The Sun. — London, England, 1823-09-24 00:00:00

PARIS PAPERS. (From the Manikin of Sept. g 1 —Official Part:) TELEGRAPHIC DISPATCH. LAUItISTON TO THE MINISTER. OF WAIL, "'ORCOYEIT, HEVT. 18._ " To-morrow morning the French troops will enter the town of Pampeluna ; the citadel was taken 'possession of last night. " The legitimate Municipality will algo enter an hour afterwards, escorted by the French troops and tv , o companies of Spaniards." The Journal des Mbats announces the receipt' of very satisfactory intelligence respecting the mnlady at Passage ; in proof of %hick it is oh.; ! , ecved. that most of the patients had recoved that only a few had 'died ; and that on the 17th the number of the sick was 27, of whom only two cases appeared to be mortal. The only:lntelligence from the. French /trmy before Cadiz is the following article, commit'. 4:Med hy the journal des Debuts : PORT SEPT. have heard nothing of (lencralAlaVa situ* hiS rourn.to Cadiz, where the confusion is extreme, some wishing to capitulate, others to resist. It is zeiserted that Pear-Admiral' Dulierr, who comes to replaCe Rear.;Admiral Hamelin, will be, here between the 111th and ,Intl', and that the Duke of Angouletue means to delay the at. tack,until the arrival of the Admiral, who is said to be a hardy enterprising, and excellent seaman. Our soldiers are dissatis. fed with this delay ; they would swim over to the isle in order 'to put en end to, the revolutionists ; but, on Ste other hand, our flu:, which .is waking ibr some small Less a, is not sorry for the delay. the conlidenee ic 'the Prince Generalissimo is hbondless, and the result of the attack is not doubtful when it shall once he commenced. • -The Journal de Toulouse contains the following 'rietier, dated Perpignan, Sept. It) The Marshal continues his troops on the side or Vals, and no new attack has yet • taken• place at Tarragona against the Constitutionalists. Our forces are scarcely sufficient to blockade at the same time the Sea, Figueras, llostalrich, to keep in check the garrison of Baelonrii and to , combat aign an, Lieu te i•nant.,Colonel of the liOth of ,the line, who is to proceed to arrived tit Perpignan yesterday evening, and will conti nue his journey without delay. It is presumed. that he is em ployed to make GovernMent acquainted with the state of the 4th corps of the army. Some timely reinforcements have ar rived ; as for instance, die GOO 'men of whom we have already sraken, and afterwards about 200 for various regiments, but it is easy to perceive that these will 'not be sufficient. TO-mor crloejl.l"which is disposable in the depots of this town will Constitutionnel contains news - from Per. pignan ;three days later, equally favourable to the cause of the Constitutional Spaniards. Pr n Ka,r 4. SEPT. 'l3.—(ExtrJet from Private Coy.- tppondenceo---For some time past a report was current in the army blockading Barcelona, that a sortie was about to be made by tbe garrison of that place. On the 10th a column of Con -stitutionalists landed unexpectedly at Badelonambere the third tympany of artillery of the lithzegnuent of infantry was quar tered, with the first battery of twelve-pounders, which had come front Perpignan. 'rho enemy, has taken front them 15 chests, fifty horses, and made some prisoners. We have no tie-, tails of what pasaed in the other quarters of the blockade. In formation had been sent to Mauro, when it was found that the enemy was at Badelona ; the garrison consisted only of One boatt4tlion, and the military treasure was in that town. Since the affair of the 28th, nothing has taken place in the plain of Tarragona; and im the 10th our troops occupied the same cantonments. It appears that in this interval, M. the Marshal has been employed in renewing negotiations with, .1%1 flantr. • FoUr days ago a flag of truce, charged with a dispatch from M. the Marshal, entered the fort of Fikueres. There seem. to • be a strong desire to terminate the affairs of Catalonia by nevi ciation. DEMORALIZATION OV THE ritvislen POLICE. 'A Journal announces, that on the night of the 10th or 19th of September ' some thieves got into the house of N. the Count de £habrol, Prefect of the Seine, and stole, jewel lery to the value of 80,000 francs. This audacious robbery was preceded by a great number of robberies, committed in private houses ; and it was rein:tilted that these offences had of late. been unusually frequent. The trial which has just ended at the Court of Assizes may account for this increase, at the same that the disclosures which it has produced must lead to measures cal culated to check it, Hitherto we have heard only of incitements to commit political offences, but now the accused declare that they have been excited to commit robberies by the very men who have afterwards denounced them, and what is more im portant, agents of the police confirm iese depositions, and de Clare that they have given in their resignation from the horror they have &kat these infamous proceedings. Such facts prove great demoralization, but here at least they are confined to some subordinate agents, and there is roason to hope that it may be promptly, and effectually repressed. It will be said, no dotibt, that the., individuals charged to watch the 'conduct of thieves, MUM. from the very nature of their fupetions, be initiated in all the-arcana of depravity, and cannot therefore furnish gua rantees of their own morality. This objection appears to be well founded, and may be admitted so long as these agents of 'the police avail themselves of their experience no further, than to bailie the designs of depraved characters and bring them to justice ; but the moment they suppose that it is