༔་ 13‚!

East India House, March 27, 1816.

A COURT of Proprietors of East India Stock was this day held, pursuant to adjournment, at the Company's house in Leadenhall-street.

The minutes of the last court having been read

The Chairman (C. Grant, Esq. M. P.) acquainted the court, that it was met for the purpose of renewing the discussion on the proposition made at the last court, respecting the allowance to be granted to the owners of the company's ships, in time of peace. He then directed the resolution to be read, as follows:

"That this court taking into consideration the general advance occasioned in the 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, therefore, authorize the court of directors to request the sanction of parliament to the grant of the proposed relief, with such precautions as may prevent it from affecting the stability of that system."

This resolution, the hon. Chairman observed, having been moved and seconded at the preceding general court, it was now fully open to the consideration and animadversion of the proprietors.

Mr. R. Jackson expressed a wish that the report of the shipping committee, on which the resolution was founded, and with the contents of which many of the proprietors were unacquainted, should be read.

The report (of which an abstract is given in the debate of the 20th inst.) having been read

Mr. Hume commenced by apologising to the proprietors for entering on the discussion of a subject, in which, as an individual, he was very little concerned, having no connection with the shipping interest. In offering himself, therefore,

:T

to their notice, he hoped they would receive his observations, as the result of a conviction, that what he recommended was the plan which the interests of the company, and the principles of good po licy called on them to adopt. "He should be sorry, if a single remark fell from him, that could be supposed to cast an imputation on any individual implicated in the transactions before the court. Towards many of those gentlemen, who were now applicants to the company for relief, he entertained the highest respect and friendship; and, if he could shape his conduct to meet their wish, without sacrificing his principles, he would be happy to do so. But he hoped he should never discover individual friendship to operate on that court, in producing or sanctioning acts of public injury and public injustice. Of this he was sure, that such a feeling should never induce him to deviate from the strict line of public duty. The question now before the court was one of no common interest; and all would agree with him, that the consideration of it was of the utmost importance. It had therefore, appeared necessary to him, that the hon. chairman, or some other gentleman who had sanctioned the resolution then under deliberation, should offer some reason should have communicated some facts, for inducing the proprietors to agree to it. The resolution was one that departed from the company's established system of service it was one that abrogated every act of parliament which had been passed on the subject. It was, in fact, opposed to the spirit and letter of commercial transactions, in general. No argument, however, had been addressed to the court, by any of the gentlemen behind the bar. Nothing however had been laid before them, but the report that had now been read; he was therefore, authorised to conclude, that nothing further could be offered in its support. However, those who were of a contrary opinion would have an opportunity of fairly stating whatever objections they might feel to the few remarks he should offer to

the court. If any argument could be advanced to bear out the propriety of adopting the resolution, he should be sorry if due weight was not allowed to them; but, as many individuals then in court did not understand the nature of the question then before them (not probably having their attention drawn to the subject at any preceding period) it became necessary for him to state it. The proprietors could not give to the directors a right to apply to parliament to annul this or that, unless they were fully apprized of what

was simply who had hired ships to the company, according to the provisions of the act of parliament; who had answered by their tenders, the printed advertisement of the company who deliberately offered to hire ships, on specific terms, for a certain number of voyages, which offer was accepted now, notwithstanding a fixed and given price was stated, when the bargain was made, they come forward and demand an increased rate. These transactions took place some years ago-part of the contracts had been complied with, and part remained to be performed. Those very gentlemen now applied to the company, by different letters, which lay on the table, stating, that the variation in the price of stores, &c. between the present period of peace and a period of war, was not so great as they had calculated on and, therefore, they declined requiring their charter-parties. They would not complete their contract with the company, unless an additional allowance were granted to them. For instance, if they contracted to furnish shipping at £20 per ton, they might, on this principle, instead of that sum, call for £30, £40, or even £50 per ton, the increase being variable. To what did this lead? It led to a question which this court ought not hastily to decide upon; a question that was rendered doubly important, because it came before the proprietors, considered, as they were told, duly and deliberately, first by their committee of shipping, and then by the court of directors, who had approved of the measure recommended by the committee. If he might be allowed to read the words of the proposition, it was, " to grant to the owners of ships, engaged under the new system, an addition, for the present year, to the peace rates of freight." Now was this the fact? Would this be the whole effect of the resolution? The operation of such a concession would extend to more years than one. It went to increase the rate of freight, to enable the ship-owner to sail his vessel, without loss. If, therefore, the price of stores continued as high as it now was, the difficulties which called for the present resolution, would remain; and the ship-owners would say to the company," you have done us a favour in one year; we are, at present, just as badly off as when that kindness was shewn to us; therefore, we pray that you will relieve us again." He believed it was the wish, intention, and expectation, of the managing-owners, to procure relief for more than one year. All the ships for the present season had sailed, or were about to sail-two, three, or four voyages might not be completed, but they desired relief for the whole. If ១៩ I JOV

