13,456 0[316]| Extinction of class of | Folkestone, Sandwich, York, and Newcastle, | | | freemen. | are exempt from export dues. | | | | | | | Scarborough | Freemen of Scarborough, from water tolls | By prescription | 160 0 | Extinction of class of | | | | freemen. | | | | Kingston-on-Hull | Freemen of Hull, from anchorage | -- | 2,494 0 | Ditto. | | | | Bridlington | Vessels belonging to persons resident in | -- | 2 12 | | Bridlington, from mastage dues. | | | | | | | King’s Lynn | Freemen of Lynn, from beacon | Charters and usage | 1,961 0 | Ditto. | | | | Wells | Vessels belonging to Wells, from ballast | -- | 814 0 | | dues. | | | | | | | Great Yarmouth | Freemen’s vessels carrying coal | By prescription, | 400 0[317] | | confirmed by 5 Anne.| | | | | | Colchester | Vessels belonging to Colchester, from | -- | 8 11 | | anchorage and groundage dues. | | |

SCOTLAND.

Leith | Fish and oysters, from import dues | -- | 42,176 0 | | | | | Fisherrow | Ditto | -- | | | | | | North Berwick | Burgesses from one-half shore dues | Act of Council. | | | | | | Leven | Ships belonging to Leven, from one-half | Authority of | 112 0 | | tonnage dues. | proprietor. | | | | | | Burntisland | Burgesses and freemen, from one-half shore | -- | 1,574 0 | Ditto. | dues. | | | | | | | Dundee | Burgesses pay one-half shore placks | Charter | 278 0 | | | | | St. Andrew’s | Ditto, tonnage dues | | 320 0 | | | | | Newport | Boats belonging to Newport, from shore dues | Will of Lord of the | 10 0 | | | Manor. | | | | | | Aberdeen | Vessels belonging to Aberdeen pay 9_d._ for | | 1,427 0 | | ballast; other vessels 1_s._ | | | | | | | Portsoy } | | | 315 0 | Cullen } | | | 226 0 | Whitehills } | Vessels belonging to places in Earl Seafield’s|} | 56 0 | Blackpitts } | interest pay one-half harbour dues |} | | | | | | Gardenstown | Vessels belonging to Gardenstown and Troup | Authority of Mr. | 82 0 | | pay one-half shore dues. | Campbell. | | | | | | Inverness | Local boats under five tons register | | 105 0 | | | | | Glasgow | Vessels of burgesses of Dumbarton, from | 21 and 22 Vict., c. | 585 0 | Extinction of class. | harbour dues. | 149, s. 108. | | | | | | Port Glasgow | Burgesses of Dumbarton, for dues and works | | 2,951 0 | | existing prior to 1864. | | |

IRELAND.

Wicklow | Vessels belonging to Wicklow pay annually | | 130 0 | | 4_d._ per ton; others pay 3_d._ per voyage. | | | | | | | Cork | Freemen of Cork, from Mayor’s fees | | 317 0 | Ditto. | | | | Kinsale } | | { Charter | 40 0 | Carlingford } | Local vessels | { Custom | 128 0 | -----------------+-----------------------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+-----------------------

APPENDIX No. 12.

_Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping._

Although no records have been preserved—what a mass of knowledge must have been lost during the “dark ages”!—there can be no doubt that from the earliest period, at least during the plenitude of the Maritime Power of the Phœnicians, some means must have been adopted to show that a ship was seaworthy, and, as little doubt, that the relative qualities of ships, in this respect, were classified, and, if not recorded in any public documents, were, at least, well known to all persons interested in shipping. However much the world may have changed, human nature remains the same; and the merchants and Shipowners of ancient times must have desired, as they do now, to know if the vessel in which they embarked, or in which they shipped their goods, was fit to carry them safely: from this desire would, naturally, arise the competition of one Shipowner to have a better vessel than his neighbour, so that he might secure a preference. Nor can I suppose that this natural rivalry was confined, any more then than it is now, to the superiority in strength of hull, but was extended to equipment and speed. Indeed, that such was the case is established by the unquestioned records handed down to us of ancient vessels, including that in which St. Paul made his celebrated voyage of which I have given an account in the early portions of this work.

That the Italian Republics had some sort of classification for their vessels we may feel even more certain, although, unfortunately, throughout all time, no historians seem to have considered shipping worthy of their pen—how strange, considering the part it has played in the history of the world! for we find that they went so far as to stipulate by law that no vessel should be laden beyond a certain depth. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that they had means of ascertaining the relative qualities of vessels, and that records of these were kept and made public for the guidance of underwriters, whom we know then existed, and of all persons who required to entrust their lives or goods in them. It would, therefore, be absurd to deny the existence of institutions, till a very recent period, of some sort or another which had for their object the classification of ships, because no account of them has been written or preserved.

I dare say the Ancient Britons knew, among themselves, perfectly well which of their ships were built of seasoned oak, whether the planks were well put together, or fastened with tree-nails or copper bolts, and how they were caulked, fitted, and equipped. Nor is it at all unreasonable to suppose that some sort of record of all these facts was kept for their guidance. It would, indeed, be contrary to the instincts of human nature, where self-interest has always prevailed, if no such notes were taken and likewise recorded.

What particular form the earliest attempts at classification took must be left entirely to conjecture, the first traces of the existence of Register Books devoted specially to this purpose not appearing until about the middle of the last century. The oldest Register Books of which I have any knowledge are those preserved at Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, White Lion Court, Cornhill, and although the series is far from complete, and probably can never be made complete, an examination of them is both interesting and instructive. The earliest book preserved there is dated 1764-5. In it the classes assigned were denoted by the letters A, E, I, O, and U, which seem as now to have applied to the state of the ship’s hull, and the letters G, M, and B, appended, which applied to the equipment. These latter denoted—G, good; M, middling; and B, bad. Thus, A G denoted a first-class ship with a good equipment; and U B denoted a ship of the lowest class with a bad equipment.

The next book, in point of age, here, is dated 1768-9, and, instead of the capital letters A, E, I, O, U, denoting the class of the ship, as in the earlier book, the small letters a, b, c, appear, while the figures 1, 2 denoted the state of the equipment. Thus, a 1 denoted a first-class ship with a first-class equipment; b 2 denoted a second-class ship with a second-class equipment, &c.

The next Register Book in point of age, preserved, is dated 1775, and, in this book, the Roman capitals appear again for the hulls, while the figures 1 and 2 remain for the equipment. This, as far as I can learn, is the earliest book preserved containing the class A 1, which has become so familiar now, just a century from what appears to have been its first adoption.

On comparing the three books above mentioned, the curious fact is disclosed that the 1764 book does not belong to the same series as the 1768 and the 1775 books. The front cover and first pages of all three books are missing, but there is sufficient internal evidence to show clearly that the two later books form part of the series known as the ‘Underwriters’ Register,’ which gradually developed into or rather led up to the establishment of Lloyd’s Register. The earliest of them is supposed to date from 1760; whether the 1764 book is a rival which started immediately after it, or belonged to a Register Society which existed previously to 1760, is not known, but the latter is perhaps most probable. Its existence might, it is thought, have debarred the new Register Book from using the Roman capitals, and it is no great stretch to suppose that the old book had ceased before 1775, and left its successor free to adopt the designation or class A 1.

The book dated 1764-5 furnished the following particulars: Ship’s name, master and owner’s name, ports of trading, tonnage, when and where built, number and kind of guns, and number of men and the class of the ship. In the book dated 1775, the load-draught of water was given, but not the number of men. The Register Book was at this latter date published annually, and the corrections from time to time were posted or stamped in the books by means of type as at present. In the earlier books the revisions during the year, or rather two years—for the books were then biennial—had to be inserted with pen and ink. The following particulars have been for the most part obtained by an examination of old Register Books, but they are necessarily incomplete, as many of the early volumes were lost when the Royal Exchange was burnt down in 1838.

In the book for 1778 a list of ships of the Royal Navy is inserted, also a list of the ships in the East India Company’s service. General meetings used in those old days to be held by the subscribers (then termed members), of whom there were, at the end of 1780, 164. The subscription which at first was twelve guineas was eventually, about 1810, reduced to eight guineas, the funded property of the Register Society having reached 12,000_l._ For twenty years, afterwards, however, the expenses exceeded the income by 500_l._ per annum, and the subscription was, in consequence, raised to ten guineas. The particulars in the book for 1788, a copy of which is extant, were much as formerly; but a few curious additions had come to be inserted, such as whether the vessel had deep waists or low counters, and whether American property: and a record was made of the description of timber of which the ships were built, the number of decks, and if the beams were kneed. In 1798, the number of subscribers amounted to 245, and the number of members on the committee, who served gratuitously, was eleven. In that year’s book the Government ships are not inserted. In 1799, a number of Shipowners started an opposition book, termed the ‘Red Book,’ which continued until 1833. In 1824, it would appear that vessels supplied with iron cables did not receive the figure 1 or 2 unless they had hempen cables as well; and then, for the first time, the letters PIC were inserted against them, denoting that the iron cables had been proved. It does not appear by any of the early books we have examined that the class was given for any specified number of years, but it was omitted whenever the ship had not been surveyed within three years. It seems, however, to be an established fact that vessels were allowed to retain the A 1 character for a certain number of years, the number being entirely dependent on the port at which she was built, and varying from twelve years for a London built ship, to five to six years for a north country built ship. After those years had elapsed, the vessel became of the second class, and no amount of repairs or strengthening would enable her to be replaced as an A 1 ship. Here were two principles involved in classification obviously unsound. The first encouraged inferior building, and the second discouraged ships being efficiently repaired.

These and other mischievous tendencies were entirely removed when, in 1834, the two previously existing societies became united in the present ‘Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping.’

The object sought in establishing the existing society was to class vessels according to their intrinsic merits, so as to indicate by the class, as nearly as might be, the efficiency and value of each vessel. The subscription to the Register Book was fixed at three guineas. Rules were published, and surveyors appointed to survey vessels while building, as well as afterwards. The committee of the new register was constituted, as it is at present, of merchants, Shipowners, and underwriters, elected in equal proportions. Eight underwriters and four merchants are elected by the Committee of Lloyd’s, and eight Shipowners and four merchants are elected by the General Shipowners’ Society. In addition to the foregoing, the chairman of Lloyd’s and the chairman of the General Shipowners’ Society are ex-officio members of the Committee.

The Committee of Lloyd’s Register was, later on, still further augmented by the admission of eight members elected to represent the port of Liverpool, two to represent the Clyde, and three the north-east coast of England, one to represent Hull, and one Bristol.

The Register Book for 1834 included both classed and unclassed ships, but the latter were allowed to gradually drop out, until the ‘Register’ contained almost exclusively classed ships. Few particulars at that time were given of the vessels beyond the tonnage (old), the date and place of build, the captain’s and owner’s names, and the port of registry.

The rules as first issued for the building of wood ships were brief and general, but slight reference being made to wood steamers, which were then few in number. The first iron vessels classed in the Register Book were the _Sirius_, of 180 tons, built at London in 1837, and the _Ironside_, built at Liverpool in 1838; they had the A 1 class assigned without a term of years, and iron vessels were subsequently classed in the same way until 1854, when rules for their construction were framed, twelve A 1, nine A 1, and six A 1 classes, respectively, being assigned under those rules. In 1863 the mode of classing iron ships was altered to /A\ 1, /B\ 1, and /C\ 1. Rules for the building of composite ships (iron frames planked with wood) were devised in 1867, and the vessels were classed A 1 for a term of years. In 1870 new rules for the construction of iron ships were framed, based on the dimensions of vessels instead of on tonnage as formerly, and the class of iron vessels was altered from the monogram system indicated above to 100 A 1, 90 A 1, and 80 A 1;[318] and this is the mode of classing now in force. But to go back a few years:—In 1841 another register society was constituted at Liverpool, which existed for four years, and was in 1845 amalgamated with ‘Lloyd’s Register.’ In 1863 Lloyd’s Register Book was enlarged, and the registered length, breadth, and depth of the ships were given in addition to other particulars. In 1870, its size was still further increased. The book in 1874 received great additions, and is about four times the size of that issued in 1834. It now contains all British ships classed and unclassed of 100 tons and above, in addition to many vessels of smaller size, and those of other nations which have obtained classification therein, or others of sufficient importance to be inserted. The rules for shipbuilding were in 1874 also carefully revised, and issued with the enlarged book.

The information it contains may now be said to be very complete, for few particulars are omitted which are likely to be required in the ordinary course of business. Steps have been taken to publish the rules in the principal European languages, and I learn that already translations into the French, German, and Italian languages have been completed, and are in the press.

