East India House, March 20,1816.

A quarterly general court of proprie tors of East India Stock,14 was this day held at the Company's house, in Leadenhall-street.

The usual routine of business having been disposed of

The Chairman (C. Grant, Esq. M. P.) acquainted the court, that in conformity with the 4th section and 1st chapter of the bye-laws, there would be laid before the proprietors sundry papers, which had been presented to Parliament since the last quarterly court.

The title of the papers were then read. The Chairman then stated, that he had likewise to lay before the court an account of the company's stock, per computation, drawn out, with respect to India, to the 1st of May, 1814, and with respect to England, to the 1st of May, 1815; and also, copies of proceedings of the court of directors, relative to advice received for the 25th of August 1814, to the 24th of August 1815, ordered by the general court of December last.

SHIPPING SYSTEM.

The Chairman next announced, that it had been thought necessary to make the court special, on account of certain proceedings which had taken place, respecting the shipping system. Those gentlemen who were connected with that system, knew that it was founded on the principle of a fair and open competition. The vessels were taken up for their duration-and one fixed rate was paid for them. This was the course adopted during the long war, which had recently been closed. It was impossible, while the war lasted, to estimate, accurately, the price of various stores, on the return of peace. But, as it was part of the system to allow, during a period of war, certain contingent expenses, it went on very well, at least for the company-but he could not say, that it was equally beneficial for the ship-owners. Now, at the end of a twenty years war, the peace-rates were found lower, by the ship-owners, than they conceived they could, consistently with their interest, accept. What might be the case, when things returned to their ordinary channel, and, by the operation of the peace, come to their proper level, would be seen hereafter. But, with respect to ships, at present, the price of stores of all kinds, was such, that the owners could not afford to sail them, at the peacerate which was the only rate the court of directors could, by law, grant them. Exactly the same difficulty occurred in 1802-3, on the conclusion of the peace of Amiens. After a long consideration of

the court of directors, at that time, the. question having been also investigated by a special committee of that court, came to a resolution to relieve the ship-owners, They reported their sentiments to the court of proprietors, and requested their sanction for an application to Parliament, to procure such relief, as, under the circumstances of the time, was deemed necessary. The present was a case of precisely the same kind, happening twelve or thirteen years after that which he had reverted to; and the court of directors saw no better way of getting out of the difficulty, than by calling for the consent of that court to go to Parliament, to ob tain the requisite power for doing what, in their discretion, might seem proper for the owners. He thought it necessary to open the subject so far; and, wishing to submit to the consideration of the court, more fully, the nature of the case, and the remedy that was required, he should propose that certain papers, connected with the matter, should now be read;

and he would afterwards submit to the court a motion founded on them.

The clerk then read the minutes of the proceedings of a court of directors held on Friday, the 1st of March, 1816. The document set forth, that the court had taken into consideration the letters re→ ceived from several managing owners of ships, taken up for the present season, who had refused to sign their charterparty; alleging, as a reason, the necessity of having extra-rates, beyond the peace allowances, granted them, stating that the present was different from all former periods, except that, subsequent to the peace of Amiens, referring to the high price of stores, and to the great charge of repairs in India and China; all which cir cumstances, they observed, called on the court to take their case into consideration, and to devise such relief as would prevent them from ruin. The court did not deem it necessary to go at large into the shipping system, which had been done by a committee in February 1803, when an elaborate report was drawn up on that subject, from which they would extract a few paragraphs, which were perfectly applicable to the present situa tion of the owners. The report of 1803 stated, "that it was perfectly at the op tion of the company to grant relief or not. The mode was, when a ship was taken up by the company, to fix the price once for all; but the demand for increased rates went to render the price variable, as the price of stores differed. The example being set, in every like case it would apply; and, without some new and ef