tion? They would be constantly appli ed to for relief; because, it was most evident, from the correspondence of the owners, that they wanted permanent, and temporary assistance. In point of equity, one would not desire that a man should be ruined by any contract he might enter into but it was his duty to form a proper calculation, before he ventured to speculate. If an individual said, "Here are ten chaldrons of coals, which I will sell at such a rate," and his proposal was agreed to,10 would it not be very extraordinary if he came to the purchaser, a month afterwards, and observ ed,

coals have risen ten per cent, in price; I, therefore, cannot let you have those you bargained for, at the rate your originally proposed?" Would any man in business hazard such a proceeding Certainly not. He would say, "It is true I have lost by this transaction--but still I must fulfil my contract." It was said that the managing-owners were very much deceived in this instance. If so, he could assure the court the deception was not unexpected. Looking to a cors respondence that appeared in The Morned ing Chronicle, in 1813, when several: letters appeared, written by an individuala whose signature was "No OWNER," its did appear that sufficient warning was then given to the shipping-interesti The person who wrote those letters, cau tioned the managing-owners against thest contracts which they were then about to enter into. Certain I am," said he,o " that at a future period, you will either w be obliged to give up those contractsw you will ruin or disgrace yourselves onit you will be compelled to apply to the q company for relief." This circumstance a must be known to many of those indivisi duals who had ultimately thought properda to enter into contracts. In commercialds transactions, particularly in Great Britov tain, every man was allowed freely tosis make his own calculations; and, whengs he formed a tender upon them, no persiq son would say, why do you propose for this particular sum, or for that? The reason was obvious. Every man was d? supposed to have a just knowledge, andhs to have taken an accurate view, of the q subject, to which his attention was cal-og led. Admitting this, would the compa ny allow, in consequence of a supposed of deception, an alteration to be made in to such an extensive range of shipping-conys! tracts as this? Yes," said the ship ping-committee, provided the same caned be done with safety to the shipping-sys tem." These were their words. But he da would maintain it that they could not doow it with safety to the shipping-system as because, if the boon were granted now VOLostnia

the company would be in the same situation every year, whilst any difficulty remained. The applications for relief would continue, as long as any circumstance adverse to the ship-owners continued; and thus, the present excellent system, would be rendered futile. Where persons made wrong calculations, and the tenders of those persons were received while the fear of others who saw the subject clearly, and who calculated accordingly, were rejected-were the former to be indemnified for their errors, while the latter suffered by their correctness? If the company were thus to be guided by those who miscalculated, instead of being influenced by those whose calculations were just, would it not be opening the door to those irregularities, which the shipping-system was intended to prevent? Would it not be a plan, which, instead of supporting or providing for the safety of the present system, must overturn it? If he were desirous that the system should be altered, this was one of the first measures he would call for. This was the point on which he was at issue with the shipping committee. They submitted every thing they had thought proper to recommend, on the necessity of the company's doing something to preserve the existing systein. But what was the nature of this system? It was a system of fair and open competition. Would, therefore, this proposition of the committee of shipping, which went to abrogate contracts regularly concluded, and to give additional allowances to those who had voluntarily agreed to themwould it go to strengthen and support the present system? On what principle of reasoning could they coutend that it would promote a fair and open competition? He had, however, correctly quoted the words of the resolution then before the court--and, as they seemed to involve a contradiction, he was anxious that the proprietors should consider them again and again. The committee of shipping recommended an application to parliament; the court of directors proposed a resolution, founded on the report of that committee they, therefore, approved of it: What did they call on the proprietors to do? They asked for leave to go to parliament, to procure certain powers-which powers were to enable them to pay a sum of money to the ship-owners, or in other words, to take money, to a large amount, out of the pockets of the proprietors. As the facts had been stated, he saw no other deduction that could be drawn from them. They were told by the committee of shipping that the relief would be granted with such precautions, as would prevent the destruction of the present system. But how they were, by Asiatic Journ.No. V.