their province td furnish the tribunals with as large a number of criminals as possible, and act upon that principle, the end for which they are employed is wholly perverted : it, was supposed that their 'practical knowledge of their former connections, would give 'them means of , investigation and of discovery, and would be Ja . .guarantee of 'security to the citizens but, far front' this, we have heard it declared before the Tribunal that they made •use of it to increase the number of crimes, to the Injury of individuals who, perhaps, would have restated the influence of temptation, if they had not been led on, and above all to •the injury of individuals and merchants, whose property is the matter on which experiments are made in these practical essays of some agents, anxious to make a display of their zeal and uti lity. We do not pretend to point out tl' remedy which ought to be applied to this state of thigs ' for wo are unacquainted with police matters; but there neust be a remegy, and the superior authority will no doubt sea that it is applied. Perhaps it would' be better to employ individuals, whose past conduct not having procurtkl them so much experience and so nuich special knowledge wpuld be, both for cite Illacistratai mid the public, a better guarantee. It is not becaute alikh functionary has suffered from the dexterity of some robbers, but because the property and the safety of the citizens hi frequently com promised, that we trey hope to see the Goyernment employ energetic means to 11,t an.vnd to the marceuvres brought to light before the CottiVot A ifeize.—(Courier Prancaie.) STr,AM PAcarrs. 7 —The first engine used with success in America was on the Hudson in If The description of the astonishment excited by the appearance and pregressiVe motion of this ignivomousr monster, on the water, is thus de. Scribed by an intelligent writer :—" She had the most terrific appearance from oth er vessels, • which were navigating the river, when she was waking her passage. The. first steam-boat, us others yet•44lo in America, used dry pine wood for fuel, which sends forth a column of ignited - vapour many feet above the fire ; and when. ever the tire is stirred, a galaxy of sparks flies o ir, which in the night have a very bril liant and beautiful appearance. This uncommon light first attracted the: crews of other vessels, Notwithstanding the wind and tide were adverse to its approach, they saw with astonishment that ft was rapidly coming towards them.; and wheu it approached so near as that the noise of the machinery and paddles was heard, the crews in some instances shrank beneath their decks from the terrific sight, and left theirves sels to goon shore, while others prostrated them selves and besought Providence to protect them from the approaches of the horrible monster which was marching on the waters, and lighting its path by the fires'which it vomited." IVFST INDIA DOCKS. REPLY TO MR. MARRYAT'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE WEST INDIA DOCK CIIARTER, &c. &c. (coNTnitypm.) • (No. VI.) No. 15.—MODERATION OF CHARGES. _ - It might be expected, that under this title Mr. Marryat would have presented such a comparison of the West India Dock Company's charges, with those of the other docks, as would have proved the mischievous results of the monopoly, anti con victed the Directors of extortion. But no, gentle reader : No ! this pamphleteer has sufficient tact about him to avoid that which would defeat his object ; he is fond of old proverbs, and recollected that comparisons are odious; and, therefore, although he has insinuated a little, in his comments on the evi dence, he has only ventured to come to the following con clusion : ." That the evidence on this point is certainly not very fa. " vonrobk to the moderation of the Dock Directors." The pointls a tender point, and therefore Mt. Marryat is unu.gually gentle. But in what has the want of moderation been manifested ? "In not having averted the opposition of the " West India Body to the renewal of their Charter, by ac " quiescing in a reduction of the ma rimum of their dividend! " Mr. Marryat may posssibly not be among the elect of the West India Body ; but he is just enough in their confidence to know, that the concession as to the dividend would not have averted their opposition, unless inadmissible conditions as to the charges and expenditure, and a controul over the manage meat of the Company's affairs had also been acquiesced in. 7 ' had the Directors acquiesced in the demands of the Wes t India Body (immoderate, unreasonable, and unjust, as they could be sheivn to be), Mr. Marryat would have vouchsafed them credit for moderation ! To have sacrificed the legal rights of those whom they represented, to have compromised their own Independence, by meanly and basely abandoning their duty, and truckling to a self-constituted body, would, in the eyes of Mr. 3farryat, have been moderation ! Before the investigation closed, but after their opposition had been carried to the utmost, the Planters and Merchant; certainly altered their tone. They abandoned the point of a reduction of the dividend - of the Proprietors, but stilt adhered to their des:re of having the Company placed under their controul. This will appear by the manner in which their Learned Counsel is reported to have summed up their grievances, and reiterated, their prayer. Mr. Serjeant Cross is said to have thus expressed himself:— " First, We crave the Committee will take care that adequate " means are devised for the reduction of the Rates." And, " Second, That an adequate and prompt jurisdiction is ap. "pointed, for the purpose of protecting the Public from those " exorbitant duties." Having thrown out a suggestion as to controul, the Learned Serjeant said, " If that was done the interest of all parties would be secured."