From the current Register Book it will be seen that there are now nearly 3000 subscribers, and there are about 8000 vessels classed, in addition to those of which the class is temporarily suspended, pending repairs or survey, or for some other cause. At the present time nearly the whole of the shipbuilding in the United Kingdom is under the survey of the Society’s surveyors for classification in the Register Book. On the 31st of March, 1874, there were building, under special survey in various parts of the world, 655 vessels of a total tonnage of 543,918 tons to class at Lloyd’s. On the 30th of June, 1874, the number of vessels building under special survey was 660, of a tonnage of 516,109 tons.

The vast amount of shipping, now being built to class in Lloyd’s Register, is doubtless due chiefly to the confidence which the British shipping community repose in the Society’s present rules for the building of vessels, and the manner in which they are administered.

In Italy, France, and the Netherlands there appears to be a manifest tendency towards classification in Lloyd’s Register, and foreign Shipowners, and even large companies—such as the General Transatlantic Company—are submitting their vessels to this Society’s survey for classification, thus placing them on an equality with ships belonging to this country.

During the recent agitation with respect to shipping in Canada, the Canadian Government communicated with the Committee of ‘Lloyd’s Register’ on the project of instituting a Canadian registry, and the following extract from the letter of the Canadian Ministry dated 11th July, 1873, is of interest as showing the high repute in which the Institution of which we are now writing is held in our North American Colonies:—

“The Minister of Marine[319] is not unmindful of the great benefits conferred on the shipping of this country by the establishment of Lloyd’s surveyors at Quebec, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island some years previous to the establishment of surveyors for ‘Bureau Veritas’ in this country, and in making his arrangements for the establishment of a Canadian registry, and the framing of rules and regulations for inspection and classification under it, he feels desirous to assimilate the system under which it will be worked to that of your institution, which is controlled by British sentiment, and has the confidence of such a large portion of the shipowners of the world, and the officers of which possess such great experience in all these matters.”

In judging of the value of ‘Lloyd’s Register of Shipping,’ it is important to observe that it is, essentially, a public body, having no pecuniary or commercial purposes to serve beyond those of the public interest, because (with the exception of a moderate fee to the Committee for their attendance) the whole of its receipts are devoted to the interests of shipping, to the extension of the society’s staff of surveyors, who are now stationed at all parts of the United Kingdom and in many places abroad, the improvement of the Register Book and other matters of public importance.[320]

It is impossible to speak too highly of the value of this great institution. It had its failings, and I recollect that, a quarter of a century ago, I made various attacks upon it through the public press; and, on the ground of its maintaining certain rules for classification, which I conceived were unsound in principle, I declined to classify any of my ships with the society. But all these rules have been long since altered; and when I look back to that time and compare the quality of ships then launched to those of the present day, it is impossible to question the great value of the services this institution has rendered to the country. A ship that would have had an A 1 class assigned to her forty years ago, would now be considered barely seaworthy.

Here we have another instance of the valuable work done in this country without Government aid or interference in any shape or form. A few individuals, for their own protection as well as for the protection of the public, associate themselves together, and, by their organisation, do perhaps more to save life and property at sea than all the laws which have been passed having that object in view. For the success of this valuable institution, its members, and I must add, the public, are greatly indebted to Mr. Thomas Chapman, F.R.S., who has been its chairman almost from its commencement in 1834, and who has devoted the best years of his life, sparing neither time nor labour to raise it to its present high position, while displaying a tact and sound judgment throughout in the management of its affairs rarely to be met with, combined with an honesty of purpose which must ever command respect and admiration. Nor has he lacked able and indefatigable colleagues, some of whom, as, for instance, the late Mr. William Tindall and Mr. Duncan Dunbar, and now Mr. George Marshall, Mr. W. H. Tindall, and others, have been active members of the Committee for a large portion of their lives. But not the least important secret of its success has been its complete system of organisation, and the competency of all persons connected with it for their respective duties, while the many checks upon its various branches tend to keep the working of the business of the society free from those temptations to which men holding responsible appointments are too frequently subjected. For instance, there is a chief surveyor, who has two assistants acting directly under him, and through whom all important reports from the different surveyors must pass, before being laid before the Committee, many of whom know quite as much about ship-building as the surveyors themselves—then all these surveyors are under the secretary, Mr. B. Waymouth, a gentleman of great practical knowledge and remarkable ability. If there is anything wrong, he will be sure soon to detect it; for, during the twenty-one years with which he has been connected with the society, he has gone through the different grades, from assistant-surveyor to chief-surveyor, acting as chief of the staff for some time before receiving the appointment of secretary. There are also annual visits of inspection made to all the principal building ports by the chairman and members of the Committee, the secretary, and chief surveyor. Moreover, the surveyors are not all located permanently, some being from time to time changed, and a feeling pervades the whole staff that if any one passes imperfect workmanship or materials, the fact is likely to be brought to light by the surveyors who follow, who are bound to report any apparent laxity, which is invariably inquired into by the Committee, and dealt with as circumstances require.

That the survey and classification of ships has been of immense advantage in saving life and property at sea may be seen by the following table. Here we see, that the losses of vessels classed at Lloyd’s have not, during the last three years, been one-half of the unclassed, and that for the eighteen months ending 30th January, 1875, while the percentage of loss of all vessels from all causes classed at Lloyd’s has been only 5·25 per cent., the losses of vessels unclassed, or not classed by that association, has been 12·32 per cent. These figures speak volumes in favour of the society.

_Losses of British Ships of 100 tons and upwards during 1874-5._

LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES, WRECKED, STRANDED, FOUNDERED, MISSING.

-------------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------------- | Number of Ships in | Number of Ships | Percentage of | Existence. | Lost. | Ships Lost. +----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------- YEAR. | Classed | Classed,|Unclassed,| Classed | Classed,|Unclassed,| Classed,|Unclassed, | and | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | and | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s |Unclassed.|Register.| Register.|Unclassed.|Register.| Register.|Register.| Register. -------------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------- 1874 | 11,569 | 6115 | 5454 | 593 | 181 | 412 | 2·96 | 7·55 First half, 1875 | 11,362 | 5893 | 5469 | 396 | 135 | 261 | 2·29 | 4·77 Total for +----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------- last 18 months | | | | | | | 5·25 | 12·32 -------------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------

LOSSES FROM FOUNDERING, MISSING, &C., EXCLUDING STRANDING, COLLISIONS, &C.

-------------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------------- | Number of Ships in | Number of Ships | Percentage of | Existence. | Lost. | Ships Lost. +----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------- YEAR. | Classed | Classed,|Unclassed,| Classed | Classed,|Unclassed,| Classed,|Unclassed, | and | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | and | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s |Unclassed.|Register.| Register.|Unclassed.|Register.| Register.|Register.| Register. -------------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------- 1874 | 11,569 | 6115 | 5454 | 281 | 103 | 178 | 1·68 | 3·26 First half, 1875 | 11,362 | 5893 | 5469 | 200 | 77 | 123 | 1·30 | 2·25 Total for +----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------- last 18 months | | | | | | | 2·98 | 5·51 -------------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------

-------------------+---------------------------------+--------------------------------- | All Losses, including Stranding,| Losses from Foundering, Missing, | Collisions, Foundered, | &c., but not Stranding, | Missing, &c. | Collisions, &c. +-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+---------- YEAR. | Classed | Classed, |Unclassed,| Classed | Classed, |Unclassed, | and | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | and | Lloyd’s | Lloyd’s | Unclassed.| Register.| Register.| Unclassed.| Register.| Register. -------------------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+---------- 1872 | 863 | 262 | 601 | 198 | 70 | 128 1873 | 938 | 301 | 637 | 316 | 108 | 208 1874 | 1258 | 313 | 945 | 506 | 162 | 344 First half, 1875 | 1013 | 273 | 680 | 389 | 118 | 271 -------------------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------

APPENDIX No. 13.

_Acts of Parliament passed between 1849 and 1875 inclusive, relating to Merchant Snips and Seamen, with a note of the more important Parliamentary Papers issued in regard to the Navigation Laws or Mercantile Marine of Great Britain._

1849. Emigrant Ships. Passenger Acts, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 33. ” Repeal of Navigation Laws, Foreign Trade, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 29. ” Pilotage, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 88. ” Mercantile Marine Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 93. 1851. Mercantile Marine Act Amendment Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 96. ” Steam Navigation Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79. ” Seamen’s Fund Winding-up, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 102. ” Wages, &c., of Deceased Seamen. Parl. Paper, 143, 1875. 1852. Passenger Acts, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 1. ” Foreign Deserters, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 26. 1853. (Emigrant Ships) Passengers Acts, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 44. ” Pilotage Laws Amendment Act, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 129. ” Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 131. ” Colonial Lighthouses. 1854. Commission on Local Charges on Shipping. Parl. Paper, C. 1836, 1854, C. 1911, and C. 1967, 1855. ” Repeal of Navigation Laws (Coasting Trade), 17 & 18 Vict. c. 5. ” Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. ” Ship Registry. ” Merchant Shipping Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. Tonnage. ” Wrecks. Wreck Register, Parl. Paper, C. 1260, 1875, p. 302. Liability. Legal Procedure. Seamen’s Money Orders. Parl. Paper, 161, 1875. ” Meteorology. 1855. Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1855, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91. ” Emigrants, 18 & 19 Vict., Passenger Act, c. 119. ” Seamen Deserting Unseaworthy Ships. Parl. Paper, C. 853, 1875. 1856. Shipping Dues. Parl. Paper, 225, 1856. ” Seamen’s Savings Banks, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 41. Parl. Paper, 161, 1875. 1857-8. Harbours of Refuge Committee. Parl. Paper, 344 and 344 i. 1858. 1859. Harbours of Refuge Commission. Parl. Paper, C. 2474, and C. 2506, Sess. 1, 1859. ” Commission on Manning the Navy. Naval Reserve; Training Ships. 22 & 23 Vict. c. 40. 1860. Anchors and Chain Cables. Parl. Paper, No. 182, 1860. ” Committee on Merchant Shipping. ” French Treaty. Parl. Paper, C. 2644, 1860. 1861. Harbours and Passing Tolls Act, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 47. Parl. Papers, 457, 1862, and 176, 1871. ” Bristol Channel Pilotage Act, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236. ” Lighthouse Commission. Parl. Paper, C. 2793, I., II., 1861. 1862. Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63. Examination of engineers. Inquiries. Rules as to lights, &c. Duty in case of collision. Steamboat passengers. Pilotage. Local lighthouses. Liability. Tonnage. International arrangements. Salvage jurisdiction. Delivery of goods. Repeal of law as to deck loading and for bulkheads. ” Commercial Code of Signals. ” Harbours transfer, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 69. 1863. Emigrant Ships. Passengers Act Amendment, 26 & 27 Vict. c. 51. ” Naval Reserve (officers), 26 & 27 Vict. c. 69. 1864. Chain Cables and Anchors, 27 & 28 Vict. c. 27. Parl. Paper, 139, 1864. ” Surveys in cases of Desertion. Questions 246 to 272, and App. No. 5 to Report of Unseaworthy Ships Commission. 1866. Timber Duties Repealed, 29 & 30 Vict. c. 36. ” Crown Land Act, 1866, 29 & 30 Vict. c. 62. Parl. Paper, 18, 1867. ” Meteorology. Storm Warnings. Report of Committee, 14, 145,. 1866 Parl. Paper, C. 1307, 1875. 1867. Merchant Shipping Act, Health of Seamen, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124. ” Local Dues Exemption, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 15; 33 & 31 Vict. c. 59. 1868. Colonial Shipping, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 129. ” County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 51. ” Sea Fisheries, 32 & 33 Vict. c. 45. ” Merchant Shipping Consolidation Bill. ” Merchant Shipping (Colonial), 32 & 33 Vict. c. 11. ” Coasting Trade of Colonies. Colonial Examinations. ” Merchant Shipping Consolidation Bill, No. 267 of 1869. 1869-70. Opinions of Consuls on British Ships and Seamen. Parl. Paper, C. 630, 1872. 1870. Compulsory Pilotages, No. 343, 1870. ” Consular connection with the United States. ” Merchant Shipping Code, No. 24 of 1870. Parl. Paper, 26-173, 1870. Scale showing draught of water. Survey in cases of Desertion. Record of draught of waters. Misdemeanour to send unseaworthy ships to sea. 1871. Merchant Shipping Code Bill, No. 15, C. 287, 1871. ” Merchant Shipping Act, 34 & 35 Vict. C. 110. Unseaworthy ships. ” Chain Cables Act, 34 & 35 Vict. c. 101. 1872. Merchant Shipping Act, 35 & 36 Vict. c. 73. 1873. Commission on Unseaworthy Ships. ” Merchant Shipping Act, 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85. Parl. Paper, C. 1152, 1875. 1874. Chain Cables, 37 & 38 Vict. c. 5. ” Tonnage Bill. Parl. Paper, C. 943, 1874. 1875. Combustion in Coal-laden Ships. Royal Commission. ” Fog Signals at Lighthouses. Parl. Papers, 119, 1873; 188, 1874, and 224, 1875. ” Marine Insurance. Parl. Paper, No. 304, 1875. ” Merchant Shipping Bill, No. 116, 1875. ” Unseaworthy Ships, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 88. ” Board of Trade and its Staff. Parl. Paper, 482, 1871.

