*{>& 
 
 The Substance of the Reply 
 ...on ^ast India-Built Shipping 
 
 By 
 liam Harrison 
 
 " " " -' --:. \
 
 
 VI 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 SUBSTANCE OF THE REPLY 
 
 WILLIAM HARRISON, ESQ. 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAST INDIA SHIPPING,
 
 THE 
 
 SUBSTANCE OF THE REPLY 
 
 OF 
 
 WILLIAM HARRISON, ESQ. 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF 
 COMMONS, 
 
 ON 
 
 ilt Dipping, 
 
 ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1814, 
 
 IN REPLY ON THE WHOLE CASE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY T. DAVISON, LOMBARD-STREET, WHITEFRIARS; AND 
 SOLD BY J. M. RICHARDSON, CORNHILL. 
 
 1814.
 
 THE 
 
 SUBSTANCE OF THE SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 WILLIAM HARRISON, ESQ. 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 
 
 e/> ON 
 
 I 
 
 EAST INDIA BUILT SHIPPING, 
 
 
 On Tuesday, June 28, 1814, 
 IN REPLY ON THE WHOLE CASE. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I HAVE now to congratulate the committee upon having 
 
 arrived at the last stage of this long and laborious investigation; 
 
 3 and before I proceed to enter upon the questions which will ulti- 
 
 2 mately prove to be the only real subjects of discussion, it appears 
 to me necessary, that I should disencumber this case of a great 
 
 2 variety of matter which has come under the consideration of the 
 
 committee, not uselessly and improperly, but which will be found 
 
 -3 in the end, I am persuaded, to have no reference whatever to the 
 
 3 important question now under the consideration of parliament. 
 
 The committee will recollect that when I first had the honour of 
 addressing them upon this case, I stated my conviction that it was 
 a much more important question than that which had been deter- 
 mined in the last session of parliament; that it was entitled to 
 more consideration, as it more deeply concerned the general inte- 
 rests of the public. I stated this, because the question last year 
 was simply, whether the East India Company, who have hitherto 
 enjoyed the exclusive trade to India, should allow a participation 
 (with a view to the extension of it) to the private trader > 
 and that although that question was of great importance with 
 reo-ard to the extension of the trade, and the improvement of the 
 commerce between this country and India, still it was vastly in- 
 ferior in all considerations of public policy te the questions in- 
 volved in this discussion, namely, whether a most important 
 branch of ship-building, connected in public policy with th*
 
 strength and welfare of the country, should be lost to Great Bri- 
 tain, and transferred to Asia. 
 
 I call this to the recollection of the committee, because I have 
 been accused of representing myself as the advocate of private 
 claimants, upon grounds of public policy, without having shewn 
 that the public and private interests are necessarily connected ; I 
 am compelled to explain, therefore, once more, the nature of the 
 questions which the committee are called upon to decide. If no 
 foundation has been laid upon public grounds for asserting thr 
 claims of my clients to the attention of the committee, the inquiry 
 is not such as I have represented it. But if I have proved that 
 the public interest is deeply concerned in maintaining to the 
 full extent every branch of ship-building in Great Britain, 1 have 
 established my original proposition, that great public and national 
 objects render it absolutely necessary (as 1 undertake to shew it 
 is,) to continue the established policy of our laws for the protection 
 of ship-building in this country, and to prevent its being trans- 
 ferred even to our own dependencies. And as to my learned 
 friends,who stated in the outset, that they did not seek for monopoly, 
 but only asked for competition ; I shall be able ultimately to 
 shew, that monopoly and not competition is the ground upon 
 which they rest their case ; that they speak of competition, and 
 prove that nothing will satisfy them but a measure which will end 
 in our complete exclusion. Such, Sir, is the nature of the ques- 
 tions between us. 
 
 Having stated in the opening of this case, that I considered the 
 claims of the petitioners for whom I appear, as standing on public 
 grounds, there was still a necessity that I should shew their pri- 
 vate interest in the question, in order to satisfy the committee 
 that I had a right to appear here; it was necessary in point of 
 parliamentary form that I should do so, because unless they were 
 in a condition to shew that they would be affected by the bill, and 
 likely to sustain injury, they were not intitled to present them- 
 selves as petitioners to tbe committee. I stated also, that it was 
 necessary that I should bring under the consideration of the com- 
 mittee many subjects upon which prejudices had been excited 
 against them, which had been introduced, not for the purposes of 
 argument against their claims, but which must unavoidably tend 
 to withdraw- the minds of those who had to consider the subject 
 from the real question, and indispose many who would not consi- 
 der them as entitled to public favour if such prejudices were not 
 removed. It must be known to every member of the committee, 
 and to every person at all acquainted with the subject, or who is 
 in the habit of reading the publications of the day, that great pre- 
 judice has been excited against the gentlemen for whom I have 
 the honour to appear, by a variety of discussions which have taken 
 place within these last few years discussions, many of them 
 having no sort of connection with the present question, but which 
 it was absolutely necessary for me in the conduct of this case to
 
 3 
 
 induce the committee to permit me to go into, because it must be 
 quite obvious, that imputations and insinuations so often repeated, 
 upon defective building of ships, unsound materials, and all the 
 other suggestions about the unfitness of their ships for service, 
 must have the tendency of exciting a prejudice against my clients, 
 and leading the minds of the public, of this committee, and of 
 parliament, from the fair and candid consideration of the true 
 grounds upon which the case must ultimately rest. Many would 
 naturally say, that the persons with respect to whom such state- 
 ments could be made, were not entitled to any favour or consider- 
 ation; that persons who had been guilty of such misconduct 
 in the building of ships for the public service, were not entitled 
 to protection ; that whatever might be the state of the question, 
 they could not support any set of men who had so conducted them- 
 selves, and who, instead of having aided in improving and in- 
 creasing the naval force of the country, had only wasted its 
 wealth and resources. In the same way the timber question, 
 which has been introduced into this discussion, might influence 
 the opinions and votes of parliament against my clients, without 
 having any reference whatever to the general policy of the mea- 
 sure. It was calculated to induce those who did not thoroughly 
 understand, and who had neither time or inclination to investigate 
 the real state of the question, to think that if there was a great 
 scarcity of timber in this country, it was a matter of no import- 
 ance where ships were built, whether in India, or Great Britain: 
 if oak timber in England was sated by building abroad. None of 
 these various allegations have any foundation whatever in fact, 
 they are entitled to no consideration with the committee in form- 
 in "their judgment upon the real question before them. My 
 clients, however, were compelled, for the protection both of their 
 characters and interests, to dissipate all these prejudices: it was 
 necessary that I should disencumber them, and the case, of all 
 these questions, which had no reference either to the policy or 
 principles of the measure under consideration. 
 
 The committee will recollect that the course which 1 pursued 
 was this: In my address to the committee, in which I stated the 
 foundation of the claims of those whom I had the honour to re- 
 present, I told the committee I should prove, that these peti- 
 tioners had claims upon the country for the services they had ren- 
 dered it, that those claims were not impeached by any miscon- 
 duct on their part, or by any mismanagement m the business 
 , entrusted to them in aid of the public service. But it will be in 
 the recollection of the committee, that though I undertook to state 
 strong grounds with respect to the particular interests of my 
 clients, yet I did not rest their claims upon any other basis than 
 that of broad public policy. I trust the committee will do me the 
 justice to remember, that from the beginning of my first address 
 to the end of it, I, in every instance, pressed the case of my 
 clients upon grounds of public policy and general principles of
 
 national expediency, and that I did not urge the claims of my 
 clients upon private or partial views of the question. I beg again 
 respectfully to remind the committee, that I claim their considera- 
 tion, and trie consideration of parliament, upon general grounds of 
 public policy ; not because the private interests of my clients are 
 not proper subjects for the protection of parliament, but because t 
 am convinced, that unless I can shew that I stand upon public grounds 
 of national policy, I cannot hope that the question will receive the 
 attention and consideration of parliament, which its importance 
 demands. The simple question, and the only one for the consi- 
 deration of parliament, upon which 1 submitted my case originally 
 to your attention, was, whether the ship-building carried oil 
 hitherto in the kingdom should still be continued here, under 
 legislative protection, or whether it can, consistently with sound 
 policy, be allowed, under any circumstances, to be removed from 
 this country even to the Asiatic dominions of His Majesty ? This 
 was the question to which I was desirous of confining my own at- 
 tention, and that of the committee, because it is the only real 
 question for their consideration. 
 
 A variety of cases, in which gross misconduct has been attribut- 
 ed to thegentlemen employed to build ships for the navy, have been 
 before the committee in this laborious investigation. It was my 
 duty on behalf of my clients to go into detailed explanations of 
 every case which has been stated or alluded to ; and 1 now ask the 
 committee, whether there has been a single instance in which it 
 was imputed to the gentlemen before you, that they had either 
 conducted themselves negligently or improperly, or used improper 
 materials in the construction of men of war built by them, to 
 which I have not given a most complete and satisfactory answer 
 and explanation as to all those circumstances which had been at 
 any time or any where the subject of complaint? 1 put it to the 
 committee to say, whether there has been a single instance in 
 which these imputations have not been most satisfactorily and 
 most unequivocally refuted ? I ask the committee whether there 
 has been a single case of complaint brought forward or alluded to 
 either of a public or private ship, which has not been distinctly 
 and clearly negatived by the evidence? 1 ask the committee 
 whether it has not appeared most clearly manifest, that no failure 
 which has under any accidental circumstances occurred as to any- 
 of those ships, is referrable to the conduct of any of the gentle- 
 men whose interests are now the subject of discussion and investi- 
 gation before parliament ? I assert most confidently, and without 
 any fear of contradiction, that there has not been a single case in 
 which the attempt to prejudice my clients on these grounds has 
 not completely failed. These questions, Sir, will never arise again. 
 No one, after what has passed in this committee, will be hardy 
 enough to venture upon the course of proceeding which has been 
 before resorted to upon this subject; such an attempt would be 
 met and answered by the evidence which has been given before
 
 this committee ; and I may therefore conclude my observations 
 upon this part of the subject. 
 
 The question upon the state of the oak timber I will not at 
 present discuss in detail. 1 allude to it only now as a preliminary 
 case of which I mean to disencumber the general question, and 
 will proceed to enquire how our general case is met on the other 
 side ? When the case was brought forward by us, we had reason 
 to think from all the cross-examinations, from all the papers 
 moved for, and from all the evidence called for through the inter- 
 vention either of the parties or of members of the committee, that 
 my learned friends meant to take the ground that competition 
 would under the bill be open to every one that the ships built in 
 India were built at such an expence as to remove all apprehension 
 we might entertain from the measure which the Bill sought to 
 accomplish. The committee must recollect that when we called 
 witnesses for the purpose of shewing that a vessel could be built 
 in India at such a rate, and under such circumstances of advantage 
 with reference to her first voyage to England, as well as repairs in 
 subsequent voyages, so as to exclude vessels built in this country 
 from the India trade; they endeavoured to shew that the sails, the 
 iron, the cordage, and all other expensive articles necessary for 
 the equipment of a ship must be sent from this country for the 
 completing of a ship built in India, and that therefore the ship- 
 builders of this country had no reason to entertain any apprehen- 
 sion of ships built in India coming to this country, to the exclu- 
 sion of ships built here. Upon this part of the case they had also 
 in all probability another object beyond that of endeavouring to 
 prove that our apprehensions of a competition injurious to us were 
 ill-founded, namely, that if they did or might ultimately interfere 
 with the ship-builders of this country, yet that they would not affect 
 the iron manufacturer, the sail maker, the rope-maker, or other 
 persons of that description? who were in the habit of supplying 
 ships with large and expensive articles of outfit. My learned 
 friends in their cross-examinations certainly began the case in this 
 view of the question. But every word we have heard in evidence 
 on both sides respecting the building of ships in India, and the 
 advantage with which they may be employed both by the com- 
 pany and by private owners, has completely negatived my learned 
 friend's assertion, that he seeks for his clients only competition as 
 against monopoly. What have they proved ? Why, he com- 
 mences by endeavouring to prove that it is absolutely necessary to 
 the carrying on the trade at all, from India to this country, that it 
 should be carried on in teak ships, and not in English ships. How, 
 therefore, can it be contended by my learnea friends, that they 
 do not ask for the total exclusion of the British ships, and only 
 desire fair competition? The proofs in their case are in direct 
 contradiction to both my learned friend's speeches. Every atom 
 of their evidence goes to prove, that what they appeared to contend 
 for in the outset of their case, is not the real object at which they
 
 .mil. They seek for the establishment of the India shipping, for 
 the purpose of carrying on the trade between the two countries, 
 upon grounds, which must ultimately completely exclude the Bri- 
 tish. We on our side say, that such competition as is sought for 
 by the other side must be prohibited, to save the ship-builders here 
 from destruction. We say, that if such competition is suffered to 
 proceed, it will operate as an exclusion of our ships. Such com- 
 petition must counterbalance all the advantages which we have 
 hitherto enjoyed from the building of ships in this country, and 
 must operate to give to the tonnage of India all the trade of that 
 country with England. Some of the arguments which have been 
 resorted to by my learned friends are quite inconsistent with each 
 other, and defeat the very object which they affect to have in view. 
 Upon the subject of timber, we have heard it argued by one of 
 my learned friends, that the consumption of timber in the private 
 ship-building of this country for India is so trifling, that it is quite 
 idle to suppose that the landholders can entertain any apprehen- 
 sion of injury from the removal of this classof ship-building to India. 
 My learned friends assert that the quantity of timber annually used 
 in this private building is not above 10,000 loads. 1 am really at 
 a loss to guess, how my learned friends can reconcile such an 
 argument with the only ground upon which the question as to 
 timber has been made to apply to this discussion, namely, the ne- 
 cessity of saving oak timber. It shews upon what weak foundations 
 they are constrained to rest the proposition for which they contend. 
 If the consumption of timber in the private ship-building of this 
 country be so trifling as to be unworthy consideration, what occa- 
 sion is there for building ships with teak instead of oak to save 
 timber in this country ? They say, if you build all your India 
 ships with teak, no injurious effects can arise to the land-holders 
 of this country in the loss of the market for the timber, because 
 the consumption is so small that it is not worth mentioning. My 
 learned friend produces an average calculation of the quantity of 
 timber used in the ship-building of Great Britain, for the pur- 
 pose of shewing the proportion used in the building India ships, 
 as compared with that used in the general ship-building of the 
 country; and the result shews, say my learned friends, that the 
 quantity used in the private ship-building is one thirty-fifth of the 
 whole quantity consumed in the ship-building of Great Britain. 
 He, therefore, contends, that to remove this class of ship-building 
 from this country would have no perceptible influence upon the 
 consumption of oak in this country ; and yet the danger of scar- 
 city of oak timber, and the necessity of stopping its consumption is, 
 even after all the evidence which has been given upon the sub- 
 ject of timber, very strongly pressed by the advocates for the use 
 of teak ships. For one purpose the consumption is too trifling to 
 be worth attention ; for another it is so important, as to justifythe 
 destruction of a material branch of the ship-building of the coun- 
 try. I really cannot comprehend how cither of these arguments,
 
 which ever I might admit, could affect the important question 
 before the committee, standing as it does, upon broad grounds of 
 public policy and views of national importance; still less am I able 
 to conjecture how such arguments can be reconciled or made con- 
 sistent with each other. But it matters not how inconsistent the 
 two arguments are, if the apprehensions of the landholders can 
 be got rid of by one, and the claims of those who have supposed 
 that oak was failing in this country can be kept alive by the other. 
 Every argument must in such a case be tried, in the desperate 
 hope that one may succeed if the other fails : for this object they 
 must take their chance of the arguments defeating eacli other. 
 As scarcity of oak has been most relied upon, I will now pro- 
 ceed to shew in what situation the argument now stands be- 
 fore the committee with respect to timber ; for I feel it ne- 
 cessary to trouble the committee with a few more observa- 
 tions upon this subject ; not because any doubt now remains 
 upon it, but because it has for a long time excited so much 
 attention, and the opinions as to scarcity have rested upon such 
 high authority, as to make it essential not merely with refer- 
 ence to this question, but for the public interest, that all further 
 speculation and argument upon this subject should be prevented, 
 and dispute upon the point of scarcity set at rest for ever. My 
 learned friends have in every part of the discussion of this part of 
 the case assumed facts from opinions. They have taken conclu- 
 sions drawn from opinions as decisive evidence of the fact itself ; 
 and have given theoretical speculations upon the advantage of any 
 other mode of cultivation of lands, to prove that sufficient timber 
 cannot be raised against the fact that it has been and is cultivated 
 in abundant quantities, and in the feeble efforts they have made 
 to meet this part of the case by witnesses have so totally failed, 
 that I feel justified in asserting, that in the course of my experience 
 I never heard evidence given upon any question so little entitled 
 to respect or attention. 
 
 My learned friends began by shewing, that in the year 1772 
 reports were made that there was a scarcity of timber in the coun- 
 try ; and that great apprehensions were entertained as to the scar- 
 city of supply in future times; and they produce the act of 12 
 Geo. 3. c. 54. founded upon that report and apprehension. No man 
 has more reverence for recitals in acts of parliament than I have. 
 I am in the habit of drawing so many, that I ought to look at them 
 with all the attention my friend can wish; but having learned in 
 the course of some experience, that facts, supposed to be true, 
 are often difficult to prove by satisfactory evidence, I gene- 
 rally prefer assertion of expediency, which may alter and may 
 be made or supposed to be consistent with different states of fact, 
 as the safer course. But what is the use my learned friends make 
 in their argument of this act of parliament? They assume that, 
 because an alleged scarcity is the subject of the report, and an 
 act passed upon that report, that the^ac/ must be admitted. Mr.
 