fectual check were adopted, would prevent the peace-rate from being kept up to a fixed standard. It might also induce individuals to offer low terms, at first, in the hope that they would afterwards be able to get a compensation. They might bid, not for what they could sail for, but considerably below the regular contract rate, with a view afterwards of regaining compensation, by which means the present shipping-system would be done away. The owners might come forward, on a ground similar to that now advanced, and call for a rate of payment greater than what they had contracted for. It was not merely to be considered as an application for a grant of money, but was to be looked to with reference to its possible ulterior consequences. It was not every claim of this sort that could be entertained. Where a loss was fully and distinctly shewn, relief might be granted. But it would be necessary to distinguish between those who had gone some of their voyages, and those who had the whole to perform. It remained also to be considered, whether they should be relieved at the expense of the present system, made to give up their contracts; or whether such a plan should be devised as would preserve the system, and, at the same time, afford the relief required. The committee would not give an opinion on this point, but, having stated thus much on this important subject, left the court of directors to devise such measures as might appear most conducive to the general good."-The reasoning brought forward here applied to the present case. The owners of ships now taken up, could not withdraw themselves, without becoming subject to an action for damages; and certainly the peace-price of stores had not fallen so low as to enable them to sail, without sustaining considerable loss. The court, therefore, with the example before them, of the long deliberation on the subject, which took place after the peace of Amiens, were of opinion, that the best and safest mode would be to adopt some general plan, which, while it preserved the present system, might give relief to the owners. They knew that no relief could be extended by them, without the consent and approbation of the general court; but they had desired their solicitor to lay a case before their standing counsel, for the purpose of determining whether they could give immediate relief to the owners, by allowing them rate of freight, in time of peace, higher than those they had contracted for; without applying to parlia ment. On this point they had not yet heard Mr. Bosanquet's opinion. The report then recommended, that the relief granted in the case of 1804, should be again resorted to; but stated that, as the

"

owners, in many instances, had the benefit of the high rate, applicable to a

the loss of war, it was not just that all a period should fall on the company. The court therefore recommended, that the owners should be called on for the payment of the penalty mentioned in their bonds, being from 5 to 10,000l. for each ship; a deduction being made, in proportion to the number of voyages performed. As there were five several acts, relative to the company's shipping, the court expressed their opinion, that it would be extremely convenient, if they were comprised in one act, such alterations being made, as circumstances might appear to require.

A Report of the committee of shipping, which was laid before the court of directors, held on Friday, the 1st of March, was also read. It was, in effect, the same as the preceding document.

The Chairman then, by way of introducing the regular consideration of the subject to the court, submitted to the Proprietors the following resolution, for the approbation :

"That this court, taking into consideration the general advance occasioned in their price of Naval Stores, by the long continuance of the late war, and the other reasons on which the court of directors: have proposed to grant to the -owners of ships, engaged under the new system, an addition, for the present year only, to their peace rates of freights, are of opinion, that although the owners of those ships can have no claim to any increase of rates spontaneously proposed by themselves, in the way of free competition, yet as the prices of naval stores have not, from the circumstances of the time, fallen to a peace level, and the owners are subjected to much expense in the outfit of their ships, as at their peace rates of freight must expose them to heavy loss, this court is willing, on the present occasion, to grant to the said owners relief in the manner suggested by the court of directors, provided the same may be done with safety to the existing shipping system. And this court doth, thefore authorise the court of directors to request the sanction of Parliament to the grant of the proposed relief, with such precaution as may prevent it from affecting the stability of that system.”

He (the Chairman) had only to observe, in proposing this resolution, that it was, in substance, entirely, and, in words, almost the same, with that which the court adopted in 1803, on a case exactly similar to the present. Though it was to be lamented, for different reasons, that such an occurrence had taken place, be cause it rendered a proceeding necessary, that militated against the principle pursued for many years-that of open com

petition and the adherence to one regular rate yet as it had happened but once before, and probably would not again, for a considerably longer period, it was an inconvenience, he presumed, that might well be submitted to, rather than give up that system which had been so beneficial to the company. On this ground, he felt no hesitation in proposing the resolution.com

Mr. Hume suggested the propriety of granting some delay, before the court came to a decision.

