the last year of the old shipping system 1795, which was the second or third year of war, with the rate paid on the present system in 1815, twenty years afterwards, and the whole of that period, with hardly any intermission, a period of war in which the price of all things had risen enormously. It had been the practice of the company, under the old system, to judge of the rate of freight proper to be given for the season, by the cost and outfit of a new ship in that season, of which an estimate was regularly prepared by the master attendant. The practice of preparing such extracts as are useful for various purposes, is continued still. In 1795 the cost and outfit of a ship of 800 tons was £28,337. The rate of freight at that time, exclusive of some appendages, which are much the same at both periods, was about £37 per ton. In the year 1815 the cost and outfit of a ship of the same size was 38,5157., and the rate of freight, including the same appendages, 321. per ton. The cost of the ship is 10,0007. more, the rate of freight 57. less; whereas if the freight had risen as the cost of building and outfit rose, which was the practice of the old system, the present rate must have been 501. instead of 327., that is, it would have been above one half more. So that at the end of twenty years of war, when all things have exceedingly risen, the freight is 51. less per ton, than at the beginning, and 187. less than it would have been if the practice of the old system had continued. And the amount of this saving, upon the annual tonnage of the company, it will not be difficult to compute.

It could not here be the wish of the di rectors to change the present shipping system. But the company were now brought to a crisis when it was absolutely necessary to act either upon one or the other mode which was in question. It was for the court to judge which of these modes they would adopt. He must say on the part of the court of directors that there was no standing still upon the subject. Their leading object in bringing this matter before their constituents was the preservation of the system, and the benefit of the company. They laid the interest of the ship owners in the back ground. They had been actuated, he must be allowed again to say, by public considerations, and he must add it to be his firm persuasion that unless the services of the present ships were retained, the inconvenience to the company and to the system would be greater than any possible advantage they could derive from proceeding to enforce the existing con

tracts.

With these views, he strenuously opposed the amendment of the hon. gent; and he submitted that the court ought,

in justice to themselves and the company at large, to negative his proposition.

Mr. Lowndes requested permission to trespass on the time of the court for a few minutes. He must own he was thrown into a more awkward dilemma, than ever he was before in that court: for when he expected that the court of directors should not give the appointments of the company to their own relations, he felt that such a principle ought to apply to all men who were to do their duty fairly. Now on the present occasion, he felt pretty much in the same situation in which he had no doubt the directors were placed upon the subject of their patronage when a relation was in view. He, Mr. L. sat beside a very intimate friend of his, who was a great ship-owner, and he felt very awkward in giving a vote against his interests. But however, he would endéavour to act as an honest man, and he would not suffer his great friendship for his honourable friend to bias his candid opinion. With respect to the speech of his hon. friend (Mr Hume) he thought it one of the most luminous he had ever heard in that court. It was full of the marrow of argument. It was not like a dish of alamode-beef, here and there marrow, and a piece of fat-but it was in fact á marrow-pudding from beginning to end.-(Loud laughter.) Hẻ had often heard his hon. friend with great delight; but on the present occasion he had surpassed himself. But though he made this acknowledgement of the pleasure he felt from that speech, in some parts of it he differed from his hon. friend. In the first place, his speech con!" tained an insidious attack upon the court of directors, as to the manner in which they connected themselves to the ship-owners; although he himself was one who supported the plan, but certainly to a limited extent, for the company to build their own ships. What did his hon." friend state upon this subject? Why, he stated in round numbers, that the court had voted a million of money for shipbuilding when only a single ship was proposed to be built. Now his hon. friend was rather incorrect there; for he did not consider where all this money was to come from. Having detected his friend in this error, he must be a little cautious in giving credit to many other things that he had stated, particularly when the hon. Chairman proved, that with regard to the subject of patronage in the appointment of captains to the company's own ships, the whole was only an illusion of his hon. friend's imagination. After this, he must be a little cautious of giving full weight to the arguments of his speech: and he must consider that the use of eloquence was frequently to make fiction like truth: and by the way if it was not for this faculty