 8 
 
 Spankie not only assumes scarcity as an incontrovertible fact then, 
 but he applies it to all subsequent times and circumstances ; and 
 lie then shews us by documents, that in the year 1//2 the amount 
 of tonnage employed in this country was very little above 500,000, 
 whereas, at the present period, he says it is 2,5(X),00 \ which is 
 just five times the amount of whut it \vas in the year 1772 ; there- 
 fore he argues, that, because there was a scarcity of timber then, 
 there must with such an increase of consumption be a greater 
 scarcity now ; and upon this foundation gravely desires the com- 
 mittee h'rst to receive the act of parliament and report not only 
 as conclusive evidence of scarcity, at that time, but as a reason for 
 concluding that scarcity has increased in the country, in propor- 
 tion to the increase of the subsequent consumption. Why, sir, 
 the argument and the conclusion drawn from these premises 
 border so nearly upon the ludicrous, that it is really difficult to 
 treat it seriously. So .extraordinary a proposition as this was 
 never before contended for. The answer is short and conclusive : 
 The increase of tonnage and consequent consumption, and the 
 supply of that consumption up to the present period (a fact not 
 disputed) is decisive of one of two propositions, either that the 
 report and act of parliament were founded upon a false alarm, 
 and that no scarcity existed ; or, as it was most ably contended 
 by my learned friend, Mr. Adolphus, that the demand, however 
 great, will always produce an adequate supply, and that if you de- 
 stroy one you annihilate the other. Each of these propositions is 
 decisive against the argument and conclusions on the other side. 
 The increased demand and supply since the report and act in 
 1772 are either conclusive, to prove those documents were founded 
 upon false alarms and hasty conclusions, not warranted by the 
 state of the timber in the country, or decisive of the argument 
 contended for by us, not only as to the supply which has hitherto 
 met the demand, but as to the mischievous effects which will be 
 produced by the mistaken principle of endeavouring to save tim- 
 ber by means which will necessarily destroy the future supply, 
 and defeat the very object our opposers profess to have in view, 
 as one of the main recommendations of this bill, which in this 
 view of the case, our opponents must unite with us, in considering 
 as transferring, a most important branch of ship-building, from this 
 country to India. 
 
 It is quite clear, that if the fact assumed in the report and 
 act was correct as to the state of timber in 1/72, and if our argu- 
 ment as to the demand producing supply was not correct, that 
 the increased tonnage, and consequent increased destruction, of 
 timber since 1772, would years ago have swept every tree from 
 the face of the country. 
 
 Is such the state of the fact ? is the country laid bare of oak ? 
 has such destruction taken place? On the contrary it has been 
 proved, as I will distinctly shew from the evidence before thig 
 committee, that the supply has kept pace, and will keep pace
 
 9 
 
 with the demand ; and that if there has been any trifling falling 
 off in the supply in certain counties, and in particular districts, 
 of some descriptions of oak, there is no ground of apprehension 
 of scarcity in the country at large. 
 
 Such, Sir, is the general foundation of one of the main argu- 
 ments on the other side. They have also assumed the fact of scar- 
 city from the navy board havingacted upon the supposition of there 
 being a scarcity. It has been stated by Mr. Sepping, in his evi- 
 dence, that the navy board and private builders have been obliged 
 to resort to different expedients of using smaller timber, from the 
 supposed deficiency of large. Admitting, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that such expedients have not in a great measure arisen 
 from motives of economy in the use of timber from price, and the 
 knowledge that smaller timber was of equal value and strength in 
 naval construction, the argument or fact of such a practice proves 
 only the opinion of those who resorted to it. It is assuming the 
 fact of scarcity from an unfounded apprehension of it. It is 
 taking assumption for the fact itself, and substituting opinions for 
 proofs, and loose conjecture for evidence; and desiring the com- 
 mittee to adopt the delusion without proof, against all the evi- 
 dence which is upon your minutes, to prove that it never ought 
 to have prevailed. 
 
 What is the state of the case as to these expedients, of which so 
 much has been said ? Mr. Sepping has stated that he had con- 
 ceived that there was a scarcity of timber ; and assuming that there 
 was a deficiency of timber, had begun to act upon it; that theNavy 
 Board had for some time used smaller descriptions of timber than 
 had been before used in the construction of ships; that they are 
 trying an experiment of using ten timbers for eight, and three for 
 two. Sir, the utmost result of Mr. Sepping's evidence is this, 
 that of the compass timber and crooked timber there has been 
 a falling off. It is well known that timber planted in exposed 
 situations will often become crooked and take particular shapes, 
 supposed formerly to be necessary in some parts of the structure 
 of a ship; whereas, the timber grown in more sheltered situations, 
 and particularly in woods, grows straight and more regular in its 
 shape, and is consequently not so useful for those particular pur- 
 poses. The deficiency of this peculiar sort of timber will never 
 be supplied, even by the extensive means adopted for establishing 
 woods for naval purposes; nor doe* it appear that any inconve- 
 nience has arisen from the want of this sort of timber. 
 
 My learned friends also say, that because there is a good deal 
 of foreign timber used in the construction of ships, there must 
 therefore be a considerable scarcity of the native o..k of the coun- 
 try. I admit the fact of use of foreign timber, but I deny the 
 conclusion. Why do you use foreign timber in the construction 
 of your ships ? because it is found to be more advantageous 
 for particular parts of a ship to which it is applied. There
 
 10 
 
 is not a ship of war, or an East Indiaman, or large vessel 
 built in this country, in which a certain quantity of elm, as 
 well as foreign oak, is not used. The keel is of elm, not because 
 you cannot get oak to make it, but because it suits the pur- 
 pose better. You use a certain quantity of. foreign oak in the 
 construction of certain parts of your ship, although it is much 
 higher in price nominally than your own oak; not because it is 
 better, but because it is cut in a peculiar manner, and more ap- 
 plicable to particular purposes, but does it therefore follow that 
 there is a scarcity of oak in the country ? 
 
 My learned friends say, Why use all this foreign timber? Why 
 not, instead of resorting to foreign timber to assist you in building 
 your ships, import the manufactured article, and import the ship 
 itself? Why use foreign timber for the purpose of completing 
 your vessels, when you may get ready made ships from abroad? 
 The argument is neither correct in fact, or sound in policy. My 
 learned friends forgot, when they use this argument, that the very 
 policy upon which the riches and prosperity of this country de- 
 pends, rests materially upon introducing raw materials from other 
 countries, for the purpose of manufacturing them here, and ex- 
 porting them when so manufactured to the country from whence 
 the raw material comes. 
 
 The raw materials are imported into this country, and sent out 
 again in a manufactured and more valuable shape, and our ma- 
 nufacturers and the nation derive immense profit and advantage 
 from this course of trade. The policy of the argument is not, 
 therefore, with my learned friends. But, Sir, how does the com- 
 parison between the building of ships in India and the building 
 in England stand with respect to the certainty of having a supply 
 of timber for their manufacture. The greater part of Indian ships 
 must be built at Bengal, where the evidence shews the conveniences 
 and means of building ships are very extensive ; indeed so extensive, 
 that one of my learned friends' witnesses tells you, that the ship- 
 builders there would be able to supply any number of ships, fifty 
 men of war, I think he said, of a large size, within a short period. 
 Now, Sir, every one of these ships must be built with timber, 
 from a country where the government is extremely capricious, 
 and where, at least, there may arise considerable hazard as to 
 keeping up the supply; and therefore these very ships, which my 
 learnea friends wish to introduce in a ready manufactured state 
 into this country-, are subject, as I shall shew you when I come to 
 comment upon that part of the evidence, to objections of another 
 nature. They must have wood brought from Pegu, which 
 may be friendly or hostile, as it may suit the policy or ca- 
 price of its government. The ship-builders of Bengal must have 
 their teak from that country, for it appears that they can get it 
 from no other ; and therefore if we come to the comparison as to 
 the facility of supplying foreign timber for the construction of
 
 11 
 
 vessels, my learned friends will stand upon extremely disadvanta- 
 geous grounds. Now these are difficulties to which the ship- 
 builders of this country are not exposed: there is no uncertainty 
 in their having a regular and constant supply to the full extent 
 of their wants. Sir, we have only to pay the price, and we can 
 get it in any quantity of any size, and the greater part of it from 
 our own colonies; whereas, the ship-builders of India are not sure 
 of getting it at any price. Upon the subject of using foreign 
 timber, Mr. Sepping also tells you, that the navy board had pro- 
 cured a large quantity of deal, for which, when foreign coun- 
 tries became open to us, they found no immediate use, and had 
 used it, therefore, in the building of ten fir frigates, not be- 
 cause they could not get oak, but because they had laid in too 
 much fir. 
 
 There is another argument, however, Sir, which has been 
 pressed by my learned friends on this occasion, namely, that it 
 is generally understood that cultivating wood, and supplying 
 the country with timber from native produce, is not so beneficial 
 as growing corn; and therefore my learned friends say, (against 
 the fact,) that there is no inducement for cultivators in this 
 country to produce upon their estates certain means of sup- 
 ply. Now, Sir, an argument of this sort may be very good in 
 theory, but it is nothing when put in opposition to positive fact 
 and experience. To assert that the cultivation of corn is more 
 valuable than the cultivation of timber, is to do nothing, unless 
 my learned friends make out that the landed interest of this coun- 
 try act upon a conviction of the truth of the position. Why, 
 Sir, the proof, from the beginning to the end of this case, shews, 
 that the landed proprietors of this country have not acted upon 
 any such notion. But if my learned friends were to make out, 
 that some persons prefer the cultivation of corn to that of oak, it 
 would avail them nothing in their argument, because they must 
 also make out that the effect of that partial feeling in the country- 
 is so injurious, as to put in hazard the supply of timber. Ab- 
 stract notions of policy, and nice distinctions of advantage, sel- 
 dom influence the great body of the people; they will pursue the 
 bent of their own inclinations, whether they lead to advantage or 
 not ; and even if I were to admit the principle contended for by 
 my learned friends, it is quite impossible for them to raise the 
 argument they attempt to deduce from that principle,. because 
 the fact is at variance with the argument; the argument is in 
 direct contradiction to positive experience. To say that there has 
 been a preference given to the cultivation of corn in opposition to 
 the cultivation of trees, does not prove that the cultivation of trees 
 has declined or will decline. Experience has shewn that the cul- 
 tivation of trees has been carried to as great an extent as ever, 
 and that there is no prospect of any diminution in the disposition 
 of landed proprietors so to do. Now what i the evidence of this
 
 12 
 
 fact ? Why it is plain and incontrovertible. My learned friends have 
 told you, that in the year 1772 the amount of tonnage was about 
 half a million. They have stated that it has since increased to 
 2,500,000 tons, and yet, at the end of a war which lias lasted twenty 
 years, I will undertake to shew, that notwithstanding the extraordi- 
 nary and unprecedented consumption of timber during that period, 
 the demand has been little felt in any part of the country. In all 
 events, if it has been felt, it has been confined to the home counties, 
 or the districts in the vicinity of the metropolis. This, I say, is the 
 result of the evidence in opposition to the theory of my learned 
 friends. 
 
 Now, what was the course taken by my clients in order to answer 
 these alarmists upon the subject of scarcity of oak timber? They natu- 
 rally consulted me as to the course to be taken, and the question asked 
 them was this: " How do the facts of your case really stand ? are these 
 assertions founded in truth?" "Really," said they, "we don't know 
 how to answer you. We cannot tell you how the facts of the case 
 stand. It has been asserted so positively and so distinctly that there 
 is an absolute scarcity it has been avowed on such authority, that 
 the consumption is so high and the difficulty of procuring it so great, 
 that we are really afraid to state what the fact is, even upon our own 
 authority and conviction. But this much we can tell you, that not one 
 man with whom we are acquainted has had any difficulty in procuring 
 timber of all sizes to any extent he wanted. Every timber merchant 
 with whom we have spoken has told us, * you may have any quan- 
 tity you want.' No instance has arisen to our knowledge, and if it 
 had arisen we must have known the fact, of any persons having had 
 any difficulty whatever in procuring timber to any extent. We are 
 told that the government contractors are buying up timber under a 
 notion that there would be a difficulty in procuring it; but these 
 very contractors tell us, ' we can supply you as well as the govern- 
 ment.' " The next question was : " Pray, from what counties (in these 
 times of scarcity) is the timber taken which supplies the wants of the 
 country?" " Why," said they, " it is still taken from the counties 
 near London, it is taken from the districts near the metropolis." 
 " Have you yet taken any quantities from the more distant counties, 
 from Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Wales, or other timber coun- 
 ties ?" " No, we have not got to those counties yet. We 
 have not come to the counties at a distance from the metropolis." 
 " What authority then is there for supposing the existence of a 
 scarcity ?" They said it was only reported and believed upon the 
 authority of positive statement. To ail this the answer of my learned 
 friend Mr. Adolphus and myself naturally was, that it was quite 
 immaterial upon what authority the scarcity was asserted. It was 
 impossible to believe it. The reports, however generally circu- 
 lated; the opinions of the parties who gave birth to those re- 
 ports, however high their authority might be, or however great the 
 respect was to which they were entitled; could have no weight:
 
 13 
 
 under such circumstances, it was morally impossible that the report 
 could be true. 
 
 What course did we then pursue? Why we pursued a course 
 which every advocate must pursue, when he is convinced that his 
 cause is a good one, and that the more the investigation is gone 
 into, the stronger will his case appear. We proceeded to call every 
 body who was at all acquainted with the timber trade. We brought 
 up even Mr. Morris himself, the partner of one of the contractors for 
 government, and every person who could give any information to 
 the committee upon the subject. Indeed we were obliged to con- 
 tend from time to time for the permission to examine more wit- 
 nesses than perhaps we were entitled to do, considering the labours 
 which have been imposed upon the committee. But after all 
 we did not call all the witnesses we had summoned or sent 
 to, as there were no less than eleven persons whom we wished 
 to have examined, whose evidence we stated we had ready, but 
 did not feel entitled to urge the committee to be permitted to 
 give. Now why did we do this ? we did it, Sir, upon the broad 
 principle of calling every witness, without caring who or what he 
 was, if he knew any thing of the subject. We knew none of 
 these persons : we knew nothing of what the greater part of them 
 would say. Many of them had written to us for the first time 
 on the morning they were examined, and therefore we had no 
 opportunity of conferring with them upon the nature of their 
 evidence ; and the only foundation for examining them was, the 
 circumstance of their having some knowledge of the state of th 
 timber in the country. Some of them came directly to the com- 
 mittee from the conveyances which brought them to town, and 
 others were, on their arrival at the adjoining coffee-house, brought 
 instantly to this place, without any further investigation, or 
 without troubling them with the question whence they came, or 
 what they knew, so long as they were large timber dealers, and were 
 acquainted with the persons in different counties, whom we had 
 not had an opportunity of calling before you. We knew very well, 
 that the greater number of persons of this description who were 
 called, the clearer would it appear that there was no foundation 
 for these reports. The committee heard the evidence of these 
 persons, whose testimony shewed the fallacy of the apprehensions 
 which have so generally prevailed. They clearly proved, that what- 
 ever foundation there might formerly have been, for the appre- 
 hension of scarcity, the foundation of such alarms was now com- 
 pletely done away. I was convinced, that it was quite impossible 
 that any case of scarcity would be made out if the subject was 
 properly investigated. This was the view with which we urged 
 the committee to go into so large a field of evidence; and I have 
 to thank them for permitting us to take the course we have pur- 
 sued : and I will venture to say, that when this evidence is read 
 and examined, (as I know it will be by the persons most conipe-
 
 14 
 
 tent to ascertain its accuracy, many of them being proprietors, 
 ami very large proprietors too, of the timber of the country), it 
 will be seen whether we have not put this question, as to the quan- 
 tity of timber for building His Majesty's navy, at rest for ever. 
 They will be satisfied that the statements upon the scarcity of 
 timber are not only fallacious, but have never had any real founda- 
 tion. Sir, these false alarms, and ingenious speculations upon 
 imaginary difficulties, are precisely of that class which we have so 
 often heard upon the subject of the public debts of this country. 
 The act of 1/72 was passed upon a presumption that there was a 
 scarcity in the country. What I would ask would have become of 
 the navy of the country if we had acted upon that presumption ? 
 Would it have been at this day at that height of greatness and 
 power which fixes Great Britain as the most powerful country 
 amongst the nations of the world. It was asserted by Mr. Hume, 
 that if the public debt of this country should ever amount 
 to a hundred millions we should be utterly ruined. What then 
 would have become of us, Sir, if we had acted upon Mr. Hume's 
 opinion upon the subject of our financial resources. Sir, I make 
 these general observations for the purpose of shewing the fallacy 
 of assumingyrtcfs upon mere supposition and false alarm. The 
 assumed facts were capable of contradiction, and we have given 
 them a decided negative ; and if the committee had permitted us, 
 we could have gone much farther, for we have since had letters of 
 persons from different parts of the country, who would have come 
 up and given their testimony. Witnesses from distant counties, 
 where there are at this moment immense quantities of timber, never 
 thought of before, and which have not yet been touched by the 
 axe. We should have shewn, that there are now large quantities 
 lying within the reach of supply by water carriage whenever it 
 is wanted. We could have shewn that there are forests of trees, 
 which have never yet been touched, and which are almost grown 
 too old for want of cutting down. W r e could have shewn, that 
 however large the demands might be, there was abundance of 
 wood in the country to supply it ; that wood of the most valuable 
 description was ready at hand, if it should be wanted : nay, that 
 if the war had lasted ten or twenty years longer, such is the state 
 of the timber, and such the growing stock of it, that the supply 
 would have been abundantly equal to the demand : We should 
 have shewn, that notwithstanding the immense consumption of 
 timber during the late long protracted war, which is now so hap- 
 pily terminated, our navy, and our merchant service, would be 
 in no danger from any scarcity had the war continued as long 
 again. 
 