The Chairman said, the court of directors, in the view they had taken of this case, were borne out by the opinion of the committee of 1803, whose decision was the result of a long and accurate consideration of the question. Acting under the experience, and pursuing the example of that committee, they thought that there was no occasion for deferring the question. The directors were equally willing to consult the benefit of the owners as the advantage of the companyand certainly there was enough of the session unexpired to render hurry unnecessary. But, if there was no reason to doubt the statements made by the owners, which, he believed, they were ready to substantiate, he could see nothing that called for delay.

2

Mr. Hume was satisfied that the importance of this question demanded further time for consideration. Although, he was ready, at all times, to admit, that the proceedings of former days should be attended to in that court, yet he thought that the precedent of 1804 was a bad one and, looking to their finances, at the present time, ought not to be acted upon. He wished the court to know clearly the reasons why he objected to this resolution. Those ship-owners, who now asked for relief from their present difficulties, had acted spontaneously.(Hear, heur.) In answer to the advertisement of the Company, who wauted shipping, they became bidders. Their tenders were lowest, and were consequently accepted of. It was for them to calculate the smallest sum they could take. If they had not made up their minds on the subject, why did they send in any tender? Why did they interfere with others, whose tenders being higher, were rejected-and which, but for them, would probably have been agreed to. Here was an end to all contracts, if an individual having once agreed to certain terms, were allowed to depart from them. He wished to know, whether an estimate had been formed of the probable expense attending the proposed relief? It was important that information should be given to the court on that point. It sounded very well, to say, deduct 5,000. or 10,000 7. from each ship." But that

was nothing, when the owner received 30 or 40,000 7. to pay it. (Hear, hear.) He wanted an estimate of the expense and he wanted to know, whether the owners were willing to give up the extra expenses, which would not be incurred by repairing in time of peace? These were considerations that ought to weigh with the court. They ought not hastily to adopt a resolution, in opposition to the contracts made by the owners, and in opposition to the terms which others had offered, but which had been refused. Certainly the subject ought to be well considered before the resolution was agreed to-and, as the honourable Chairman had observed that there was plenty of time, and that no necessity existed for a hurried proceeding, he hoped the court would feel it more decorous, more proper, and more consistent with justice to all parties, to postpone the question for fourteen days, until gentlemen had an opportunity of examining and understanding it. He did not wish to delay the business of the court unnecessarily but, if his statement were correct-if this were a proceeding which struck at the root of all contracts-then, he conceived the proprietors would feel with him that a few days delay were absolutely necessary.

Mr. Lowndes, said, that he had always, in matters of contract, been surprized at one thing. When a parcel of contractors suffered loss by their speculations, they regularly called upon the public to remunerate them; but, when they made cent. per cent. they would never give up a farthing of it. He did not understand this. He could not tell why the public were to make good all the losses, while the contractors pocketed all the gains.-(a laugh.) Some years ago, many of our merchants imported great quanti ties of grain; and he was very glad of it, for, but for the supply thus afforded, the country. would have been starved. When' the sale became slack, and the merchants began to lose, not at all recollecting the immense profits they had previously made, they went to Parliament. For what? Why to procure relief for the losses they had sustained. But it appeared to him, that contractors ought to put up with the losses as well as with the gains. Now, with respect to the shipping contract, he would mention a case in point, to shew that there was a snake in the grass." He would say this, although a gentleman, for whom he had the greatest respect, was a ship-owner. This proved, that friendship would not make him swerve from the execution of his duty. Indeed, if he were called on to give up either his friend or his country, he would not hesi tate for a moment he would adhere to his country. Gentlemen must be aware,

