History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 3 (of 4)Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
History
History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 3 (of 4)
Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
Commerce -- History; Shipping -- History; Steam navigation -- History
If a comparison were made between the relative employment of British
and French tonnage in the whole trade of France and the United Kingdom,
respectively, direct as well as indirect, it would appear that, in
1857, the total amount of British tonnage in French ports was equal
to two-thirds of the French tonnage in its own ports; while, in the
same year, the total French tonnage in British ports was, of course,
in a very small proportion, indeed, to the amount of British tonnage
in British ports, and considerably less than one-half of the amount of
British tonnage at French ports. Similar results were shown in the
case of Spain.
[Sidenote: Coasting trade.]
Previously to the opening[182] of the coasting trade of the United
Kingdom, British ships were admitted on equal terms with the National
ships in the coasting trades of Hanover, Belgium, Oldenburg,
Mecklenburg, Holland, Turkey (except foreign steamers for the
Bosphorus), Monte Video, Paraguay, New Granada, and China. But, in
consequence of that measure, the coasting trades of Norway and Sweden,
Denmark, Prussia, Sardinia, and Tuscany were, likewise, opened to
British ships on the same footing as national vessels.
[Sidenote: Non-reciprocating countries.]
The coasting trade, however, of the following countries was still
withheld from British ships, and reserved for the national flag, viz.,
France, Papal States, Two Sicilies, Russia, Austria, Spain, Portugal,
Greece, United States of America (as regards goods), Mexico, Peru,
Chili, Brazil, La Plata, Venezuela, and Hayti.
As in the case of foreign trade, the Queen, in the exercise of the
powers vested in her, might, doubtless, with perfect justice, exclude
the shipping of these countries from the coasting trade of the United
Kingdom; but, in this branch of trade, even more than in that of
foreign trade, such a measure would have proved almost wholly valueless
to the shipping of the United Kingdom.
The tonnage of each foreign State, engaged in the coasting trade of the
United Kingdom in the year 1857 was absolutely insignificant, and, for
all practical purposes, is still virtually monopolised by
British shipping.[183] It will be observed that, both in the foreign
and in the coasting trades, the countries which have reciprocated
the liberal policy of the United Kingdom are those which have most
benefited by the repeal of our restrictions, while the countries which
continue to maintain unequal restrictions on British ships, and against
which, alone, any measure of retaliation could have been directed, are
those which have derived little or no advantage from the opening of
British trade.
There is one other case noticed in the Board of Trade Report to
which it is desirable again to advert, in considering the question
of reciprocity, as this case has been made the subject of frequent
complaint, viz., the exclusion of British ships from the trade between
the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States of America.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account