 Now, let us say a few words upon the nature of the testimony 
 given by us upon the subject. We called timber dealers. My 
 learned friend says, that timber dealers are prejudiced witnesses, as 
 they are afraid of their timber business falling off, from allowing
 
 15 
 
 the ship-builders in India to build teak ships for the purpose of 
 carrying on the trade with this country. 1 do not deny that tim- 
 ber dealers may have this feeling: but did we call before you only 
 timber dealers ? Sir, we called persons who had no such bias per- 
 sons who were employed by great landed proprietors, and who could 
 have no interest one way or the other in the question ; men, who 
 did not care which way this question was carried. Some of them 
 were men of intelligent and independent minds. One of them, 
 Mr. Harvey, than whom a better informed or more intelligent 
 v.itness I never saw put into a witness box, or upon whose testi- 
 mony the committee could with more safety rely, from his 
 knowledge, from his experience, from his talents, and from other 
 circumstances, the testimony of that witness, is, in my opinion, 
 entitled to the greatest weight with the committee. What did he 
 state? I will not repeat the particulars of the evidence of this re- 
 spectable witness, for it must be in the perfect recollection of 
 every body who heard it ; but he stated most distinctly, as far 
 as he could form a judgment, that there was no danger whatever 
 of scarcity. He told the committee, that there were very large sup- 
 pliesof oak timber in the county from whence he came, which had not 
 yet been touched ; that there were immense quantities of timber, 
 which had not yet been broke in upon, and that there was some 
 which ought to have been cut years ago, which from its extreme 
 age had not improved, but had fallen off in its value. He told you, 
 that in his county the largest demands might be supplied with- 
 out any difficulty ; and that the timbermerchants need not complain 
 for want of an adequate supply. He said, that the timber dealers 
 had not yet got to Staffordshire, except to the amount of a few 
 thousand loads, but not to such an extent as to diminish its re- 
 sources. He was confident of an annual adequate supply to any ex- 
 tent that aiight be wanted. What was his answer upon the subject 
 of cultivation of timber ? an answer to which I heard my learned 
 friend allude with some surprise : for Mr. Harvey's evidence, as to 
 the nature and extent to which the cultivation of timber has been 
 carried in the country, was most decidedly against him. He told, 
 you that a great deal more timber was planted than cut up ; that 
 for one tree cut down, a hundred were planted. This, sir, is the evi- 
 dence of Mr. Harvey on that subject ; and yet we are told, that 
 there is a prospect of a scarcity in the country. It is said also, 
 and as if on Mr. Harvey's authority, that a preference is given, 
 by the landholders, to the cultivation of corn instead of tim- 
 ber upon their estates. Sir, Mr. Harvey's evidence proves them 
 to be quite compatible, and tells you, that it is the interest 
 of persons to cultivate the land proper for timber with timber, 
 in preference to corn. He says, that when land is worth fourteen 
 shillings an acre, they plant timber upon that which is worth 
 seven shillings ; and he tells you, that the underwood will in 
 the course of seven or fourteen years, produce more than tli
 
 16 
 
 rentfcf such land would produce, over and above the value of the 
 timber at its full growth. It appears obvious upon principle, that 
 the consideration of the cultivation of proper land with timber, is 
 of infinitely more importance to men of landed property, than any 
 other source of profit which they might derive from their estates. 
 To n man who thus cultivates his land, timber is a source of future 
 wealth and riches to his family. It is always a source of relief for 
 any sudden emergency, or for paying off mortgages or other debts 
 which may be contracted by the holder of the estate. It is a 
 species of reserved property of the greatest value, for the purpose 
 of raising money for repairing or building houses, and for other 
 occasions of that sort ; and is always ready for the purpose of af- 
 fording a supply of money for such or other arrangements in great 
 families. I might expatiate, Sir, at considerable length, upon the 
 use which might be made of the land in this way, by means of the 
 underwood ; by means of the large timber, and the immense value 
 at which it is estimated, and what it will produce when properly 
 preserved and cut, and the source of ready money which it at all 
 times affords for casualties ; but I do not think it necessary to 
 occupy more of the time of the committee upon this branch of the 
 subject. It must be obvious to every body, that the cultivation of 
 timber is an object of the greatest importance to every man of 
 landed property ; and that it will always afford a sufficient induce- 
 ment to him to keep up a constant supply: he must cultivate a cer- 
 tain quantity for the purposes of his estates, for his repairs, fences, 
 gates, and other purposes, and may with any management unite that 
 object with the preservation and cultivation of large timber for future 
 sale. If a man cannot make compound interest by means of his 
 timber, it preserves at all events a nest egg, (if I may use so com- 
 mon a phrase,) which may often be of the greatest importance to 
 the proprietor or his family. There is, from all the circumstances 
 which I have here alluded to rather than detailed, such a natural 
 interest in large landed proprietors, to take care of their timber, 
 that it requires no more than the statement of the proposition to 
 demonstrate, that necessarily there will always be an ample annual 
 supply to meet the demands of the country, if the encouragement 
 to supply is not destroyed by withdrawing the demand. 
 
 Now, Sir, we come to the evidence of Mr. Bull, who is the ma- 
 nager, for a noble lord, of very considerable landed property ; he 
 tells you what is the state of the timber, and in what quantities it 
 is now to be found in the counties with which he is acquainted. 
 He tells you, that there is a very considerable quantity on the estate 
 of the noble lord, for whom he acts as land-agent and manager. 
 He says, that some small quantities have been cut, and mentions 
 among others Lord Aylesbury's forest, and spoke of the quantity 
 of timber on that estate, not from his own knowledge, but from 
 the knowledge of other persons, better acquainted with the state 
 of that property. He said that he had heard from a gentleman,
 
 17 
 
 that the quantity of timber in Lord Aylesbury's forest was very 
 great. The question and answer were certainly not very regular, 
 because what he heard from other persons could not strictly be evi- 
 dence. But, Sir, you have it from persons much better acquainted 
 with the subject than he was. I asked Mr. Bull if he could tell me 
 what was about the value of the timber on Lord Aylesbury's estate; 
 but he could give no decisive answer. He could only state his belief 
 as to the general value from what he had heard from other persons. 
 He did not profess to state the correct value. He did state some 
 value, but as I could not depend upon the correctness of it, coming 
 as it did from third persons, 1 could not assume that it was of the 
 value he stated. 
 
 Now, Sir, how is this evidence met ? Why it is met by evidence 
 such as I will venture to say has never been given in any case before. 
 And here I cannot help taking notice, as I proceed, of the strong 
 and confident language which my learned friend used, when he 
 opened his case upon the subject ot timber. He promised not mere- 
 ly to answer our case by the ordinary evidence which might be 
 resorted to on an occasion of this sort, but he threatened utterly to 
 destroy it. He told you that he would be content with no common 
 victory over the timber case, that " he would rend it to atoms." 
 
 Now, Sir, what has been the course of proceeding adopted on 
 the other side to accomplish this object ? A desperate state of 
 affairs sometimes justifies desperate proceedings ; but no state of a 
 case could justify the proceedings which have been adopted. A 
 more barefaced disregard of all propriety I have never seen or 
 heard of. Such practices never have taken place within my know- 
 ledge, and I hope never will come under my notice or observation 
 again. I have been stopped in the street by member after member 
 of parliament, and requested that (whenever I came to my reply, ) I 
 would not pass over this part of the case without observation and 
 animadversion. 
 
 I will now advert to the witnesses set up to contradict the body of re- 
 spectable gentlemen whose names have been before this committee. 
 We have had a Mr. Fermor and a Mr. Stovald. We have also had one 
 or two purveyors, who went down in the mail and other coaches, into 
 the country to mark timber purchased for the navy, who, being merely 
 sent down into the country for the purpose of marking timber, neither 
 have or profess to have any extensive opportunity of forming any 
 general judgment upon the subject to which their evidence refers. 
 
 Mr. Stovald, the only timber dealer, gives you a great deal of 
 inconsistent evidence, but upon which at present I shall not make 
 any comment. We have had him a second time, for the purpose of 
 correcting the answers he gave the first day. I do not claim the be- 
 nefit of his opinions upon the first day, which he in part endeavoured 
 to retract on the second, but I have a right to use his facts. He 
 Says he is in the habit of buying 10,000 or 12,000 loads per annum, 
 and he says he never found any difficulty whatever in supplying his 
 customers ; that he buys timber for northern customers who use a
 
 18 
 
 -mailer description of timber. It is rather extraordinary that thi* 
 man, who buys for the purpose of sending 10 or 12,000 loads 
 of timber to the north of England, should be able to supply Mr. 
 Morris with 12 or 1500 loads of timber, and Mr. boucber with 12 or 
 1500 loads of large size out of his lots of timber, if large timber was 
 so scarce. Indeed he says that Mr. Boucher had told him that he 
 might quote him (Mr. Boucher,) for having purchased 3 or 4000 
 loads, instead of 1000 or 1500, annually out of his lots. This de- 
 cidedly proves the fact, that this gentleman was not only able to 
 purchase 10 or 12,000 loads for the northern market, but that he 
 Sound 4 or 5000 loads of large timber amongst it. This shews, upon 
 the admission of their own witness, that there is no scarcity of timber 
 in the market ; and also shews, that it is not very difficult even to get 
 large timber; for, according to this man's testimony, one third 
 of the timber which he purchased was large timber, although 
 he bought for the northern counties, and for customers who only 
 wanted smaller timber, and of course looked out for timber to suit 
 their demands. Now, such is the evidence of Mr. Stovald, the only 
 timber dealer that has been called to support this case of scarcity. 
 Other witnesses were summoned to attend. Mr. Henry Upton of 
 Petworth, Mr. Thomas Hill of Eltham, Mr. Tellford, Mr. Bingle, a 
 clerk of Mr. Richardson's, and others, whom I was anxious to cross 
 examine upon the subject, but who have not been called. 
 
 Who have they called? Why this galloping Mr. Fermor, who 
 must have leaped over hedges and ditches for the purpose of this 
 case. He has been called to contradict Mr. Bull's testimony. What 
 does Mr. Fermor do? Instead of going or writing to Mr. Bull, for the 
 purpose of obtaining leave to see the estates under his management, 
 or the means of knowing- them, he calls upon him without any pre- 
 vious notice whatever, on the last day of his Survey, as he calls 
 it, about five o'clock in the morning, Mr. Bull having previously 
 gone out at three o'clock upon other business. This was a little un- 
 lucky certainly ; instead of going, as he ought to have done in pro- 
 priety, hi the first instance, to apprise Mr. Bidl of his wish to go 
 over these estates, he calls on the last day, no doubt knowing Mr. 
 Bull would not be at home. Sir, 1 assert that I am in a condition, 
 if it bad been wise for me at this late period of the session to offer 
 further evidence to the committee, to contradict the statements of 
 these witnesses, who have been called on the other side, and to con- 
 firm the testimony of the gentlemen whose names have been first men- 
 tioned. But I am afraid I should not be justified, at this advanced 
 period of the year, in imposing further labours upon the committee 
 by the investigation of such testimony. I should have shewn it to have 
 been quite impossible to pay the least respect to the testimony of Mr. 
 Fermor. Sir, I have had but one opinion upon the subject, from every 
 description of persons I have asked, as to the practicability of making, 
 within the same period of time, any such survey to any useful purpose, 
 as be has stated himself to have made, which shews, that it is utterly im- 
 possible that the evidence of Mr. Fermor can for a moment weigh with the
 
 19 
 
 committee. Who is Mr. Fermor ? He says he is not employed by 
 Messrs. Larkins and Morris; but it appears, at the close of his exa- 
 mination, that he was employed on their behalf through a Mr. Dixon, 
 \viio is connected with Messrs. Larkins and Morris. Mr. Fermor at 
 first says, he does not know that Mr. Dixon has any thing to do with 
 Messrs. Larkins and Morris, and yet immediately afterwards con- 
 fesses, that he knows that Mr. Dixon transacts business for Messrs. 
 Larkins and Morris. 
 
 Next comes a Mr. Staples, who is directly connected with Messrs. 
 Larkins and Morris, and they have given their opinion so broadly 
 and directly, that I am not surprised that they should be anxious to 
 collect testimony to support their opinion. The purport of his evi- 
 dence is, that there is not much wood in the county of Kent. Upon 
 the Canterbury or Church woods, he is asked, " Are you ac- 
 quainted with the wood near Canterbury, or rather the wood which 
 belongs to the church near Canterbury?" " I have been in some 
 parts of the Bough ton woods. I have not a perfect knowledge of 
 those woods. I know some parts of them." " It is a very large 
 district of wood, I believe ?" " Yes, it is." lt Of what size and 
 quality is the wood, as far as you have observed it ?" " To the best 
 of my knowledge there are not tivo thousand trees in the whole range 
 of woods that would mete at sixty feet." 
 
 Sir, this gentleman, who tells you that he has not a perfect know- 
 ledge of these woods, and who only knows some part of them, un- 
 dertakes to say that there are not 2000 trees in the whole range of 
 woods that would measure at sixty feet. There are honourable 
 members of the house of commons who know this wood, to' whom 
 I leave his evidence. One of my learned friends alludes to this 
 witnesses' testimony as a fair specimen of the nature of their evi- 
 dence, in contradiction of our case. I have no objection to such a 
 specimen of the evidence by which our timber case is to be destroy- 
 ed. Sir, I say the evidence adduced on behalf of my clients stands 
 unshaken and uncontradicted by our opponents, and distinctly and 
 positively shews, that every timber dealer has been able, at all times, to 
 Jind abundant supplies of that article to meet his wants from his own 
 connections, and without interfering with others. That even the Home 
 Counties are not exhausted, nor are they likely to be exhausted ; and 
 whatever scarcity there might have been some years ago in those 
 counties, the demand has never yet been such as to drive the timber 
 dealers to seek for a supply in the more distant parts of the country. 
 Our witnesses decidedly prove that there are large sources of supply 
 in the country which have never yet been touched. I am justified, 
 therefore, in saying, that our evidence completely negatives all appre- 
 hension of scarcity. 
 
 One of the arguments used by my learned friends, to shew that there 
 is a scarcity, is the circumstance of the ship-builders having asked, 
 whether the government had sent into the market 40,OOC/. ready mo- 
 ney to buy timber. By what ingenuity can this be used to prove 
 general scarcity ? A contract was under consideration for building a
 
 20 
 
 Certain number of ships of war by the private builders, it was im- 
 portant for them to know whether there was such a competition at 
 the moment with reference to their bargain: the circumstance of go- 
 vernment having sent a large sum of ready money into the market, 
 had reference to the rate per ton at which the builders could con- 
 tract if they were suddenly called upon, which had often been the case, 
 but none whatever to the general state of timber. It has not the small- 
 est application, in point of principle, to any question as to the real 
 resources of the country in timber, and can have reference only to the 
 then immtdiatc state of the market for the bargain in question. A 
 sudden demand for a large supply would naturally occasion a tem- 
 porary rise in the price, against which the builders meant to guard 
 themselves. 
 
 Sir, I fear I have occupied too much of the committee's time 
 upon this subject of timber. I felt it to be an object of the greatest 
 importance to clear this part of the case for the present, and all fu- 
 ture discussions upon the question now before parliament; and to 
 destroy for ever the fallacy, the misconceptions, and misrepresenta- 
 tions with which the subject has been enveloped. I could not in 
 justice to the case, or in justice to myself, (as the advocate of 
 the gentlemen whose interests are to be so materially affected by the 
 question,) suffer this subject to pass unnoticed, or stop short of re- 
 moving from it that mist of alarm and error with which it has been 
 obscured. I was desirous of disencumbering the case of those pre- 
 judices with which it has been overloaded, and of bringing the com- 
 mittee and parliament to the fair and candid consideration of the 
 real question which is to be decided. 
 
 Sir, the next head of evidence which I am about to examine, is 
 nearer to the real subject of discussion. I mean, Sir, the state of the 
 question as to the ship-building of Great Britain. 
 
 One of my learned friends says, that the old policy of the naviga- 
 tion acts allowed the purchase of foreign ships, that the regulations 
 of the navigation acts required only that the ship should be British 
 owned. But, Sir, that policy was found to be injurious to our na- 
 tive ship-building, and therefore to our national interests, and has 
 been long since abandoned, and it is now requisite not only that the 
 ship shall be British owned but British built. EXPERIENCE, AND 
 
 ALL SUBSEQUENT CONSIDERATION, HAS JUST I FIED THE WIS- 
 DOM OF THAT POLICY. It was upon the result of very long expe- 
 rience, and most elaborate enquiry, which proved that foreign ships 
 were interfering with the ships of this country, that this policy was esta- 
 blished, and became the foundation of the existing navigation acts 
 of this country. Experience has shewn that the improvements in our 
 native resources, which have taken place in this important branch of 
 natural strength, have been highly advantageous to the greatness, 
 glory, and security of the country in the superiority which has been 
 maintained by its navy, to which the private yards have so largely 
 contributed. The very foundation of the present navigation acts of 
 this country is, that the shipping of it shall not only be British oiuned 
 but British built. The exception of prizes captured and sold to
 
 21 
 
 British subjects does not affect the principle. Whatever may have 
 been the old law upon this subject, it is hardly necessary now to 
 discuss it. The law of the land now requires that your ships shall 
 not only be British owned, but British built ; and I contend, that 
 upon the maintenance of the principle upon which that lavo is 
 founded depends the prosperity and independence of this empire. 
 Sir, it is not now for the first time that it has been supposed, that 
 it would be more convenient to abandon this policy in favour of an- 
 other. I have myself often heard it hinted at rather than maintained, 
 that the practice of confining the ship-building of this country to 
 Great Britain (for I contend that such has been the effect, and is 
 the policy of the law, although it in terms includes colonies) ought 
 to be abandoned in favour of another policy. It is the age of expe- 
 riments and first principles ; but nothing, J contend, has occurred to 
 justify our departure from the recognised policy of the country, found- 
 ed upon experience that our ship-building shall not go from us on any 
 pretence whatever. Our capital, our long credit, our punctuality of 
 dealing, has hitherto preserved our trade in spite of cheaper freights of 
 other countries, and will still. My learned friends have contended for 
 this act in favour of India, upon different principles. Whether India 
 be a colony or not (of which my learned friend seems to entertain 
 some doubt) forms no part of the present question ; for the principle 
 of preservation of ship-building at home, as the support of your 
 national strength, applies equally to distant colonies as to foreign 
 nations, and particularly to colonies and foreign dependencies like 
 India. I say, Sir, that the great leading policy of this country is, that 
 the shipping and ship-building shall be preserved within the united 
 kingdom, and as a part of the strength of the centre of all our re- 
 sources, that it may be secure from possible^/wtare loss, and imme- 
 diately available when wanted in emergencies. The existing navigation 
 acts give exclusive encouragement to British built ships. The question 
 is, What are British ships ? My learned friend will tell you that all 
 ships built in any territory belonging to Great Britain (whether colony, 
 dependency, or by whatever name he may choose to call it,) are British 
 ships, and entitled to British registry. I contend, that the national 
 policy has been, and is, that one of your main supports of national 
 strength and prosperity, should be preserved entire and unbroken in 
 the mother country, or parent state, for the security of the whole. 
 