doing away existing contracts, to keep, up the present system, and to produce a fair and open competition, under the provisions of the act of parliament—the prices, at the time of tender, being fixed, once for all-uo second thoughts being allowed-no reservations being permitted

it was not in his power to imagine. He thought the highest compliments were justly due to the committee, which drew up the report, on this subject, in 1803.The arguments adduced by that committee were advanced in support of the present proposition, as it should seem, in utter ignorance of the intention they had in view, and of the point to which their reasoning was directed. That report went to shew that a departure from the existing system was most dangerous, and therefore, highly improper. It was on that account that the committee of 1803 called on the proprietors to act with precaution. The word system was made use of so much on this occasion, as to render it necessary for him shortly to detail the origin of that state of things, which his learned friend (Mr. R. Jackson), whose exertions on this, and on various other occasions, could not be too highly applauded, had toiled for many a day in that court to obtain and to secure. He was well pleased to observe, that the court of directors and the committee of shipping were impressed with the importance of that system-and were attentive and careful to preserve it unimpairedalthough he differed very much as to the means by which that end was to be accomplished. His learned friend, aud many other proprietors, at the period to which he alluded, well knew the fetters by which the directors were bound, with respect to the old shipping-interest. They were so manacied, that it was impossible for them to act. But the exertions of his learned friend, aided by the efforts of other independent proprietors, set them loose-they broke the chains by which the directors were confined-and enabled them to act for the benefit of the company. The records of the House of Commons fully proclaimed the situation in which they were placed, before that event occurred. He would not go back to the report of the committee of that house, in which it was stated, “that the discretion given to the directors, in the hiring of ships, had been the occasion of the loss of millions to the company." That committee was appointed in 1773, to inquire into the affairs of the company; and they found, that private favour had so warped the directors from the performance of their duty, that, in one year, instead of taking up only fifty-six ships, which was all the tonnage they could use, they had actu ally hired eighty-three vessels. There were few individuals who were not, more VOL. I. 3 P

or less, assailable by feelings of interest and private friendship; and, there was not, at present, a member of the court of directors, who ought not to rejoice, that a plain and evident line of conduct was pointed out for the direction of the whole body. What followed the statement of this committee? In 1781, the directors were forced to submit to any terms which the then shipping owners were pleased to ask them. This was a part of the old system from which the company were now relieved. In 1783, the then existing owners came to the directors, and said, "Our ships alone are fit for your purpose-you cannot sail without our consent-and we will, not hire our vessels for less than 377. 10s. per ton." The directors resisted this demand-and many publications of that day did justice to their exertions. They offered the ship-owners 327-but the latter refused to take less than they had demanded. “Then," said the directors, "we shall advertise, and see what assistance the general market can afford." They did so, and in one week, tonnage to an immense amount was offered. The managing-owners were thunder-struck. They renewed their application having lowered their rates from 371. 10s. to 331. and at that price the bargain was concluded. A little after this period, many individuals advised the directors to break this bargain, offering to supply them at a cheaper rate; and one gentleman (Mr. Bingham) proposed to hire eighty ships to the company. He did not mean to say, that the company ought to have receded from their bargain; but he mentioned this fact to shew, that efforts were then made to remove that thraldom under which the directors laboured; and the gentleman whom he had mentioned was one of those who endeavoured along with his learned friend, to bring the company's shipping affairs to a plain and regular system, by advising an application to a market elsewhere, when those who usually supplied the company with vessels, were disposed to act in an arbitrary manner. On the 22d of June, 1786, the ship-owners came down to that court (he saw several gentlemen present, who took part in the debate on that occasion), and passed a resolution, by which the directors were precluded from taking up any ship, under 800 tons burden. Thus, if vessels of 799 tons burden were offered, the directors would not, in consequence of that resolution, be empowered to take them up. There were no ships, in England, of those dimensions recognised by the resolution, except such as were built, by the owners, who supported it. On that day, which he had stated, the old shipping-interest came down, and bound: the court of directors to employ none but 800 ton ships; thereby tying the com

pany up to their own rates, however ex+ orbitant they might be; such was the state of subjection in which that body held the company, for a considerable pe riod. At length, on the 16th of May, 1792, his learned friend (Mr. R. Jackson), desirous, to put an end to this system of imposition, moved, "That this court should recommend some plan, or fix on some principle, for obviating all the disadvantages that were experienced from the existing mode of hiring ships for the company's service." This motion he prefaced by a speech full of argument and eloquence, and which flashed conviction on every unbiassed mind. That motion was, however, defeated. The question came to a ballot; and his learned friend was left in a minority. There appeared, for the motion 353-against it, 561. Yes, on that occasion, his learned friend had the satisfaction of seeing 353 disinterested proprietors vote for a fair and open competition. That defeat, like one which had taken place not long since, ended in a victory. For, in a short time after wards, on the 3d of April, 1793, his learned friend came down to the court, with a resolution, which was recom mended by Mr. H. Dundas, as recognis ing a principle necessary for the interest of the company. His learned friend proposed and carried that resolution-the first which that court had sanctioned, for effecting an alteration in the mode of contracting for ships. It put an end to the old system-and on it the whole of the present system was built. He would read that resolution, in order to shew the proprietors the grounds on which the anxiety on which the court of directors to preserve the existing regulations, seemed to rest:-"Resolved unanimously" (in`a full court), "That this court do concur in opinion with the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, that the freight of ships, employed in the company's service, should be settled, once for all, on a fair and equitable footing;-and that the court of directors be called on to take the same into consideration, as well as other matters, to enable the company to carry on their trade to the greatest advantage-in order that some permanent system may be established, on principles of fair, wellregulated, and open competition." This was the first satisfactory resolution passed on this important subject, after years of labour and exertion--and on it, the present system, as now acted upon, was founded. What was the consequence of that resolution? Soon after it had passed, the directors were able to get rid partially of the old system. On the 21st of Ja nuary, 1795, another resolution was pro posed and carried in that court, namely,