It would thus appear that, since the Navigation Laws were repealed in 1849, Government has passed no less than forty-one Acts of Parliament, and introduced seven Bills not yet passed, many of them great and important measures, besides laying before Parliament numerous instructive and interesting papers, all of them devoted expressly to the purpose of improving our merchant ships and the condition of our merchant seamen. It is idle, and worse than idle, after these facts, to charge the respective Governments, since 1849, with having neglected the interests of our mercantile marine, and the best answer to such mischievous and unjust charges is the present very high position in all respects of our merchant fleets as compared with those of all other nations.

APPENDIX No. 14.

_Tonnage of Shipping Entered and Cleared in the United Kingdom, United States, France, Holland, Norway, Prussia, and Sweden, distinguishing between National and Foreign Ships from 1850 to 1873. With Cargoes and in Ballast._

------+-------------------------------------- | UNITED KINGDOM. +------------+------------+------------ Years.| British | Foreign | Total | Tonnage. | Tonnage. | Tonnage. ------+------------+------------+------------ 1850 | 9,442,544 | 5,062,520 | 14,505,064 | 65·1 per | 34·9 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1860 | 13,914,923 | 10,774,369 | 24,689,292 | 56·3 per | 43·7 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1870 | 25,072,180 | 11,568,002 | 36,640,182 | 68·4 per | 31·6 per | | cent. | cent. | ------+------------+------------+------------

------+--------------------------------------- | UNITED STATES. +-------------+-------------+------------ Years.|United States| Foreign | Total | Tonnage. | Tonnage. | Tonnage. ------+-------------+-------------+------------ 1850 | 5,205,804 | 3,503,837 | 8,709,641 | 59·8 per | 40·2 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1860 | 12,087,209 | 4,977,916 | 17,065,125 | 70·8 per | 29·2 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1870 | 6,992,967 | 11,332,095 | 18,325,062 | 38·2 per | 61·8 per | | cent. | cent. | ------+-------------+-------------+------------

------+----------------------------------- | FRANCE. +----------+-----------+------------ Years.| French | Foreign | Total | Tonnage | Tonnage. | Tonnage. ------+----------+-----------+------------ 1850 |1,891,512 | 2,719,207 | 4,610,719 | 41 per | 59 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1860 |3,502,912 | 4,953,824 | 8,456,736 | 41·4 per | 58·6 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1870 |4,289,206 | 9,317,531 | 13,606,737 | 31·5 per | 68·5 per | | cent. | cent. | ------+----------+-----------+------------

------+----------------------------------- | HOLLAND. +-----------+-----------+----------- Years.| Dutch | Foreign | Total | Tonnage. | Tonnage. | Tonnage. ------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1850 | 935,283 | 1,301,152 | 2,236,435 | 41·8 per | 58·2 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1860 | 1,341,711 | 2,053,269 | 3,394,980 | 39·5 per | 60·5 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1870 | 1,323,475 | 3,341,448 | 4,664,923 | 28·4 per | 71·6 per | | cent. | cent. | ------+-----------+-----------+-----------

------+---------------------------------- | NORWAY. +-----------+----------+----------- Years.| Norwegian | Foreign | Total | Tonnage. | Tonnage. | Tonnage. ------+-----------+----------+----------- 1850 | 1,050,307 | 346,639 | 1,396,945 | 75·2 per | 24·8 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1860 | 1,513,369 | 516,667 | 2,030,036 | 74·5 per | 25·5 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1870 | 2,264,233 | 967,753 | 3,231,986 | 70 per | 30 per | | cent. | cent. | ------+-----------+----------+-----------

------+----------------------------------- | PRUSSIA. +-----------+-----------+----------- Years.| Prussian | Foreign | Total | Tonnage. | Tonnage. | Tonnage. ------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1850 | 1,026,378 | 1,063,980 | 2,090,358 | 49·1 per | 50·9 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1860 | 1,711,442 | 1,588,382 | 3,299,824 | 51·9 per | 48·1 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1870 | 2,893,214 | 3,301,530 | 6,194,744 | 46·7 per | 53·3 per | | cent. | cent. | ------+-----------+-----------+-----------

------+----------------------------------- | SWEDEN. +-----------+-----------+----------- Years.| Swedish | Foreign | Total | Tonnage. | Tonnage. | Tonnage. ------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1850 | 462,884 | 604,002 | 1,066,886 | 43·4 per | 56·6 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1860 | 560,066 | 828,386 | 1,388,452 | 40·3 per | 59·7 per | | cent. | cent. | | | | 1870 | 1,374,433 | 2,954,151 | 4,328,584 | 31·8 per | 68·2 per | | cent. | cent. | ------+-----------+-----------+-----------

FOOTNOTES:

[314] Extract from the ‘New York Herald’ of 10th October, 1860:—

“MARITIME RELATIONS.”

“Remarks of Mr. W. S. Lindsay, M.P., at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, Tuesday evening, 9th October.

“Mr. Lindsay said: ... With these preliminary remarks, allow me to state to you the objects which I have in view in meeting you this evening. I will speak first in reference to the liability of Shipowners, because that, perhaps, is one of the most important questions, and one which I think is not sufficiently understood. I do not think that it is generally known how the Shipowners of both countries stand with regard to each other on this question. As our respective laws now stand, any Shipowner of this country or of England, however wealthy, may rise any morning and find himself a ruined man. That is a serious thing to consider. The law of England limits the responsibility of our Shipowners to the value of the ship and freight. In most other countries of Europe the responsibility of the Shipowners is also limited to a similar extent. That is likewise the law in this country, as far as I understand your law. That is to say, if one of your ships runs down another at sea, and you pay into your courts the value of the ship and freight, your responsibility cannot be carried beyond that value. Now this is very good so far as the laws of the respective countries stand. But if my ship runs down another ship in which any American subject is interested, I am made responsible, in your courts, not merely for the value of my ship and freight, but for whatever amount of damage may have been sustained through the collision brought about by my ship. Therefore if my ship runs down a vessel with cargo and freight on board to the extent of 200,000_l._ sterling, I would be responsible for the whole. If, on the other hand, your ships at sea run down any other ship in which a British subject is interested, and the action for loss is raised in our courts, you are held responsible for the full amount of the damage which your ship caused. This arises from the fact that our laws have jurisdiction only over British ships, and your laws have jurisdiction over only American ships. Now, considering the vast trade which is carried on between the two countries, I hope you may agree with me in the opinion, that as the laws of both countries are similar, the Shipowner’s liability in the courts of either country should in all cases be limited to the value of the ship and freight. I hope you will use your influence to extend that limitation to the vessels of both countries, which might easily be done by a convention between the two nations....”

[315] Goods imported in foreign vessels not being the produce or manufacture of that country pay one-fifth more duty than if imported in Portuguese vessels.

[316] 810_l._ allowed to persons exempt.

[317] Drawback allowed, 82_l._

[318] _Extracts from the Rules relating to the Classing and Periodical Surveys of Ships_ (1875).

IRON STEAM AND SAILING SHIPS.

Iron Ships are classed A 1 with a numeral prefixed, and retain their characters so long as, on careful annual and periodical Special Surveys, they are to be found in a fit and efficient condition to carry dry and perishable cargoes to and from all parts of the world.

100 A, 90 A, and 80 A, will denote vessels that have been built in accordance with, or equal to, the Rules, and Tables G 1, G 2, G 3, and G 4. Where deviations from the Rules are desired, a sketch of the midship section, plans, &c., must be first submitted, through the resident Surveyor, for the Committee’s approval, and the vessel built in accordance with the approved plans, under the Survey of the Surveyors to the Society.

Iron Ships built in accordance with previous Rules remain on the characters assigned to them.

All vessels must be submitted to occasional or _Annual Surveys_ when practicable; and to entitle them to retain their characters in the ‘Register Book,’ Special Surveys must be held at intervals of three and four years, according to the Class assigned.

WOOD SHIPS.

SHIPS CLASSED A 1 _for a term of Years_.—Section 34 requires that they shall be occasionally surveyed; _Annually_ if practicable. If not placed under _half-time or intermediate_ Surveys within periods not exceeding four years—or, in the case of the higher classed vessels, one-half of the terms of years originally assigned to them—their Characters will be liable to be withdrawn from the ‘Register Book.’

Sections 54 to 58 provide for the Continuation or Restoration of the Character A 1 for further periods.

SHIPS CLASSED A 1 _in Red_.—Section 60 provides for the Survey and Classing of Ships A 1 in Red, which is also a Class of vessels fit for the safe conveyance of dry and perishable goods _to and from all parts of the world_. They are allowed to retain this Character upon _Special Survey_, for terms in no case exceeding _two-thirds_ the periods originally assigned to them.

They are also subject to Annual Survey, and to the half-time Survey prescribed in Section 34.

SHIPS CLASSED Æ, for the conveyance of dry and perishable goods on _shorter voyages_, and for the conveyance of cargoes _not_ in their nature subject to sea damage _on any voyage_.

Section 61 requires that they should be submitted to _Annual_ Survey, and to Special Survey within periods not exceeding _four_ years.

SHIPS CLASSED E.—For the conveyance of cargoes not subject to sea damage _on any voyage_.

Section 65 requires that they should be submitted to _Annual_ Survey, and to Special Survey within periods not exceeding _three_ years.

Provision is made in the Rules for the Classification of Composite Ships; also of Foreign-built Ships constructed not in accordance with the Rules.

As all vessels are required to be surveyed periodically, the _date of Survey_ is the criterion of their state of efficiency _at that time only_.

[319] See Evidence before Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships. Question 11,135.

[320] _Statement of the Number of Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Surveyors to ‘Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping.’_

Exclusive Surveyors in the United Kingdom 47 Non-Exclusive Surveyors in the United Kingdom 14 Engineer Surveyors in the United Kingdom 7 Exclusive Surveyors in the Colonies and at Foreign Ports 6 Non-Exclusive Surveyors in the Colonies and at Foreign Ports 36 Engineer Surveyors stationed at Foreign Ports 3 --- Total number of Surveyors 113

INDEX.

_Advance notes_ wholly wrong in principle. We do not pay our servants their wages in advance, p. 542

——, less pretence in giving them to the sailor, than to the mechanic or house servant, _ibid._

——, proposal to make illegal, rejected by the House of Commons, _ibid._

——, comprehensive view of, by the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, p. 543

_America_, rapid progress of, in the first half of the present century, p. 1

——, reasons for this, pp. 2-3

——, eighty years after the Declaration of Independence, rivals all other nations, in the amount of shipping, p. 3

——, in 1860, owns more tonnage than the whole of the United Kingdom, p. 3, _note_

——, distinct contracts for the sailors of, in the bank and cod, and whale fisheries, p. 9

—— adopts from other nations the laws best fitted for her condition, _ibid._

——, various regulations in, with reference to contracts between seamen and masters, pp. 9-10

——, duties of mates in, much like those of other countries, p. 10

——, in, masters of vessels are liable to actions of law if they enforce their authority too severely, _ibid._

——, regulations adopted in the courts of, for the duties of masters and mates, pp. 10-11

—— caused the first infringement of the principle of the old Navigation Laws, p. 99

——, Protectionist farmers in, stop the importation of Canadian corn into, p. 126

——, the policy of, with reference to the English repeal of the Navigation Laws most important to ascertain, p. 212

——, general policy of, ever since her Independence, has been Protectionist, p. 213, _note_.

——, the dwellers in, on the sea-board of the States, very strongly Protectionist, p. 215

—— builds, in 1848, a new and very superior class of vessels for trade from New York to California, and thence to China, p. 289

—— declines the convention with reference to privateering, p. 407

_American Captains_, memorial of, in 1820, to Congress complaining of the differential duties levied by France, p. 4, and _note_.