 Sir, it has never been the subject of fair or full discussion yet, whether 
 any great proportion ofyourship-building could, with safety, beallowed 
 to be transferred into any dependencies of this country, particularly 
 to one so distant and peculiarly situated. It has never yet been sup- 
 posed that such a proposition could be maintained it has never prac- 
 tically arisen, and has never been attempted to be raised. The gen- 
 tlemen who have owned Indian ships, have brought to England ninety- 
 four ships within a few years, now registered in the general trade of 
 the country. Whether they have legally done so is a question upon 
 which, after the fullest consideration, I entertain great doubt. But 
 the committee will recollect, that I never put the case of the English 
 ^hip-builders upon such grounds as this mere strict legal question
 
 involves. I put tiic case of the English ship-builders upon the broad 
 ground, that whatever may be the letter of the law, or supposed 
 rights arising from it, the practice of building ships of a large descrip- 
 tion, suited to the Indian trade must, upon general principles of policy 
 and national expediency, arising out of their necessary connection with 
 national defence, and the obvious propriety of keeping your resources 
 of defence in the parent state, for the protection and safety of the 
 whole, be confined to Great Britain alone. It was this principle 
 which has induced the various restrictions in relation to our colonies. 
 The building of our ships and preservation of our seamen must be 
 maintained in the Sovereign State at home by protection and encou- 
 ragement, and even by restrictions, if necessary, and cannot, upon 
 any principles of sound policy, still less upon considerations of tri- 
 Jling pecuniary , or mercantile advantages, be allowed to be transferred 
 to dependencies which may not always belong to you, and where they 
 may one day become resources in the hands of an enemy, or a rival, as 
 we have witnessed in relation to our former American colonies. I 
 will not discuss with my learned friend abstract principles of right, or 
 the strict legality of claims; I stand upon the broad ground of na- 
 tional policy, which has at all times influenced, and must influence 
 the conduct of the government of this country with respect to its own 
 colonies, and foreign and distant possessions. There has been, it is 
 understood, a difference of opinion between the judges of Westmin- 
 ster Hall and of other courts, as to India, with reference to the na- 
 vigation acts. But it is not necessary for me to discuss that ques- 
 tion; for the sake of the argument, I give my learned friends the full 
 benefit of the application of those acts to India. The question to be 
 discussed by parliament, as I have repeated it over and over again, 
 is, whether any of the ship-building of this country ought to be 
 allowed to be transferred to such distant possessions, whether any 
 fancied or even actual advantage in trade will justify such a loss 
 to this country. If then the Legislature is not to look to the let- 
 ter of an act, but to the national policy which ought to govern the 
 subject no right can be set up by any colony, dependency, or fo- 
 reign possession of the empire, or any individuals in such pos- 
 sessions, to restrain parliament in such a case as the present 
 
 As a maritime nation we owe our existence to this policy, and 
 to having exercised this power ; and if we were to abandon it, the 
 consequences might be fatal to our security. 
 
 Sir, this question affects the whole country at large ; it does not 
 stand before this committee upon any narrow selfish views of 
 mere individuals. It is a question deeply interesting to every man 
 who regards the safety, the independence, and the prosperity of 
 his country. I know it has been a favourite argument against the 
 cause which I advocate, that the discussion is brought forward by 
 individuals who have a private personal interest in its success. 
 Sir, that argument does not make the justice of their claims on the 
 broad national policy of the question the less strong. As I have 
 said before, if I cannot rest my case upon broad national grounds, 
 I admit that parliament has a right to decide against us. I set up
 
 23 
 
 no private claims but as against private individuals. If the ques- 
 tion stands only on individual claims on both sides, I court the 
 competition, satisfied that none have superior private claims to my 
 clients. Sir, a great deal has been said about the hardship of ex- 
 cluding the ship-builders of India from the privileges which they 
 now claim. What is the hardship which they may sustain com- 
 pared with that which will be imposed upon those who have so long 
 enjoyed the benefit of this business in Great Britain. I am pre- 
 pared at any time to discuss the question of comparison of advan- 
 tages which may be derived by those persons who are so anxious 
 to promote this measure if it were carried into execution, with 
 the losses and claims of my clients if it were a question of private 
 claims. 
 
 It has been said, that the privilege required for British built ship- 
 ping is a severe restriction upon the ship-builders, ship owners, and 
 merchants of India. Sir, I deny the position, it cannot, in the 
 fair sense of the word, be called a restriction. It is not a restric- 
 tion upon any thing which they have hitherto been accustomed to 
 enjoy, whatever right they might be supposed to have under the 
 letter of the acts they had never practically used. These ships 
 never came to this country until a very late period. They were 
 allowed to come under peculiar circumstances and under temporary 
 laws. But whenever a temporary concession of this sort, which is 
 only permitted upon particular emergencies, becomes mischievous to 
 the country, and threatens the introduction of a dangerous inno- 
 vation, is it to be said, that we are imposing measures of restric- 
 tion, because we are asking to revert to a national policy, or state 
 of things, either as to law or fact, which had for so long a period 
 kept them out ? Sir, I do not deny that parliament is bound to 
 regard the interests of the dependent territories and colonies of 
 this country; but I say that parliament is bound, upon broad 
 grounds of national policy, to cultivate the ship-building interests 
 of this country, and even with some jealousy to watch over the 
 rights and privileges of the parent state, and any encroachments of 
 its dependencies still more to prevent a transfer of strength from 
 one to the other. Sir, we contend that there is an imperious ne- 
 cessity for parliament to interpose its authority against the inno- 
 vating system, which is now attempted to be established. If this were 
 a case of necessity on the part of India, and the restriction we ask 
 for were pregnant with danger to our dearest interests, I could not 
 appeal for my clients to the protection of Parliament ; but, Sir, no 
 such case has been made out. It is not a case of necessity. We 
 are not resisting any claims which the Indian owners are enti- 
 tled to enjoy, or asking to take away privileges which they have 
 hitherto possessed. We do not seek to benefit ourselves at the ex- 
 pence of the ship-builders on the other side of the water, we ask only 
 that they may not be benefited at our expence. It is simply a ques- 
 tion, whether a distant colony of the empire shall be permitted to 
 enjoy a privilege of this sort, to the hazard of the best interests 
 and future safety of the mother country at the expence, at the
 
 24 
 
 same time, of great private interests in Great Britain ; and this 
 without any prospect, as I will shew hereafter, of any adequate 
 commercial benefit arising from the innovation. 
 
 I will now shortly advert to the arguments as to the Thames 
 builders relying principally upon building for the India trade, and 
 to the number of men employed by the ship builders. They say 
 " you have a certain number of men employed when you are not 
 building indiamen." They tell us " you cannot be much injured 
 by taking away this branch of the ship-building,because you have had 
 as many men employed in your establishments, when you were not 
 building Indiamen, as when you were. The number of your men is 
 pretty much the same in all times, whether you have Indiamen to 
 build or not." They have put in an abstract to shew the number 
 of men employed, and the number of ships built, in the course of a 
 series of years. They say, " in a great number of years your entry 
 is none." They put in another abstract to shew, that the building 
 for government was, in the course of a series of years, 119,415 
 tons ; and that the building for the East India Company during 
 the same period, amounted to 97>789 tons. This is the proportion 
 according to their statement, between the tonnage for government 
 and that for the India Company. I do not stop to inquire into the ac- 
 curacy of these figures; for, with regard to the quantity of employ- 
 ment, these abstracts are completely fallacious^ as they leave out 
 the quantity of repairs which have been done, during that series of 
 years, upon the India ships, and therefore afford no means of judg- 
 ing of the employment to men by these ship-builders. Repairs to 
 men of war are not usually done in these yards; they have done 
 very few except before the battle of Trafalgar, when they were 
 called upon at a very short notice, under particular circumstances ; 
 and possibly in a few other instances, but not affording any ge- 
 neral employment. The accounts leave out altogether the repairs 
 which have been done during that period. Those who bring for- 
 ward these accounts, forget that the repairs considerably ex- 
 ceed the actual building of ships, exclusive of what Mr. Sep- 
 ping calls refitting, as less, ordinarily speaking than repairs. 
 All these repairs, therefore, must be taken into consideration, 
 as accounting for the number of men employed in these dock- 
 yards. It is very true, that a number of men is returned in these 
 abstracts, as having been apparently constantly employed, al- 
 though very few Indiamen have been built; but it is to be recol- 
 lected also, it has been proved that the repairs afford large tempo- 
 rary employment of men in a dock-yard, and, consequently, from 
 the periods at which they are paid, and the mode in which they are 
 entered in the account, the number in the account may be occa- 
 sionally very much swelled, without at all shewing the average rate 
 of constant employment. Such an abstract affords, therefore, a fal- 
 lacious view of the subject, calculated to mislead rather than assist 
 even as to the number employed in any yard in any view of regu- 
 lar employment. But what does all this amount to ? why, that we 
 have in war had men of war to build as well as Indiamen. We
 
 25 x 
 
 certainly have; but this employment would not be found, I am 
 satisfied, upon an investigation of details., to amount to a third 
 of the employment; and we have only said, that we depended, 
 in time of peace, principally upon Indiamen. The result of this 
 argument seems to be, the war has now ceased, all the employ- 
 ment which you had in consequence of the war has gone by ; 
 and, therefore, as you did not depend wholly upon Indiamen, 
 we may take away the remainder. How does it affect the real 
 merits of this question, whether we built more or less in time of war ? 
 The question is, whether we have a right to preserve the building 
 now, in times of peace, which we have hitherto carried on in time 
 of peace and war. And it is not disputed, that the principal em- 
 ployment of the Thames yards was building and repairing for the 
 India trade ; whether more or less than we or our opponents assert, 
 is quite immaterial. 
 
 Then, Sir, we have had the different yards contrasted with each 
 other, to shew that the principal part of the business has been 
 done by a few of then:. Of what consequence is it, whether 
 Jittle or much, or more or less, was done in one yard or 
 another? Does it alter the broad question of policy, whether this 
 building should be carried on here or in India. Our proposition 
 is, that whether little or much, more or less, than it has been, it 
 ought to be retained here. 
 
 It has been proved, that a great quantity of the tonnage em- 
 ployed in India trade has been built lately in India, and that the 
 number of ships built in India now registered for the general trade 
 of [ndia, amounts, I think, to 93, making about 6/,78j tons ; and 
 that the building in the port of London has latterly fallen off in very 
 nearly the same proportion. The natural result of this evidence, 
 and which cannot be controverted, is, that what we have lost they 
 have gained ; but it must never be lost sight of, that it is of the loss 
 to this country I complain, and not of any gain to India. 
 
 Sir, a great deal of discussion has taken place upon some averages 
 of former and present states of building Indiamen on the Thames, 
 produced by us in an early stage of this proceeding. We have 
 been accused of presenting a wrong view of the case through those 
 averages ; and different periods, and a different .arrangement of 
 periods have been produced, to shew that our statements were not 
 correct It has been said, that some Indiamen were taken as men 
 of war in the first period, that the India company have lately reduced 
 the number of their ships, or rather not kept up their quantity of 
 tonnage to the former extent as to the second period ; that there 
 will no doubt be very hoon a very large proportion of tonnage in de- 
 mand, andan increased quantity oi'buildingjHnd, therefore, acertaiu 
 prospect of encouragement soon held out to the ship-builders: but, 
 Sir, the question is, to the ship-builders of what country? For what 
 purpose this last statement has been used it is not easy to conjec- 
 ture, unless it is to exhibit to my clients the full extent of their un- 
 happy situation, more unhappy troui a source of employment being 
 
 K
 
 26 
 
 pointed out only to prove the extent of the injury we are to suffer 
 ironi the effect of this bill, which will deprive us of the only build- 
 ing which, in the natural course of things, would be left us at the 
 expiration of a long war. Here is another proof of how little conse- 
 quence it is by what sacrifice a petty victory is to be obtained over 
 any part of our case. Our averages are to be disputed, we are to be 
 convicted of having made wrong calculations as to the proportion of 
 ships formerly and lately built, and are rather more triumphantly 
 than feelingly told, that our latter years appear less, because the 
 India company have lately built less that, consequently, they must 
 soon build a great deal ; and this argument is used in support of a 
 bill which is to give all the advantage of future building to our op- 
 ponents. We are for a petty purpose told how much there will be 
 to do, only to put more strongly before our eyes the full amount 
 of the loss we must sustain, and the nature and extent of the tri- 
 umph which is to be obtained over us. Sir, the argument can 
 hardly be gravely dealt with. Is it of the least consequence to 
 the decision of this case, whether we have taken an average right 
 or wrong ? Will any victory of my learned friends over our state- 
 ment prove that there has not been a vast increase of Indian ton- 
 nage, and a proportionate falling off in the English tonnage ? 
 Wrong averages may have been made upon this subject, though I 
 should have no difficulty in proving, that both the principles and 
 calculations upon which my learned friends proceed as to these 
 averages, are fallacious that long averages are taken solely for 
 the purpose of including in the general result accidents which will 
 always recur in a course of years, but which you cannot admit 
 into single years that the heavy loss of Indiamen in the latter pe- 
 riod, an accident likely to occur again, counterbalances the India- 
 men taken for men of war in the first period. 
 
 But, Sir, I will not throw away an argument, orwaste a moment of 
 the time of the committee in a contest upon such a subject. 
 I will leave to my learned friends a victory over our calculation, 
 if they will leave to me the substantial facts which lead to the 
 fair consideration of the subject. Will the alteration of the aver- 
 age of ships actually built for the service of the India com- 
 pany, from seven to four, or any other number, during the first 
 ten years stated, or from two to three, or any other number, dur- 
 ing the last ten years, alter the fact of the East India company's 
 having built their last ships in India and not in England ; of their 
 having sent out orders now to build the Buckinghamshire in India; of 
 there now being no ship ordered, or contracted for, or thought of, in 
 England ? Will calculations of the effect which would be pro- 
 duced upon the average by the tonnage kept back by the India 
 company in the last four years, while their charter was under dis- 
 cussion, give to my clients the consolation of looking to that ton- 
 nage for future employment, against all the arguments, or aj least 
 against all the evidence produced by my learned friends upon this 
 subject ? Will such calculations, or arguments founded upon any
 
 27 
 
 such victory over our averages, which I cannot but consider as un- 
 worthy of the talents of my learned friends, prove that my clients 
 built the Vansittart, which was launched last year at Calcutta, or 
 are about to build the Buckinghamshire, lately ordered at Bom- 
 bay. In a public newspaper, under the head of " EAST INDIA 
 intelligence," I read this paragraph only yesterday. 
 
 ** EAST INDIA INTELLIGENCE. 
 
 *' Ship-building is now in a most unexampled state of prospe- 
 rity in India. A new vessel for the company's service was 
 launched in November, at Calcutta ; it was baptized the Vansit- 
 tart, and is 1 200 tons burthen. Three other vessels of inferior 
 burthen, called the General Kydd, Earl Moira, and the Susan, were 
 launched about the same time, and a number of others are an- 
 nounced in the India papers to be on the stocks." 
 
 This state of prosperity of India ship-building contrasted with the 
 state of ship-building on the river Thames, where not a ship has b een 
 launched for a year, no ship is building, and not one ordered even by 
 the India company, makes all discussion upon correctness of aver- 
 ages an idle waste of time. My learned friends must persuade us, 
 that the ships which appear upon your minutes to have been 
 furnished by India builders, that the Vansittart, the General 
 Kydd, the Earl of Moira, and the Susan, were built in the yards of 
 Messrs. Wigram, Brent, Barnard, or the yards of my other clients, 
 that the return of the India company as to the orders for the 
 Buckinghamshire is erroneous, and that this vessel is to be built 
 in England, and that the tonnage soon to be supplied, and which is 
 called in aid of my learned friends' arguments as to averages, is to be 
 furnished by English builders, before they can induce me to enter in- 
 to any contest upon such a part of the case. But I cannot pass with- 
 out observation the consistency of argument and mode of treating 
 this whole case, which pervades every part of the conduct of it by 
 our opponents, and my learned friends. For the purpose of aver- 
 ages we are accused of understating what we have had, and omit- 
 ting what is in prospect we are soon after accused of considering 
 that as a source of employment which we are told is not worth 
 consideration. How this meets our argument, that whether it be 
 little or much, we are entitled to have it upon principles of na- 
 tional policy and common justice I am unable to discover : we 
 think that we are the best judges whether it is worth our while to 
 carry on the building for the India trade here. It would be rather 
 absurd to tell us, that we ought not to carry on the business, be- 
 cause, in the estimation of others, whose sole object is to get it 
 from us, it would not be worth our while to pursue it ; that we 
 over estimate its value, and therefore there is neither hardship 
 or injustice in taking it from us. For the purpose of disputing our 
 averages, we are convicted of having made our calculations in such 
 a way as to understate our employment. Our statements are scarcely 
 said to be refuted for this purpose, when we are charged for an-
 
 28 
 
 ether purpose with over stating the employment which we claim 
 from this business. The calculation which is said to be so com- 
 pletely refuted for one purpose, is immediately adopted for another ; 
 upon which 1 have already commented, namely, that of contrasting 
 the account of our employment for the navy board with our em- 
 ployment for the India trade, in order to shew that the latter was 
 comparatively of little importance, and to justify a measure which 
 is to add to the loss we must in common with many others suffer 
 from peace, and the loss of employment consequent upon war, the 
 injury of being deprived of our only other resource and we are 
 then consoled, though we cannot admit that we are answered by 
 the argument, that the only remaining employment we had to de- 
 pend upon is nothing like so great as we have stated. In short, it 
 is either more or less, little or much, as it happens to suit my 
 learned friends' arguments, or their statements (whether true or un- 
 true I will not now inquire), for the immediate purpose of the mo- 
 ment, no matter how little it applies to the real substantial subject 
 of contest. Sir, 1 have before commented upon the abstract pro- 
 duced on the other side, to shew the comparative quantities of 
 building for the navy and the India trade, and shewn its fallacy in 
 wholly omitting repairs. I have also shewn the fallacy of any ar- 
 gument derived from minute calculations, of which my learned 
 friends' clients are very fond, as nothing appears so effectual in 
 meeting any case standing upon broad general grounds of public 
 policy and private loss, as petty speculations upon the calculated 
 amount of the loss stated, and convicting your opponent of some 
 error in his details, however little they may affect the question 
 under consideration. Such, Sir, and founded upon such principles, 
 is the result of the whole of their calculation as to the number of 
 men employed, or for whom employment would be afforded by par- 
 ticular description of work. We have said, that building is neces- 
 sary to support our yards : and a calculation is immediately made 
 upon the present number of men employed by a given quantity of 
 building, without any consideration of the question, that building is 
 necessary to produce repairs ; that if five ships were to be built in 
 the year, thirty or forty would, probably, upon the number to be 
 kept up by such building, come to be repaired or refitted in the 
 year. It would not be difficult to show, if it were worth the con- 
 test, that my learned friends' inference and calculation, as to em- 
 ployment of men, would be wholly defeated by contrasting the ag- 
 gregate building of all sorts with the number of men admitted to be 
 employed in the whole*; but my present subject of observation is, 
 that for the purpose of momentary triumph over us, all our averages 
 as to the building in the latter periods are fallacious ; and yet they 
 
 * The 110,415 built in the twenty years for the navy would not, according 1 to 
 the calculation of GO men t.< li'OO ions, which is adopted for the purpose of shew- 
 ing that the T. a<tics builders did not depend upon ihe building for India, add 
 more thyn S( r 4CO nit n en an average. Contrast this with the account, 
 page 400 '.f Mn. u is, and it will appear either that the repairing has been much 
 Hnderrated, or that no dependence can be placed upon such minute calculations.
 