That the lowest tenders for the hire of vessels should be accepted the parq ties giving security to the company fo

the due performance of their con>tracts," He begged the particular attention of the court to the latter words-because on them were founded the true bye-laws afterwards ordained with respect to shipping. What followed? In the very next year, on the 5th of February 1796, the court of directors reported to the proprietors, "That, in consequence of the resolution of the 3d of April 1793, and the 21st of January 1795, they had already been able to do a great deal of good. In the last year they. had saved to the company £183,366.' This was a large sum to save in a single year; but they added, "That, but for circumstances, the amount would have been still greater." The savings, if calculated from the year 1808 (not from the commencement of the struggle of those who wished to place the shipping system on a just basis, but only for a few years), would be found to form a total of £2,532,000, at this time. It had been shewn by documents, that, by the old system, the company lost £10,000,000 in fifteen years. These accounts were not challenged in that court-and, he supposed, if there were any reason to doubt their authority, or to find fault with them, there were plenty of persons who would have been anxious to shew that they were wrong. But, as nothing was said against them, he would take credit for their truth and accuracy, Therefore, he inferred, the reason of the anxiety which the directors expressed to keep up the present system, was, because it had saved many millions to the company's treasury, which otherwise would have been lavished away. But if the saving had been only half-a-million, he conceived it was worthy of attention. Therefore, he hoped, both in a pecuniary and in a political point of view, that no measure would be adopted, which could, by possibility, risk the stability of that system, the effects of which had been so beneficial. But the resolution now pro posed went directly to abrogate it. It was clear, however, that neither the sanction of that court nor the approbation of the court of directors, to the proposition, could effect such an alteration, If they looked to the 39th of his Majesty, they would find that by it the system was protected and guarded. That was an act passed by the legislature, and provided that the shipping transactions of the company should proceed on the principle of fair and open competition. Thus the principle had the sanction of the court of directors, of the general court, of the bye-laws, and of an act of parliament, They all joined in pointing out the neces sity and propriety of the measure. But, for the proposition now laid before them, the recommendation was of a different

nature-it was supported by something else. They were told, "There is a precedent for it." "There is no necessity," said the committee," for taking the whole of this case into our immediate consideration, because a case in point occurred in the year 1803, and to that we call your special attention. It is so much in point, that we need only give you extracts from it, to prove the propriety of this proceeding." Now, he denied, entirely, the application of the facts quoted. They did not bear on the present case. The extracts that had been made from the report of 1803, were directly, were diametrically opposite to the conclusions that were now attempted to be drawn, from them-and the two cases were quite dissimilar-they were absolutely opposed to each other. What was the reasoning of the proprietors on the case of 1803?". It was expressly stated, that "They would not concede to the resolution of the court of directors, on the ground that the shipowners claimed a farther remuneration, viz. on account of the difference in the price of stores, and the high rate of wages-but because the peace concluded in 1802, did not appear likely to be permanent, and the commencement of a new war seemed very near." They felt that this country was not in a state which any candid man would denominate peacethey considered it merely as a state of preparation for war. And, in such a case, they had a right, by act of parliament, to grant additional allowances. Those allowances, by that act (the 39th of the King), might be granted, "in case of war, or preparation for war." Was that the situation in which the country was placed, at present? as in 1802, in a state of war? Was there the pect of immediate war? reason to suppose, as was the case in 1802, that they were likely to be plunged in hostilities ? Immediately after the peace of Amiens, when all the maritime powers were anxious to fill their arsenals with marine stores, little doubt could be entertained but that war was meditated-and the price of stores was consequently enhanced. But was any power doing that at present? Was any state making preparations that could induce the court to look forward to hostilities? On the contrary, the report of the shipping-committee told them, plainly, "That they were likely to have a long peace ;" whilst the reason assigned for granting the additional allowances, in 1803, was the very near prospect of war. The two instances were alike, with this difference, that the committee of 1803 looked for immediate war, but that of 1816 denied the likelihood of it. The words of the shipping

Were they now preparation for smallest prosWas there any