_American Government_ had, for many years, to expend large sums for destitute seamen, p. 15

—— at once accepts the conditions of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, but withholds their own coasting trade, p. 286

_American Law_, careful provisions by, for all sailors employed in their ships, p. 11

—— considers the masters and owners of ships common carriers, p. 20

—— as applied to mercantile matters very nearly the same as the English, _ibid._

—— expressly provides that merchant seamen shall have full opportunities of laying the complaints before their consuls abroad, p. 23

_American merchant service_ offers more inducements than the English for young men to enter it, p. 17

—— generally anxious that their captains should have a share in vessels, _ibid._

——, hence, secures for officers in its ships, men of superior position and attainments, _ibid._

——, nature of the contracts in, between owners and captains, p. 18

——, excellent schools provided by, for training boys, _ibid._

——, sailors employed in, can almost always read, write, and cypher, _ibid._

——, spirit and character of the “shipping articles” usual in, as affecting seamen, owners, masters, and consignees, pp. 19-20

——, conditions about wages, in, with securities for their due payment, pp. 21-2

——, power given to the sailors employed in, to appeal to the Admiralty courts, pp. 22-3

_American Navigation Laws_, conditions and peculiarities of, pp. 328-9

_American Seamen_, Act of 1803 and 1840 with reference to the payment and discharge of, pp. 12-14

——, general character of, p. 25

_American ships_ (under the Navigation Law) might carry British goods to British settlements in the East Indies, p. 95

—— allowed to clear from English ports to China, while English merchants could not send a ship thither, p. 105

_American Shipowners_ require the masters of their vessels to have knowledge of commercial pursuits as well as of navigation, p. 15

_American tonnage and classification_ differ from that of England, p. 187

_American Vessels_, Masters of, far superior to those of English ships during the first half of the present century, p. 15

_American War of Independence_, at the commencement of, the Americans could neither import nor export, except in British ships, p. 100

_Americans_ obtain, nearly, a monopoly of the trade between China and Great Britain in 1849, p. 290

_Americans_ so outstripped by English sailing vessels, that English ships are often chartered to bring early teas from China to New York, pp. 418-20

_Americans of the West_, naturally hope for a free exit of their goods to Europe, &c., from the mouth of the St. Lawrence, p. 125

—— and the Canadians naturally desire Free-trade, p. 125

_Ancel, M._, discouraging report of, pp. 458-9

_Ancona, Consul of_, reply by, to the Foreign Office Circular, p. 45

_Annatto_, case of ship laden with, pp. 119-20.

_Anne, Queen, Act of_, for securing seafaring apprentices, p. 183

_Anti-Corn-Law League_, object and action of, pp. 77-8

_Austria_, regulations of, with reference to the commanders of their merchant vessels, p. 36

——, special Commercial Treaty made with, 1838-40, pp. 110-2

——, details of treaty with, in 1840, valuable as showing the influence of the new civilizing power, steam, p. 111

_Austria, French War with_, caused a great demand for English shipping, p. 398

_Bahia, the Consul at_, reply by, to the Foreign Office Circular, pp. 47-8

_Baker, Mr._, Consul at Riga, reply by, to Foreign Office Circular, p. 43

_Bancroft, Mr._, has interviews with Lord Palmerston in the autumn of 1847, p. 163

——, emphatic language of, at one of these, _ibid._

——, doubt if he meant all he said, pp. 163-4

——, letter from, to Lord Palmerston, Nov. 3, 1847, pp. 164-5

——, communications by, to the English Government, imply _complete reciprocity_, p. 169

——, certain, that up to March 5, 1849, he had succeeded in deceiving both Lord Palmerston and Mr. Labouchere, p. 223

_Bank Charter Act of 1844_ suspended for a second time, 1858, causes the failure of many banks, p. 361

_Baring, Mr. T._, thinks that we ought in all cases to adhere to the main principles of the Navigation Laws, p. 261

—— thinks if the merchants have really suffered as much as stated from the laws, they would have complained, _ibid._

_Belvidere, The, or Royal Alfred Aged Seaman’s Institution_, great value of, p. 37, _note_

_Bentinck, Lord George_, resumes the debate on the Navigation Laws on June 9, 1848, the fourth night, p. 201

——, death of, Sept. 21, 1848, and universal respect to, shown on the day of his funeral, p. 219

_Bergasse, M._, a Protectionist, gives evidence, practically, confirming the Free-trade assertions, p. 454

_Berkeley, Captain_, evidence of, p. 186

_Board of Trade, Commission by_, May 17, 1847, to examine into matters connected with the commercial marine, p. 50

——, _return of_, confirms the _general_ truth of the replies to Mr. Murray’s Circular to the Consuls, _ibid._

_Booker, Mr., Vice-Consul of Cronstadt_, reply to the Foreign Office Circular, pp. 42-3

_Boston_ sends ships to the East Indies and China as early as 1789, p. 7

_Bouverie, Mr._, amendment proposed by, not accepted by even the Shipowners, p. 249

—— urges that his amendment is strictly in accord with Free-trade principles, pp. 251-2

——, amendment of, ultimately supported by only 15 members, p. 254

_Braysher, Mr._, evidence of (as Collector of Customs in London), on the practical working of the Navigation Laws, pp. 153-5

——, peculiar anomalies in the Navigation Laws shown by, p. 154

_Bright, J., Mr._, energetically supports Mr. Cobden in his exertions against Protection, pp. 77-8

—— urges in vain on Mr. Labouchere the importation of cotton, then abundant at Havre, p. 155, _note_

_British Ships_, condition constituting previously to the repeal of the Navigation Laws, pp. 93-95

——, the owner of, under the Navigation Law, could not live in Paris, p. 117

—— are excluded from the trade between the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States, p. 373

_British Ships and Seamen_, Acts of Parliament passed between 1849 and 1875 inclusive, relating to British ships and seamen, and other Parliamentary Papers respecting thereto, Append. p. 634

_British Tonnage_, Returns of, if sufficiently extended, afford an adequate estimate of the actual state of British shipping, p. 375

_Brougham, Lord_, splendid oration of, against the repeal of the Navigation Laws, pp. 266-74

—— condemns with great severity Mr. Porter’s statistics, pp. 267-9

—— objects to sweep away all restriction without obtaining any equivalent, p. 269

—— holds that the policy of the Navigation Laws rested on the partial monopoly they gave to British shipping, p. 271

——, and that the fleets, with which we destroyed the power of Bonaparte, were created by the Navigation Laws, p. 272

—— believes the repeal of the Navigation Laws would encourage the infernal slave-trade, p. 273

_Buchanan, Mr._, replies to Mr. Crampton, by sending him the Act of Congress of May 24, 1828, p. 212

—— distinctly states that a letter had been written on Nov. 3, 1846, urging a Free-trade treaty between America and England, but _reserving the coasting-trade of both countries_, p. 214

_Bülow, Count_, replies on the part of Prussia that no pledge could be given for future legislation, p. 216

_Buoyancy_, the reserve, no possible means of determining, p. 528

_Cabotage_, technical name for the French coasting-trade, p. 447

_Canada_, fleets from, respectively called, according to the time of year, the “Spring” or the “Fall” fleets, p. 123

——, by great exertions, secures more rapid communication between interior and the sea than America, _ibid._

——, _people of_, naturally hope that the German emigration to the United States would pass through it, pp. 124-5

——, _produce of_, so long as protected, had little ground for complaint, p. 130

——, could not be imported into England through New York, p. 131.

——, general results of the effect of the Navigation Laws as regarding, pp. 132-3

_Canadians_, a large number of them, maintain that the effect on Canada of Protection was, practically, mischievous, p. 127

—— assume that the opening of Canadian seaports to vessels of all nations would restore their trade, p. 128

——, though for a modified Free-trade, which might benefit themselves, were not prepared for it unconditionally, _ibid._

—— naturally hope that they may be able to engross the trade of Western America, p. 130

_Canton_, American vessels allowed to trade there, though British vessels were not, p. 106

_Cardwell, Mr._ (_now Lord Cardwell_) thinks the effect of maintaining the “long-voyage” clause would defeat the policy of the warehousing system, p. 237

—— asserts that the “warehousing system” was the result of a judicious relaxation of the Navigation Laws, p. 238

——, remarkable action of, in the preparation of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, p. 320, _note_

——, greatly increases the number of lighthouses, &c., p. 414

_Castro, Viscount de_, replies sarcastically to Lord Palmerston’s letter of inquiry, pp. 216-17

_Chain cables_, great mistake to test them by enormous strains, as these tend to destroy the fibre of the iron, p. 318, _note_, and p. 480

—— and anchors, now tested through the agency of Lloyd’s Registry, p. 557

_China, trade with_, passages of “Clipper Ships” engaged in, Append. p. 611

_Clay, Mr._, though a Free-trader, declines to support Government till the restrictions on Shipowners were done away with, p. 200

“_Clipper Ships_” first built at Aberdeen in 1846, to compete with the Americans on the Chinese coasts, p. 288

_Coasting clauses_, in Mr. Labouchere’s Bill, withdrawn on the receipt of Mr. Buchanan’s letter, p. 223

_Coasting Trade_ rigidly kept in the hands of England; indeed, made more strict by the Act of 1825, pp. 106-7

—— thrown open, and manning clause repealed, in 1854, p. 353

——, we do not even now know the number of ships in our, p. 465

_Coasting Trade of America_ liable to be diminished on the opening of the railway across Central America to Panama, p. 374

——, all parties agree that America has acted selfishly in withholding her, p. 384

——, error in supposing it only a trade to San Francisco, p. 385

_Coasting Trade of North American Colonies_ still confined to British vessels, p. 400

_Cobden, Richard_, letter from, to Mr. Lindsay, March, 1856, p. 75 and _note_

—— the chief of the new statesmen, who exploded the pernicious fallacies of Protection, pp. 74-77

—— asserts that we can build better ships than the foreigners, and cheaper too, quality considered, p. 201

—— that the sailor is as able to compete with foreigners as the artisan, _ibid._

—— that the Shipowner pays none of the rates with which the landowner was charged, p. 202

—— asserts that the constant assertion of maritime superiority tends only to provoke other nations, _ibid._

—— first meets M. Chevalier at the Exhibition of 1851, p. 436

—— determines with him to modify the tariffs of France, _ibid._

_“Coffin” Ships_, if these still exist, this is not from any neglect on the part of Parliament, p. 503

_Colbert_, in 1661, devotes much attention to French maritime affairs, p. 423

_Collision, after_, masters of ships compelled, by Act of 1853, to stand by and help, p. 513

_Colonie_, this name, in the strictest sense, confined to La Guadaloupe, Martinique, and Bourbon, p. 434

_Colonie, or Colonie à Culture_, represents the English _Plantation_, _ibid._

_Commercial Marine of France_, Commission to inquire into, 1870, pp. 450-1

——, rival views with reference to, of the French Protectionists and Free-traders, pp. 451-2

_Commercial Maritime Law_, in inextricable confusion, owing to the multitude of Acts, p. 308

_Commercial Treaties_, various, passed between England and America between 1794 and 1817, pp. 59-60

_Commission, Royal, on Unseaworthy Ships_, appointed unanimously, in answer to Mr. Plimsoll’s appeals, p. 484

——, its members, their ability and impartiality, _ibid._

—— see, clearly, that increasing legislation will not remedy the evils complained of, p. 486

——, opinion of, as to what “unseaworthiness” really means, _ibid._

—— determine to leave to the Shipowner the proper loading of his ships, p. 488

—— consider that a Government survey would only remove the responsibility from the Shipowners, p. 489

——, and, therefore, doubt its expediency, _ibid._

—— point out that, already, there are great complaints of Government interference, _ibid._

——, decline to make the powers of the Board of Trade more stringent, p. 491

—— are of opinion that the shipping offices have been of great value, p. 496

—— propose a new scheme for training boys for sea, p. 498

—— doubt the expediency of the present form of certificate of the Board of Trade as regards emigrant ships, p. 532

—— suggest the appointment of a permanent legal adviser to the Board of Trade, p. 549

——, Report of, on the whole, most able, p. 501

_Committee of 1836_, for inquiring into shipping, form many sound conclusions, p. 466

_Committee of 1843_, estimate by, of the loss of ships and lives, pp. 467-8

—— confirms the Act of that of 1846, and adds much new and useful matter, p. 471

_Congress, in 1789_, retaliates on British Commerce and Navigation, pp. 57-8

——, conciliatory action of May, 1830, in reference to trade with England, p. 63

_Coninck, M. de_, an ardent advocate of Free-trade, p. 453

——, evidence as to the real value of the complaints of the Protectionists, _ibid._

_Conseil Supérieur_ publishes three large volumes of evidence, and announces that great changes in the French law are imperative, p. 445

_Consuls_, alike in America and England, forbidden to trade on their own account, p. 13

_Convention of Commerce_ between Great Britain and France, 1826, Append. p. 563

_Cooper, Mr. T. C._, graphic account of a race up Channel with two American ships, p. 291, _note_