 29 
 
 are without scruple immediately adopted, or at least the facts upon 
 which the averages were made are adopted, for the purpose of con- 
 trasting navy building with India building, and shewing that we had 
 no right to state that we depended upon India building. This ob- 
 servation, added to what I have before stated to the committee 
 upon that abstract, will shew to the committee the manner in which 
 this case is treated by our opponents. Sir, we are perfectly aware 
 of the loss we may sustain by want of employment for navy 
 building ; and what we complain of is, that it is now intended to 
 deprive us of all we had left. 
 
 Sir, it is perfectly true, that at the termination of a long war, 
 and for some time after the commencement of peace, a general 
 stagnation will prevail in many parts of the commercial world. I 
 am afraid we are not the only persons likely to suffer in this re- 
 spect ; many who think that plenty and wealth are necessary con- 
 comitants of peace, will find themselves greatly deceived. Many 
 persons, no doubt, will experience very great difficulty and embar- 
 rassment, until home and foreign markets find their natural level; 
 many will find peace a season of stagnation of business and inac- 
 tivity. Sir, we have not attempted to conceal from ourselves or 
 the committee that such will in some measure be the effect of 
 peace upon us that not only will the Thames builders lose the 
 employment connected with the navy, but that the general build- 
 ing of the country will, as I have before stated, for some time feel 
 the effect of the number of the transports which will immediately be 
 offered for mercantile employment, and also the effect of the ton- 
 nage arising from prizes, in a war in which a course of uninter- 
 rupted victory has thrown the balance of that tonnage so largely 
 in our favour. Sir, I have before stated, that we were fully aware 
 of the effects of these causes upon our business, but we did not com- 
 plain of them. These losses arise out of causes incident to the natural 
 state of affairs, to which we, in common with all others, must sub- 
 mit. Our complaint as to India tonnage is of a different descrip- 
 tion ; it is that a temporary policy, arising out of particular cir- 
 cumstances, which admitted India ships to a competition with 
 English, is now to be perpetuated by this bill. That in times when 
 war will deprive of much, the remainder, which becomes more ne- 
 cessary to our existence, is to be taken from us ; and my learned 
 friends seem to think that it is almost sufficient for them to prove that 
 itis not so much as we have represented it to be, to justify the depriv- 
 ing us of it. Sir, I repeat again, that our position is, whether the pre- 
 cise amount of the shipping be correct or incorrect, whether the 
 average of ships built, or which would have been built, or which are 
 now to be built, is accurately stated or not ; whether it is more or 
 less than either side have asserted ; whether it is little or much, 
 sound policy, and justice to my clients, founded upon that policy, 
 and their claims imperiously demand that it should be preserved to 
 us ; and if, as my learned friends have stated, there will soon be a 
 large demand for building tonnage the amount of which I could, 
 if it were necessary, prove to be incorrectly stated, but which it is
 
 50 
 
 better for my argument to take upon the assertion of ray learned 
 friends it forms a strong additional reason for securing the bene 
 fit of that building to us, as it would in some measure counterba- 
 lance the effects of the loss which must arise from the termination 
 of the war. Having disposed of all these grounds of petty war- 
 fare, 1 at length approach the substantial and ultimate questions 
 between my learned friends and myself. The questions are TWO. 
 One, the great question of public POLICY, which I put first; and 
 the committee will do me the justice to recollect, that I have al- 
 ways done so. 
 
 The other, the question of comparative claim (and which may. 
 be considered as a private question) between the gentlemen for * 
 whom 1 have the honour to appear, and the mercantile houses in 
 India, for whom my learned friends appear. 
 
 I must first advert to the manner in which the question of public 
 policy is argued by my learned friends. Sir, to my astonishment 
 I hear now, for the first time, of 60,000,000 of people claim- 
 ing, not merely what is given by this bill, but much more, as a 
 matter of right, from the British legislature ! My learned friend, 
 Mr. Grant, claims, in the first instance, equal credit with myself, 
 for having put the questions upon grounds of public policy ; indeed, 
 puts himself rather above me in this respect, never having breathed, 
 as he stated, a whisper respecting his clients ; but this, Sir, was 
 only the prelude to a claim on behalf of the whole people of India. 
 He tells us he will be no longer party to a silence as to those claims 
 that what might be prudent in them, would be criminal in him ; 
 and having started suddenly as the advocate of claims upon the pa- 
 rental protection of the British state for this immense population, 
 goes on to state, that the real question is, whether the English 
 ship-builder shall have the monopoly, or the India builder be 
 allowed to enter into a competition wishing the committee to 
 believe that he seeks only competition, in the same breath in 
 which he tells you, that the natural and proper end of the 
 competition is, that the cheapest will beat the other out of the 
 market. Unable to conceal his exultation at the inevitable re- 
 sult of such a competition as he thus seeks to establish, and forget- 
 ting that it is the duty and practice of government to take care, 
 where competition is beneficial, to preserve it by regulations, re- 
 strictions, and duties: and my learned friend afterwards proceeds 
 with a consistency quite in unison with every other part of his ar- 
 gument, and his case to prove, not merely the absolute superi- 
 ority in the cheapness and other qualities of the India ship, but 
 that the trade must be carried on in India ships, and India ships 
 only. He charges us with claiming monopoly ; and with admirable 
 consistency asks for competition, and proves that he is seeking 
 monopoly for his clients, and will be satisfied with nothing short 
 of it. Now, Sir, let us see for whom it is sought, and for whom my 
 learned friend really appears, whether he appears for a few India 
 houses, or on behalf of a population of 60,000,000 ; let us first 
 examine his claims in behalf of the whole population of India. We
 
 31 
 
 are told that it is a country which cannot be called a colony a 
 country which has had, and has, independent governments of its 
 own a country not peopled from England, or deriving any of its 
 resources from us. With reference to whose claims my learnedfriends 
 never once hint at its bearing any analogy to a conquered country ; 
 and he urges those claims upon principles which, I confess, if my 
 learned friends were really entitled to advocate them on the 
 grounds he has taken, I should look at as most alarming. We 
 are afterwards told, that the refusal of their claims will be an 
 act of the grossest injustice to this population that we are put- 
 ting the extinguisher upon the claims of a people nearly as nu- 
 *xnerous as the whole population of civilized Europe that we 
 are asking to deny them the right of carrying on their trade in 
 their own ships! a right which we are also subsequently told 
 by my learned friend, Mr. Grant, we wish to refuse them while 
 we grant it to foreigners, of which we wish to debar them while 
 united with us in interests, and as belonging to the same state, 
 and which we must concede to them if they were a revolted co- 
 lony, and had succeeded in a treasonable contest against us. Sir, 
 it is with a view to the attempting to obtain the aid of this last ar- 
 gument in favour of India as the exporting country, that I con- 
 clude my learned friend has brought forward the population of India 
 in such an anomalous state of relation to this country, as to en- 
 title him to contend for all sorts of rights whether foreign or native, 
 and however undefined in their application. But my learned friend 
 surely cannot forget, that the right of carrying trade, and exporting 
 the produce of a country in the ships of a country, is not one con- 
 ceded as a favour to a foreign state, but which arises out of the 
 relation of foreign and the independent claims belonging to that 
 relation, which you cannot refuse, and the effect of which, there- 
 fore, you counteract by duties, amounting oftentimes to prohibi- 
 tions, and at all times by regulations affording protection and pre- 
 ference to your own. And from this state of India, my learned 
 friend claims all the privileges of protection of a colon}', without the 
 restrictions usually imposed on colonies, and at the same time the 
 benefit of all the rights of a foreign state. 
 
 Sir, I confess I hear these doctrines and statements with some 
 alarm. If the comparative state of England and its Indian de- 
 pendencies is such as my learned friend has represented it to be, 
 we must expect to live to see the period when the Prince Regent 
 of this kingdom will follow the example of the Regent of Portugal, 
 though from very different motives, and proceed to the govern- 
 ment of the greater state. I, Sir, have, at various periods of my 
 life, had temptations which might be considered as alluring, to 
 quit Great Britain for some of its wealthy dependencies. I have 
 always preferred continuing in the sovereign state ; but my learned 
 friend's statements, if I could allow them full operation, would 
 excite serious alarms, that I must either emigrate with the go- 
 vernment, or consent to pass the remainder of my life in the sub- 
 ordinate and dependent state. But, Sir, let me seriously ask,
 
 32 
 
 have we ever heard of these 60,000,000 of people in any former 
 discussions? With reference to such questions, or such claims, 
 were they placed in this situation in the discussion of last year ? 
 Was a single word said about the inhabitants of India in this 
 way ? The question was not then, whether the people of India 
 were to be allowed to make these demands for Indian ships, for 
 English trade, or for any other privileges, in the way the subject 
 is considered by my learned friends ? With reference to such 
 claims and objects are they, in fact, the real clients of my learned 
 friends ? Do they not appear for clients much more limited in 
 claims, and in interests, and for objects of private advantage and 
 gain to a few individuals, rather than for great public privileges 
 affecting the population of India ? To ascertain this, let us look 
 to the discussion of last year. 
 
 The whole of the contest, of which this is a branch, was, from 
 its commencement, carried on and concluded between the India 
 company, and the monopoly it had so long possessed, and the pri- 
 vate traders of India and merchants of England. No claims were 
 ever made for these 6'O,OGO,000, nor can any now be set up against 
 any principles of substantial policy which the legislature of this 
 country may think it necessary to preserve or adopt, for the protec- 
 tion of the wealth and power of the sovereign state. 
 
 My learned friends tell you, that India is not a colony ; it is not 
 like a West India island. One of them says, it is not like St. Kitts. 
 It certainly is not like St. Kitts ; but will any dissimilarity as to size 
 or population, or any such circumstances, justify the use of, or sup- 
 port arguments, that it is not in any manner, or nnder any circum- 
 stances, as a dependency of Great Britain, (which I hope I may, not- 
 withstanding the statement of learned friends, still for some little time 
 at least venture to considerit,) subjccttoall the same general principles 
 of sound policy, which have hitherto dictated all our laws as to colo- 
 nies or dependencies, and had for their object the making them ac- 
 cessions to, and not destructive of, the strength of the sovereign state : 
 but let us examine their case when they come to give it in evidence, 
 and see whether it is for such public objects, or only for the 
 convenience and emolument of a few individuals, that it is abso- 
 lutely necessary to allow teak ships to supersede the use of oak ships. 
 
 Sir, all their witnesses tell you, that the motive for their employ- 
 ment is, for making the remittances of the wealth of India to Eng- 
 land upon better terms ; that the India houses can give bills upon 
 better terms if they are allowed to transmit the produce of India, 
 particularly the graff goods, in their own teak ships. Now, Sir, we 
 begin to see something of the real case, and to find who my learned 
 friend's real clients are. My learned friend, Mr. Grant, in his ad- 
 mirable address to the committee, used certainly, on many occasions, 
 very strong language, and bold arguments, as an advocate for his 
 clients ; but did it in such a regulated tone of voice, and in so 
 modest and unassuming a manner, that frequently it was not until 
 the sentence had some time passed the ear that you perceived the 
 sting which it contained. My learned friend also knew when any
 
 )part of his subject should be kept back; and therefore only gently hinted 
 at the possibility, or urged the probability, thatifyou did not allow teak 
 ships coming to this country, the purpose of those who wished to 
 employ them would be effected by other means; in short, by smug- 
 gling their remittances to Europe in foreign ships. His witnesses, 
 who came from India houses to prove their own case, had no such deli- 
 cacy in their statements, and it was not necessary, therefore, that my 
 learned friend, Mr. Spankie, should endeavour to preserve it. It is, there- 
 fore, by them, boldly avowed, that if you did not suffer their wants, 
 as to favourable remittances, which they never lo-e sight of, to be 
 supplied by means of teak ships constructed in India, that they would 
 resort to foreign countries and foreign vessels. They told you, with- 
 out reservation, that if you did not choose to let them bring their car- 
 goes home in teak ships, they would smuggle them home in foreign 
 ships, and that no law would prevent them from so doing. Sir, I 
 will not dispute that such considerations cannot wholly be thrown 
 out of the consideration of any case of this description; but this 
 principle can have no weight with the committee in coming to the 
 conclusion for which my learned friends are labouring, unless it can 
 be distinctly shewn that it applies to the case. What is the argument 
 of my learned friends, and the statement of their witnesses ? Why, that 
 if you will not allow these teak ships to come to this country, the na- 
 tural consequence will be, that those who reside in India will trans- 
 fer their remittances by means of foreign ships, and to foreign coun- 
 tries; that gentlemen who make their fortunes in India will remit 
 their money to the greatest advantage, and through the medium of 
 the most favourable bills, by foreign ships, if such ships suit their 
 purpose better. Here, Sir, it is at once that their whole argument 
 fails: they tell you that you are bound, in justice as well as policy, 
 to provide them with the means of transmission which they desire ; 
 and something like a threat is held out to induce this country to aban- 
 don the policy which has so much contributed to its security in 
 wealth and prosperity. But upon what is the whole of this founded? 
 Why, that the freight by those teak ships will be cheaper, and there- 
 fore that you must allow their use to enable them to compete with 
 foreigners. Now, Sir, if I hereafter shew, that though they have the 
 superiority in this respect over British ships, they have no such ad- 
 vantage over foreigners, the whole argument fails j for can it be 
 doubted that these gentlemen will use the cheapest and most ad- 
 vantageous mode of remittance, will it be believed th*t thev will, 
 after what has been so broadly stated, be deterred by any scruples 
 from availing themselves of all means of remitting their \vi-iji 
 or trade on the cheapest terms. I repeat, therefore, what I 
 have before stated ; and will more distinctly shew, by the evi- 
 dence hereafter, that you will lose the building of British ships 
 by this transfer, without procuring to the country the onlv advan- 
 tage which is stated as a ground for justifying such a proceeding. 
 My learned friend, Mr. Grant, has also condemned the narrow 
 policy of shutting out the resources of India from ourselves, of 
 
 F
 
 84 
 
 clapping a seal upon them; and he also asks you whether yotf 
 will use them, or deliver them over, untouched, to be used by 
 sonic foreign enemy, if such should be the fate of India. Sir, I 
 doubt whether I understand the argument of my learned friend. 
 The permitting ships now to be built in India for the whole trade 
 must, if India should ever be lost to us, create ; or rather I may say, 
 increase the establishments for ship-building for the use of a future 
 enemy. These very establishments which my learned friends wish to 
 cultivate and increase in India, are even as yet in their infancy, 
 dependant upon other countries, and this, for a great part of their 
 means of building and equipping. All the resources of India which 
 can aid ship-building will be developed by the increase of these esta- 
 blishments. The using of them, as my learned friend terms it, 
 might apply to a- magazine of provisions, which might fall into the 
 bands of the enemy, if not used, which must be burnt or destroyed 
 to prevent such a consequence : but how does the argument apply to 
 this question ? The resources of India, if I comprehend the phrase, 
 as applied to this subject, are not merely the means in raw material ; 
 for these are only partially possessed in India. Within our territories 
 the resources, as to the ship- building in India, will arise out of the 
 increase and improvement of its establishments, its workmen, and 
 its talent for employing those workmen, and the rapid improvement 
 of many of the raw materials of the country, and creating the means 
 of using them for the future use of those establishments. If the 
 workmen of this country are transferred to India, and their numbers, 
 whether from this country or India, increased, all the means of 
 building increased, and great national resources of this sort are thus 
 created and established ; a source of power is formed, which may 
 one day fall into the hands of an enemy to be used against you ; 
 not the woods or forests, or natural produce of the soil, for I admit 
 that they may be inexhaustible. 
 
 Mr. Grant. I did not myself say decidedly whether or not 
 the resources of the country were inexhaustible. I said that they had 
 been declared by the opposite parties to be inexhaustible. It was 
 they who made use of the assertion. 
 
 Mr. Harrison. Sir, I had taken down my learned friend's 
 words, and I understood him to state, that these inexhaustible re- 
 sources of India the immense wealth and riches of this vast body 
 of people, of which it was in the power of this country to avail it- 
 self, we should put into the hands of the enemy, unused and un- 
 touched, if we did not adopt the means which he recommended, of 
 availing ourselves of them. My answer to this proposition is, that 
 if you increase the establishments in India, necessary to enable you 
 to fit out such ships there, and increase your naval strength in 
 India, you hazard the danger of all those resources, so increased and 
 firmly established, falling into the hands of the enemy, to be used 
 against yourself. But, Sir, though I use this argument, and it is 
 one, as it appears to me, of no little weight, I must iutreat the com- 
 mittee never to lose sight of the main argument upon which I bot-
 
 35 
 
 tom my case, namely, that what will thus be established in India, 
 subject to such future hazard, is lost here in Great Britain ; that it is 
 the loss to Great Britain, the parting with sources of vital strength, 
 which 1 deprecate; that the objection is not to the enriching India; 
 not to having such resources there, so much as to the losing them 
 here ; the transfer of them from the centre of the empire, where 
 they ought to be kept to be available for security as to their preser- 
 vation, and the strength and consistency which they give to the re- 
 sources of the empire : that this mode of putting the argument must 
 never be forgotten, as the one upon which I rely, either in a com- 
 mercial or public point of view ; that all others are only accessary to 
 this, and may be used in aid of it ; but the main feature of the case, 
 and the great subject for consideration, on grounds of public policy, 
 is the transfer of strength from the centre of the country to a distant 
 possession, made more objectionable if the tenure of that possession 
 is precarious ; that the strong ground of objection is not that India 
 gains either wealth or resources, but gains them at the expence of 
 the sovereign state; that what is established in India is lost here; 
 and that it is against that loss I argue and protest. 
 
 Sir, it is established beyond contradiction, that the strength and 
 state of the navy has been aided in a most important degree by the 
 private yards; and after the full and satisfactory explanation which 
 has been given of the conduct of the private builders, in the connec- 
 tion with government, no fear can ever arise in applying to them. 
 It is proved that the assistance of private yards is essential to the 
 keeping up the navy. Mr. Sepping tells you, that by the arrange- 
 ments made and making, government will be able to build seventy- 
 fours for the navy, as many as can, he thinks, be wanted ; but that 
 they cannot build the frigates and other vessels of war which they 
 may want at the same time. Such private assistance must be supplied 
 somewhere, and can only be supplied by private yards capable of 
 affording the required assistance. 
 
