tionable shape. His objection was foundéd upon the principle of resisting the establishment of a precedent, which in the result must be attended with the worst consequences to the company.

The Chairman rose to explain. He must say, that an adjournment of the question at this late season of the year would be attended with great inconvenience. If he saw any necessity for it, he would readily acquiesce in the motion, but as it appeared to him there was no solid reason for further delay, he thought it would be improper to consent to a postponement. The subject had been very fully discussed, and he could discover no advantage likely to arise from further adjournment. The time of the present direction was now but short, and he did not see the possible chance of arriving at a different conclusion from that which the court were now prepared to form. Postponement would be only an interruption for a time of that proceeding, which the necessity of the case required. It might give an opportunity to some gentlemen of expressing their sentiments, which might as well now be expressed, and could not make the case plainer than it was. The hon. gentleman who spoke last admitted that there was a necessity in point of principle for relieving the ship-owners; but what did the hon. gentleman propose? He proposed that the company should make the present owners forfeit their bonds, and should throw open the contracts they had to the body of owners, in order that fresh engagements might be entered into, and the hon. gentleman said it would be the best way to put an end to the present contracts, because, in so doing, the system would be preserved, and it would be attended only with a loss to the owners themselves. But the hon. gentleman seemed to have forgotten what the consequences of such an expedient would be to the company. With respect to them, it would only be one of the inconveniencies they would have to sustain, that they would be divested of a class of ships which they could not, without a long interval of time, command elsewhere. For if the ship-owners were treated in the rigorous way he suggested, though it was true they might patiently bear the loss which they must sustain, that is, the loss of the employment of their ships by the company, and in any other line for which they were not adapted, being indeed fitted solely for the company's service, yet as the same ships would be the readiest which the company could employ, it was not to be expected the owners would re-let them below the price of the day, which would be more than the allowance now in contemplation to be given. It was easy to say, throw open the contracts and

66

make new ones." But suppose all the owners of shipping should take the alarm at such a proceeding, and no one should offer to enter into the company's service upon any terms that could be advantageously accepted, in what situation would the company then be? Why, they would have divested themselves of a whole class of ships which they could not replace without submitting to larger sacrifices than they were now called upon to make. The question for the consideration of the general court was, whether they would drive the present owners to throw up their contracts, and place themselves under the necessity of resorting to new contracts upon more disadvantageous terms. Supposing the present owners disposed to make fresh tenders after such treatment, would they not naturally insist, would they not have a right to insist upon the present rate of freights? They would have that right, and if the company did not comply with their terms they must go without those ships, and supply their wants in any other inadequate way that remained, or suspend their trade. If this mode of dealing was adopted towards them, it might then indeed be truly said that the company were in the power of the owners as to the amount of their tenders. The course recommended by the directors was proposed with the view of avoiding that situation. They thought they consulted the interest of the company in proposing to give to the owners such reasonable allowances short of the present rates of freight, as might enable them to sail their ships, and thus to secure their services to the company. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman might approach nearer to the rigid letter of the existing contracts, though not entirely, because the owners might be prosecuted for the loss of the service of their ships, but the expedient perferred by the directors was on the whole a great deal more safe. For what was the effeet apprehended from it? The infringement, it was said, of the present shipping system. What would be the operation? Relief only to the present ships. New engagements would be made on the established principle of a permanent peace freight. And this sort of exigency which had now occurred at the end of thirteen years, could not occur again till not only the present peace, but the war that should follow it, should come to an end -a period, it might be hoped, of many years, during all which, the system would be safe; and it would be left to the circumstances of the peace that should follow the next war, to determine what was then fit to be done. Was there not here pretty good security for the system?

It was not, indeed, easy to explain in

a few words all the bearings and dependancies of this question. But the short state of the case was, that the company' would be relieved from all that trouble and difficulty which he had pointed out, by following the expedient now proposed. This was not so much the concern of the directors, as of the owners and of the proprietors. With respect to himself, he had no personal interest in the subject; whatever might be the advantages or difficulties of either alternative in view, he could share but little in them, as he was, in the usual rotation, about to retire from the direction. The responsibility, indeed, which might attach to him for the part he had taken in this affair, he would by no means shrink from. He had no motives for his conduct, but those of a public nature. He did not wish to bring unpopularity and odium .on the present shipping, by straining it to a point never in contemplation when it was adopted. He did not wish to bring ruinous loss on the owners, where the company's interest, instead of requiring or benefiting by that step, would also be injured, and he believed the court of directors acted under the same views and impressions. If it were surmised that there was any shipping interest generating this measure, it was an unfounded unworthy suspicion, and a hard return for the honest performance of duty. The court thought the measure was grounded upon expediency and policy and was that which seemed best calculated in the result to benefit the company. They looked to the necessity of the case; and after considering the subject in its different views, they resolved upon that which seemed to be the wisest course to pursue. Looking to the precedent of 1803, they went entirely upon the same general grounds upon which the measure of that time proceeded; the shipowners did now as they did then, lay their case before the court of directors. It was precisely a case of the same nature as the former one. It required relief at least as much, and the court seeing there was only a choice of difficulties, chose the alternative which they thought had less of evil and more of good than the other, and in which they felt themselves fortified by the principle and the practice of 1803. The act of that year had properly limited its own operation to the case before it, and here was an additional security to the system, that the consent of parliament to any subsequent measure of the same sort was necessary; and hence the proposal now brought forward to apply for the sanction of the legislature in a case which, however it might be attempted to distinguish it, was precisely the same in its nature and principle, and therefore equally recommended by sound discretion.