what would become of special pleaders? -Why, they must give up their trade and go to begging. The business of a barrister was to make right appear wrong, and

rong, right,-just as he happened to be feed. Certainly it was his business to make the best of his case; and by splendid imagination and luminous rhetoric, to captivate the heart and carry his point. For himself he would rather chuse to deal with a man of plain common sense -what was called a matter-of-fact manthan with a dealer in splendid sophisms. With respect to the question before the court, there was one thing which the gentlemen who had spoken had not taken into their consideration,—namely, the immense difference between the price of materials for building ships now, and what they cost twenty years ago. Every body must know, that wood was a material necessary in building ships. Twenty years, ago, the price of timber was about 37. per load, whereas the price of it now was 12. There was a difference therefore of nearly four times, in the article of building materials but he begged to state, that it was a mistaken notion to suppose that the country was at peace; for that was the ground upon which the case was put. Could that be called peace, when a great general at the head of an army of 30,000 men, was now guarding the capital of the enemy, with whom the country had been at war? If this was peace, it was a tortoise-shell peace.-(Loud laughter.It was a sort of peace, which could not be expected to last. But he denied that it was in fact a peace; for upon what ground was it that the income tax was proposed to be continued? It was because the country was in that sort of amphibious state, neither in a state of war or peace. Could that be called a state of security, when the great enemy of mankind was still in existence, and might at any time break out upon us? This was Lord Castlereagh's peace, who proposed that the lion, or more properly speaking the bear, should be kept secure in bis den; and no one could say the moment that this bear would break loose again, and renew his havock amongst mankind.

He now came to the pith of the question. If the country was not at peace, the owners of ships could not be fixed at a peace rate of freight; and it was upon that ground, considering the complexion of political affairs, that he thought the question ought to undergo grave consideration before the measure was adopted. It certainly, however, was a most material consideration when coupled with the circumstance that every article of life had increased to a degree far beyond that which the cold mind of a cold calculator could have imagined. Who would have beAsiatic Journ.-No. V.

lieved, twenty years ago, that timber, so necessary a material in ship-building, would have advanced to 127. a load? He was informed that other things had increased in the same proportion, and were advanced far beyond the expectation of auy calcu lator, and consequently it was very easy for the owners to be deceived in their speculation. He had been informed that for the last twelve years, the ship-owners had been losing considerably. If they had been losing, and the owners merely made 5 per cent., he thought in that case some consideration was due to their situation. Some consideration was due to them, at least, on account of the price of all materials connected with ship-building. It should be recollected that they made their first offers with reference to the then price of materials, and therefore, if the materials had unexpectedly risen in price, it would be hard to bind them to their contracts. When Mr. Goldsmid had been unfortunately deceived in his calculations it was echoed through all quarters that some consideration was due to his situation; the same argument which applied to his case would apply to that of the ship-owners; and those gentlemen who had offered as low as 177. per ton in a season of peace were placed in a ruinous situation in consequence of a twenty years' war. It was manifest that they must sustain an incalculable loss from unforeseen events, which they could not controul. The very persons who were now contracting asked 267. per ton. There was therefore a difference of 97. per ton upon shipping in the course of twenty years. That was such an enormous difference that whether right or wrong something ought to be done in consideration of the change of times and circumstances. Certainly the situation of the ship-owners was extremely hard, and if possible they ought to be relieved, But then came the most difficult of all and it was that in which he agreed with his honourable friend who declared that it was impossible for this court to give the redress sought for; because, in doing so, they must act directly opposite not only to an express act of parliament, but in opposition to a system followed up with so much success, and with so much benefit to the company for many years. He would be very glad with all his heart to give the ship-owners the redress which they required if he knew how it could be done, but the company in doing so, might be right in one point of view, and wrong in another. As my Uncle Toby said to little Corporal Trim, who said, I will give half my house as well as my pursei "True," said my Uncle Toby—“ thou dost very right as a soldier, but, wrong as a man."(Laughter.) As a proprietor of India stock, he should be obliged VOL. I. 3 S