 Sir, I apprehend that no man will be found not to entertain very 
 serious apprehensions from a measure which must, at no very distant 
 period, place this country in a state of dependence, for assistance in 
 the maintenance of our navy, upon yards in India ; and yet such will 
 be one of the certain consequences of this measure, if it be carried. 
 Sir, if it is necessary, as it has been and is proved to be, that you 
 should have, and must have, the means of resorting to private esta- 
 blishments on emergencies, it appears to me absolutely necessary 
 that you should protect, maintain, and keep alive the establishments 
 most readily within your reach. It is your interest, in point of con- 
 venience as well as policy, to maintain the dock-yards in Great Bri- 
 tain, which can afford such aid ; and you should be jealous of every 
 attempt to diminish their utility and consequence. It is impossible to 
 say how soon we may want those establishments again. Will any man 
 venture to state, after reading the evidence, I hat such aid may not be 
 essential to the maintenance and support of your navy, if again wanted 
 for extensive operations ot war ? Will any man venture to rely upon
 
 36 
 
 the continuance of peace, or to place such reliance upon ils contimi* 
 iince, as to consent to part with any means of preparation for war? 
 Sir, I contend that no convenienee.no trifling advantage, which can be 
 .stated by ray learned friends, will justify such an abandonment of our 
 ancient policy such a loss of our resources of defence and security. 
 
 Let us now consider how the arguments stand with respect to the 
 necessity or policy of this measure. 
 
 JMy learned friends say, that it is the constant practice to connect 
 individual interests with national policy, and with arguments of pub- 
 lic necessity. It is the practice to endeavour to unite private inte- 
 rests with public, in the hope that by identifying the one with the 
 other, the object of private application may succeed. I may ven- 
 ture to return this argument upon my learned friend, Mr. Spankie, 
 who used it, whether the claims so boldly preferred on behalf of 
 60,000,OCO of people in India, have any other foundation than that 
 of endeavouring to add their interests to the very inferior interests, 
 in any views of national policy, of those who, in fact, appear ulti- 
 mately upon the evidence to be his clients. It is said that India 
 is the exporting country; that it takes little from this country ; in 
 short, that it is independent of this country in point of resources. 
 If India were an independent country, with separate interests, (a sup- 
 position the future possibility of which my learned friends almost ri- 
 dicule,) these statements might prove that it would have a right to 
 say, upon all principles of public policy, and international law, that 
 India ought to have these establishments. But this argument cannot 
 apply in the present case ; it is founded upon a principle, the intro- 
 duction of which into the question my learned friends deprecate, 
 who are endeavouring to establish a principle between a colony, or 
 dependency, and the superior and paramount state, which subsists 
 only between independent nations. 
 
 India is repeatedly and prominently brought forward as the ex- 
 porting country ; and it is said, that unless you permit the trade to 
 be carried on in these teak ships, it will not be carried on at all, or that 
 it will be a smuggling tiade in foreign ships. It is asserted that we 
 have no right to look to any advantage from this trade, unless it be 
 received from these ships ; that if these ships do not exist, the trade 
 will not exist; thai the India merchants cai'not carry on their trade 
 without them ; that if these ships be not allowed to come to this 
 country, ihe trade will be annihilated, or be carried on by others, or 
 through the medium of other countries. How is this attempted to 
 be made out ? Why, by mixing together questions totally distinct; 
 questions of competition between the India company, while its mo- 
 nopoly existed ; and the prhate trade, with questions of competition 
 between British subjects and foreign countries; by an attempt lo apply 
 all I he evidence formerly given upon the subject of the inconveni- 
 encies suffered by I he private trader, while hampered by the East 
 India company's monopoly, and dependent upon that company for 
 tonnage, lo a state of circumstances totally different. By an at- 
 tempt to apply all the arguments formerly used, aud facts formerly
 
 37 
 
 proved, as to the inadequacy of a quantity of tonnage in the 
 company's ships, or of extra tonnage, as it was called, to 
 the wants of the Indian trade ; with the simple question of whe- 
 ther an Indian house may have a cheaper Indian vessel, or must 
 have a British one ? Sir, in point both of fact and argument, and 
 ajl questions of policy, which can arise out of either, no two ques- 
 tions can be more distinct from each other; and all these views of 
 the subject wholly pass by the exclusive monopoly of the China 
 trade, till retained by the company, in which no competition is al- 
 lowed between them and the private traders ; and from the con- 
 sumption of the great article of import in that trade by this country, 
 no competition is to be feared from any foreign country. What 
 was first called the tonnage, given by the company to private 
 traders, was afterwards described by the term extra-ships. The 
 quantity of goods to send home in private trade was necessarily de- 
 pendent upon, or regulated by, the mode in which this tonnage was 
 furnished. It was natural to suppose, that the private trader would 
 require every facility to enable him to encounter the monopoly of 
 the company, and that the company would interpose every obstacle 
 to private traders who were openly and avowedly endeavouring by 
 every means to overthrow their monopoly. Nothing could be more 
 opposite than the interests of these two parties. Look at the evi- 
 dence of the price at which their tonnage was often furnished ; the 
 obstacles which were interposed to its use ; the delays and innumer- 
 able inconveniencies which attended the endeavour of any private 
 trader to use it ; and it will be immediately seen, that the mixture of 
 these tw,o questions, and of the different interests of the company 
 and private trader with that of British and foreign competition, can 
 only lend to confound and embarrass the question under discussion, 
 as far as it relates to the situation of the Indian trader. The ques- 
 tions must be kept separate and distinct ; and still more, the case of 
 the East India company, which hasnolhin^atall to do with the question 
 of competition, between foreign and British trade, as connected with 
 British ships, or foreign or Indian built ships. The simple question 
 is, whether the Indian houses which have been mentioned, or others 
 who may engage in the trade, shall be compelled to continue to use 
 British built ships, for the preservation of the ship-building here, or 
 he allowed to use native ships, for the purpose of attempting a com- 
 petition with foreigners, in which the evidence shews they have no 
 chance of success. They tell you, that because India is the exporting 
 country, the merchants in India must have the ships on that side of 
 the water. Now, Sir, what is to prevent their having British ships on 
 that side of the water ? It appears that every mercantile house in India, 
 Bengal, Bombay, and Madras, is connected with houses here, and 
 that they are owners of ships ; and it requires no evidence to prove, 
 that such must be the fact. Kvery witness tells you tliis, and Mr. Mait- 
 lacd tells you, that in order to carry on the trade with advantage, the 
 merchant in India must assume the t\vo characters of owner and ship- 
 per. What becomes, then, of all the evidence and argument as to the
 
 38 
 
 uncertainty of tonnage the impossibility of providing a cargo, with- 
 out knowing whether there will be means of conveying it to Europe, 
 and all the consequent losses and inconveniencies to the trade ? all 
 applicable, as 1 have before said, to the difficulties which existed 
 while the company retained its monopoly ; but having no sort of re- 
 ference to the present state of things, or to the trade, as it must be 
 carried on, according to the account of my friends* own witnesses. 
 If the merchants are to own the vessels as well as to provide the car- 
 goes, if the vessels are to be under the command of the traders there, 
 in the name of common sense, what difference, in this view of the sub- 
 ject, except the difference of expence, is there between the teak ship 
 and the ship built in England ? What difficulty, as to mere conve- 
 nience and certainty, can arise from requiring that the ships employed 
 in this trade shall be built at Liverpool, at Hull, at Bristol or London, 
 at Calcutta or Bombay ? If the Indian merchant, in order to carry 
 on his trade with advantage, must be ship owner as well as mer- 
 chant, and is, as he must be, necessarily connected with houses here, 
 what question can there be, on the ground of convenience, whether 
 the vessel shall be built here or there ? I am hardly justified in say- 
 ing, that my learned friends used so weak an argument ; in fact, the 
 argument, or statement rather, came from the mouth of some of the 
 witnesses, connected with the Indian mercantile houses. 
 
 It is said that the Indian trade must be carried on in Indian ships ; 
 because merchants must have ships ready in India, for the purpose 
 of receiving the cargo : meaning, I conclude, that India must be 
 the country in which the ships must be detained and longer kept. 
 Without repeating what I have just said of such a case being 
 equally applicable to a British as an Indian ship, I venture to 
 state, that the proposition, when stated as a question of conve- 
 nience and necessity, is not correct ; they contend that India is the 
 exporting country, and principally of large, bulky, low-priced com- 
 modities, consisting of raw materials, necessary for this country and 
 Europe ; at least, it is to such articles that the evidence and arguments 
 have been applied. I contend, that such a country is, of all others, 
 that in which the fewest difficulties will arise in getting cargoes for 
 vessels at certain periods. The country affording full freight of 
 large articles, is that in which the cargo is soonest ready to be put 
 on board, and the one in which the least detention takes place. 
 From the exporting country, tonnage, and not cargo, is generally 
 wanted. The same observation applies to the \\est Indies; with 
 this difference only, that the ship in the West Indies must wait for 
 her cargo while the sugar is manufacturing ; for the article of sugar, 
 which makes the West Indies the exporting country, is manufac- 
 tured there, and by a tedious process. But the principle is the same ; 
 West India ships wait here, in their outward voyage, to the last hour, 
 to collect and get together every possible article of freight, every cask 
 and box is an object. The West India captain keeps his vessel here 
 for freight to the last minute, in order to get as good a cargo out as 
 possible ; and so it must and wall be with the owners and captains of
 
 39 
 
 Indian ships. The cargo of profit, as to freight is, iu both instanced, 
 the same cargo, the outward cargo must be made as saving a one as 
 can be got, and more paias, time, and difficulty will necessarily oc- 
 cur in procuring it ; and here, therefore, whether the ships are Indian 
 or British, will be the great detention. Upon this subject will also 
 arise an important question, with respect to the seamen to be em- 
 ployed in navigating these ships : it is not only difficult, but must often 
 be impossible to procure British seamen in India. One of the wit- 
 nesses tells you, that this is a new case, that he has not considered 
 it, but has some general loose idea of transferring them from oue 
 vessel to another, when a house owns more than oae vessel ; an idea 
 so vague, and utterly inconsistent with any thing like what the same 
 witness urges, of necessity, of certainty of voyages, as to prove that 
 he has never considered it at all. Another of the witnesses tdls 
 you, that British seamen, if employed, and of course detained in 
 the country, are not healthy in that part of the world, and that they 
 are not to be got in considerable numbers ; but not so, he says, of 
 Lascars. If Lascars are to bring the ship home, and the ship must 
 then take out its required number of British seamen a double crew 
 is the consequence ; for the Lascars must be taken out : British sea- 
 men must, therefore, be established and settled in India,, an un- 
 healthy country to persons so little able to controul themselves when 
 idle, and out of your reach in case of war, or the difficulty I have 
 alluded to must constantly recur. Here, therefore, Sir, there is an- 
 other objection of a most serious description, and it is so felt that 
 some very broad hints are given, that it requires reconsideration; 
 and that the restrictions, with respect to British seamen, may be at- 
 tended with such considerable inconvenience as to require reconsi- 
 deration ; and no doubt, if they succeed in their present object, an 
 application will be immediately made by these gentlemen to disen- 
 cumber themselves of the restriction as to seamen ; and the same ar- 
 guments of inconvenience and expence will intitle them to hope for 
 success, and upon these principles your British seamen, as well 
 as your ship-building, will be transferred to India, or you must, 
 upon the same principles which are contended for as justifying 
 the present measures, namely, convenience, cheap freight, com- 
 petition with foreigners, and such arguments, abandon all your 
 'ancient policy, as to seamen, as well as ships. If one is granted, I 
 do not see how the other can be refused. When ancient practical 
 principles, sanctioned by long experience, are forsaken for fancied 
 advantages, and upon interested applications, it is difficult to say 
 where demands will end, or concessions cease. 
 
 I now proceed to consider in what way they endeavour to prove 
 their case, as to the expediency and policy of building ships in India, 
 and employing them in the trade with this country. By what wit- 
 nesses do they endeavour to establish that which is the most important 
 subject of discussion between us? why, by the persons who are the 
 most interested in the success of the measure ; the parties themselves, 
 the partners of these Indian houses : witnesses for such a purpose were.
 
 40 
 
 ever before called in *uoh a case, or in any other; witnesses wlioia 
 my learned friends, hen tlu- exptiienrr their talents must ultimately 
 give them in their profes>ion will enable them to controul llie impru- 
 dent zeal and indiscretion of their clients, would not allow to have 
 been called. A Mr. Mitchell is the first, and the first question put to 
 him was, " In what house are you a partner in Boiuba> ?'' " Bruce, 
 Faurett, and Co." The identical individuals who are most inte- 
 rested in this question, and personally engaged in the contest. The 
 manner in which this case has been conducted prevented my feeling 
 the surprise I otherwise should at such a witness being called, and 
 such a question being asked. There are certain objections to wit- 
 nesses, u Inch, when taken, cannot be over-ruled, and which pro- 
 fessional habits induce one to take without consideration, and al- 
 most by a sort of instinct ; and which, if put to Mr. Mitchell, must 
 have rendered him an incompetent witness to be examined on this 
 question. The question I might have put would have been, " Do 
 you contribute to the carrying on this contest ? Are you in any 
 manner ultimately to pay any proportion of the expenre of this in- 
 quiry? In fact, are you one of my learned friends' clients? Cau 
 there be any doubt that the partners of the house of Bruce, Fawcett, 
 and Co. so deeply interested in this question, and taking such an 
 active part in it, do pay, or are to pay, a part of these expences?" 
 An affirmative answer to my question must have turned Mr. Mitchell 
 from the "witness box; because, upon no principle of justice, or of 
 the common rules upon which all inquiries are conducted, through 
 the medium of oral testimony, could lie have been examined after 
 such an answer. But I checked myself, and did not ask the ques- 
 tion, though no one will for a moment suppose that his first answer 
 did not immediately apprize me of the nature of his situation. Why 
 did I not ask the question ? Because I was well aware, from the 
 course the investigation had for some time taken, that he would 
 be the most desirable witness I could wish to have examined for our 
 case. The wind had changed ; we were upon a different tack. That 
 which at first was stoutly disputed, had for some time become the 
 whole support of my learned friends' case ; competition for India 
 ships was at first modestly demanded ; monopoly was now to be as 
 boldly demanded as the right and privilege of the Indian houses; 
 and I knew I could not have a better witness. A party, if an ho- 
 nourable man, may often be the best witness to be examined in his 
 own case, as to mere facts, because he may be the only person ac- 
 quainted with them. But it is certainly the first case in which I have 
 ever heard the opinion of a party asked upon a question of opinion 
 and policy in favour of himself. A member of the house of Bruce, 
 Fawcett, and Co. may, without any violent presumption, be supposed 
 naturally to have an interest in this question. I impute nothing either 
 criminal or disreputable to those gentlemen, in concluding that they 
 must entertain rather favourable opinions of their own case, and must 
 wish to impress the committee also with the samo favourable ideas of it. 
 My learned friends had uot been very successful in their timber case,
 
 41 
 
 end wtre probably, therefore, desirous of having witnesses upoa 
 whom they might fully rely for the most plump, round, and unequi- 
 vocal' opinions in favour of the measure which they were labouring 
 to promote ; and such witnesses they were quite certain of finding in 
 the parties themselves. Now, such a witness is Mr. Mitchell, and V 
 such are all the others of the same sort from the Indian bou-es, even 
 although they may not contribute to the expence of the contest ; and 
 Mr. Mitchell does not disappoint my learned friends upon the score of 
 opinion. I don't know the gentleman, or what the exact extent of 
 bis interest in this question may be. I have no doubt that he is 
 very respectable man, as he is connected with persons of high re- 
 spectability. I mean no disrespect to an honourable member of 
 this committee, as a partner of that house, or to the witness^ when I 
 broadly and distinctly state, that the opinions of Messrs. Bruce, 
 Fawcett, Palmer, Trail and Co. and the gentlemen who have been 
 spoken of, as forming the Indian houses, in the course of these pro- 
 ceedings, are the very last opinions which could either with safety or 
 propriety be taken or attended to by the committee or parliament 
 upon a subject of this sort. It is not from persons so interested that opi- 
 nions upon subjects so connected with national policy, and questions of 
 deep public interest, can safely be taken ; you would have from them, 
 as honourable men, the truth, as to what they had done in the trade, 
 how they carried it on, and how much benefit they derived from it, 
 the rates and prices of the articles in which they dealt, and all other 
 facts within their knowledge ; and I beg it to be understood, that I 
 am not casting a shadow of reflection upon the respectability of 
 these gentlemen, either collectively or individually, or upon the par- 
 ticular witness, when I request to be allowed to say, that upon a 
 question so deeply interesting to their future views, and on which, 
 by their own accounts, they have so much at stake, they are the last 
 persons whose opinions can be listened to with any attention ; and 
 in any other case I should have felt no little surprise at hearing such 
 opinions asked. 
 
 Now, Sir, having made these general observations upon the si- 
 tuation of Mr. Mitchell, I must beg the attention of the committee 
 more particularly to some parts of his evidence. Mr. Mitchell's V 
 evidence is this : You are, I believe, a partner in a house of agency 
 at Bombay ? I am. 
 
 In what house are you a partner in Bombay ? Bruce, Fawcett, V 
 and Co. 
 
 How long have you been a partner in that house ? Between five 
 and six years in that house. 
 
 How long have you been in trade in India ? About ten years. 
 
 In that situation, you have, doubtless, considered in what m imer 
 the produce of India can best be brought to the poits of ibis coua- 
 try ? I have. 
 
 Can you state what, if any, advantage there be in having India- 
 kuilt vessels in carrying the trade of India to this country?!
 
 consider generally, that the merchants of India will always be able 
 to send home the raw produce of India, or the produce generally of 
 India, with the greatest convenience in their own shipping, and con- 
 sequently at the cheapest rate. 
 
 What circumstances constitute the convenience of sending home the 
 produce of India in their own shipping ? They are obliged to col- 
 lect their cargoes from various parts, and having the vessel at com- 
 mand immediately is a great convenience. If they had to wait for 
 a skip to come from England, they might be disappointed of the 
 vessel, and might lose the market. 
 
 Considering the mutual demands of India and of this country, and 
 the product of the two countries, which of the countries should you 
 conceive to be the exporting country, if either ; or do you conceive 
 that the produce of the two countries is in mutually equal demand 
 between them ? India will certainly be the exporting country in 
 the greater degree. 
 
 Do you imagine that the produce of this country is likely to be in 
 such demand in India as the produce of India is likely to be ia this 
 country ? Certainly not. 
 
 Am I to understand, that, in your view of the subject, the trade 
 which is to subsist between the two countries must be carried on in 
 part by an export of money from this country, and by the importation 
 in return of raw materials from India ? No. I doubt very much whe- 
 ther the trade of India will ever be carried on by the exportation of 
 bullion from this country. I do not think the trade of India could 
 afford to pay the expense of sending out bullion to India for the 
 purchase of cargoes. / think rather it will be limited more TO THE 
 REMITTANCE of fortune accumulated in India to this country. 
 