that leases were often granted, in which covenants were inserted, binding the lessee not to build on certain places, lest a prospect should be shut out, or for any other reason. Now, he recollected, when the rage for building was at its height, houses were erected in the Old Crescent, at Bath, though there was a penalty of 10,000 7. for building on that spot. But how did the matter stand? The people found it was worth their while, such was the rage for building, to pay the penalty. They did so.. They paid 10,000l. and put 20,000 7. in their pocket. Was there not something of a similar nature, with regard to giving up the penalty of 5,000 7. or 10,000. in this case? Instead of losing 5,0001. the contractors would probably make 10 or 15,000 7. Therefore

he called on the court to pause and deliberate before they agreed to such a proposition, as the remitting 5,000 7. to each ship. There would be an end to contracts of this nature, if they suffered such a proceeding. Each party should be bound, in honour, to abide by his contract, whether profitable or unprofitable. If it happened to be the latter, let the sufferer endeavour to make a better contract the next time. He agreed with the honourable gentleman (Mr. Hume) who understood this subject much better than he did, that it would be better to discuss the question fourteen days hence, that they might have time to consider and re flect, before they gave their judgment, in a matter of such serious consequence.

The Chairman said, the honourable gentleman who had just sat down, had mistaken one very material point, Instead of giving up the penalty of 5,000 7. it was intended to press it-to make the owners pay it as a part of the consideration on which the court would be induced to accommodate, in some degree, those who were injured by the present peace rates, as contrasted with the price of stores. An honourable member (Mr. Hume) had inquired, what relief was to be granted? what the company would be called on to pay? The court of directors had not thought proper to bring that forward. If they stated that point to the court, the owners would soon be apprized of it, and, under all circumstances, they would endeavour to make the company act up to any incidental declaration on that head. They (the directors) were not so green as to act in that manner.-(a laugh) — What they wanted was, to procure the sanction of the court of proprietors to apply to parliament, and when they got the necessary power from the legislature, they would make the best and most dis creet use of it, for the benefit of the company. It was important that the ships should be continued in the service of the company. If the owners were in

capable of sailing them and, he be lieved, in many instances, they would be so then let the proprietors see how they would be inconvenienced by it. He did not mean to say that they would have uỡ

resource.

The company were not in the power of any set of men, and let not the ship owners value themselves on that point. But it would surely be more convenient to make use of the present ships, which were built for the company's service, than to go into the market and take up any ships that might offer.at,

If the judgment, given by the executive body, after long and solemn consideration, together with the evidentne cessity of the case, were not sufficient to induce the court to entrust the power called for in the hands of the directors a power which they did not abuse at a former period-he knew of no circumstance that could lead them to agree to it. He conceived it was very advisable to avoid all unnecessary delay; and having made these few observations, he would leave the court to decide as they might think fit.

Mr. K.Smith," How far is it intended to go back with this relief?"

The Chairman- Not an hour." Mr. K. Smith-" Are all the ships going out to be relieved?"

The Chairman" Perhaps the hon. gentleman may be amongst the very few who will not seek for relief. In that case the company will not tender it."

Mr. K. Smith said, though he might ask for relief, he felt that he was not one of those who deserved it.-(a laugh) Ten years hence, in the event of a war, they would be in the same state as they were now. Materials would be at the same price, ten years hence, as they were now. Under these circumstances, if gen-" tlemen tendering at a fair, honest, and upright price, were thrown out of the market, and lower tenders taken, what right had those who sent them in to complain? He would sooner forfeit his 5,0007. than give up his opinion on this point. However, it was impossible for the ships to sail at the present prices-they could* not sail, at the rates now tendered.Therefore, he asked, whether all the ships were to be relieved those built two, three, or even ten years ago?