to give his vote against the ship-owners; but as a man of liberality, he was with them. After the quotations, and point blank statements of his hon. friend, none of which had been denied, he did not know how the court could get out of the difficulty. Facts were devilish stubborn things, and there was no possibility of getting over them. But, at the same time, there was a great deal of reason on the score of policy in the statement made by the honourable Chairman: and the company ought to consult their own interest in what they propose to do. They ought to consider the consequence which would necessarily result to themselves.Some of the ships in the company's service were fourteen hundred tons burthen, properly manned and rigged, and admirably adapted in all respects for the company's service; and, above all, the owners were large capitalists. Now, the question was whether the company would give up this class of ships and this class of owners for a parcel of ricketty, crazy, and ill-manned ships, and for a class of owners of little or no capital at all? It had always been considered a most important thing for the company to employ large in preference to small capitalists. So rich were the capitalists who owned some of these ships that his hon. friend said he would take a bond for £500,000 from any three of them. On the score of policy, it was certainly prudent for the company to employ large capitalists. This being the case he certainly thought it was better for the court to take time to turn themselves round, and not come to too early a decision upon so important a question, in the hope that unanimity, so essentially necessary in such cases, might prevail in the court. He thought that by pausing a little to consider the situation in which the company were, more service would be done than by coming to the question upon the resolution of the directors, subject to an amendment.Firmly believing that delay would have a very beneficial effect, he hoped that the business would be postponed to some other day, in order to have some time to consider the subject. Certainly from the facts which he had heard, and from the alteration in the price of building materials for the last twenty years, he should be sorry to see the court reduced to the necessity of acting like Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, by insisting upon "the bond, and nothing but the bond." The company no doubt might insist on "the pound of flesh;" but the question was whether they would " cut off their nose to be revenged of their face?" By enforcing the bond they must certainly subject themselves to great inconvenience. No doubt they were in a very awkward situation, and it was diffi

cult to determine which course to take. They were something like the clergyman between the roasted pig and the pretty girl-(loud laughter,)—their inclinations pulling them both ways, but undetermined which appetite to indulge. It was certainly a very hard case upon an impoverished company, to put their hands into their pockets and take out so large a sum of money as this measure required. But then they were to consider whether they would not spend to spare; for as the hon. gentleman had truly stated, it would in the long run turn out to be a measure of economy. The ship-owners were undoubtedly in a very different situation on account of the enormous price of building materials, and the great increase of the wages of sailors: and these things must be taken into consideration, whether the present ships were detained or new ones employed. This being the case, he did hope and trust that time would be given to the proprietors to consider if there was not some more convenient mode of getting out of their dilemma. If the court came to a decision he certainly should not vote with the ship-owners, for he was one of those who, though he had a friend at stake, would not vote contrary to his principles. Having met with more attention than usual, on the present occasion, and received so impartial an hearing, he must acknowledge the high honour which the court had done him in imitating his own impartiality.

The Hon. Mr. Kinnaird said he should not have risen on the present occasion, but lest it might be supposed that there was any indisposition on the part of those who had, on more than one occasion, expressed themselves from a sense of duty, to offer their sentiments upon this subject. He therefore now offered himself to the notice of the court, that it might not be inferred he agreed with the court of directors upon this question. When the subject was introduced on Wednesday last, he viewed it as a very questionable point, and he would not then forejudge the question, but would reserve himself for the present debate. He did really believe that a more able and less inflammatory speech-a speech abounding more in facts which were within the knowledge of every director, and which might be within the knowledge of every proprietor-than that spoken by his hon. friend (Mr. Hume,) was never delivered to any audience. The reasoning too, and the conclusions contained in it were drawn from the very documents under the eyes of the court. He spoke not in those terms of that speech, in order to flatter his hon. friend. He spoke not of his talents, great as they were; but of his sound judgment. His hon. friend had

