they are more sober, less quarrelsome, and more manageable than the average British seaman. In January 1902 the President of the Board of Trade appointed a committee to inquire into various matters having an important bearing on the future of the mercantile marine. The reference to this committee was to inquire into and report upon the following matters: (1) the causes that have led to the employment of a large and increasing proportion of Lascars and foreigners in the British merchant service, and the effect of such employment upon the reserve of seamen of British nationality available for naval purposes in time of peace or war; (2) the sufficiency or otherwise of the existing law and practice for securing proper food, accommodation, medical attention, and reasonable conditions of comfort and well-being, for seamen on British merchant ships; (3) the prevalence of desertion and other offences against discipline in the mercantile marine. This committee reported that there is no doubt of the increase of foreigners and the corresponding decrease of British seamen employed in the mercantile marine, or of 'a very considerable increase' in the number of Lascars and other Asiatics employed. As to Lascars, they are British subjects, hereditary sailors, with special qualifications for work as firemen in tropical climates, and they are temperate and orderly. Moreover, they have claim to consideration in respect of the fact that British steamers have largely displaced native trading ships. As to foreigners, the committee report: 'As regards the increasing employment of foreign seamen, we do not think, speaking generally, that they are preferred on account of cheapness. The rates of wages at home ports are usually the same for British and for foreign seamen; but possibly crews largely or wholly foreign are sometimes taken at foreign ports, partly because wages are lower there, e.g. at Hamburg and Antwerp. It may also be observed that British vessels which habitually trade between the ports of foreign countries frequently recruit their crews from the foreign seamen available for employment at such foreign ports. The superior contentment and docility of foreign seamen, certainly in the earlier stages of their employment in British ships, render masters and owners willing to take them. It is, however, satisfactory to find that no competent authority alleges that the foreigner is a better seaman than the British subject, especially at times of danger.' (Report, Cd. 1607, p. vi.) The committee further remark: 'From evidence given by various witnesses, it appears that a certain number of the foreign seamen employed on British ships have acquired homes at seaports in the United Kingdom, and have become in this way British citizens. We think it would be a valued privilege for these men, and for others who intend to serve for lengthened periods in the British mercantile marine, if all seamen who have served for a substantial time, perhaps four years, on board British merchant ships, and acquired an adequate knowledge of the English language, were entitled, by an easy process, without expense, to become British subjects by naturalisation.' (Report, Cd. 1607, p. vi.) It is not desirable for the navy to depend much on the mercantile marine from which to draw crews in time of naval war. The object of the navy is to keep our merchant ships afloat, not to deplete them and so render them useless. Our real naval reserve must be among the fishermen, yachtsmen, and coasting sailors. The object of Lord Muskerry's defeated Merchant Shipping Act (1894) Amendment Bill, introduced last session, was to prevent aliens from obtaining the sole control of British ships and property. But the Bill was too extreme in its proposals for the present temper of Parliament. In 1860 the mercantile marine of the United States was, as has been said, equal to our own. Hawthorne writes of America disputing 'the navigation of the world with England.' Returning from his mission to England, Buchanan publicly declared that 'our commerce now covers every ocean; our mercantile marine is the largest in the world.' On the eve of secession, Alexander H. Stephens said, in a speech delivered before the Georgia Legislature: 'We have now an amount of shipping, not only coast-wise but to foreign countries, which puts us in the front rank of the nations of the world. England can no longer be styled the mistress of the seas.' On the eve of the Civil War the United States shared the carrying trade of the world with Great Britain, which was gradually losing the predominance even in her own ports. The outbreak of war in the United States, however, altered these conditions. In the ten years from 1860 to 1870, British tonnage in British ports nearly doubled, and foreign tonnage showed scarcely any increase. Trade was transferred to neutral vessels free from capture; but the advantage thus given to British shipowners was as nothing to that caused by the substitution, about the same time, of iron for wooden vessels. Great Britain instituted and retained a virtual monopoly in the construction of iron shipping, and thus regained and assured her supremacy. The proposal has been recently revived that the United States navigation laws should be so amended as to give encouragement to American shipbuilding and American commerce. On this subject a report of the United States Commissioner of Navigation