:

He

wished to stop himself from making any further observations upon the subject. He believed that all the consideration which it could require, had been bestowed on it by the directors, and they would' come to no better conclusion than that which they had submitted to their constituents, upon all the grounds already stated. And all those grounds having been already discussed, he certainly thought there was no occasion for suspending the debate any longer; but it was for the court to judge whether they would now go on or not. He could only repeat, that delay at this late season of the year would be very inconvenient, and the more inexpedient when no solid advantage could be derived from further deliberation. The question was clear and intelligible, and he could not doubt the success of the application, if it were brought under the due consideration of the legislature.

Mr. Jackson explained that he had suggested the adjournment in order that his hon. friend's (Mr. K's.) proposition might be matured. He did not say, however, that his hon friend's suggestion actually met with his own (Mr. J's) approbation. But as his hon. friend had put it hypothetically, it certainly deserved consideration. At all events, he thought any expedient would be better than that of going to parliament. It was for the court to judge how far it was advantageous, at this time of day, to press the question, when it was known that most of the proprietors had withdrawn, and when most of the gentlemen present were known to have an interest in the question. He did say, that a question involving the interests of so many proprietors, ought to be decided by the greatest number that could be collected together; and a delay of three or four days, more or less, was not a consideration which ought to influence the decision of the court.

Mr. Stewart Hall thought that as the company had acted unanimously on former occasions, they ought to act equitably now. The ship-owners having come forward in a candid and open manner to state their claims upon the company, he thought the company were bound to give the subject due consideration: and if they found their case to be really such as had been represented, they would act justly towards them, by granting what the direction should think right and equitable. As to the system, and as to the act of parliament, little need be said, and that little would be sufficient for all purposes: namely, that there would be no departure from principle, nor any transgression of the act of parliament, in applying to the legislature to grant that which they had formerly granted. He had felt a good deal

for the court of directors, in consequence of what had been said upon the subject of discretion. He believed that the court of directors had always done their duty by the proprietors to the best of their judgment: and if it had been their habit at all times to do their duty according to the best exercise of their own discretion, he could not conceive upon what principle the court ought now to distrust them, in the exercise of that discretion with which it was now proposed to vest them. They acted upon their responsibility, and their conduct was always open to the inspection of those who suspected their integrity. A number of expressions had been used in the course of the debate, which tended to excite a prejudice against the directors, and which appeared to him to be unjustifiable. It was insinuated, that in submitting this measure to the court, they were influenced by the desire of extending their own patronage and of claiming a discretion for purposes of abuse. It was insisted that the greatest jealousy ought to be entertained of their conduct, and that they should be watched with the most scrupulous suspicion. Now really these observations did not come home to his feelings, either from what he had read or - heard of the conduct of the court of directors. For his part he thought it was absolutely necessary, that the court of directors should have that discretion which every man wished to exercise, when he wished to discharge a conscientious duty. He made this observation because he felt that the best interests of the company would be sacrificed unless the greatest confidence was placed in the integrity and good intentions of the directors. Most heartily did he wish to see a perfect agreement and harmony subsisting between the proprietors and their executive body; he therefore deprecated the idea, that there should be any jealousy excited against them; and he was very sorry to find, that reflections, as lamentable as they were unjust, had been frequently dealt out to them-(name! name! from several voices.)-He did not wish to say, from what quarter those reflections had been thrown out; probably some of them might not have arisen from any other source than the heat of debate; but he would wish that gentlemen who spoke in that court, would feel that even in the heat of debate, there was some deference to be observed toward the executive body. The chairman had, in his opinion most satisfactorily explained the grounds upon which this measure was proposed. Those grounds appeared to him to be conclusive, and therefore he conceived that the court might determine the question without any adjournment, and God knew there had been enough said upon it, to satisfy

any reasonable person on the expediency and necessity of the measure.