_Corn, enormous price of, in 1847_, and consequent disastrous reaction, p. 159

_Council, Order in, July, 1823_, issued in opposition to the Act of Congress of March, 1823, p. 62

——, further, July, 1826, directed against the action of Congress, p. 63

—— can modify, in certain cases, the stringency of the Navigation Laws, p. 96

——, power, given to relax or restrict trade with different places, of the most capricious nature, p. 114

_Crisis, Commercial, of 1857-8_, various causes of, pp. 361-2

_Customs_ do not take notice of coasting vessels in ballast, or with certain cargoes, p. 465

_Customs, Act of, 1825_, general effect, the throwing open English ports to the rest of world, under certain exceptions, p. 61

_Dantzig, the Consul at_, reply by, to the Foreign Office Circular, pp. 45-6

_Decazes, Duke_, sensible views of, p. 460

_Denmark_, excellent system in, of education for the mates and for the higher grades of the merchant service, p. 28

_Disraeli, Mr._, replies, sarcastically, to Mr. Cobden, pp. 202-3

——, on reporting progress, protests against the whole Bill as already seriously damaged, pp. 254-5

—— thinks all that we had heard last year about the United States must be taken as a _tabula rasa_, p. 263

_Draught of water_, very little advantage in publicly recording this, p. 529

“_Droits de tonnage_” levied on all foreign vessels up to 1793, p. 424

—— on foreign ships, abolished, ultimately, in 1867, p. 432

_Drouyn de Lhuys, M._, letter from, declining the overtures of Lord Palmerston for reciprocity, pp. 215-6

_Drummond, H._, amusing but illogical speech of, pp. 244-6

_East India, Trade with_, has been always exceptional, p. 103

——, conceded to ships not fulfilling the rules of the Navigation Laws, _ibid._

——, Lascars employed in, are not to count as British seamen, and a certain proportion of English sailors required according to ship’s tonnage, p. 105

_East India Company (Dutch)_ practically prevents English vessels from trading with Dutch settlements in the East, p. 400

_Education_ needed even more for sailors than for landsmen, but England has done little yet in this direction, p. 541

_Ellenborough, Lord_, unwilling to diminish our navy, at the present period, by a single ship, p. 274

——, the more so, that by the new agency of railways, great forces can be suddenly concentrated on any one place, p. 275

—— moves in Committee of May 24 that the operation of the Bill be deferred for one year, but is beaten by twelve, pp. 280-2

—— urges that the effect of such undue haste will be to throw 45,000 seamen out of employ, p. 281

——, on third reading, points out many things that ought at once to be done for the relief of the Shipowner, pp. 283-4

_Emigrant ships_, the year 1854, the most fatal to them on record, no less than nine having been then lost, p. 324

——, no less than _sixty-one_ lost in _seven_ years ending Dec. 1853, _ibid._

——, disgraceful state of the early, pp. 330-1

——, great mortality on board, noticed by Congress in Jan. 1854, p. 331

——, order by United States Passenger Act, that every master shall pay a fine of ten dollars for each passenger who may die on the voyage, p. 334

_Emigrants_, average annual number of, between 1815 and 1854, 102,923 persons, p. 323

——, medical inspection of, unsatisfactory, p. 328

——, various rules drawn out to secure the safety and comfort of, pp. 331-3

——, caution to, not to purchase “through” tickets, p. 337

——, but “through” tickets by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada perfectly reliable, _ibid._

_Emigrants, dietary to_, amount and character of, required originally, with the changes therein, pp. 329-330

_Emigration_, sums sent home for, amounted to from half a million to one million and a half annually, p. 323

——, resolutions, 1855, of the Senate of the United States in reply to questions on, pp. 333-4

_Emigration Commissioners_, many and valuable improvements suggested and carried out by, p. 337

_Emigration officers_ appointed at Liverpool in 1864, and their duties, pp. 327-8

_Emigration system previously to 1855_, evil working of, and frauds practised on the emigrants, pp. 325-6

_Engineers (marine)_ required, by the Act of 1862, to undergo the same examination in steam as Masters in sailing, p. 347

——, which, though at first doubted, has proved of great value, p. 348

_England_, alone of the nations, had no code for the regulation of her merchant sailors, p. 298

_England, people of_, half inclined to join France against Austria, p. 397

_‘Equador,’ The_, case of, as showing the fallacious and evil working of the Registry Law, pp. 115-16

——, importance of the decision of the Court of King’s Bench in this case, p. 116

——, showing, as it does, that a Corporation wholly consisting of foreigners may register a ship as British, p. 117

_Europe, trade with_, continually modified, but finally settled by the Customs Act of 1825, pp. 101-2

——, character of it, under the Navigation Laws, pp. 101-3

_Examination of Masters, Mates, &c._, has produced immense good since the passing of the Act of 1850, p. 302

_Exhibition of 1851_, started by Society of Arts, and supported by the Prince Consort, p. 435

_Farrer, Mr. T. H._ (now Chief Secretary to the Board of Trade), England greatly indebted to him for his exertions to ameliorate the state of the merchant seamen, pp. 298-9

——, evidence of, on the question of over-insurance, p. 546

—— opposes all legislation interfering with the details of a Shipowner’s duty, p. 551

_Favoured-Nation Clause_, sometimes, no doubt, beneficial, but often pernicious, p. 126

_Fleury, M._, letter from, and reply, June 17 and 23, 1862, Append. p. 590

_Foreign nations_ are suspicious of even a modified surrender of Protection on the part of England, p. 64

—— do not understand the real position of free England, pp. 64-5

_Foreign Office_, defects in, when dealing with commercial matters, p. 405

—— apathetic, in not securing, by diplomacy, better terms of reciprocity from foreign Powers, p. 406

——, correspondence with, respecting the liability of British Shipowners in the courts of the United States of America, p. 571

_Foreign Office Circular_, of _July 1, 1843_, requiring information from Consuls abroad with reference to the character of British shipmasters and seamen, pp. 42-3

—— of great value, though unfair and invidious in form, p. 43

_Foreign Shipmasters_ far more careful than the English in the stowage and transport of their cargoes, p. 52

_Fortescue, Mr. (now Lord Carlingford)_, provisions in Bill introduced by, in 1873, strongly in favour of seamen, p. 515

_France_, peculiar system adopted in, of combining the navy and commercial marine, p. 30

——, all seamen in, considered to be in Government employ, and, therefore, enrolled and pensioned, _ibid._

—— provides for her seafaring classes a better education than that of any other country, p. 31

——, Reciprocity Treaty with, may be taken as a specimen of other such treaties, p. 67.

—— in reply to Lord Palmerston, declines to have anything to do with Free-trade, p. 215

——, real object of war with Austria to advance her frontier to the Rhine, pp. 397-8

——, since Charles IX., has had to depend on other nations for many necessaries of life, p. 435

——, Commercial Treaty of 1860, the result of the labours of Messrs. Cobden and Chevalier, p. 436

——, its general conditions and effects, p. 437

——, the great natural advantages of, not her armies, the true sources of her lasting greatness and happiness, p. 462

_France, people of_, probably not more than one million (out of thirty millions) depend for livelihood on French shipping, p. 439

_Free-trade_, Manchester and Liverpool at issue on this great question, pp. 134-5

——, chief advocates of, before Mr. Ricardo’s committee—Messrs. Lefevre, Macgregor, and Porter, pp. 136-40

_Free-trade Party_ triumphant after dissolution of July, 1847, p. 158

_Free-traders, many_, lose their seats in Parliament owing to the vigorous action of the Shipowners’ Society, p. 389

_Freight_, by the law of nations, considered to be the “Mother of Wages,” p. 21

——, enormous rise in, during 1853, and the causes thereof, pp. 296-7

_French Assembly_, under the influence of M. Thiers, reverse in Jan. and Feb. 1872 much of the law of 1866, p. 457

_French Colonial Trade (Pacte Colonial)_, special regulations for preserving and increasing, pp. 425-6

——, three special rules for, p. 426

——, regulations of, extremely disadvantageous to France herself, and hard on her colonies, pp. 426-7

—— substantially maintained, and more vigorously enforced by the French revolutionary leaders, p. 427

——, measures adopted for, after the French Revolution, to be considered as _war measures_, p. 428

——, many of the regulations of, exact copies of the old English ones, _ibid._

——, preserved with some modifications by all its Governments, p. 433

_French Colonies_, complaint of the chief, that they no longer derive any advantage from the _Pacte Colonial_, p. 443

_French Differential Duties_ known by the names of the _surtaxes de pavillon_ and the _surtaxes d’entrepôt_, p. 432

_French, Emperor of_, letter to, by Mr. Lindsay, on the subject of the Navigation Laws of France, Jan. 10, 1861, Append. p. 582

_French Export Houses_ constantly employ English shipmasters as giving them less trouble, p. 455

_French Markets_, after the peace, for some time supplied by the aid of foreign shipping, p. 431

_French Mercantile Law_ of May 19, 1866, leading conditions of, pp. 446-7

_French Mercantile Marine_ did not keep pace with French commerce owing to the baneful influence of Protection, p. 435

—— increased where in competition with that of other nations, p. 439

—— decreased under the operation of their Protective Laws, _ibid._

—— so like the English as often to be called _Les Actes de Navigation_, p. 430

_French Mercantile Marine Law_, as amended, did not finally pass the Chambers till 1866, p. 445

_French Navigation Law_, the first, absurdly stringent under Charles IX., p. 422

——, impartial law of July 3, 1860, with reference to, p. 443

_French Ship_, conditions entitling a vessel to this privilege, pp. 423-4

——, no alien permitted to command, p. 424

——, various enactments for securing the true character of, p. 429

_Genoa, Consul at_, reply by, to the Foreign Office Circular, p. 45

_Gibson, Milner, Mr._, gives the sanction of Government to Mr. Ricardo’s motion, p. 88

——, the country greatly indebted to, as a practical sailor, for carrying out the “Rule of the road at sea,” pp. 345-6

——, value of the Bill introduced by, in 1861, p. 413

_Gladstone, Mr._, objects to the discretionary power given to the Queen in Council, and to the reservation of the coasting trade, p. 198

——, relying chiefly on the sincerity of Mr. Bancroft, cautiously supports the repeal of the Navigation Laws, pp. 198-9

—— thinks it best to stick to the path of experience, and to carry out principles analogous with those of Mr. Huskisson, p. 239

—— strongly urges the removal of every burden with which the Shipowner is now oppressed, _ibid._

—— urges that experience only points to _conditional_ relaxation, p. 240

—— again strongly opposes the idea of retaliation, _ibid._

——, in fine, thinks that substantial justice can only be rendered by conditional legislation, p. 242

—— again urges conditional legislation, but not in the form proposed by Mr. Bouverie, p. 250

—— would, at once, remove all taxes affecting the British Shipowners, p. 251

_Government_ cannot legislate or dictate how a particular trade is to be carried on, p. 539

—— very properly concludes that it cannot leave the lives of many persons in the hands of incompetent officers and men, p. 52

_Government, English_, informs the American Government of its intentions with regard to the Navigation Laws, one day before the Queen’s speech, 1847, p. 166

_Graham, Sir James_, very able speech of, on third reading, pp. 258-260

—— objects to both reciprocity and retaliation, p. 259

—— considers the whole question involved to be Protection or no Protection, p. 260

_Gray, Mr. T._, rhymes made by, to facilitate recollection of the “Rule of the road at sea,” p. 345, _note_

——, thinks several of the Acts for saving life do more harm than good, p. 492

_Great Britain_ has only quite recently instituted a system of examinations for her mercantile marine, p. 36

—— possesses no State institution for the benefit of her merchant seamen, p. 37

_‘Great Republic,’ The_, the finest and largest of the American clippers, pp. 359-360

_Grey, Earl_, replies to the strictures of the Earl of Hardwicke, p. 172

—— clearly shows that the Navigation Laws were of no advantage to the shipowner, p. 275

——, and proves that the Navigation Laws were a proximate cause of the independence of America, p. 276

_Guano-trade with Africa_ asserted by General Shipowners’ Society to be the cause of the return of prosperity to the shipping interest, p. 70

_Harbours of Refuge_, large sums of money advanced for the construction or improvement of, p. 515

_Hardwicke, Earl of_, selected as the mouth-piece of the Protectionists in the Upper House, p. 171

——, speech of, Feb. 25, 1848, on moving a Select Committee of the House of Lords, pp. 171-2

_Harper, J. W. A._, evidence of, as to the impossibility of enforcing a load-line, p. 526

_Harris, Capt._, tries to enforce the apprenticing system, but fails, p. 256

_Harrowby, Earl of_, holds that where the interests of commerce and navigation conflict, those of navigation ought to predominate, p. 275

_Henley, Mr._, thinks that the principle of Free-trade has not been sufficiently tested as yet for it to be applied to another great interest, p. 238

_Herries, Mr._ (Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1828), takes up the cause of the Shipowners in 1848, by a counter resolution, p. 192

——, speech of, pp. 193-7

—— states that interests to the extent of 60 millions are affected by any change in the Navigation Laws, p. 195

—— professes, generally, to follow the Protective policy inaugurated by Mr. Huskisson, _ibid._

—— hopes that no merely experimental changes will be countenanced or adopted, p. 196.