The Chairman said, that was a question he was not prepared to answer, nor did he think it at all material; because what the court of directors now proposed to be adopted was a principle to be acted on in cases of great necessity, and no other. With respect to the observation, that ships now tendered could not sail at the proposed rates, he could only say, that the honourable gentleman must know more on this subject than the

court of directors, for they were not acquainted with the terms on which the ships were tendered. The hon. gentleman had made a mistake, when he said, that the same thing would occur, ten years hence, if a war came on. Chairman) denied this, It was after a war, immediately when peace was concluded, that the inconvenience arose.In time of war there was no difficulty whatever, the rates being established and settled; but it was when war had ceased, and, peace having succeeded, a sufficient time had not elapsed for things to find their natural level-it was then that the inconvenience was felt. But the present shipping system had operated so favourably for the Company, that he thought it much better to put up with a temporary inconvenience than to abandon it.(Hear, hear.)

Mr. S. Dixon wished to ask a question which would direct his line of conduct on this occasion. The hon. Chairman proposed to go to parliament, for powers which the court of directors did not at present possess. Now he wanted to know, whether they meant to ask parliament for specific allowances to be made to the ship-owners-or, having received the necessary powers, would they reserve to themselves, as he hoped they would, to decide how far each ship was entitled to relief? If a general principle were adopted for all, it would be extremely dangerous-but, if the court of directors exercised their discretion, on each claim, he had no reason to doubt but that justice would be done both to the Company and to the ship-owners.

The Chairman observed, that the hon. gentleman had apprehended the thing correctly. It was intended to call on parliament, to give a discretion to the court of directors, under the sanction of the general court, to grant such allow ances to the ship-owners as might appear necessary. And, he would add, in order to satisfy some gentlemen, that all those transactions would be completely open to the view of the proprietors. After they had done any thing under the sanction and authority of the court, it would be open to animadversion. Every allowance granted, on account of any ship, would become matter of canvas, if the proprietors pleased.

Mr. D. Kinnaird was anxious the court should consider whether it was expedient to come to a decision now? From what had originally fallen from the hon, chairman, there was no foundation for precipitating the decision. And, what the hon. gentleman had recently stated, placed in a stronger point of view, the necessity of delay. The hon. Chairman allowed, that the shipping system should be preserved therefore, any resolution

precedent then set, they were required to act now. If they immediately agreed to this proposition, they at once sanctioned the precedent. The principle would then be adopted, that, whenever a peace came, after a war, as the hon. Chairman had expressed it, the company must resort to the same mode. He did not mean to say, that it was not wise-but, as they were called on to establish a principle that was to be acted on in future, and as it involved an exception to the general system, he submitted whether it was not more proper to deliberate on it, and come to the result slowly and cautiously, rather than hasten to a vote immediately, on a proposition, the merits of which no gentleman, who heard it now, for the first time, could understand. He, for one, could not give an opinion on it—and, therefore, he requested that time might be allowed him, in order that he might examine the subject. Certainly, the proposition, coming from the court of dis rectors, deserved the most favourable construction--and he felt, that, when he had examined it, he should perfectly agree with them. But, looking to it, as affecting their future proceedings, to come to an immediate decision, when gentlemen had expressed doubts on the subject, would, to say the least of it, be very indecorous. He should, therefore, support the suggestion, that the consideration of the proposition should be put off for fourteen days. A laugh had been excited, not very justly, he conceived, at the expression of a gentleman near him (Mr. K. Smith). That expression in his opinion, did the hon. gentleman very great credit, "It is my interest," said he, "to have this relief; and, if other men seek for and get it, I am willing to take it; but, in this my interest is opposed to yours, the proprietors. I say, as a proprietor, it against your interest to grant it." This declaration gave him the very best reason for questioning the propriety of this relief. The hon. gentleman (Mr. K. Smith) seemed to say, that it was for the benefit of ship-owners, and of all contractors, to keep them to the terms they had proposed. In order to encou rage real good capitalists to contract, and not wild and visionary speculators, it was much better to make the contractors now and then feel, that they must not speculate rashly, but send in fair estimates, and perform what they had contracted to do, whether beneficial or not. Those who asked a fair and reasonable rate, were the persons whom the compa