Mr. K. Jackson said, he should have thought, that the motive which had induced him to propose an adjournment, would have been met by a corresponding feeling on the part of those who opposed it. The only motive which he had in recommending to the court the adoption of this course, was the sincere desire of seeing unanimity prevail between all parties upon this important subject: but since the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and those who thought with him, chose to urge the present mode of proceeding against the sense of what he trusted was the majority of the court upon this subject, he should avail himself of the opportunity, late as it was, of recording his protest against the principles and doctrines which had been held out that day. The hon. gentleman affected a great desire to see unanimity and cordiality prevail between the court of directors and the court of proprietors. The hon. gentleman must forgive him, if he did not give him credit for the sincerity of his assertion; and he (Mr. J.) complained of him and of others in being totally indifferent to the unanimity of the court, when he and they compelled the court at so late an hour of the day, to come to a decision upon a question involving so many important consequences to the company. One would have thought that convenience and propriety would have induced those gentlemen to acquiesce in a proposition which had for its object, that which the gentlemen affected to promote. But as the hon. gentlemen seemed not disposed to concur with him, he felt it to be his duty to enter his protest, and record his sentiments upon the measure now proposed, in order that it might not be afterwards said on any future occasion, that he tamely stood by, and saw the violation of that system, towards which he bore a parental feeling, and saw a precedent established pregnant with the worst consequences to the company. In this point of view, he owed it to himself, and to the court, to trouble the proprietors with some few observations. The hon. Chairman had said, that there was some existing act of parliament which dispensed with the contracts of the owners in time of war. He should be glad to know what act of parliament, and in what section it was, that this power of dispensation was given to the court of directors ? For the hon. director neither gave the date of the act of parliament, nor the section in which that power was contained. Even the report and the resolution framed upon that report, which was the subject of the discussion, were utterly silent upon that principle, which was now recognized by the hon. chairman. Until he should be informed, that there was such an act

of parliament as that alluded to, which gave the directors the power of dispensing with a fair and open competition, he should presume the law of 1795 to be the law of the East India Company, and that public contracts entered into under that law, were imperative upon the directors, and all persons connected with them. The first proposition submitted to the court, amounted to uo more than this: whether those who entered into contracts with the company should have all the profit of their contracts accompanied by an indemnification against all the losses? This was the whole scope and end of the proposition. But the question was, first whether the court would preserve that system which was alluded to in the resolution of the court in 1803, and afterwards in the act of parliament founded thereupon? Or whether the occasion which was now offered to the court had as much reference, in point of analogy, to the proceedings of 1803, as would incline an infraction of the system, by the measure now proposed? In order to support this latter branch of the question, the directors were obliged to contend that the system was not infringed upon in the year 1803. If this was so, why then should there be all that cautious arrangement? Why that anxiety expressed in the report of the year 1803, for the preservation of the system, and why was the like anxiety expressed in the act of parliament passed on that occasion ? The reason was obvious. The legisla ture said, this shall not be drawn into a precedent. It was felt to be a violation of a previous act of parliament passed for the purpose of preserving the inviolability of the system. Every man of common sense, and common understanding, must have seen, that it was a violation of the system, and hence the caution observable in the conduct of the legislature. And the single question now was-whether the occasion had again occurred, which should again justify the violation of the system? His hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had been the object of much exception, because he thought fit to set out with a number of references, not inventions, but references to the company's own documents, and this was called declamation and invention, and the observations were accompanied by a thousand other terms some of which were neither just or maintainable by fair reasoning. But he appealed to every candid mind in court whether his honourable friend did not bottom every observation which he had made, upon the records and papers which were accessi ble to every proprietor. He did not merely give their substance, but he read them, he named them, he gave their dates and their titles; and not till then did he make his own observations. If his hon. friend was an insinuator, an inventor, and a de

claimer, the legislature were insinuators, inveutors, and declaimers; and many of the court's own resolutions were resolutions of declamation; for those were the resolutions upon which his honourable friend had founded his observations, and enjoined the court not to allow a departure from the system upon which the company had acted. These were the grounds upon which his hon. friend had called the proprietors to a sense of the value of the system, to a recollection of the consequences of its violation, and to the necessity of preserving it inviolable. These were the grounds of his injunction to preserve the system uninjured. With the like motives he had reminded them of the contents of a Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1773, shewing that five millions of money had been spent upon freight during the preceding ten years; and that one-third of that sum had been lost or thrown away. He had shewn that the House of Commons had given instances and reasons for this extraordinary expenditure under that head-that it had arisen at that time from private favour and affection, and from the cultivation of personal friendships and private influence. He had shewn that the company had employed eighty-three ships, when, in point of fact, only fifty-three were artually engaged in the company's service; the remaining thirty being useless, lying in docks and upon rivers. And why? Because it served the purpose of the persons in power at that time to throw these rich and battening contracts into the hands of particular contractors. If his honourable friend had not authority for his statements, probably he might justly have called forth the observations which his speech had excited, but he proved to demonstration that every one of his positions was founded upon the most irrefragable testimony. Without such evidence as this it might be said that he was guilty of the grossest insinuation, and that he meant scandalously to reflect upon the company when he represented to the court that the ship-owners of that day were under no restraint:-that many of them were the relations of directors, or actual directors themselves, or having shares in some of the vessels, and sat in judgment upon their contracts, and proposed their own prices for their own ships. But the fact was so the case was then as his hon. friend had represented it. The act of parliament took special care that this should not be the case in future; thereby confirming the statement that the evil had been as was represented. His hon. friend had shewn that that corrupt practice had been put a stop to by a course of salutary propositions-that the statute book contained provisions after