——, amendment of, finally rejected by a majority of 117, p. 206

——, March, 1849, moves that Mr. Labouchere’s Bill be read again “this day six months,” p. 231

—— considers all the details of the Bill with great minuteness, pp. 231-2

—— makes a final speech against the Bill on the third reading, April 23, 1849, pp. 256-7

—— urges the great importance of the petitions against the Bill, and that the Navigation Laws have nothing strictly to do with Free-trade, p. 257

_Hesketh, Mr._, Consul at Rio di Janeiro, reply of, to the Foreign Office Circular, p. 47

_Hildyard, Mr._, points out the great value of the coasting trade of America, p. 243

_Holt, Mr. A._, sensible note by, on the effect of Government surveys, p. 490, _note_

_Hudson, Mr._ (as member for Sunderland), supports the Protectionist side of the question, p. 199

_Impressment_, indefensible, and not to be resorted to, except when the country is actually in peril, p. 184, _note_

_Improvement of condition of Masters, Mates, &c._, Act passed in 1850 with this object, p. 298

—— receives Royal assent August 14, and details, pp. 299-306.

_India_, the Governor-General of, empowered to grant special privileges to States in alliance with the East India Company, p. 104

_Inspection by Government_ of manufacturers’ work, wholly wrong in principle, p. 480

_Inspection by Government_, much doubt whether it would do the good expected, p. 482

_Insurance of Ships_, difficulties surrounding this subject, especially in the case of valued policies, p. 547

——, the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, urge the necessity of a complete revision of the laws on, p. 548

_Interference of Government_ may be carried so far as to be very injurious, p. 509, and _note_

_Jardine, Matheson and Co._ commission Hall and Co., of Aberdeen, to build a ship of as fine lines and greater strength than any of the Americans, pp. 293-4

_Java_, case of ship from, laden with coffee, pp. 120-1

_Labouchere, Mr._, replies to the arguments of Mr. Herries, p. 197

—— formally lays the Government resolution for repeal of the Navigation Laws on the table, Aug. 10, 1848, p. 207

—— brings in the Bill for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, Aug. 16, 1848, but defers discussion on it till next session, _ibid._

—— (as President of the Board of Trade) moves, Feb. 14, 1849, nearly the same resolutions as in preceding year, p. 220

—— affects to believe that the Americans will not persevere in calling a voyage from New York to California a “Coasting” one, yet they do still, _ibid._

——, his scheme for the Coasting trade, after all, a bungling one, p. 222

——, after the receipt in England of Mr. Buchanan’s letter, still maintains that Mr. Bancroft “was a most honourable and straightforward man,” p. 223

——, motion of, for second reading of the Bill carried by fifty-six, p. 246

——, on motion for going into Committee, March 23, withdraws the Coasting clauses, p. 247

—— tries to excuse himself by showing that Sir T. Fremantle had changed his mind, p. 248

‘_Lancelot, Sir_,’ The, extraordinary speed of, in sailing from China to London, p. 418, and _note_

_Lansdowne, Marquess of_, introduces Bill for repeal of Navigation Laws into the Lords, May 7, 1849, p. 265.

—— thinks that the Navigation Law might have been a suit of impenetrable armour, but is now only an imperfect garment of shreds and patches, _ibid._

—— urges that Bonaparte at the height of his power longed for three things he could not obtain—ships, colonies, and commerce, p. 266

_Lefevre, Mr. (now Sir J. S.)_, well fitted by his mathematical training to study complicated questions of law or trade, p. 137

_Legislation, most recent_, not unlike the old Navigation Laws as attempting to regulate the business of Shipowners, p. 552

_Letters of Marque_, Government decline issuing, at the commencement of the Crimean War, p. 353

_Liability, Limited_, principle of, as shown in the powers given to the Board of Trade, p. 340

_Liberal policy of England_, no doubt the cause of the great increase of imports and exports in 1853, p. 296

——, the nations who have adopted it have far outstripped all others, p. 421

_Liddell, Mr. (Earl Ravensworth)_, replies, on the Protectionist side, to Mr. Ricardo, pp. 88-90

_Life, loss of, at sea_ between 1818 and 1836, p. 465

——, greatly increased by old imperfect classification of ships, p. 466

——, returns of, three years previous to 1863 and 1874, show great accuracy, and may be relied on, pp. 468-9

_Life, saving of_, none of H. M.’s ships can make any claim for, p. 218

——, no charge against Government that they have not done their utmost in, p. 513

_Lighthouses, buoys, and beacons_, dealt with under the 6th Section of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, pp. 313-4

_Lighthouses, Colonial_, Act of 1855 passed as part of the great Act of 1854, p. 321

_Lighting of the British coasts_ greatly improved of recent years, p. 514

_Lindsay, Mr._, his letters to the ‘_Morning Herald_’ in opposition to the Government scheme of repealing Navigation Laws without reciprocity from other nations, p. 208, _note_.

—— contracts for six vessels in one week (1849) on an improved form, to compete with those of other nations, p. 221, _note_

——, interview with Napoleon III., and remarkable evidence of his knowledge in all matters of transport, p. 355, _note_

—— moves and carries in the House of Commons the appointment of a Committee to consider all questions relative to the Transport Service, p. 358, _note_

—— moves for a Committee to inquire into the operation of certain burdens specially affecting merchant shipping, p. 366

—— moves an Address to the Queen for inquiry into the burdens on the shipping interest, Jan. 31, 1860, p. 398

—— draws up the final report of the Committee on the shipping interest, p. 399

—— moves, March 29, 1860, an address to Her Majesty, with a view to negotiations with the Emperor of the French, and the modification of the French Navigation Laws, p. 438, and _note_

——, audiences with Napoleon III. to urge the value to France of free navigation, p. 440, _note_

_Lisbon_, commercial association at, letter to, by Mr. Lindsay, Jan. 28, 1863, Append. p. 596

_Liverpool, Petition from_, principal terms urged in, pp. 228-9

_Load-line_, the marking of, enforced compulsorily by the Act of 1871, p. 475

——, the, Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships declines to endorse with their approbation Mr. Plimsoll’s fancies about, p. 487

——, details of the views about, of the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, p. 488

——, a fixed, would do more harm than good, p. 527

—— must, ultimately, depend on the opinion of an expert, _ibid._

_Local charges at ports_, French Government protest against, p. 445

——, exemption in favour of certain British ships, in 1852, Append. p. 620

_Log-book, official_, masters of all ships required by the Act of 1850 to keep, and under heavy penalties, also, if badly kept, p. 304

_Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping_, history of, Append. p. 624

_Lloyd’s Registry_ and other private associations do much towards the improvement of shipping, p. 471

_London Merchants, Petition of, in 1820_, the real commencement of Free-trade, does not allude to the Navigation Laws, p. 217

_‘Lord of the Isles,’ The_, beats two American clippers from Foo-chow-foo to London, p. 294

_Loss of Life_ must be considered in proportion to the number of vessels actually afloat, p. 511

_Loss of Life on British Coasts_, analysis of, and of the causes leading to, pp. 511-13

_Losses by Railway Accidents_, character of the inquiry into, as contrasted with that in lost ships, p. 495

_Losses of Ships_, present mode of inquiry into, not satisfactory to any one, p. 493

——, the essential point to ascertain how the accident arose, whether from badness of ship, or the incapacity of those commanding her, p. 495

——, the amount, during recent years, greatly exaggerated, p. 504

——, no reliable statistics about, till 1855, when the Board of Trade undertook to prepare these, p. 505

——, _and of lives_, often, much greater in one year than in those preceding or following it, p. 506

_Louisiana_, sold by France to America in 1803, for 15 million of dollars, p. 3

_Lyell, Mr., M.P._, proposes Committee of 1844 to inquire into the condition of the English commercial marine, pp. 69-70

_Lyons, Lord_ (Boston, U.S.), letter to, from Mr. Lindsay, 1860, Append. p. 567

_Macgregor, Mr._, offers statements full of inaccuracies to Mr. Ricardo’s Committee, p. 137

_Marine boards, Local_, established at the principal seaports, p. 299

—— empowered to establish shipping offices, where all sailors are to be engaged, p. 300

_Marine Insurance_, the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships disapproves the present form of, p. 501

_Marseilles_ always a comparatively free port, p. 433

——, object of the privilege to, to draw to France the commerce of the Mediterranean, _ibid._

_Martin, Adm. Sir G. Byam_, evidence of, pp. 178-186

—— asserts that the repeal of Navigation Laws will certainly diminish the number of shipwrights, p. 179

—— will concede nothing of the Navigation Laws, _ibid._

—— thinks that Shipowners will go to foreigners for cheap ships if Navigation Laws are abolished, p. 180

——, and that the merchant service is valuable to the navy as supplying their men, p. 181

—— states that Lord Howe’s victory of June 1, 1794, was gained mainly by merchant seamen, _ibid._

——, and that Admiral Gardner collected 35,000 to 40,000 merchant seamen, p. _ibid._

——, estimate by, of English mercantile tonnage now more than trebled, p. 182, _note_

—— thinks supply of seamen could not have been kept up in long war but by compulsory apprenticing, p. 182

——, and that impressment cannot be wholly given up, p. 184

—— holds that the law compelling so many apprentices to be taken with each ship is a most wise one, p. 185

_Massachusetts_, the merchants of, supply their own people and the north of Europe with the produce of India and China, p. 7

_Master_, powers of, to be always fully upheld, pp. 497-8

_Masters and Mates_ of foreign-going ships compelled to give testimonies of character for sobriety, &c., and to pass an examination, p. 300

_McIver, Mr. C._, evidence of, about the “classing” of ships, p. 535, _note_

_MacTavish, Mr._, Consul at Baltimore, reply by, to the Foreign Office Circular, pp. 46-7

_Measurement of Ships, the new_, worked out by Mr. Moorson, and embodied in Act of 1854 by Mr. T. H. Farrer, p. 309, _note_

—— takes capacity as the basis of the calculations, p. 309

—— adopted at the recent Congress for the tonnage of all nations passing through Suez Canal, p. 310

_Mercantile Marine Fund_ dealt with in 7th Section of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, p. 314

_Mercantile Marine Board_, and Code of Mercantile Maritime Laws, recommended by Committee of 1836, p. 470

_Merchant Seaman’s Fund, in England_, intended for the sole benefit of that class, p. 31

—— abolished in 1851, after long and gross mismanagement, p. 37, and _note_

——, the winding-up of it placed under the Board of Trade, p. 306

——, Act passed August 8, 1851, for winding it up, and for its better management in future, _ibid._

_Merchant Seamen_, necessity of good education for, recognised by all other nations before England, p. 27

_Merchant Shipping_, short Act passed by Government, Sept. 6, 1875, p. 522

——, extraordinary and dangerous power granted to the officers of the Board of Trade by the Act of Sept. 6, 1875, pp. 522-3

_Merchant Shipping Act of 1854_, its vast size, comprehensive details, &c., pp. 308-321

_Merchant Shipping Act of 1875_ withdrawn, as so altered that Mr. Disraeli declined to go on with it, p. 578

_Merchant Shipping Code_ ought to be amended, and then effectually carried out, p. 555

_Merit, the Official Certificate of_, tends to screen the manufacturer, and to secure articles only so good as to pass inspection, p. 481

_Minturn, Mr._ (an eminent New York merchant), evidence of, pp. 186-90

——, as to materials used in American ships, wages, number of hands required, &c., p. 188

——, and as to the cost of the New York Packets, p. 187

—— thinks that the commerce of America has not really gained by Reciprocity treaties, p. 190

—— asserts that the Temperance system has been of the greatest value in American ships, _ibid._

_Misconduct endangering life_, or breach of duty by drunkenness, &c., &c., considered a misdemeanour by Act of 1850, p. 303

_Money-Order Office, a special_, opened for the benefit of sailors, p. 350

_Montreal_ gradually became deserted by the Western merchants of America, p. 131

_Murray, Mr._, general conclusions of (Nov. 1847), drawn from the replies to the Foreign Office Circular, and suggestions for remedies, pp. 48-50

—— proposes “_A Board or Department of Commercial Marine_,” p. 49

_Naples, Consul at_, reply by, to the Foreign Office Circular, pp. 45-6

_Napoleon III._ announces, Jan. 1, 1860, his intended rupture with Austria, p. 397

—— at once sees how much the French would gain from free navigation, pp. 440-1

_Naturalisation of goods_, special evil in the case of those brought to Europe, p. 118

_Naval Courts_ instituted abroad by Act of 1850, p. 304

_Navigation, a Treaty of_, ought to have accompanied the French Treaty of 1860, p. 437

_Navigation Bill_, third reading of it carried by a majority of 61 in the House of Commons, p. 263

——, second reading of, carried by a majority of 10 in the Lords, p. 278

_Navigation Laws_, for two centuries considered universally the cause of England’s superiority on the ocean, p. 54

——, views of foreign nations on the character and value of them to England, pp. 54-5

——, study of them leads to but one conclusion—how much trouble our ancestors took to “beggar their neighbours,” p. 107

——, condensed summary of, as in force in 1847, pp. 107-8

—— so far relaxed, as to call places, not geographically belonging to Austria, &c., ports, p. 113

—— full, in 1847, of anomalies which could neither be explained nor defended, pp. 113-15

——, great difficulty in executing them, as they were in 1847, owing to the Registry Law, p. 114

——, anecdote of the vessel chartered with cochineal for the Canary Islands, p. 121

——, their ultimate working of no value to any one but the Shipowner, and, economically, a total waste of capital, p. 121

—— in many instances direct obstructions to ordinary trade, caused by, pp. 121-2

—— studied as much to see how they could be evaded as acted on in good faith, p. 122

——, special difficulty of carrying out their principles in the case of Canada, p. 123

——, advocates of their repeal, in 1847, not altogether successful, p. 140.

