Advertisement

Cunard and the Emigrant Trade 1860–1900

  • Francis E. Hyde

Abstract

The British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., having survived the first threat of serious competition and having widened the scope of its operations through its associated company by opening up trade with the Mediterranean, now turned to the problem of increasing returns from the North Atlantic trade. It was a fact well understood by most Liverpool shipowners that the evolution of the steamship could not have taken place without the increase in demand for cargo and passenger accommodation. It was a prime reason why, in 1860, the Cunard partners decided to enter the steerage business. By that date it had become obvious that the profits accruing from the Government Contract to carry mail and that from high-class cabin traffic and freight, could not sustain expansion; that in fact, despite the hazards of competition, a more lucrative form of enterprise would henceforth lie in the carriage of emigrant traffic across the Atlantic.

Keywords

Shipping Company Freight Rate Earning Capacity Sailing Ship Subsequent Chapter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. J. Maginnis, Atlantic Ferry (1900)Google Scholar
  2. E. Hyde, Liverpool and the Mersey (1971)Google Scholar
  3. Charlotte Erickson, ‘The Impact of Push and Pull’, Nordic Emigration, Uppsala University Research Conference 1969, 34–6.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    F. E. Hyde, op. cit., Chapter 6, Section I, pp. 95 et seq. Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    U.S. Treasury Dept., Arrivals of Alien Passengers and Immigrants into the United States from1820 to1893 (1893). The complexity of U.S. immigration statistics is fully analysed inGoogle Scholar
  6. et seq. The various fluctuations in the level of emigration to the United States given in the chapter are linked to the earning capacity of the various Liverpool shipping companies and do not, therefore, always coincide with the more exact determination of fluctuations derived by Brinley Thomas from his analysis. For a further analysis of the American economy seeGoogle Scholar
  7. W. McCormick and C. M. Franks, ‘A Self-Generating Model of Long-Swings for the American Economy 1860–1940’, The Journal of Economic History, XXXI, No. 2, June 1971, 295–343.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    E. Hyde, op. cit., pp. 112–3Google Scholar
  9. L. Hansen, The Atlantic Migration (1961), p. 291.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    immigration statistics, Treasury Dept., op. cit., to 1895; Reports of Bureau of Immigration from 1895.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Bastin, op. cit., p. 8, quoting from O. MacDonagh, A Pattern of Government Growth1800 to 1860 (1961), p. 28.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Though this statement refers to emigration through the port of Liverpool, the relative pattern is observable in the figures quoted by Brinley Thomas, op. cit., p. 60.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Brinley Thomas, op. cit., p. 59.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    M. L. Hansen, op. cit., p. 292.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olaf Thorn, op. cit., pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
  17. 18.
    R. Bastin, op. cit., p. 11, quoting Report on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners) PP. (1889) X.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Brinley Thomas, op. cit., p. 157.Google Scholar
  19. 23.
    CP, Reports of directors to be submitted to AGM, 22 March 1894 and 29 March 1895.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    A. Jones, American Immigration (1960), p. 187.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
  22. 27.
  23. 28.
    CP, Shipping advertisements giving details of voyages, fares and accommodation, 1860–80.Google Scholar
  24. 29.
    CP, Moorhouse Diary, 1884–6.Google Scholar
  25. 30.
    CP, Shipping advertisements of voyages, fares and accommodation 1890–1900; BM, No. 2, 1886–93, passim. Google Scholar
  26. 36.
    R. Bastin, op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar
  27. 38.
    Minutes of Evidence taken before the S. C. on Mail Contracts1868; evidence by William Inman Q.1688 et seq., 20 March 1869.Google Scholar
  28. 51.
    Ibid.; 686.Google Scholar
  29. 52.
  30. 53.
    See Chapter 5, Section I.Google Scholar
  31. 57.
    VR, OGM, 27 April 1881; ibid., 10 April 1884.Google Scholar
  32. 58.
    Ibid., 10 April 1884; ibid., 10 April 1885; CP, Moorhouse Diary 1884–5.Google Scholar
  33. 60.
    VR, OGM, 27 March 1889; ibid., 11 April 1901.Google Scholar
  34. 70.
    G. Albion, The Rise of New York Port (1815–1860) (1970), p. 327.Google Scholar
  35. 71.
    Ibid., p. 328.Google Scholar
  36. 73.
    Bastin, op. cit., p. 57, quoting PP (1882) LXII (135), 2–37.Google Scholar
  37. 74.
  38. 78.
    Liverpool Record Office, Inman Line Official Guide 1878, p. 19.Google Scholar
  39. 79.
    W. Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar (1934), pp. 86–8.Google Scholar
  40. 84.
    e.g. Teutonic (1889) twin-screw, steel, 9860 gross tons, 17,500 I.H.P., could carry 586 first and 566 steerage passengers; Campania (1893) twin-screw, steel, 12,950 gross tons, 26,000 I.H.P., could carry 526 first, zoo second and 300 steerage passengers. Teutonic had a speed of 20.35 knots, Campania 21 knots.Google Scholar
  41. 85.
    Philadelphia Record, 9 August 1903, quoted by R. Bastin, op. cit., p. 60.Google Scholar
  42. 89.
    J. Maginnis, op. cit., p. 81.Google Scholar
  43. 90.
    According to J. Kennedy, A History of Steam Navigation (1903), p. 107, the steerage carryings to New York were Guion 27,054 and Cunard 16,871.Google Scholar
  44. 91.
    Brinley Thomas, op. cit., pp. 117–8.Google Scholar
  45. 93.
    R. Bastin, op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar
  46. 94.
    CP, Directors’ report and accounts for 1890–1911.Google Scholar
  47. 96.
    CP, Correspondence between Vernon Brown and D. Jardine, 1890–1900 with reference to the operation of specific ships.Google Scholar
  48. 97.
    Brinley Thomas, op. cit., pp. 93, 160.Google Scholar
  49. 98.
    Ibid., pp. 156–7.Google Scholar
  50. 102.
    Ibid., 24–5.Google Scholar
  51. 103.
    Ibid., 24–30; evidence given by Samuel Cunard.Google Scholar
  52. 104.
    Ibid., 31.Google Scholar
  53. 105.
    This was implied in John Burns’s evidence before the Select Committee on Mail Contracts, 20 March 1869 and confirmed in subsequent annual accounts of the Company.Google Scholar
  54. 107.
    Figures compiled from W. S. Lindsay, A History of Merchant Shipping (1876) IV, 257 andGoogle Scholar
  55. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 107.Google Scholar
  56. 110.
  57. 112.
  58. 115.
  59. 119.
    CP, Moorhouse Diary, ships’ returns 1884–6.Google Scholar
  60. 120.
  61. 121.
  62. 122.
    Ibid., as shown in the above tables.Google Scholar
  63. 123.
    Ibid., as shown in the above tables.Google Scholar
  64. 124.
    Ibid., as shown in the above tables.Google Scholar
  65. 125.
    See Chapter 4 for rates quoted in the 1890s.Google Scholar
  66. 128.
    Brinley Thomas, op. cit., p. 380.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Francis E. Hyde 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis E. Hyde
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations