founded. The owners asked the court for a compensating allowance in this case, and if they could not give it of themselves, requested that they would apply to parliament for leave to grant them such an additional allowance as the exigency of the times should be found to require. What had the court of directors to do under such circumstances? doubtless to follow that course which best consulted the interest of the Company. They had two modes of acting before them. The first was to adhere rigidly to the terms of the existing contracts, and to insist on the performance of them by the owners at all events. The consequences must obviously have been ruinous to the owners; they could not go on sailing their ships at the contracted rates of peace freight and the existing prices of stores. From this inability their ships would be unemployed, and in fact thrown out of the service. They might prosecute the owners for the penalty of the nou-performance of their contracts, and for damages from the want of the use of ships, but in the meantime the Company would be driven to very serious inconvenience by the loss of the only fleet of ships then in existence calculated for their service. They could not immediately create another fleet, and it was in proof that they could not contract for new ships at so cheap a rate as they might continue the old set. The Company were certainly not to act from the principle of serving the interest of the owners, but if their own interest required that course which would also be beneficial to the owners, this last cir circumstance was no objection, but rather a recommendation. All this had been stated to the court of proprietors in the year 1815, and their consent had been given to an application to parliament for the proposed powers. Some difficulties occurred which prevented the prosecution of the business in parliament in the session that immediately followed, but it was brought forward there in the next. The House of Commons appointed a committee of their number to investigate the allegations contained in the Company's petition. The committee had sat for two months, a great deal of evidence was laid before them, and they made a report on the whole of the subject to the house. Upon that report the hon. proprietor had thought proper to animadvert. It was unnecessary for him (Mr. Grant) to enter into any vindication of the conduct of the committee. It was not a subject cognizable by that court. The court had no power to alter or controul what the committee had done. But he could not doubt that the public would be more disposed to rely upon the deliberate investigation of a body of gentlemen so constituted as that committee was, than upon the solitary

assertion of the hon. proprietor who had not the opportunity of being present at their discussions, and of judging of the different opinions and arguments which had terminated in the production of that report. He was sure that a sound exa mination of the subject would clear the committee from the imputations cast on them by the hon. proprietor. That committee was composed of twenty-one gentlemen, any of whom, if he excepted himself, might staud in competition with the hon. proprietor that had attacked them, for talent, integrity, and respectability. They assembled to do their duty fairlyand they had, iu his opinion, done it substantially. In the recommendation they submitted to the house respecting the matter immediately in question, they had not varied materially from what the directors themselves, sanctioned by the sentiments of the proprietors, had proposed to the house to be done. With respect to the number of ships claiming compensation, of which the directors had laid a list before the house, the committee nad thought that those of the extra class did not clearly appear to be entitled to any compensation, and that of the regular ships, there were three which stood upon particular conditions that ought to be attended to in settling with them, and six which had been contracted for upon terms not consonant to the law then existing, and which therefore must be left out of the scheme of compensation, because a committee of the house could not propose to the house to sanction the allowance of such compensation in a case where the law of parliament had been infringed. And with regard to those ships which should receive compensation, the committee were of opinion, that in the mode of conferring it, respect should be paid as far as was practicable, consistent with the object in view, to the principle of contract, and therefore, that the penalty provided for in the contract, on the non-performance of the stipulated number of voyages at the contract rate of peace freight should be forfeited, the forfeiture to be deducted from the additional allowance granted; and the maximum of this allowance beyond which the relief intended could not go, was fixed at £26 per ton, which was the lowest rate of freight at which the Company had contracted last year to have ships built for them. This, said the hon. director, was all that the committee had proposed; and what, he asked, was the grand objection to it? The hon. proprietor spoke as if he supposed that the committee of the House of Commons did not understand what they were doing-as if they had no evidence before them which ought to be trusted. The hon. proprietor stated this broadly, He said, that, according to the report,

the question was decided on "the evidence of the owners and their agents ;"but the committee had stated no such thing. With respect to the accounts of the owners, it was observed, in the committee's report, that they had " no other way of verifying them, but by the evidence of the owners themselves, or of their agents;" but they neither said, nor meant to say, that the general principle of granting relief was decided on such testimony. If the hon. proprietor would look closely into the proceeding, he would find that the committee had examined many other gentlemen besides the owners of ships claiming relief, and other documents than those they had produced. Under these circumstances, it appeared most clearly that the hon. proprietor had set out under the influence of a gross mistake. What, however, he wished particularly to observe, was, that the comnittee, arraigned as it had been, had done nothing but what the court of directors had themselves proposed, excepting only that they had introduced certain modifications, which in their judgment seemed proper. He (Mr. Grant) could only say, that, if the hon. proprietor had sat among them, he would have heard every thing which he had urged that day fairly met. But in fact his argument went against granting any relief at all, and this question had been otherwise decided by the Company as well as the committee.

The committee were censured for not going beyond what was proposed to them --for not proceeding to an entire revision of the shipping system-for not introducing new regulations. But the House of Commons did not give them that power

nor would the time have sufficed for such an extended inquiry. If they had embarked in it, there would have been no report during the present session, and the distresses of the owners would have been, increased.

The hon. proprietor thought the Company were giving too large a freight for their ships, and that nothing but ruin could follow. He had mentioned the present very low rate of freight for private ships hired for one voyage to India. No observation had been made that day, with respect to the rates of freight, by either of the gentlemen who had spoken, of which the directors were not fully aware. But there were many other things to consider with respect to this subject. The occasional rates of small ships for a single voyage could not be made a criterion for the regulation of the Company's freights. The Company, it had been long since seen, could not become dependent on occasional or fortuitous supplies of ships. They must be at a certainty in this matter, and experience had shewn that ships of a very large description, and

peculiarly equipped, were requisite for those objects, particularly for the China trade. A certain class of ships had in consequence been formed expressly for their service. That class of shipping now existed. There was perhaps three mil lions of money invested in it. Could this mass of shipping be at once set aside, even if the Company could do without them? They were built for the Company, and could be employed no otherwise. If they were set aside, the Company must build again, and they could not, as already said, have new ships at so httle an expense as that at which they might retain the old. This was the present alterna tive. The owners had contracted with the Company at rates at which they could not sail their ships in present circumstances what then was to be done? Were they to be allowed what was further necessary to enable them to continue navigating these ships, or were the Company to get rid of seventy or eighty thousand tons of shipping, and leave their future supply to chance?-Hear! hear!) What he (Mr. G.) wished to see, was, the interests of a great number of individuals fairly protected, and a capital of £3,000,000 sterling preserved from destruction, and preserved, too, for the advantage of the Company. But, if the Company got rid of those ships now in their service, how, he would demand, were they to supply the vacuity thus occasioned? How were the Company to be indemnified for the loss which they must necessarily sustain ?

The hon. proprietor had said a greatdeal in order to prove that ships of a small size, which could be procured at a cheap freight, were the best for a voyage to India. But was it to be forgotten that the Indian trade formed only an inconsiderable branch of the Company's com merce, and that for the trade to China, incomparably the most important, it was agreed on all hands that large ships were the most proper. These must be constructed expressly for the purpose, and cannot be regulated by the rate of freight to be paid for small ships occasionally hired, with such equipment as they may happen to possess for a voyage to India. Besides, the system of the Company, who were their own insurers, had long since settled it with universal consent, that their ships should be fitted for defence as well as for commerce, and they had auswered both purposes. How, he would ask, could this part of the system be altered with advantage? But for ships so constructed, doubtless a higher freight must be given. They had tried lately at what rate they could engage new ships to be built and. constructed for the China trade. The lowest was £26 per tou, and the highest went as far as £30. Such was the state

of the case with respect to far the larger and most important class of the Company's ships, those required for the China trade.

With regard to the rate of freight to India, he would make one or two remarks. In the first place, if they could get ships at £14 per ton, still they could not dismiss those which they had enga. ged at £18 per ton. The Company had made those contracts under proper circumstances, and they could not at their pleasure annul them. But what was the state of this India trade, and why were such low freights offered? Because, at the conclusion of the war, numbers of ships were thrown out of employment, and being able to do nothing better, preferred even taking half-freights to remaining wholly inactive and unproductive. Can the hon. proprietor imagine that the trade could be carried on forever on this principle? Surely neither he, nor any other person, could be so sanguine. (Hear! hear !) - It was impossible, therefore, under these circumstances, seriously to agitate the question of the Company divesting themselves of the ships they now had. If, indeed, they could hope, for a long time to come, to procure proper ships at £12 or £14 per ton, then, indeed, it might be proposed to pay a large sum of money in order to get rid of the existing contracts; but till it was clearly demonstrated that such would be the case, he thought the safer mode would be, not to divest themselves of the fleet they at present possessed. The great, the only point in question was, to do that which, in the existing state of things, appeared to be the best for the Company. As the contracts for the ships now employed in the Company's India trade should expire, it might be proper to form a class of vessels smaller than those now in use. This certainly would be much cheaper, and to this the court of directors had adverted. They had such a plan in contemplation, but more than this, and attention to the scale of equipment for the ships they should employ, they could not propose.

He should here state again, what he had repeatedly mentioned before, and what it was most material to observe, namely, that the Company's ships engaged for the Indian trade could not sail, at present, for their contract rates of peace freight. One of two things then must be done either to allow nearly such a rate as they could sail for, or by insisting rigidly on the literal performance of their contracts to turn them in effect out of the service, and look to the creation of a new set of ships. Which of these two modes was the best? After a long consideration of the subject, after more than twenty years experience in that house, without

feeling any partiality towards the shipping interest, of which indeed he had never given any reason to be suspected, it appeared to him, that the best course the Company could pursue for their own interest, was to make up such a rate to the owners of the present ships as might enable them to go on. Perhaps what was intended to be granted to them would not completely defray their expenses, or, at all events, afford them any profit; but it would have the effect of keeping them alive, and of continuing them in the Company's service instead of throwing them out of it. For it should be observed, that though it might be easy to throw the owners out of their service, it was not in the Company's power to compel them to sail for what they pleased to give. The Company, he was convinced, would act more wisely and more advantageously for themselves, by granting an increase of allowance, than by destroying the efficiency of those ships altogether. No man, who considered the subject fairly, could doubt, that it was safer and better for the Company to retain the present ships, and to make an adequate allowance to them, than to proceed with a severity that would throw them out of the service. If the Company entered into new contracts, they could not get ships of the same description as those employed in the China trade, at so low a rate as £26 per ton. And here the hon. director wished to observe, that the gentleman who commenced this debate seemed to have confounded two things which were perfectly distinct. The directors would not be obliged to grant the allowance specified in the bill, or any part of it. They were merely to be authorized to grant it if they thought fit, under certain regulations to be prescribed in the intended act, and one of these was that the allowance shall diminish as the price of stores falls. The hon. proprietor had

blamed the court of directors because the proceedings in parliament were not submitted to the proprietors. Now the fact was, that every thing which had been done was laid before them.

Mr. Hume." Not for their approbation."

Mr. Grant continued.-It was not likely that they shonld submit a measure which originated with a committee of the House of Commons, and which was. to be considered by that house, to the proprietors for their approbation. The proceedings of the house could not be made dependant on such approbation. The directors were not under the necessity of even laying the proceedings before the general court, though they had done so as matter of information, and a very unexpected discussion had arisen in consequence. There appeared indeed to

be a disposition in some part of the general court to look at all these things with suspicion. There was no ground for it. He could assure the gentlemen whom he was now addressing, that he would not give up the Company's privileges in the House of Commons, or any where else; and that in advocating the present measure he felt that he was supporting the true interest of the Company. The proposed measure was a matter of necessity; in no degree was it a matter of choice. The directors were convinced that ships could not sail for the present contract rates, and that it was better to grant the increased allowance than to give up the existing body of shipping and to go into the market for others. Upon this ground alone all that had been done was done; and his confirmed opinion was, that the plan proposed was by far the wisest and the best. True it is, said he, that this is a deviation from the strictness of the existing system, and it may reasonably be urged that it goes to weaken it, as setting an ill example for the future. No man could be more anxiously desirous of upholding the entireness of the present shipping system than himself. He had laboured earnestly in co-operation with others to establish it, and he knew that it had been productive of great and solid advantage to the Company, but he thought he was taking the only way that remained to preserve the body and substance of the system. The present measure had that for its object. The measure had grown out of a war of unexampled length, which had never allowed the system its natural operation. And as to the example which this measure would afford, it was to be observed the owners can never receive a boon of this kind, unless the Company shall chuse to ask and shall obtain the sanction of Parliament for it. Now the occasion for this, such another occasion as the present, cannot occur again till the present peace (which he hoped would be a long oue) is over, and the war that shall succeed it shall also terminate; futurities altogether presenting a period of probably very long duration. Under all these circumstances, the hou. director thought it was more advisable and practicable for all parties to come to an agreement of this sort, than to destroy the present system, which might be the ruin of some persons, and the discomfiture of the whole body of ship-owners, who would find it impossible to go on at the contract rates. How they came into this situation was another question. The Company had not placed them in it; they had placed themselves in it by being the lowest bidders, and the Company were obliged to accept of the lowest tender. But the Company had not lost by the tenders being so low. They had reaped advantage from

it, and the persons who by offering the lowest had become the contractors, he was convinced, had not on the whole, including the war extraordinaries, received more than a reasonable return for the capital they had employed, if indeed, in general, they had received so much.

The hon. proprietor had instanced the ship Cabalva and the vessel belonging to Mr. Mangles, and complained that the committee had acted very inconsistently in not having made any provision for them. What was the fact? Why, that those ships were taken up under circumstances more than questionable in point of law-and the committee said, "it is impossible for us to take cognizance of these claims; they do not come within the purview of the petition, which is to lessen the severity to which the owners are subject under the existing act of parlia ment." He (Mr. Grant) would be sorry to doubt that the hon. gentleman had the interests of the Company at heart, but he thought the long resolution he now moved tended essentially to injure the Company, The hon. gentleman had, in that resolution, taken as he thought a very perverse view of the subject, a view that did not seem to him to be fair or candid, nor led to any beneficial practical result. On this ground, the hon, director could not but disapprove of bringing forward such a proposition. He believed the committee of the House of Commons were actuated by uo motive but the desire of doing the best that the case appeared to require; he thought the course they had adopted was the proper mode, and unless a better mode were pointed out, he, for one, conceived that this ought to be followed. improvement in it were discovered, he would be most willing to concur in it.

If any

The hon. proprietor had appealed to something said before the committee of the House of Commons, in confirmation of his argument respecting the rate of Indian freight. One gentleman, it was said, quoted £14 as the peace rate of freight. Now he begged to observe, that the statement alluded to was given as loose opinion, and not offered on evidence. What was so said had reference to the present moment, when there was a glut of ships in the market, which the owners did not know what to do with. This was not a fair criterion by which to judge of what the real and permanent rate of Indian freight should be.

With respect to what had been said of the Company's being obliged to act under the direction of the House of Commons and of the beard of control in this bu siness, he certainly did not wish to crease the power of either over the Company; and he wished with all his heart that they had been under no necessity to seek their assistance as the present. But,