—That is, (In plain English) that if the 'West India Body was appointed as a Board of Controul over the West India Dock Company, the Planter* and Merchants would take care of their awn interests. The necessity for greater controul, than the law now imposes, was, not shewn : no ground which could justify the interference of the Committee was laid ;—not a single item of charge was poirped out as excessive; and, aliar as evidence was adduced, the commit spewed the Company s rates to be 100 per cent. be low those of the London Docks. The Corr.mittee had there. fore nothing before them in the shape of evidence, upon which they could found a recommendation .to Parliament, tending to an alteration of the existing Law. On the contrary, after the long and laborious investigation which had•taken place, the-following ie said to be the admission which the Counsel of the Petitioners had been instructed to make :—" 1 distinctly admit, that in all respects, except that of " price, this concern has been conducted with admirable skill ; " that a costly and morn/cent work has been constructed ; that " those employed in the concern were men of the most con " summate skill and talent ; and all I complain of Is the great " exPence with which it has been carried on; I DO NOT EVEN COMPLAIN, as I said before, but merely point out these cir " cumstances to the Committee, in order that they may give 44 us greater security fur the future." Had the Planters, judging by the past, looked to the present, they would have shewn themselves wiser men than by taking this peep intnfuturity. But this all relges to a .matter gone by, the result of which it'is for the West India Body ALONE to deplore ; it does not go sufficiently to the point of moderation of charges ; Mr. Mar ryat having mooted that point, and made it one of his twenty heads, must not he let off in the way he would wish ; it shall, therefore, now be fairly and fully discussed. Upon refering to the evidence, it is impossible to omit notic ing the inimitable specimens orthe.art re garbling, presented to the public, both in Mr. Marryat's observations and in his analysis, under the present head; in the whole chapter qf e.lni ment, the name of the principal witness on his side, Mr. Dennis Chapman, the Comptroller of the Charges at the'Lon don Docks is not to be found i—Upon turning to the analysis of the evidence, it would seem that no such person had been examined ! This witness is quoted by Mr. Marryat again and again, upon points, on which his opinion is not worth having, hut upon this point, to which,frorn the very nature v'hisaffice, he is competent to speak, his evidence is suppressed. The public will hardly believe, that a man, who has likened himselt to a Judge summing up to a Jury, could ?tiffany do this; that in pre.senting them, as he says in his introduction, with " the fruits of his labours, upon a subject of so niuch im " portanee to the commercial interests. of this great metropolis; and indeed of the whole British Empire," he could attempt to deceive them. Had 11r. Maryat omitted the title "Moderation of Charges" altogether, ho would have only been subject to the imputation of having blinked a most important question ; but as he has introduced it, as he has, moreover, quoted evidence upon the point, why did he not bring forward the London Dock wit. ness ? Was it because the poor man, stagered at the great excess of the charges of the London Docks, (which he hod • . himself proved) ai . compared with those of the West India Dock Company, said, " should consider, if such a difference " did exist, that 11w proprietor of the goods would naturally " go to the Wert India Docks But it is fit that the Public should be enabled to form their own opinion front the evidence ; mid as it is impossible to find out what really was stated in evi dencefrom such a book as Mr.'lllaryat's, the following is of- . fend as a statement, which it will be difficult to controvert The evidence adduced before the Committee furnishes the means of making a comparison ; not as respects the amount rif charges only, but the principle upon which they are made, and the manner in which they afAct Me parties interested. The operation of the system of charge at the London Docks, it will be found, is to remove expenses from the ship to the goods, without regard to the interests of the ;consignees; it will also appear that the charges of the London Docks, as far as regards sugar and spirits, are about 100 per cent. higher than those of time West India Docks, and that all their other charges must exceed them. First, as to the mode of charge; in the examination of Mr. Longlands it was made ti question, whether cooperage of the cargo was chargeable to die ship ; his reply states the case clearly and correctly The owner of the ship, or the master as his agent signs the bill of lading, which bill of lading is a special contract, and he engages to deliver that cargo in the like goad order as he received tt ; therefore, under his contract, if that cargo be in bad order, he must provide the hoops and nails necessary to put it in good order; and if the Dock Com pany do it for him, they must be paid by him." Mr. Dennis Chapman, Comptralle.r of the Charges and De puty Superintendent of the London Docks, admits, that at :hate Docks, ordinarily speaking, " the entire cooperage is charged to proprietor of the produce that they also " charge the proprietor of the goods for landing them, and not the ship-owner." In these two cases the ship-owner is relieved at the expence of