not drawn upon his ingenuity, but upon his good sense; and if he was listened to by an impartial audience, who would attend to common sense, and who would forego every feeling which might have arisen in their hearts from partial or interested motives, they could not have heard the important speech addressed to them, without being deeply impressed with the weight of its matter. If the court had not been hitherto convinced, they must now be satisfied that the proposition of the court of directors was one that could not be maintained. He (Mr. K.) was convinced that the report contained abundant answers to every thing that could be urged in favour of the measure, and he was persuaded that if the company were to agree to this resolution, and present a petition to parliament thereon, it would not only be rejected by parliament, but the court would find that it could not be read in the House of Commons, without every member rising and saying, that the report of the committee was one tissue of reasoning for maintaining the shipping system as now kept up by the India company. A more able report he never read upon any subject. It was founded upon the most conclusive principles, and he could not point out a single exception which would excite any doubt whatever of the necessity of supporting that admirable system which had not only been eulogized in point of practice, but was found in principle the best adopted to the concerns of the company. A departure from it, in any instance had been found to be attended with the most injurious consequences. The report throughout contained the most cogent reasons for its inviolable preservation: and upon that report he would stand in determining this question. What was there, he asked, to support the proposi ́tion in defiance of the report? It was brought forward without a single reason or a single statement to justify the departure from the rule laid down by law. The utmost that had been urged was ge'neral usage; but the moment the report came to be read, there could not be found a single reason for maintaining that ground. What had the court of proprietors a right to expect from the directors to induce them to consent to this unprecedented measure? The least they had a right to expect was a statement of the case of every individual owner laid before them, in order that they might have some ground of excuse for going directly against that admirable rule which has been laid down. But what was the case? The proposition was made to the proprietors without any one of these particulars submitted to their notice. They were called upon to go to particulars generally to enable the court of directors to get rid of

the acts of parliament, which prevented them from relieving the owners, and they were to go in a lump-to do what ?-not to relieve the proprietors from any of their burthens, but to break through a system adopted for many years, and to go to parliament to-do what? To induce them to grant a large sum of money to be at the disposal of the directors, according to their discretion. Was the sum of money mentioned? No, it was not. The court of directors did not think it necessary to tell the proprietors what was the amount of the sum they meant to go to parliament to ask for permission to take out of their pockets. They did not think it worth while, he presumed, to make any calculation. His hon. friend had made a calculation that the first year would cost £180,000, and that the least expense would be £500,000. What did the hon. chairman say in answer to his hon. friend's request upon this subject. In the first place, he denied his hon. friend's calculation: but then what reason did he give for withholding this information from the proprietors? Why, least the ship-owners should become acquainted with the amount of allowance intended to be given them. What situation were the proprietors in, if they were to be refused this information? What ! Were they to be told that the ship-owners demanded additional freights to an enormous amount; some of them perhaps ten or fifteen thousand pounds each; and yet the proprietors were to have no information as to the whole extent of the demand? If this was the way in which the court was to be treated, they were indeed reduced to a very degrading situation. There must be some secret system-some manoeuvring going forward, with respect to which it seemed to be convenient to keep the proprietors in the dark. There was not one single statement of the amount of this evil. Not only did the directors refuse to tell the propritors what the sum was, but they would not even give them any notion of it, within ten thousand pounds. It was to be left entirely to the direction of the directors, and they were to be at liberty to dispose of the company's money just as they pleased. His hon. friend had very truly stated that this proposition was against the bye-laws, and against the act of parliament: but how did the hon. chairman answer all this? Why by telling the proprietors" that that might be all very true; but unless you, the proprietors, give us this discretion your affairs will come to a stand." Would the hon. chairman venture to go to the House of Commons, and tell that body, that if they did not give the court of directors a discretion beyond the law, that they could not carry on the affairs of the company? Surely