——, chief advocates of them as they were, Mr. G. F. Young, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Philippe, Mr. Imrie, Mr. Duncan Dunbar, and Mr. Macqueen, p. 141, _note_

——, arguments of the Shipowners in favour of the, pp. 141-3

——, under, there was in 1847, coincidentally, a protected and an unprotected trade, p. 154, _note_

——, difficulty under, as to what was or was not a manufactured article, pp. 155-6

——, under, foreign ships, up to 1845, could carry passengers but not goods, _coastwise_, pp. 156-7

——, the Queen, in Speech from Throne, Nov. 18, 1847, recommends their consideration, p. 162

——, twenty-five witnesses called by the Committee for the repeal of, and nine against, p. 157

——, many questions on, to be dealt with by Government, unsupported, at the time, by any facts, pp. 177-8

——, debate on-first division—June 2, 1848, for adjournment carried by 236 to 73, p. 200

——, inquiry into restrictions imposed by, recommended in Speech from the Throne, pp. 218-9

——, the Royal Assent given to the Bill for their repeal, June 26, 1849, p. 285

_Neutrals_, Government resumes the right of allowing effective blockades by, p. 354

_Neutrals, rights of_, respected in the war with Russia, and privateering abolished, p. 406

_New England_ produces the almost entire supply of native-born American seamen, pp. 25-6

_New Orleans_, extraordinary growth of the trade of, since 1820, p. 5, note

_New York_ profited greatly during the earlier part of the revolutionary war in Europe, p. 5

—— greatly advantaged by the commencement of the Erie Canal in 1825, pp. 5-6.

——, details of the amount of tonnage entering it, between 1822 and 1871, p. 6, _note_

—— suffered severely between 1806 and 1815 from captures, condemnations, and embargoes, _ibid._

_Norway_, character of the Seaman’s Institution in, founded Dec. 1834, pp. 39-40

_Norway and Sweden_ require for the officers of their ships an even more rigid examination than that of Denmark, p. 29

_Ocean race_, the celebrated, from China to England in 1866, p. 417, _note_

_Overloading_, evidence of Mr. W. J. Lamport on, p. 527, _note_

_Owner’s liability_ in the case of passenger ships, real facts about, pp. 338-9

_Oxford, Bishop of_, tries to get a clause inserted that privileges should not be given to countries who had not adhered to the treaties for the suppression of the slave-trade, p. 285

“_Pacte de Famille_,” allowing the Bourbon-ruled kingdoms to trade freely with France, Jan. 2, 1768, p. 425

_Panic, Commercial, of 1847_, shipping interest alone flourished during, owing to the great demand for corn in Ireland, pp. 158-9

_Palmerston, Lord_, reply of, to Mr. Bancroft, Nov. 17, 1847, pp. 165-6

——, all parties disapprove his communications with the American Government, p. 169

—— admits, in the House of Commons, on Feb. 3, 1848, his correspondence with the American Government, p. 170

—— issues from the Foreign Office a circular (Dec. 22, 1848) to the foreign nations, seeking their views with regard to reciprocity, should the proposed repeal of the Navigation Laws be carried, pp. 209-17

——, Circular of, general statement in, of what was likely to be done if the repeal of the Navigation Laws was carried, pp. 210-12

—— orders his agents to find out whether other countries will accept the advances of England, p. 211

—— requires information as to restrictions in force against British ships in different countries, differential duties, &c., _ibid._

_Parliament_ has interfered too much with Shipowners, p. 525

——, “_Independent Members_” of, introduce all sorts of measures to amend the Mercantile Laws, p. 551

_Passenger Ships_ to be surveyed by Act of 1854, but further inquiry about, 1855, p. 322

—— surveyed, agreeably with the orders of the Committee of 1843, p. 471

——, regulation of, summary of the Acts passed for, Append. p. 600

_Passengers’ Act_, impossible to obtain an uniform one, owing to the different laws of the States sending emigrants to America, pp. 334-5

_Passengers’ Act of 1855_ consolidates all that was good in the previous Acts, p. 331

——, chief matters of, as its general management has been transferred to the Board of Trade, p. 343

_Passengers’ Amendment Act_, abstract of, and all Orders in Council relating to, to be posted up in the ship, p. 336

_Passing Tolls_ all abolished, since 1860, but with far too high compensations, p. 411, _note_

_Peel, Sir Robert_, makes great alterations in the tariff, p. 71

—— resigns office on the question of opening the ports owing to Irish famine, but resumes it on Lord John Russell’s failure to form a ministry, pp. 78-9

—— proposes, in 1846, a sliding scale of duties on corn, to last till February, 1849, p. 79

—— carries the repeal of the Corn Laws, but is, on same night, beaten on the Irish Arms Bill, p. 80

—— supports the Government measure, but in a hesitating manner, pp. 203-5

—— reserves his opinion for the present as to the throwing open the coasting trade, p. 204

—— suggests that the measure for the repeal of the Navigation Laws should only endure for five years, p. 205

_Peel, Mr. F._, brings in, in 1852, a Bill for the improvement of the Emigration system, p. 331

_Peter, Mr., Consul_, letters of, to English Foreign Office on the education of boys for the Philadelphian merchant service, p. 16 and _note_

_Pilots, the Licensing of_, generally left in America to the laws of the separate States, p. 24

_Pilots and Pilotage_ dealt with very fully by the fifth section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, p. 312

_Pitt, Mr._, general principles of the Bill introduced by him to regulate the commerce between America and England, p. 56

—— resigns on the rejection of his Bill, by a combination of English Shipowners and the Loyalists of the American colonies, pp. 56-7

_Plantation Trade_, rules of, under the Navigation Acts, pp. 95-9

——, rules with reference to, considerably modified by the Customs Act of 1825, p. 98

_Plimsoll, Mr._, carries his first Resolution in 1870, p. 474

—— publishes, January, 1873, a sensational book, entitled ‘Our Seamen,’ p. 476

——, inaccurate in his statements, or ignorant of the power really possessed by the Underwriters at Lloyd’s, p. 477

——, the Bill proposed by, could not possibly be entertained with any regard to the great maritime interests of this country, p. 478

——, Bill by, practically, proposed that some officer of Government should survey every ship built and sent to sea, p. _ibid._

——, most of the grievances urged by him have been met, so far as they could be, by legislation, by the “Merchant Shipping Consolidated Act” of 1854, and subsequent Acts, p. 485

——, statements by, carefully analysed by the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, _ibid._

——, violent conduct of, in the House of Commons, on withdrawal of Government Shipping Bill, 1875, p. 518, and _notes_

——makes grave assertions and charges, alike, against Government and private individuals, p. 525

_Porter, Mr. G. R._, in his evidence before Mr. Ricardo’s Committee, shows that England has been in nowise benefited by the Navigation Laws, pp. 138-9

——, a hard-working honest man, of little or no knowledge in commercial matters, 137

—— shows the enormous increase of shipping between 1833 and 1846, p. 139

—— suggests that Prussia at the head of the Zollverein States, would impose differential duties on foreign states, p. 140

_Possession_ or _établissement_, settlements specially created for the purposes of trade, p. 434

_Portugal_, trade with, not worth considering in any alteration of English law, p. 370

_Portugal, King of_, special trading allowances made to, on his emigration to the Brazils in 1808, p. 99

_Potato Disease and Irish Famine_, 1845-6, cause the repeal of the Corn Laws and the suspension of the Navigation Acts, pp. 78-9

_‘Powhattan’ The_, dreadful loss of, April 16, 1854, pp. 324-5

_Protection, the system of_, renders English Shipowners less inclined to compete with foreigners, p. 28

_Protection_, under the form of the Navigation Laws, renders foreign ships and sailors superior to those of England, p. 41

—— generally prevalent abroad as well as in England, pp. 55-6

——, there was an actual decrease of tonnage under, p. 378

_Protectionists_ assert that foreign vessels would practically obtain all the long oversea carrying trade, if British ships could import non-prohibited articles, p. 69

_Protectionists, French_, succeed in nullifying, by the decree of June 8, 1866, many Free-trade provisions of the Act, May 19, 1866, pp. 448-9

_Punishments inflicted by Government_, cannot he heavier than the loss of his vessel to the owner who does not insure, p. 483

_Receiver of Wrecks_, great power given to, under Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, p. 317

_Reciprocity Treaties_, under, the trade to her colonial ports was jealously reserved by England, p. 65

—— of Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson, pp. 182-6;

——, their general character, p. 65

—— of little or no use in checking the anomalies of Protection, p. 68

—— serve as a wedge to break down the “great tree of Protection,” p. 71

_Registration, the question of_, fully dealt with in Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, under 91 clauses, p. 310

_Registry Laws_ compelled British Shipowners in 1847 to use the dearest ships in the world, p. 92

_Retaliation, Principle of_, proposed by foreign nations and adopted (as against England) by America in 1817, p. 55

——, naturally to be expected when one nation excludes the vessels of another from its trade, p. 58

_Returns, Statistical_, of the highest value to Merchant Shipping, pp. 376-9

_Ricardo, Mr._, proposes a Select Committee to inquire into the Navigation Laws, Feb. 1847, p. 83

——, details of his speech on motion to inquire into the Navigation Laws, pp. 84-88

——, motion for committee carried by 155 to 61, p. 90

——, list of members who served on his Committee, p. 92, _note_

——, Committee of, make five reports, but limit themselves to the evidence they had taken, p. 92

——, vigorous speech of, pp. 223-4

_Richmond, Mr._, sent by the Shipowners of Tynemouth to advocate the cause of the Navigation Laws before Committee of Mr. Ricardo, p. 147

—— urges that shipowning in the Baltic trade had been for twenty-five years a losing matter, _ibid._

——, views of, as enounced before Mr. Ricardo’s Committee, pp. 147-152

—— urges that (in the north), Shipowners and merchants were distinct, the former having been so for generations, p. 148

—— holds that the captain of the present day is fully equal to the captain of former days, p. 149

—— considers English sailors less given to spirit-drinking than the Germans, p. 149.