provisions against the recurrence of the evil; and yet it was considered as little short of treason to the directors, to insinuate that such corruption had ever existed. By this course of reasoning and demonstration by evidence, his hon. friend had shewn that those corruptions had no longer existed, and had proved the necessity of maintaining that system which had been found so salutary to the company. In the year 1786 the prices demanded by large owners was so enormous that the subject was at last brought under the consideration of the company. They were then brought to a sense of their own situation. He did not mean to deny that the hon. chairman had not great merit on that occasion; but he (Mr. J.) begged leave to say, that whatever merit was due on that occasion, there were others equally entitled with the hon. chairman to a share of it. He himself, with great humility, begged to put in his claim, to some credit for the exertions he had made in furtherance of this great object; when the court of directors came to the court of proprietors for assistance, most readily did he volunteer his humble assistance in the arrangement of that great system: and though he did not affect to be the principal agent upon that occasion, yet so highly important were his humble services then considered, that he had had the honour of being publicly thanked by a resolution of the court. The hon. chairman seemed to claim the merit on the part of himself and the court of directors as having been the first patrons of the system but it will be recollected that it was the proceedings in the court of proprietors that first brought the attention of the company to a sense of their own dignity and independence. It would be recollected that in the year 1786 some of the large owners demanded as high as 371. per ton but in consequence of the proceedings of the court of proprietors threatening the total destruction of their system, in a very short time they came down as low as 237. From that time the company took courage, and from that time the opposition publicly began. It was then that a resolution was past adopting the doctrine of public contracts. The speech of his hon. friend deserved the highest praise. It was one of the most business-like and luminous speeches he ever heard in his life. He gave the court facts in every stage of it, and there was not one important point throughout the whole of it which did not stand upon the clearest evidence and most satisfactory proof. Above all other men, he (Mr. J.) deprecated the departure from that system which had been so happily established. He should be sorry to see that system gradually undermined which had cost him seven or eight years of the most

valuable and active part of his life to bring to bear. As he had already said, the the general court did him the honour then of publicly thanking him for the part he had taken. His hon. friend had evinced considerable research in order to trace the evils which he had pointed out, and the remedies that had been applied. He had pointed out the impolicy of invoking a precedent in order to justify the resolution for breaking up the system of open competition. He had pointed out instances, where attempts had been made on the part of the directors to violate that principle. He particularly alluded to the years 1793 and 1794, in which last year an open attempt of that sort was made, and in point of fact, the directors did carry the freight considerably higher than it ought to have been and this was done in such a manner, as induced Mr. Dundas to interfere on the part of his majesty's ministers, to protest against that deviation from the principle of public and open contracts. Mr. Dundas claimed a right to interfere, and insisted as his reason for it, that they had not only departed from the system then established, in taking up ships in the season of 1794, but because they had even gone against their own better judgment. He (Mr. J.) attributed this departure from the system, to the too great discretion lodged in the directory; and one reason why he should wish for some measure for the security and inviolability of the system was, because it would deprive the directors of the power of acting this way and that way, and departing from the principle of fair and open competition, just as it happened to suit the occasion. It was under this feeling, that he now took the liberty of addressing the court. What was the history of the establishment of this question? Mr. Dundas had taken the company to parliament, and then that which was only a resolution of this court, became the law of the land in the following year, commanding an open and free competition amongst the ship owners ; and that in all cases, the company should close with the lowest tender, without favour or partiality. Had this been found to be a good or a bad system? Let the company read their own accounts to answer that question. They would find that they had saved by it half a million of money. It had been shewn by his hon. friend, that this saving had been made within the last ten years. If such a man as his hon. friend had made such a speech thirty years ago, as he had made to-day, it would by this time have had the effect of paying off the whole debt of India. Had the same progressive saving gone on, the company would not have been in its present difficulties.