the hon. chairman would hardly have the courage to do that. The hon. chairman confessed that at present the directors had no power to exercise this discretion, and that, therefore, they must go to parliament to ask them to give this discretion. But did the directors pretend to prove that there was any necessity for this discretion? Why, if the directors thought proper to ask for this discretion, it was but decent that they should shew some reason why they should have it. The very object of the present system was to divest the directors of all discretion in these matters; and yet the directors themselves told the court that it was one of the most odious things to take away their discretion; and they grounded this observation upon their own virtuous and honourable motives. Now he (Mr. K.) thought that this was a discretion too dangerous to be left in the hands of any set of men, however honourable and virtuous they might be, because it was impossible to say that they were free from the influence of temptation. The hon. chairman's speech was full of the most extraordinary inconsistencies he had ever heard of. He, the hon. chairman, said it was almost impossible not to foresee, that at the end of the war very great changes would take place, and extraordinary difficulties would occur. These, he said, were distinctly foreseen; and yet foreseeing all these difficulties, the direc'tors entered into contracts with different ship-owners. They foresaw all these difficulties, and yet they did not at all provide for them. "Those difficulties," said the hon. chairman, " were quite clear-we foresaw them, and we foresaw that this must be the remedy for them." 'Now, if this had been the fact, he wished to know how the court of directors could confine themselves to that which they did in 1803 ? Why did they then go to parliament, and why did they consent that they should be restrained so clearly and positively in their conduct ? If

they foresaw this evil, why did they not then represent it to parliament ? and why 'did parliament restrict them within certain limits? Surely if they had foreseen those difficulties, they could easily have provided against them; and if they had not foreseen them, why should the act of parliament be so cautious? The reason was quite obvious. They had not, in fact, foreseen these difficulties. What was the answer given to his hon. friend when he read the act of parliament which restrained any additional allowance to the fixed rate of peace freight? Why, the hon, director met it by saying, "aye, but here is one act of parliament against another." His hon. friend contended that this act allowed no exception from the general rule; and then the hon.

chairman said, "Here is one act against another, and although the act relied upon by Mr. Hume, does lay down the positive rule, yet here is another act which makes exceptions from that general rule." But the hon. chairman did not condescend to consider the meaning or the words of the act of parliament; instead of which he referred to the report of the committee of 1803, and insisted that that report was made under precisely similar circumstances to those which existed at present, and that it was framed in the confident expectation of a very long peace. But the hon. chairman's argument founded upon the report itself failed him, when the act of parliament came to be considered; for the act made the case ten times stronger against the hon. chairman's position. The hon. chairman relied upon the circumstance of the report being drawn ap with a view to peace: but what did the act of parliament say ? We wont concede to you any thing in conformity to these views you who have accompanied your application with such reasons as you have stated, must now be told that there shall be no exception on the termination of war-no, says the act of parliament, there shall be no exception; you must take care and abide by the positive provisions, whatever they may be; we will only have this power given to you, with a view to actual war, or preparations for war and if you find yourself at the end of a war, to be in any difficulty we will oblige you to go on as if there had been no peace." This was what was told to the directors by the legislature, who expressly guarded themselves against the variation of prices following the termination of war. The hon. chairman had said, that tenders had been recently made at 267. per ton, and that the directors had proposed to offer this as a peace-rate of freight to the owners.

The Chairman here interposed, and said, that he did not mean to give any opinion on the subject. All he said was that this was the lowest tender which had been made.

Mr. Kinnaird said he had also understood the hon, chairman to say, that the directors approved of 261. as an equitable rate of peace-freight. He (Mr. K) knew that there had been a great variety of tenders made: some even as high as 337. Certainly the directors would be bound by law to close with the lowest tender : but what security would the court have against a similar application to this court two or three years hence, if it should turn out that those who had now made a tender at 267. per ton had been mistaken in their calculations? Was the hon. chairman prepared to say that he would not come three years hence and state that those who had contracted now