The World of Shipping

David M. Williams

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138367845
• eBook ISBN: 9780429770449
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia mondiale

Published in 1997, this volumeis a collection of seminal articles on a theme of central importance in the study of transport history, selected from the leading journal in the field. containing articles selected by a distinguished scholar, as well as an authoritative new introduction by the volume editor. The book will form an essential foundation to the study of the history of shipping.

1
The deployment of English merchant shipping: Michael and Joseph Henley of Wapping, ship owners, 1775–1830

SIMON VILLE

Ralph Davis has argued that in the eighteenth century most merchant vessels operated continually in the same trade.¹ A consensus exists that most vessels were laid up during winter. This article argues that both views are false; the characteristics of the deployment of vessels in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries are flexibility and intensity. The implication is higher profits and therefore, through the multiplier effect, a significant contribution by the shipping industry to the industrialisation of Britain. Moreover, high productivity in the shipping industry, facilitating the more efficient movement of goods, implies a notable social saving and the smoother functioning of the economy. The French wars of 1793–1815 greatly increased the demand for shipping, and, with supply remaining relatively inelastic in the short run, freight rates and profits rose to very high levels. Naturally, in these conditions, ship owners would keep their vessels regularly employed and send them wherever a profitable freight offered. In the post-war depression excess shipping capacity existed and the level of deployment fell but its flexibility continued.

Very little has been written on this important subject, largely as a result of the inadequacy of shipping sources for the period. Most of this material, largely statistical, is of a vague and macro-economic nature. For example, little information can be gained about the flexibility and productivity of individual vessels over a reasonable length of time. This situation has radically changed with the recent discovery of the Henley collection,² now housed at the National Maritime Museum. Michael and Joseph Henley were London ship owners based at Wapping in the period 1775–1830. During this period they owned a total of around 120 vessels, sometimes over twenty simultaneously. From this substantial collection a much clearer view of the deployment of shipping can be gained. In addition, it gives important information respecting changes in the areas of deployment. This is significant, since deployment patterns changed rapidly under the impact of war and it is instructive to see how quickly the Henleys responded to political developments and new trading opportunities.

Ralph Davis saw the main obstacles to flexible deployment as being ‘timidity’, ‘conservatism’ and ‘a rigidity of mind which saw a vessel committed to one function’.³ He does say there were a few exceptional ship owners who sent vessels to many parts. However, this does not mean the Henleys were in a small minority. The work done on the Liverpool registers by Robin Craig and Rupert Jarvis⁴ confirms that the Henleys were just one of a number of similar shipping businesses. Ralph Davis has also looked at shipping flows in his study of the seamen’s sixpences.⁵ However, this concentrates on the aggregate productivity of British shipping and says little about the areas of deployment and nothing about the performance of individual vessels. W. J. Hausman has written about the deployment of collier vessels in the eighteenth century.⁶ However, by concentrating largely on the collector’s returns for the orphans’ duty, which recorded all coal-laden vessels entering London, he was unable to show their accompanying deployment in other trades and so also underestimated their productivity. C. E. Fay le does talk briefly of ‘the flexibility of shipping’ and ‘the impossibility of drawing hard-and-fast lines between the ships engaged in various trades’.⁷ Aside from these few, most other related studies have concentrated on the trades themselves rather than the shipping that was involved, though sometimes making rather too brief allusions to the latter.⁸ This is to be expected, given that most national sources reflect the value of goods traded rather than the volume of shipping that carried them — though in recent years there has been a greater acceptance of the importance of shipping volumes.⁹

Records exist for entrances and clearances for British ports in the period 1786 — 1807.¹⁰ In addition, a survey of deployment was carried out in 1833.¹¹ The latter illustrated the importance of the coastal trade, which represented nearly half of all the vessels analysed. Local directories, such as those for London, often indicate some of the shipping of the area, though they are neither comprehensive nor consistent.¹² In general, these statistics suffer from a number of shortcomings. They say nothing about the flexibility or productivity of vessels. Nor do they tell us anything about the type of vessels involved. These are important, though highly complex problems that only a micro-economic study of individual vessels can solve. Moreover the existence of a large amount of literary evidence in the Henley collection also helps to explain the reasons why vessels were so deployed. Even the macroeconomic question of trade and shipping flows is not dealt with comprehensively by national statistics, owing to gaps in these figures. In particular, the size of the coasting trade has been underrated. For example, the coasting trade of London is largely unrecorded.¹³ If anything, it was virtually too large to quantify. The extent of the Henleys’ involvement in coasting reaffirms this point. Similarly, estuarial and river shipping has gone unrecorded by national statistics. A large number of water-men were employed on many rivers around Britain.¹⁴