 We are to understand you, that the manner in which the produce 
 of India is to come to this country, is chiefly in the way ()f remittance 
 of fortunes accumulated by mbjects of this country residing in that 
 part? Yes; it may be occasionally otherwise, from "particular cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 Upon the whole, are you of opinion that the trade will consist 
 chiefly in an export trade from India to this country ? Yes. 
 
 Did I understand you to say, that owing to that circumstance it 
 is a great advantage to the merchant in India to have bis ship built 
 in that country ? Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether it would be an advantage, in point of ex- 
 pense, to employ an India-built vessel, or to wait for tonnage from 
 this country ? The uncertainty that attends the waiting for tonnage 
 that is sent from this country may be destructive to the trade altoge- 
 ther. It is impossible to say how much it might injure it. It might 
 ruin it altogether. That was the case, in a great degree, with the 
 old system, on which the company furnished the country with extra 
 ships, against which there were so many complaints made. 
 
 \V hat was the nature of those complaints ? Disappointment of 
 the period of arrival, and high freights.
 
 43 
 
 Can you state whether the goods which have been imported from 
 India lately in the way of private, have been of such a quality as to 
 bear an expensive freight ? Certainly ; the freights that the company 
 have been in the habit of charging upon their ships, no doubt pre- 
 vented the sending home of gruff" goods, which otherwise would have 
 been sent, and which might have been sent, in the native ships of 
 India. 
 
 Have you any doubt of that fact ? No doubt whatever. 
 
 What sort of goods ? Raw cotton, pepper, and varioas other 
 articles. Rough piece goods, hemp, and other things. 
 
 You have stated that the company charged high freights: Do 
 you conceive that the same inconvenience would attend the private 
 shipping sent in the first instance from this country ? Yes; I con- 
 ceive that any obstruction to the free employment of India shipping in 
 that trade, would have the effect of creating a kind of monopoly in 
 favour of those English ships that went to India, and that the mer- 
 chants of India "would be left entirely at the mercy of those vessels. 
 In fact, I should think they would be placed, in all probability, in 
 a worse situation than they ivere under the old system of the com- 
 pany's extra ships. 
 
 You are aware, I presume, that the company are not to send out 
 any more extra ships ? Yes. 
 
 Do you believe, then, that by the exclusion of India-built ship- 
 ping the private merchant in India would be placed in a worse situa- 
 tion than he has been at any former period ? Most certainly I do. 
 1 think, Jrom the circumstance just mentioned, that the freight might 
 be raised to an immoderate degree upon the Indian merchant, and 
 that would, of course, enhance the price of the raw material to the 
 manufacturers of this country. 
 
 Might not that circumstance prevent the raw material from being 
 brought altogether? Certainly it would. If India were to find ton- 
 nage entirely from this country, supposing an extra demand for ton- 
 nage in England, India might be left -without any tonnage at all ; she 
 might have no means of sending home her produce. 
 
 You mean, demand for shipping for the trade of Europe ? Yes, 
 and supposing the India vessel to be excluded. 
 
 When you say that a virtual monopoly be created in favour of 
 English-built shipping, do you mean to imply that the number of 
 vessels which would find it worth while to go to India from this 
 country would be limited ? I think it would. 
 
 What do you mean by limited ? I mean a very few in number. 
 
 Do you mean that circumstances in the nature of the trade would 
 prevent more from going out ? Certainly no man could send a 
 ship to India Jrom this country without he knew he could get a 
 cargo ; and it is almost impossible to know whether he can get a 
 cargo or not. 
 
 Supposing an Indian-built ship navigated by English seamen, bow 
 would it be in point of cheapness compared with an English-built 
 ship navigated by British seamen, supposing in both cases the ship*
 
 U> be employed in the trade of India ? I cannot speak with po- 
 sitive certainty on that point; but my impression rather leads 
 me to think that navigating by English seamen would beclieuper 
 than navigating by tlie natives of India. You would require fewer 
 of them ; you are not obliged to Keep them during the time your ships 
 are in harbour, and the clothing of India seamen is very expensive 
 coming to this country. 
 
 Then, when you before stated the advantages of using the In- 
 dian-built ship, did } ou take into your account that it might have 
 to be navigated by British seamen ? Yes ; I contemplated that it 
 \vould be navigated partly by British seamen, and partly by natives. 
 
 It would have a complement of British seamen ? Yes. 
 
 \Vould it upon the whole be a great advantage to use an Indian- 
 built ship, navigated by a complement of British seamen, in im- 
 porting the raw material to this country ? would not the Indian-built 
 ship afford to bring the raw material home at the cheapest rate of 
 freight ? I have no doubt that, generally speaking, the Indian- 
 built ship, navigated by British seamen, would be found to con- 
 vey the produce of India to this country in the most advantageous 
 and cheap manner in which it can be conveyed. 
 , !N<>w, Sir, the>e are the opinions of a. gentleman who is the part 
 owner of three of these Indian vessels himself; who has the most 
 natural reason in the world, therefore, for having a favourable 
 opinion of this measure, which, by the account he gives of the 
 nature of the trade of India, being the exporting country, of the 
 freight home as the only valuable freight for the vessel, and of 
 the advantages of these vessels, must wholly exclude the British 
 ship, without, as I will shew hereafter, affording a competition 
 with foreigners; who talked of the uncertainty of tonnage from 
 England, as if there could be any difference in this respect to an 
 owner of vessels, whether they were built here or there; who 
 boldly tells you, that the merchants of India would be at the 
 mercy of English pwqers, as if they could not and would not own 
 British ships themselves; and gravely desires the committee to be- 
 lieve that they would be in a worse situation than under the old 
 system of the company. 
 
 Sir, this witness is asked, Supposing the India-built shipping to 
 be excluded from the ports of this country, do you conceive any, 
 and what, effect would be produced upon the trade of continental 
 Europe or America with India? Supposing our India shipping 
 to be excluded from the ports of this country, I certainly think 
 they would be forced into foreign hands. The foreigners mould 
 purchase them, and bring home the raw produce of India to Europe* 
 I do not know that that would be the case with the Americans ; for, 
 .1 believe, they build very cheap, and sail very cheap ; but I should 
 think that ihe northern states of Europe would Jind it their advan- 
 tage to employ ieak ships from their durability. 
 
 Here ]YIr. Mitchell admits, that though the teak ship will beat 
 the Brush one out of the market, it will hold out no temptation
 
 45 
 
 t6 the American ; but he thinks the northern nations will buy our 
 teak ships, if we do not use them, on account of their durability. 
 
 Let us see upon what foundation any inference from this opi- 
 nion, that the Northern States of Europe would find it their ad- 
 vantage to employ teak ships from their durability, rests. We 
 find, upon the evidence of a most intelligent and respectable wit- 
 ness, Mr. Barnes, speaking of the building of West Indiamen in 
 this country, where the principle is acted upon more than in any 
 other, from our superior wealth and capital, that the best article 
 you can buy, although high in price, is often the cheapest ; that 
 war, expense of insurance, and hazard of capital, had led to buy- 
 ing, even in England, a cheaper and inferior article, to save ca- 
 pital ; and yet you are desired by Mr. Mitchell to believe, that 
 the merchants of the Northern States of Europe, who can both 
 build and buy much cheaper ships than you can build or sell, 
 either here or in India, and who, if they should take a fancy to teak 
 ships from their durability, can procure them much cheaper in 
 India than you can furnish them from the British settlements, will 
 buy your teak ships. 
 
 Sir, our opponents began their case by resisting all our proof; 
 that what was called competition would prove our ruin ; they 
 contended that we should have the advantage in the competi- 
 tion, and conclude by proving that the trade cannot be car- 
 ried on at all in our ships ; that teak ships are so superior in their 
 quality and durability, that all nations would come and pur- 
 chase them, if they are not allowed to use them ; and having at 
 last disclosed their object, of total exclusion of our ships, beg us 
 /to be satisfied with this fair competition, and charge us with seek- 
 ing monopoly. Their own argument defeats itself; for they first 
 tell you, that it is absolutely necessary that the trade of India should 
 be carried on in teak ships, and then tell you, that the Americans 
 and other foreigners will still beat you as to cheap ships, and of 
 course that foreigners will come to the market in more advantage- 
 ous competition, as you will find from Mr. Mitchell's own evidence, 
 and still more strongly from the testimony of others; and prove, there- 
 fore, that if cheapness only is the criterion of superiority, this mea- 
 sure will defeat the very object for which you are called upon, to aban- 
 don our national policy,transfer our ship-building, trans port our sea- 
 men to a distant country, and sacrifice our mostvaluable resources. 
 You will then have lost the British ship-building for the attainment 
 of an object not within your reach ; for if the question of competi- 
 tion turns upon the cheapnessof these ships, and proportionate cheap- 
 ness of freight, you will find that they are proved to be sufficiently 
 cheap to drive your own vessels out of the market, but not to retain 
 the trade on that ground against other countries ; that foreign na- 
 tions, from all quarters, will come to the market with cheaper ship* 
 .and freight. The Americans, the French, the Portuguese, and 
 other foreigners can build or purchase ships cheaper than you can 
 pffbrd them. Let us see what Mr. Mitchell says upon this. He i*
 
 46 
 
 asked this question : Would not the Portuguese ind it their ad- 
 vantage in the same way ? Yes, the Spaniards, the French, the 
 States of the Mediterranean, Leghorn, and the Levant. Thus, 
 enumerating, without the least difficulty, a whole list of nations, 
 all of whom, he says, will find their advantage in employing teak 
 ships, from their durability and cheapness ; and yet afterwards ad- 
 mits, in his cross-examination, that he has no knowledge of the 
 Cheaper rate at which the Russians and the Northern States, or 
 any of the rations so brought together, can build or procure ship- 
 ping. It requires no argument to prove, that those who cannot 
 build good ships n't for the India trade, will buy them of the na- 
 tions, and at the places where they can be procured cheapest. 
 Mr. Mitchell then tells you, that the American vessels, though 
 cheap, will not answer to carry on the Indian trade, in direct 
 contradiction and in defiance of the notorious fact so repeatedly 
 proved by documents before parliament, of the immense trade they 
 did actually carry on to all parts of India ; and he is in the end 
 gravely asked, whether he has, after all his cross-examinations, any 
 doubt that the exclusion of Indian ships from the ports of this 
 country would be a serious injury both to this country und India ? 
 and he of course answers, as my learned friend knew he must / 
 kavf no doubt whatever of it. And soon afterwards tells an honour- 
 able member of the committee, that he thinks the merchants of 
 this country wil) by and by be as anxious to get India ships, as the 
 owners of India ships are now to employ them. I also beg the atten- 
 tion of the committee to his account of remittances from India. 
 
 But in India how does the question itself stand, as to the faci- 
 lities for building teak ships, and cheapness ? Colonel SYMES, in 
 his Embassy to Ava, gives you this account in his 4to. edition, 
 p. 219. 
 
 " In Bengal, a native carpenter, though his business is com- 
 monly well done, yet in his manner of performing it, he excites 
 the surprise and ridicule of Europeans. He cuts his wood with a 
 diminutive adze, in a feeble and slow manner; and when he wants 
 to turn a piece of timber, he has recourse to a coolee, or labourer, 
 that attends him. Numbers there compensate for the want of in- 
 dividual energy ; notwithstanding which, they finish what they un- 
 dertake in a masterly manner. The Birman shipwrights are 
 athletic men, and possess, in an eminent degree, that vigour 
 which distinguishes Europeans, and gives them a pre-eminence 
 over the enervated natives of the East; nor do I imagine that the 
 inhabitants of any country are capable of greater bodily exertion 
 than the Brimans." 
 
 In the same book, page 457 : 
 
 " It is impossible to impress any reader with any stronger proof 
 ef the vast importance of the Pegue trade than briefly to state, 
 that a durable vessel of burthen cannot be built in the river of 
 Bengal, except by the aid of a teak plank, which is procurable 
 from Pegue alone ; and if the timber trade with that country should
 
 47 
 
 by any act of power be wrested from us, if it should be lost by mis- 
 fortune, or forfeited through misconduct, the marine of Calcutta 
 (which has of late years proved of unexampled prosperity to our 
 principal settlement, essentially benefited the parent country, and 
 given honourable affluence to individuals), must be reduced nearly 
 to annihilation, without the possibility of our being able to find any 
 adequate substitute for the material of which we should be de- 
 prived. Within the last six years some of the finest merchant- 
 ships ever seen in the river Thames have arrived from Calcutta, 
 where they were built of teak timber ; and after delivering valu- 
 able cargoes in London, were usefully employed in the service of 
 the state : nor would the destruction of the Pegue trade be con- 
 fined in its effects solely to Bengal ; the other settlements would 
 sensibly share in the loss. Madras is supplied from Rangoon with 
 timber for all the common purposes of domestic use ; and even 
 Bombay, although the coast of Malabar is its principal store- 
 house, finds it worth while annually to import a Urge quantity of 
 planks from Pegue. 
 
 " But whilst it is advantageous to us to promote the prosperity 
 and exportation of timber from the maritime towns of Pegue, it 
 is as manifestly our interest to discourage the building of ships in 
 the Rangoon river, where the construction is facilitated by local 
 advantages, equal to those of any port of the world, and superior to 
 most. The progress made in this art by the Brimans has of late 
 years been rapid, and increases in proportion as foreigners can 
 place confidence in the Birman government. When merchants 
 find that they can build with security in the Rangoon river, for 
 a third less cost than in the Ganges, and for nearly half of what 
 they can at Bombay, few will hesitate in their choice of a 
 place. It is said that the ships of Pegue are not so firmly con- 
 structed as those built in oar ports, and in general this assertion 
 is true ; but the defect does not arise from want of materials, but 
 because the owners were speculative adventurers, without suffi- 
 cient funds to defray the charges of labour and of iron, in which 
 material Pegue ships have, by fatal experience, been found de- 
 ficient. The shipwrights, however, are as expert as any work- 
 men of the East, and their models, which are all from France, are 
 excellent ; the detriment, therefore, that arises to us from the 
 construction of ships at Rangoon is not less evident than the be- 
 nefit we derive from importing the manufactured material. The 
 Birmans sagaciously knowing their own interest set us an exam- 
 ple of policy by remitting all duty on cordage, canvas, and 
 wrought iron, provided these are bon&Jide brought for the equip- 
 ment of a new vessel. The port charges also are not exacted 
 from a new ship on leaving the river to proceed on her first voy- 
 age. A conduct on their part so wise, suggests to us the expe- 
 diency of adopting some measures for our own interest; an alien 
 duty, or a modified disqualification, would probably, like the acts 
 f parliament in aid of British navigation, prove the most effectual
 
 48 
 
 remedy. Trade cannot be prosecuted in the Indian seas to any 
 extent, except with British ports : many objections, it is true; 
 may be made to such a proposition ; but the good resulting to us 
 would be immediate and certain, whilst the ill consequences, if 
 any there be, are equivocal and remote. 
 
 " But if we are called upon by our interest, in a commercial 
 point of view, to check the growth of ship-building at Rangoon, 
 Jiow much more important is the subject in a political light ? It 
 is a fact which appears to merit some consideration, and is perhaps 
 not generally adverted to, that in a very few years, and at a small 
 comparative expense, a formidable navy may arise on the banks 
 of the Irrawaddy from the forests of Pegue. It is probably hot 
 known that artificers are educating- by our enemies for that ex- 
 press purpose, whilst we encourage their progress in science, by 
 enabling them to derive benefit and acquire experience at the 
 same time. National security, therefore, as well as mercantile 
 advantage, strongly urge a vigilant attention to a quarter whence 
 the means of injury to ourselves uir.y so abundantly be drawn." > 
 
 These extracts from Colonel Symes" book, published under the 
 sanction of the East India company, are extremely important, and 
 well worth the consideration of the committee. 'They point out, 
 Sir, sources of supply of shipping to foreigners and rivals, and 
 means of successful competition to all who want cheap ships. No 
 one can doubt that the Birmans, now India is again opened to 
 our old rivals, will find every facility in the procuring supplies of 
 copper, iron, and other materials of outfit, to enable them to com- 
 plete good and perfect ships. They have acquired sufficient skill 
 to be in a condition to avail themselves of such assistance. Will 
 foreigners who want teak ships go to Bombay or Bengal for them, 
 or will they not procure them where they can be got upon terms 
 which will at once defeat all the speculations of the witnesses of 
 our opponents, as to foreign competition and the use of our teak 
 ships ? But, Sir, it may be said, that the supply from such a go- 
 vernment is uncertain. It may be so ; but the argument will not 
 avail our opponents; for it is to be observed, that this is the very 
 country from which even the inhabitants of Calcutta have always 
 derived, and must continue to look for, the supply of teak timber for 
 their ship-building. The difficulties which foreigners may find in 
 procuring ships you may find in getting timber; and accordingly 
 it is shewn that the facility of getting timber for building these 
 ships is not so great as has been imagined. It appears not only 
 from Colonel Symes' book, but from the evidence of others, par- 
 ticularly of Mr. Gilmore, the brother of' an Indian ship-builder, 
 that owing to the nature of the government of that country, which 
 is very arbitrary, it cannot always be procured, and that it conse- 
 quently varies greatly in price. It appears from the evidence, that 
 the Bombay establishments for ship-building are very small, com- 
 pared with those of Bengal, and hampered by local duties and 
 restrictions; and it here appears that the Bengal establishments 
 are dependant for this celebrated teak timber upon a foreign and
 
 49 
 
 Capricious government, which may hereafter find an interest in 
 saying, You shall not have the timber you shall only have the 
 manufactured article. You may have ships but not timber. 
 
 The committee will have the goodness to refer to the evidence 
 of Mr. Gilmore, page 5/3 of the printed proceedings, for some 
 important information upon this part of the subject. He is asked, 
 Have you any doubt that the Indian builders can, if they have 
 the building of large ships for the Indian trade to England, sup- 
 ply other nations with ships also? No, I should doubt that; at 
 least to supply them with ships of the best description. 
 
 If the ships for the trade between England and India were 
 Indian-built, they of course would last mucii longer than the pre- 
 sent English-built ships do : having, then, more leisure in their 
 dock-yards, could they not in time supply the rest of Europe as 
 well as England? I am not prepared to say how far they would 
 be able to rind the timber for building such a quantity of ships; 
 .there is frequently a great variation in timber ; lor I have known 
 it at times from twelve rupees a plank to forty rupees for the 
 same kind of plank. 
 