is precise. It recommends the giving of grants-in-aid to vessels built in the United States; and the suggestion has been favourably received. Germany has succeeded by means of government grants in making herself, as a shipbuilder, independent of Great Britain. The United States, the Commissioner of Navigation thinks, could not do better than follow the example of Germany. Some provision, it is declared, is absolutely necessary in order to enable American traders to enter immediately into active competition for the Asiatic trade which is expected to be developed by the annexation of Hawaii and the Philippine Islands, and also by Great Britain's 'open-door' policy in regard to China. This open-door policy is, of course, recognised as no mean factor in the case, and there is a hope on the part of Americans of all classes that Great Britain will adhere to it; but as regards America's acquisitions in the West Indies and in the East, the case is different. There is to be no open door there, even for Great Britain. Puerto Rico and the Philippines are to be regarded simply as extensions of the territory of the United States. What has already been done by the American Executive in regard to Puerto Rico may be taken as an indication of the policy that will ultimately be adopted generally. Nearly all the trade between the North American continent and the West Indies was carried on before the Spanish war either in British vessels running out of New York and other United States ports, or in Canadian vessels. The rule restricting this trade to American bottoms has now been put in force, so far as Puerto Rico is concerned; and it would also apply to Cuba in the event of that island being annexed. Many British trading firms have been injuriously affected by the result of the war; and we, as a nation, are concerned as to further developments in the Caribbean Sea and in the neighbourhood of the projected isthmian canal. The whole of Central America is in a more or less unsettled condition; and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, when the canal has been constructed, other schemes promoting American expansion will come to the front. The new Republic of Panama even now subsists only by permission of the United States. In view of these things, and of the whole policy of the American Government and the aspirations of the American people, it is the duty of Great Britain to do everything to encourage the Canadian shipping trade. Montreal, Halifax, and St John are all doing their best, under climatic disadvantages, to cope with the United States; and it is of importance that the Imperial Government should aid them. It is not contended here that the United States has done anything not strictly within its rights; but it is of the utmost consequence to the people of Great Britain that they should remain fully alive to the political and other objects at which their most formidable competitor is aiming. Last year the closing of the Canadian coasting trade was effected against foreign-built vessels whose only title to engage in it was a British register. Formerly, foreignbuilt vessels were free to carry between Canadian ports if they were registered in the United Kingdom. Vessels already admitted on that ground continue in the enjoyment of the privilege, but the right is no longer to be extended to other vessels. Foreign-built vessels of British register, not already in the coasting trade, can now enter it only by paying the duty provided for in the tariff. An Act to this effect was passed at the last session of the Dominion Parliament. Many vessels of non-British origin were registered in Newfoundland, and upon that authority plied between Canadian ports, especially carrying coal between Nova Scotia and the St Lawrence. This trade is now reserved for Canadian and British-built vessels. Whatever restrictions we may now find it desirable to place on foreign shipping in our inter-imperial coasting trade, we need have no fear of retaliation, because most other countries already reserve their own coasting trade. Nor need we adopt a system that could be characterised as protection applied to British shipping, inasmuch as provision could be made for admitting all foreign vessels to the inter-imperial trade which would recognise the same rules and regulations as British vessels, and would divest themselves of bounty. Apart from this, it seems possible that we may have to adopt some form of carefully regulated subsidy to encourage intercourse between those parts of the Empire where the present traffic is insufficient to make a service profitable to private enterprise. Tropical West Africa is a case in point. The annual value of British trade, including bullion and specie, in 1900, may be summarised as follows: Trade of United Kingdom with foreign countries. £ 711,838,000 237,098,000 254,342,000 1,203,278,000 Thus about one fifth of the total trade of the Empire is not directly connected with the United Kingdom. We shall see presently what is the apportionment of that trade among our shipping. From Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping we table the following figures, together with the totals for the previous year for comparison, from which it will be seen that the tonnage of British and foreign steamers and sailing-ships of over 100 tons each increased during the past year from 32,437,763 tons to 33,643,131 tons. |