DISTURBING DECLINE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 7 October 1936, Page 2

DISTURBING DECLINE

BRITISH SHIPPING THREE MILLION TONS BELOW 1931 SIR ARCHIBALD HURD ON THE POSITION

It has come as a shock to those who have not followed the gradual weakening of British sea power that the British merchant navy has declined by three million tons gross is five years. But it is even more disturbing that the ships -now afloat are, on the average, much larger than they were, and the number, therefore, is smaller than the decline in tonnage would suggest (writes Sir Archibald Hurd in the Melbourne “Argus.”)

In the year of the outbreak of the Great War the number of merchant vessels was 9,240, and even in 1926 was 9,034. In later years there has been a steady decline, until now there are only 7,246 merchant ships. What makes the matter more serious is that there are more large liners, ships sailing to schedule on routes with passengers and cargoes, and few vessels of the tramp type, going anywhere to do anything according to the fluctuations in the economic situation in vai'ious parts of the world — “the loose tonnage” which proved its high value during the submarine campaign. If the tramp ship be regarded as a vessel of from 3,000 tons to 8,000 tons, only 1,704 are now on the British register. While British shipping has been decreasing, the shipping under every other flag, except that of Germany (which has still nearly 28 per cent, less tonnage than in 1914), has increased:—

If the change in the balance of commercial sea power which these figures reveal, had been due to the increased efficiency of foreign managers or of their crews, nothing would remain to be said except to deplore the movement. But the change is the result of the working of uneconomic forces brought into action, in the last analysis, by the widespread fear of war. The British merchant fleet was as much responsible for the victory of the Allies as the Royal Navy. The two forces proved, to the surprise of many people, to be complementary to each other; without the merchant ships the peoples of the British Isles, France, Belgium, and Italy, as well as the populations of other allied countries, would have been brought to starvation, and their armies immobilised for want of food and munitions, and without men-of-war under the White ensign—the British strength being then above the Two-power Standard—the merchant ships would have sunk for want of defence.

THE MERCHANT SHIP IN WARTIME The importance of the merchant ship as a factor in war has been less realised in the British Empire than elsewhere. The Governments of the United States, Japan, France, Italy, and Germany, in particular, have been very active in fostering their mercantile marines. The Americans have devoted no less a sum than £600,000,000 to the re-creation of their merchant navy, which sank to small proportions after the Civil War. Practically every country washed by the sea, with the exception of the great seagoing races of Scandinavia and Norway has submitted to heavy taxation during the last 10 or 15 years to stimulate ship-building and shipping, and many of them have passed legislation to ensure that national ships are employed in carrying national imports. The Russian Soviet has gone a stage further, having so manoeuvred as practically to exclude British ships from the carriage of the Baltic timber used in the building of houses in the British Isles.

Every maritime country of any consequence now attaches great importance to merchant shipping as an aid in waging war, for use either in transporting troops, carrying food and raw materials, or for attendance on its men-of-war. Its merchant navy is regarded as complimentary to its fighting navy, and both are supported in varying degrees out of national funds. This change of policy towards merchant shipping explains the growth of the tonnage under foreign flags, and the subsidies, amounting to more than £30,000,000 a year, which are being paid. In these circumstances it is not surprising that British shipping has declined in volume, though not in efficiency. In 10 years (1926-35) no less than 15,250,000 tons of shipping under all flags has been lost at sea or sent to the shipbreakers, but, nevertheless, a great deal of old tonnage remains afloat. The percentage of vessels of 20 years or more under various flags is as follows: \

Greece 61.2 Sweden 40.6 Spain 34.8 Italy 34.0 Japan :... 25.8 Denmark 25.4 France 23.9 Norway 18.5 United Kingdom 18.3 Germany 18.3 Holland 17.2 U.S.A. (Sea) 16.3

The old tonnage under foreign flags amounts to 28.2 per cent, of all vessels but only 18.3 per cent, of the British tonnage falls into this category, which means that the British Merchant Navy has a larger proportion of modern ships than is to be found under any flag, except those of Norway, which owes her pre-eminence in modern vessels to the large number of oil tankers built in recent years; and the United States, which has scrapped many of her older ships and built many new ones, by this dual action bringing about a decline in the percentage of old ships. Germany, having surrendered her sea-going ton-

nage under the Treaty of Versailles, has since bought or built practically all the vessels now under the flag of the Reich, and has thus acquired a very efficient merchant navy.

BRITISH EFFICIENCY What will happen to all this tonnage which has exhausted its economic usefulness? In the case of the vessels on the British register they will undoubtedly be broken up, as the Parliament at Westminster will never subsidise inefficiency. The fact that such vessels are not as safe for human life as those of more recent construction would cause fierce opposition on the Socialist benches if money were devoted to “subsidising inefficiency,” to quote a phrase heard in recent debates in the House of Commons. Such vessels suffer from the disadvantage that their speed is low, and, in the movement of cargoes speed is no longer a negligible factor. In course of time, and no long time, all of these old British ships, exceeding 3,000,000 tons, will disappear. It is impossible to predict what proportion of the foreign tonnage of 20 years old or more, amounting in the aggregate to nearly 11,700,000 tons, will share the same fate. Much of it was built with the aid of State subsidies, and has been maintained at sea by the safne means. Will the taxpayers of the various countries, having already paid dearly in support of their merchant navies, be prepared to provide grants for the building of new ships? In any event, in sheer efficiency the British Merchant Navy, is still increasing in efficiency. It includes upwards of 6,000,000 tons fewer than 10 years of age, one-third of the whole fleet, and 206 ships of 784,000 tons are now under construction, apart from the work in hand for Dominion and foreign owners, and additional orders are being placed. It is apparent that British shipowners, in spite of the dice being loaded against them, have not lost their courage. They are looking to the future with confidence, convinced that if the worst comes to the worst Ministers will have to come to their rescue with funds which will enable them to maintain their fleets. A leading British industrialist, Lord Melchett, remarked recently that “command of the sea by the British mercantile marine is as cital as command of the sea by the Navy.” There ought to be no hesitation, he added, in making certain that the mercantile marine stands at the head of world shipping, “instead of being driven off the seas, in some cases by half-bankrupt Governments.”

After all, there are 45,000,000 people in the British Isles, most of whose food must reach them from overseas, and practically all the raw materials used in factories and workshops are also ocean borne, so that the ruin of British shipping would mean starvation in idleness under war conditions. The future of inter-Imperial trade depends on the prosperity of British shipping.

Increase Countries 1914. since 1914. Denmark .... 770,000 47.3 France 1,922,000 54.7 Greece 821,000 119.4 Holland 1,472,000 70.3 Italy 1,430,000 113.8 Japan 1,708,000 146.8 Norway 1,957,000 107.2 Spain 884,000 29.6 Sweden 1,015,000 48.5 U.S.A. (Sea) 2,027,000 365,4 U.S.A. (Lakes) 2,260,000 9.3 Other countries 3,479,000 67.4