 Are there not full means for importing timber in an} r quantity 
 to the dock-yards in India? There are always a sufficient num- 
 ber of ships to bring it ; but it is not always that they can procure 
 it at Rangoon, whence teak plank for ships built at Calcutta is 
 brought. 
 
 Do you mean there is a scarcity of timber? I do not know 
 that there is a scarcity ; but, owing to the nature of the govern- 
 ment, it cannot always be got, the government is so arbitrary. 
 
 Therefore, by the operation of this arbitrary government, you 
 might be deprived of a supply altogether? Yes, certainly of the 
 teak plank. 
 
 Such, Sir, is the present state of the supply of teak for the 
 yards in Bengal, according to the evidence of Mr. Gilinore, a late 
 partner of .the house of Fairlie and Co. in Calcutta, to whom I 
 have formerly alluded, and the brother, as I have before stated, 
 of a ship-builder in India, and only lately returned from that 
 country. What is the fair and necessary deduction from this evi- 
 dence, as applicable to the question under discussion? If teak 
 ships are so much more durable than others; if they can be 
 built so much cheaper at Rangoon than in our territories in 
 India, as it is quite evident they can be, is not the necessary 
 and inevitable conclusion, from those facts and circumstances, 
 fatal to the argument upon which my learned friends rested, and 
 must rely for the support of their case. If the building at Ran- 
 goon with teak timber can be carried on at so much cheaper a 
 rate than at Bengal, as it it* quite evident it must be, from the 
 timber being the produce of the country; and'-the facility with 
 which all other materials of outh't will he furnished, now the in- 
 tercourse with India is again opened to foreigners, is there %o an 
 
 H
 
 50 
 
 invitation held out to all foreigners who may prefer teak ships, 
 from their durability, to commence an immediate and successful 
 (oii)|>rtitioii. Our opponents have succeeded in proving that they 
 can build ships so cheap, or if not so cheap, so durable, and 
 with such advantage, as to exclude the English builders from all 
 chance of competition ; but they have totally failed in proving 
 that when they have accomplished the destruction of building here, 
 they can keep the Americans, the Swedes, the Danes, or other 
 nations, out of the market; they state, as an argument in their 
 case, that foreign nations will purchase teak ships, and forget that 
 such ships can be procured more advantageously at other ports 
 than ours. What then, Sir, is the inevitable consequence? That 
 you will sacrifice the best interests of this country, destroy the 
 ship-building of England, which I have shewn to be intimately 
 connected with the naval resources of the country, for the purpose 
 only of affording more advantageous means of remittance, for a 
 short time, of the wealth acquired by British residents in India, 
 better bills of exchange for transmitting their fortunes to this 
 country, and of course increased advantages to a few Indian 
 mercantile houses, who endeavour to identify their interests and 
 the interests of their employers with the population of India ; 
 although they cannot in their evidence lose sight of the real ob- 
 ject, the only one they are really contending for, bills upon good 
 terms for remittance of Indian wealth, and produce to meet those 
 bills in ships of their own building. They prove the certainty of 
 the utter exclusion of English ships ; they just shew the ad- 
 vantages which they enjoy in the competition with us, which must 
 end, as my learned friend boldly says all competition ought to end, 
 in the victory of the cheapest; but they utterly fail in making out 
 that the nation at large, even through its dependencies, will be be- 
 nefited by securing a successful competition with foreigners. 
 'On the contrary, it is manifest, that we are to be, and must be, 
 entirely excluded from any participation in the building, and that 
 our opponents possess the means of ensuring our destruction, 
 without the means of securing any benefit to the general trade of 
 the country. 
 
 What does Mr. M'Taggart tell you? He is asked, Do you 
 consider it advantageous for the shippers of goods in India, to 
 have such a mode of transport? Certainly; I should suppose 
 they would be preferred to any other mode whatever. 
 
 Will you explain in what respect it is advantageous ? / mean, 
 by combining the operation of the shipowner and the merchant, sup- 
 posing them to be one and the sante person. 
 
 Here you see that one of our opponents' witnesses tells you, 
 that the Indian mercantile houses must own ships; and you rind, 
 from the evidence, that they are all owners of ships, and some of 
 them very large owners. A decided answer at once to the incon- 
 venience of uncertainty of tonnage ; and leaving no other questioft
 
 61 
 
 Imt that, of the increase of expence of the ship to be owned, and 
 the mere advantage to these Indian houses, and their remittances* 
 for their employers; for as to foreigners, Mr. M'Taggart is asked, : 
 page577, 
 
 With due facilities given to the merchant-exporter in India, do. 
 you think that any considerable share of the trade could be di- 
 verted into foreign channels; in your opinion would it chiefly 
 come to England? Yes, I conceive it would; but a merchant- 
 proprietor of goods in India, if he finds a purchaser that will give 
 him dollars for them, will sell them, and not send them home 
 here. 
 
 Are you aware that a considerable part of the goods which are 
 imported from India are intended for the foreign markets? Yes, 
 I am perfectly aware of that; whether the foreign merchants 
 would have the means of exporting, or would avail themselves of 
 the British capital here, I cannot speak to ; they may pay a little 
 more by getting it through this country, because they have not a. 
 capital to send to India ; the most advantageous means would be to 
 import it direct, and they will, as far as they can do so. 
 
 Have you any doubt, that a direct trade to the continent from 
 India, would be very much increased by the exclusion of the In- 
 dian-built shipping from the tra le between this country and that? 
 / have no doubt it woztld be increased, and in proportion diminish 
 the trade of the port of London, 
 
 And in proportion as the produce of India can be supplied 
 cheap through England, would not that form an inducement for 
 foreigners to supply themselves through this country, in propor- 
 tion to that cheapness? / think they will be able to import cheaper 
 themselves than getting it through this country) even supposing it 
 comes home in India-built ships. 
 
 Do you mean that they can do that, supposing they were 
 under the disadvantage of being forced to export funds to India 
 for the purpose? It is very well known, that the Americans car- 
 ried on a considerable trade with India ; and they hud no funds 
 there, but took out dollars ; they have imported large quantities of 
 specie into India. 
 
 If they (meaning foreigners) continue to build their ships 
 cheap, and to man them with their own people, I suppose they 
 can regain a part of their trade, under all circumstances? 1 have 
 no doubt they will. 
 
 Have you any doubt, tJtat under all possible circumstances, they 
 toill regain it equal in extent to what they had before? / think in 
 time they will. 
 
 Even supposing that no teak ships were sold to them? Yes; 
 it is probable that they would be able to buy ships without de- 
 pending upon teak ships; but they will get teak ships if they 
 can. 
 
 But, Sir, here I may ask, will they buy them of us, when they 
 aiv be got to much eheay'es eU\vhr.
 
 52 
 
 Sir, I had marked a great number of passages in the evidence 
 of different witnesses, who have spoken to the same effect, but 
 will not now fatigue the committee by citing them; but I ear- 
 nestly recommend the evidence of our adversaries' witnesses to the 
 attention of the committee as conclusive in our favour. They are 
 parties against us, directly interested in the decision of the ques- 
 tion, and of course give most decided opinions in their own fa- 
 vour; but cannot at the same time avoid shewing, that, as to. the 
 general trade, or even remittances, (although they clearly esta- 
 blish that it is their intent and their object to carry on the trade 
 of India in their own ships, lo the entire exclusion of ours, and 
 that all the trade of India will, if this bill is suffered to pass, be 
 so carried on;) they have no means of carrying on a successful 
 competition with foreigners; and that, notwithstanding the use 
 of teak ships, foreign nations will soon resume their trade with 
 India, and recover every part of it. This, Sir, is the point upon 
 which the whole contest turns, at least as far as the case of my 
 learned friends' clients is concerned. Their case and argument 
 is, that the trade of India with this country depends upon cheap 
 ships and cheap freight; that the teak ships are cheaper and 
 more advantageous than English ships; and that the Indian 
 trade, therefore, must be carried on in Indian ships : that teak 
 ships alone will -enable the Indian merchant to maintain a suc- 
 cessful competition with foreigners. I again assert, that our op- 
 ponents have not only utterly failed in proving this case, but that 
 they have by their arguments, and still more strongly by their 
 evidence, not only completely destroyed their case, but have, at 
 the same time, as completely established ours. I have, when I 
 first addressed the committee on the opening of this case, shewn 
 that the case cannot be maintained in argument upon the ground 
 of cheap freight; for in that view of the case, the measure is both 
 unjust and inefficacious: unjust, because it gives to the Indian 
 merchant, und proprietor, and remitter, a benefit from which you 
 totally exclude the West Indian merchant, planter, and all other 
 persons connected with your colonies and your general trade; 
 and inefficacious, because, if cheap freight is the foundation upon 
 which the claims or policy for which my learned friends contend, 
 rests, it does not go far enough : for if cheap freight is necessary 
 to enable you to maintain a competition with foreigners, you 
 must, upon that principle, and upon the whole of the evidence 
 of our opponents, who have appeared as witnesses in their own 
 case, very soon abandon all restriction whatever; revert, accord- 
 ing to my learned friend's argument, to the old navigation act 
 require only that a ship should be British owned, and make no 
 inquiry whether the vessel is built in America, Brazil, or Pegue : 
 upon the principle of cheap freight, there is no stopping short of 
 this consequence ; the conclusion is inevitable. 
 
 Let any .man candidly and dispassionately view the whole of the 
 evidence of our opponents upon the subject, and I will confi*
 
 33 
 
 ijeatly nsk, how long even these remittances of property of men 
 who have made their fortunes in India, so constantly in the mouths 
 of all the witnesses, or the remittances made as a medium of any 
 general trade, will return to Europe in British or Indian ships. 
 English ships are already forsaken, even by the India company, 
 for teak ships; because some advantage has been found in the 
 use of teak ships; and our own teak ships will be forsaken for 
 those built by foreigners, at cheaper rates, at Rangoon, or by 
 Americans, as soon as the re-establishment of foreigners in India has 
 enabled them to recommence their trade. Will any man believe, 
 or gravely state, that these gentlemen, who so openly and boldly 
 avow their determination to smuggle their remittances and trade 
 in foreign vessels, if you do not let them have their teak ships, 
 will have any scruple in remitting their wealth and their trade in 
 vessels that can sail cheaper, and of course offer cheaper freight; 
 and that such cheaper freight will be afforded, is most clearly 
 established, by Mr. M'Taggart, and not only by his evidence, 
 but by the common knowledge of every man who has thought of or 
 inquired into the subject. I do not admit, that these general ar- 
 guments upon the subject of cheap freight are any foundation 
 for a departure from your ancient policy. I have before said, that 
 the wealth, the large capital, the long credit, the punctuality of 
 dealing, and the general command of trade, acquired by these 
 important advantages, have hitherto enabled you to increase and 
 preserve your trade under all the restrictions of your navigation 
 laws, established for the preservation of maritime power, as- 
 cendancy, and strength ; and for the protection of your commerce 
 against competition of foreigners, who have for years been 
 able to sail in cheaper freight. Practical experience has esta- 
 blished this fact, against all the speculative theories which have 
 been stated and argued upon before and now. IVly position is, 
 that you must abide by your ancient policy, and not now be led 
 away by speculation and theory. I have shewn, that the inevit- 
 able consequence of this measure must be, that you will lose the 
 English ship-building, and all the advantages, strength, and se- 
 curity derived from it by this country ; that you will transfer a 
 most important branch of the ship-building of the country to a dis- 
 tant possession. And here, Sir, I mv&t again repeat, as 1 have been 
 (as is evident from many of the arguments of my learned friends) 
 misunderstood upon this point, that I do not object to any 
 increase of wealth in India which is not acquired by a transfer of 
 it from this country ; that I do not object to the improvement 
 of the resources of India, but to the removal of vital re- 
 sources from this country ; that my objection is not that India 
 gains, but that this country loses the ship-building; that you are 
 desired to establish what is called a competition, but, in fact, a 
 destruction of a most important feature of national strength ; that 
 it is proved that the ship-builders, who have hitherto supplied so 
 Jarge a part of your navy, may be again called upon for similar as-
 
 sistance ; for that your present establishments cannot buiid, repair, 
 nnd maintain your whole naval force ; that the measure is pregnant 
 therefore with clanger to the best interests of the state ; and that the 
 sacrifice, if it could be justified upon any Around, is not justified by 
 the arguments or evidence produced by my learned friends; that the 
 measure is operative only to produce Mischief, and can produce no 
 benefit; that it is neither justified by experience', by sound policy, 
 or maintainable upon any ground of public advantage or preserva- 
 tion of your trade ; in short, that the whole advantage of this mea- 
 sure, and the only benefit that will be derived from it, as a ques- 
 tion of profit, will be confined to a certain number of mercantile 
 houses in India, and the British residents in India connected with 
 them, who will avail themselves of it, to the destruction of the 
 ship-building here, and upon the very principles uj>on which 
 they now so strenuously contend for the measure, abandon it in 
 favour of a cheaper freight, as soon as the restoration of the inter- 
 course of foreigners affords that advantage. It is not a ques- 
 tion as to the general trade of India at large. It is not a ques- 
 tion affecting 60,000,000 of inhabitants, whooe aid my learned 
 friend has so strenuously invoked ; nor will it in the end benefit the 
 general commerce of India. It may for a time improve the for- 
 tunes and situations of a few East India houses; but will furnish 
 no means of successful competition with foreigners in your gene- 
 ral trade, or, as I have shewn, even preserve the channel of re- 
 mittance so much talked of. It will rob this country of one of 
 its most important sources- of strength, and afford no prospect of 
 any public national equivalent. 
 
 I have only one more topic upon which I must trouble the 
 committee with a few observations; and that is the state of the 
 question as connected with the present situation of the East 
 India company. The East India company has now been given 
 tip by my learned friend who last addressed you ; for he states 
 that which is in point of fact true, namely, that the question, as it 
 respects trade, does not apply to them as it does to his clients ; 
 and he has given you in one part of his argument, from public 
 documents, the proportions of the annual trade from China bf 
 the company into this country, which is afterwards exported, which 
 appears to be one-seventh of the whole. With respect, there- 
 fore, to the large trade with China, of which the India company 
 retain not merely the legal, but the actual monopoly, no question 
 arises ; for not a single argument upon which my learned friends 
 rest their case apply to the company. The East India company 
 have a monopoly of the trade in a most valuable and extensive 
 article of home consumption : I mean the article tea; they are 
 protected in this monopoly by law, and have no competition to fear. 
 Only one-seventh of the whole hina trade is exported, and con- 
 sequently that which is consumed in this coufttry is not the sub- 
 ject of competition either home or foreign. The trade is theirs^ 
 and the market is at their command without rivals or competitors.
 
 65 
 
 Cheap freight, advantageous remittance, foreign merchants, 
 cheaper ships have no sort of reference to this trade. It is a 
 mere simple question between my clients and the com pan}' ; a com- 
 petition of interest between the ship-builders of England and the 
 East India company, upon what ground or pretence, therefore, can 
 this measure be applied to that trade. It is as to my clients, with refer- 
 ence to the company, an uncalled for sacrifice, and destruction of an- 
 cient establishments, as well as of ancient policy ; pregnant, there- 
 fore, with injustice as well as danger, for the purpose only of giving 
 to the company an advantage in freight for the mere emolument of 
 the company, without the smallest ground for supposing that any 
 public advantage can arise from it; for the operation of the differ- 
 ence of freight would, upon an article of such value as tea, 
 not even be perceptible by the public in the purchase of the ar- 
 ticle for consumption. The case as to the company is so clear, 
 that I should only waste the time of the committee by pressing it 
 farther. 
 
 I have now, Sir, arrived at the conclusion of this long and la- 
 borious case; in the discussing of which, I feel confident that I 
 have established all the propositions upon which I first rested my 
 case, and have most clearly proved the importance of this mea- 
 sure, as affecting the great public interests of the country, and 
 the preservation of its naval strength and resources. I have shewn 
 that the alarms upon the subject of timber have no foundation, 
 and never had any foundation in fact; that the most destructive 
 policy which could be pursued as to timber, would be the with- 
 draw ing the demand and market for it, which has hitherto been pro- 
 ductive of such care and attention to its improvement and growth ; 
 that my clients have materially aided the public establishments 
 in the assistance they have afforded in building ships of war; 
 and that this assistance entitles them to the consideration of parlia- 
 ment, as it relates to their personal conduct, which has been 
 proved, by the most uncontrovertible evidence, such as can never 
 hereafter become the subject of dispute, to be highly meritorious; 
 that the complaints so industriously propagated against them are 
 wholly without foundation ; that the naval establishments are 
 not sufficient to keep up your maritime force in time of emer- 
 gency ; that you cannot build all the ships you may want to sup- 
 ply your navy ; and that unless this measure is abandoned, and 
 effectual protection given to the ship-builders in England, the whole 
 of a very large and important branch of the ship-building of the 
 country, that which is most connected with your naval force, will 
 be totally lost here, and transferred to India; that the permitting 
 such a consequence would not merely be injurious to my clients, 
 but pregnant with future mischief and danger; that public po- 
 licy, and every principle which experience has hitherto shewn to be 
 essential to your interests, as a maritime country, require that 
 this description of ships should be preserved, in full vigour in this 
 country. 1 have also bhewn, that my learued friends have argued
 
 56 
 
 for competition, and seek only our exclusion, and that their argu- 
 ments and evidence are totally at variance with each other, and 
 that all their witnesses completely establish our case, and prove 
 most clearly that no public or national advantage will arise from 
 the sacrifice of the ship-building here, and the transfer of it to 
 India. And I conclude, therefore, in the firm conviction that I 
 have shewn that the intents of my clients are identified with, and 
 protected by the strongest grounds of public policy ; they ask only 
 a dispassionate consideration of the whole of the case, and of the 
 evidence which has been given on both sides', being satisfied that 
 the more this case is considered and discussed, the more the evi- 
 dence is read, and every part of the arguments on both sides exa- 
 mined, the n: e certain they are of ultimate success. 
 
 Sir, I havj to thank you and the committee on behalf of the 
 gentlemen for whom 1 appear, for the laborious attention which 
 has been paid to this long investigation of a subject in which 
 their interests are so deeply involved. For myself and my learned 
 friends I have al?o to return my thanks for the indulgence and pa- 
 tient attention we have received in the discharge of our profes- 
 sional duties. 
 
 THE ENB. 
 
 T. JMVISON, louitia'd stieet, 
 VVUiUltuts, LeudoH-
 
 27 35 ..
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 7 
 
 DESK 
 
 A.M. 
 
 71819110111(121 1 1 
 
 P.M. 
 
 3I4T 
 
 Form L9-32rn-8,'58(5876s4)444 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOKN1A 
 
 AT 
 JLOS ANGELES