—— accuses, with some reason, Mr. Porter of unfairness in his statements, p. 152

—— urges the abolition of all Reciprocity Treaties as injurious to England, p. 151

_Robinson, Mr._, and Protectionists deceived by the mild wording of the Queen’s Speech, p. 162

—— claims indemnity for the Shipowner, in case the Bill should pass, p. 242

“_Rule of the Sea_,” together with the number of boats to be carried by ships, clearly laid down in 4th Section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, pp. 311-12

_Russell, Mr._, a leading merchant of Boston from 1786 to 1798, p. 7, _note_

_Russell, Lord John_, action of, as leader of the revolt against Protection, pp. 72-4

—— carries the measure for equalising the sugar duties, p. 81

——, letter from, to Mr. Lindsay (1875), p. 82, _note_

—— compelled by the Irish famine to suspend the Navigation Laws (Jan. 1847), _ibid._

—— suspends the Bank Charter Act, Oct. 25, 1847, p. 160

—— asserts, in his final speech on the third reading, that the fullest reciprocity would be conceded by America, p. 262

_Russia_, system in, for encouraging seamen, called the “Corporations of Free Mariners,” p. 30

——, treaty made with, on the same principle as those with Austria and the Zollverein, p. 113

——, exports from, generally, in British ships as there was not a sufficient Russian marine, p. 155

_Russia and Prussia_ require the officers of their ships to have some knowledge of English and French, pp. 29-30

_Sailors_, as distinguished from mechanics or servants, have every facility in retaining their earnings, p. 543

_Salvage_, conditions under which it is granted under Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, p. 318

_Sardinia_ accepts the proposals of Lord Palmerston, unconditionally, p. 216

_Savings-Banks_ established, 1856, for the benefit of seamen, to save them from the baneful influence of “crimps,” p. 35

——, large sums passed through, up to November 1874, p. 357, _note_

_Sea, Rule of the road at_, special notices of, p. 344, _note_

_Seamen_, all agreements with, to be in writing, and to specify, in detail, what is expected of them, p. 301

——, laws, various, for their protection, passed from 1846 to 1854, p. 472

——, peculiar favour shown to, in Merchant Shipping Code Consolidation Bill of August 1869, p. 474

_Seamen, English_, have now many privileges not granted to any other class of the community, p. 472

—— have not deteriorated, but have much improved in the last quarter of a century, p. 504

_Seaworthiness_, the proposed plan for certifying absurd, and, if carried out, ruinous, p. 531

——, practically, cannot be defined, p. 539

_Sherrard, Mr._, Consul at Portland, U.S., reply by, to the Foreign Office Circular, p. 46

_Sherwood, Mr., Consul_, letter to English Foreign Office on the education of youths destined to the sea service, p. 16, and _note_

_Ships_ properly to be considered merely as the adjuncts to commerce, p. 65

——, cost of building, at Dantzig, in the United States, &c., p. 141, _note_

——, nearly all, are now classed at Lloyd’s or elsewhere, p. 482

——, loss of, from 1856 to 1872; sixty lost, from defects, &c., while 711 were lost from neglect or bad navigation, p. 487

_Shipbuilders, French_, much hampered by the absurd Protectionist Decree of June 8, 1866, p. 450

_Shipowners_ object strongly to Government interference, p. 51

—— who joined the Anti-Corn-Law League did not perceive that the sweeping away of the Protective Navigation Laws _must_ follow, p. 78

—— still suffering, in 1849, a periodical depression after two or three very prosperous years, p. 218

—— hold meetings in all the principal towns, especially seaports of England, p. 228

—— resolve to try another division in Committee of the House of Lords when there would be no proxies, p. 278

——, great despondency of, on the repeal of the Navigation Laws, p. 287

——, prosperity returns to, in 1852 and 1853, as confirmed by Mr. Tooke’s ‘History of Prices,’ p. 296

——, the liability of, under certain circumstances defined by 9th Section of Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, and still further in 1862, pp. 318-9

—— able to appeal to the Court of Chancery to determine the amount of their liability, p. 341

—— complain of the discretionary power given to Emigration officers, p. 342

—— propose a petition to the Crown, requesting retaliation on such Foreign Powers as should decline reciprocity, p. 364

——, public meeting of, Dec. 15, 1858, Mr. Dunbar in the chair, pp. 364-5

—— naturally feel that they have been treated very illiberally by the nations who will not reciprocate, p. 404

—— now only wish to be let alone, and allowed to manage their own business their own way, p. 414

—— liable, by the Act of 1870, to be punished _criminally_ if they send an unseaworthy ship to sea, p. 475

_Shipowners’ General Society_, meeting of, Aug. 12, 1847, to consider the result of Mr. Ricardo’s motion, p. 90

——, arguments urged by, pp. 91-2

—— told on two occasions, by Lord Clarendon, that the principle of the Navigation Law would not be altered, p. 166

—— issue many pamphlets, &c., showing the evil of the Government scheme for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, p. 208

—— still, in 1858, attribute their losses to the repeal of the Navigation Laws and the absence of reciprocity, p. 362

——, meeting of, at London Tavern, R. W. Crawford, Esq., in the Chair, pp. 390-6

—— petition the Queen, praying her to exercise the powers vested in her, and to put in force the Retaliatory Clause of 1849, p. 366

——, meeting of, Mr. Lindsay proposes an amendment at, which is ill received, p. 393 and _notes_

_Shipping_, any decline of, in 1858, fully accounted for by the commercial distresses of the previous autumn, p. 380

_Shipping Interest_, Government at length determines that unequal burdens on, should be removed, p. 383

——, inquiry into burdens in Committee for, appointed Feb. 16, 1860, p. 398, and _note_

_Shipping Interest, Committee on_, decidedly object to the enforcement of reciprocity, p. 401

—— refuse the reimposition and restrictions on our colonial trade, p. 403

—— strongly affirm their judgment that all private property (not contraband of war) should be exempt from capture at sea, p. 408

——, and opinion that the liability of owners of ships should not be much less than the value of the ship and its freight, pp. 408-9

—— decide that all light dues ought to be paid by the country at large, p. 410

—— give no decided opinion on the question of compulsory pilotage, pp. 410-11

—— are of opinion that most of the legislation since 1835 has been useful, though in some cases carried too far, p. 412

——, report of, so generally accepted that there has been no further inquiry since, p. 412

_Shipping Masters_, important duties of, as appointed by the local Marine Boards under the Board of Trade, p. 300

_Siegfried, M._, in his evidence, shows the utter fallacy of Protection, pp. 454-5

_Smith, Adam_, quotation from, in Mr. Ricardo’s speech, showing his views of the Navigation Act, p. 87 and _note_

_Stanley, Lord_ (Derby), says that Canada demands repeal of the Navigation Laws as a compensation for the loss of Protection, p. 277

—— urges, in his final speech against the Bill, that, not the merchants had found out the Navigation Laws disadvantageous, but Ministers for them, _ibid._

—— moves, May 13, the rejection of the repealing clauses, so as to make the Bill one of conditional legislation, p. 279

——, his amendment finally rejected by a majority of thirteen, p. 280

—— finally enters a protest in the Journals of the House, p. 285

_Statesmen_, the arising of a new class prepared to carry through the important principle of a free and unfettered commerce, p. 72

——, ample field for, in fully working-out the mercantile questions now before them, p. 556

_Steamer, one_, can do the work of five sailing-vessels, p. 402

_Steamers_, rapid increase of, compared with sailing-vessels, between 1852 and 1860, _ibid._

_Surtaxes de Pavillon_ again abolished, July 28 and 31, 1873, p. 460

_Survey of ships_, perhaps it might be possible to enrol several great associations for this purpose, p. 533

—— even by Lloyd’s Registry would, perhaps, prove scarcely better than one by Government, _ibid._

——, great difficulties in really carrying it out, p. 538

_Surveys of Board of Trade_, number of persons now employed by the Board of Trade, p. 315, _note_

_Surveyors of the Board of Trade_ ordered, in 1864, to survey gratuitously such ships as seamen complained were unseaworthy, p. 473

_Swedes and Norwegians_ already, in 1859, large buyers of English-built vessels, p. 403

_‘Thermopylæ,’ The,_ sails from London to Melbourne in _sixty_ days—the fastest passage on record—doing 380 miles in one day!, p. 415

——, extraordinary speed of this sailing-ship, _ibid._, and _note_

——, log of, Append. p. 613

_Thiers, M._, influence of, in favour of Protection after the German war, p. 456

_Thompson, Alderman_, thinks Sir Jas. Stirling’s plan for manning the navy Utopian, p. 197

_Tonnage, Statistics of_, belonging to Great Britain, United States, France, and Holland, from 1821 to 1874, Append. p. 618

_Tonnage of Shipping entered and cleared in the United Kingdom_, United States, France, Holland, Norway, Prussia, and Sweden, distinguishing between national and foreign ships, from 1850 to 1873, Append. p. 637

_‘Torrington,’ The_, a successful “clipper” built by Hall and Co. at Aberdeen, in 1846, to compete with Americans in China, p. 288

_Trade, Board of_, power given to, to appoint special investigations where serious accident, p. 305

——, power to summon a jury to ascertain the number, &c., of persons injured, p. 340

——, inconclusive arguments as to any reaction for the employment of more ships than was required, p. 382

——, returns by, of trade between 1834 and 1858, vigorously attacked by the Shipowners’ Association, pp. 386-7

—— empowered, by the Act of 1871, to stop the proceeding to sea of any ship reported as unseaworthy, p. 476

_Transport Service_ during the Crimean war greatly increased for want of a well-organised Board, p. 357

_Treaties_ of some value in rude times, but wholly inadequate to the regulation of commerce between great nations, pp. 65-7

_Unclassed vessels_ now are, practically, either the very best or the very worst, p. 535

_Underwriters_, as a rule, will not take a risk on unclassed ships, p. 482

_United States, trade between, and British North American Colonies_, thrown open in 1807, p. 60

_Unseaworthiness of seamen_ of greater national importance than that of the ships, p. 541

_Unseaworthy ships_, the law punishing those who send such to sea, can be made more prompt and effective, p. 553

_Venetian Republic_, law made by, in 1786, for the securing efficient and well-educated men for their marine service, p. 35

—— _Scuola di San Nicolo_, origin and progressive history from 1476 till modified in 1814, pp. 32-4

—— _shipmasters_, qualifications required from all, p. 35

_Venice_, Charitable Institution for Invalids in, the successor of the Scuola di San Nicolo, p. 34

_Veritas, The_, the name of a foreign system of registration much used in Canada, p. 471

_Vessels_ built of iron compelled by the Act of 1854 to be separated into water-tight compartments, p. 312

_Walker, Mr. J._, Secretary to the Treasury in America, a zealous supporter of complete reciprocity, p. 214

_Walpole, Mr._, in debate on the third reading, asserts that the Navigation Laws are the wisest of our regulations, p. 258

‘_Washington Union_,’ the article in, detailing Lord Palmerston’s intentions as to the Navigation Laws produces intense astonishment, pp. 167-8

_Wetland Canal_, value of, to Canada, as most of the expenses connected with it are paid by the Americans, p. 129

_Wellington, Duke of_, votes with the Government on the Navigation Bill, greatly to the annoyance of the Shipowners, p. 278

_Wharfinger_, the, responsible for the safe delivery of all goods on board vessels, p. 11

_Williams, Mr._, observations by, on the advantages of a general seaman’s fund, p. 38, and _notes_

_Wilson, Mr. J._ (editor of the ‘Economist’), shows that, practically, the Navigation Laws were of little value to British shipowners, p. 233

—— urges that reciprocity must rest on equivalents which were, in this case, impossible, p. 234

—— resists Mr. Gladstone’s notion of reciprocity in some cases by special treaties, as sure to be misunderstood by foreigners, p. 234

—— opposes reciprocity even in shipping, p. 235

—— maintained that real reciprocity meant perfect freedom of trade to those who gave perfect freedom to us, _ibid._

——, his supposition that America would act on the principle of her law of 1828, altogether fallacious, p. 253

_Wrecks_, accurate return of, first provided by Board of Trade in 1856, p. 468

_Wrecks, inquiry into_, one of the most valuable parts of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, p. 316

_Wrecks cast on shore_, general superintendence of, and appointment of receivers, placed under the Board of Trade by Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, p. 317

_West Indies_, 15,000 slaves perish from starvation between 1780 and 1787, p. 58

—— demand Free-trade on nearly the same principles as Canada, pp. 133-4

_Yeames, Mr._, Consul-General at Odessa, reply by, to Foreign Office Circular, p. 44

_Young, Mr. G. F._, strenuous advocate of the Navigation Laws, &c., as they were, pp. 143-6

——, arguments in favour of Protection adduced by him before the Committee of the House of Lords, pp. 172-175

—— considers the “Long-voyage” Clause the most important in the Navigation Laws, p. 174

—— proposes some minor modifications of the Navigation Laws, pp. 174-5

——, which are not, however, accepted by Government, p. 177

—— moves a strenuous resolution at the meeting of Shipowners, Dec. 15, 1858, p. 365

_Zollverein, The_, list of the States united under this commercial bond, p. 112

_Zollverein States_, treaties made with—after the fashion of that with Austria—1841, pp. 112-3

END OF VOL. III.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent hyphenation and spelling in the original document have been preserved. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.

Accents and other diacritics are inconsistently used.

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

This volume contains references to the previous two volumes of this work.

They can be found at:

Volume 1: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/73757 Volume 2: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/73949