Michael Henley began work as a London waterman. By the early 1770s he was also involved in coal merchanting. In 1775 he bought his first vessel, the Henley. The Henley business expanded from this point, reaching a peak of at least twenty vessels owned simultaneously in the first decade of the nineteenth century. The merchanting side of the business became less important and ceased about 1800. Interestingly, though, the Henleys, like many other ship owners, continued to be regarded as merchants.¹⁵ Only partial information about the business survives before about 1790. The deployment of some vessels is unknown or uncertain. As a result, statistical analysis of deployment is taken from 1790. From what is known about the fifteen years before 1790 it seems that most Henley vessels were deployed on the coal trade, with occasional ventures into the Transport Service. The Henley, for example, was employed in the coal trade from 1775 to 1781. She was then in the Transport Service for the next year or two¹⁶ before returning to the coal trade for the rest of the decade. Similarly, the Polly was deployed in the coal trade during her four years of ownership by the Henleys from 1776 to 1779. The Pitt, on the other hand, was in the coal trade in 1784 and 1785 but in the next few years also made voyages to Amsterdam and Gibraltar with coal for the Royal Navy. On leaving Gibraltar in September 1788, she went under charter to New York to load a cargo of staves for Lynn. At 242 tons she was larger than most vessels owned by the Henleys at this early stage of the business, and this may have been indicative of future trends within the firm. However, in these fifteen years most Henley vessels were employed in the coal trade, reflecting the importance accorded to the coal merchanting side of his business by Michael Henley. After about 1790, possibly through the active influence of Michaeľs son, Joseph, the business became largely orientated towards ship-owning.

In discussing deployment, ten main geographical areas are used, namely coasting, Northern Europe (including the North Sea and the Baltic), France, the Mediterranean (including Spain and Portugal), the East, British North America, the United States, Central America, the West Indies and South America. Central America deals solely with the mahogany trade from Honduras, whilst deployment in the East was at the Cape of Good Hope, India and Ceylon. Naturally, there will occasionally be only a fine distinction between these areas. Canada and the United States of America obviously border on to each other. However, the length and navigation of a voyage to Quebec are clearly very different from one to Virginia. Moreover, it is the commodity traded as well as the length and direction of the voyage which is important. Shipping two different commodities from a similar geographical area requires flexibility from the ship owner, to gain a foothold in both trades. Again, shipping different goods requires flexibility from the vessel herself. In this light the mahogany trade of Central America can clearly be differentiated from the West Indies trade in sugar, rum and coffee.

It has already been shown that Ralph Davis argued for the specialisation of vessels in particular trades. The following results show that, on the contrary, Henley vessels were employed very flexibly in many trades. Since a number of Henley vessels were owned for only a year or two, it would obviously be wrong to use vessels owned for such a short period in a study of deployment flexibility. Taking vessels owned for three years or more, however, the results shown in table 1 emerge. It can be clearly seen that half the vessels were involved in four trades or more at some time during their ownership by the Henleys. However, since ten main areas of deployment have been identified, three years is still insufficient time for a vessel to show maximum flexibility. To allow for that, vessels owned for five years or more have been separately analysed,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Series Editor’s Preface
• Introduction: the world of shipping
• 1 The deployment of English merchant shipping: Michael and Joseph Henley of Wapping, ship owners, 1775–1830
• 2 The creation of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade
• 3 British oceanic mail contracts in the age of steam, 1838–1914
• 4 Distance tamed: steam navigation to Australia and New Zealand from its beginning to the outbreak of the Great War
• 5 McGregor Gow and the Glen Line: the rise and fall of a British shipping firm in the Far East trade, 1870–1911
• 6 George Benjamin Dodwell: a shipping agent in the Far East, 1872–1908
• 7 The depression in British shipping, 1901–11
• 8 Maritime activity and port development in the United States since 1900: a survey
• 9 The development of the port of Lagos, c. 1892–1946
• 10 From coal to oil in British shipping
• 11 The development of Japan’s post-war shipping policy