the consignee. In the case of improper stow* e of the cargo, for which the ship is a M lso liable, r- Chapman, when .asked, if be has ever known the consignee get redress from the ship-owner at the London Docks, replied, " not within my own knowledge, but I have no doubt whatever of the fact." Is any survey made on other articles besides wine and spirits ? No. Then, if there be any improper stowage of other articles, h ow i s t h a t to be ascertained ? The Captain of the Ship will call in other Cap tains to show that they are NOT improperly stowed I I" In this respect the practice at the London Docks (which pro bably must of necessity be that of any other dock receiving pro.. miscuOus trade, and permitting vessels to dis Charge by their own crews or persons hired .ty the master), seems to be as bad as it was prior to the establishment of the docks, when " it rested with the captain of the ship, who was the cause of, and responsible for the injury, to call the survey ; under such cir cumstances, it need hardly be said, that the consignee seldom, if ever, obtained any redress for the damage his property might have sustained." The importance of the system of surveyos established at the West India Docks, is shown by Mr. Mitchell. Alluding: to theinconveniences which would arise from throwing the docks open, he says, " As a West India merchant I should say, that it would prove aactions and very great inconvenience to me ; because if the owners of ships were permitted to go into docks, where the system was to allow the master of a ship to discharge his own. cargo, I consider it would be absolutely necessary for me to have some person attending the discharge of any parcel of goods I might have on board that ship, in order to be satis fied that there was no improper stowage. If shipi were allow ed to go into any docks, it might so happen that three or four ships were discharging at the same time, in different docks, having produce consigned to me, and, therefore, it would be necessary for me to have clerks at each of those places of dis charge, to see that the produce had been properly stowed ;" this circumstance, among others, he thinks, would be attended with " inconvenience, delay, and expence." Thus far it may be said to be proved, that the mode of charge at the London Docks, and the want of a proper system of sur vey, are prejudicial to the interests of importers. Secondly, as to the amount of charge; Mr. Mitchell, when examined to this point, says, I have heard . persons state the charges of the West India Dock Company are higher than the charges of similar establishments, but I have never yet been able to find any person who could distinctly make that out;' and Mr. 11Iarryatt is certainly not that person; indeed, to do him justice, he has not, for good and sztfficient reasons, made the attempt. 'rhe charge per ton upon a ship, by the West India .Dock Company, for the period of 6 weeks, allowed by the London Docks, is from Is. to 2s. 'per ton ; that of the London Dock Is Is. 3d. Mr: Inglis, the Chairman of the London Docks, when asked what services that Company perform, and what advantages they give to ships for the rate, replies_, 'The use of the Dock.' And nothing but the use of the Dock No, I think not.' Mr. Chapman to the same point is asked, Should you moor and unmoor the ship We should charge extra for that, according to the time the people were employed.'—' Should you cooper No, we should not.' And he sap in another place, We take no responsibility whatever upon ourselves.' Here, then, as respects the tonnage-rate upon a ship ut the London Docks, we have complete evidence of the consideration fur which the is. 3d. is taken. _ _ At present, if a Brazil ship were to go into the West India Docks, the charge (if she used the Dock for six weeks only) would be Is. Gd. per ton ; but what would be the services ren dered ? According to the table of rates, docking, mooring, unmooring, and removing (if not leaky, and thereby requiring extra labour), unloading and coopering the cargo, and the use of the dock : in addition to all this there is the responsibility of executing the whole. Mr. Mitchell says, ' the responsibility of the Company corn. mences from the time of the arrival of a ship at the dock. gates ; and the whole of the mooring, unmooring, and navi. gating, is performed by the servants of the Company, so that the owners of the ship have no further care of that vessel until she is fully discharged.' Without a particle of responsibility, it appears, then, the London Dock Company would charge-- 1 , or the use of the Dock, andfbr the use of Dock only for 6 weeks - - 0 1 3 For landing the cargo -0 2 0 Anil if the vessel remained as long as six months, per ton additional - - • - 0 1 3 Which would be - 0 4 fii that is, Is. Oad. per ton more than the West India Dock COM pany's highest charge, and 2s. Oid. more than the lowest rate for the same period ; but should the vessel go out before the termination or the six weeks, then the London Dock charge would be higher from Is. 3a. to 2s. 3d. per ton, although van. ous extra charges would be made if the same services were performed. So much for the charges on shipping. As respects goods an actual bill of the London Dock Corn. pany was put into ;ND. Chapman'e hand, on which he wait examined, item by item, and ultimately admitted that the charges amounted (with certain additions for the services which the West India Dock Company perform) to a rate of I/. 3s. 7d. per ton 1 and this he considered to be a regular account, ." a fair regular average tithe labour that is done to Brazil sugar." Mr. lamelands was examined, as to the charges thus ad. mitted to be a fair average amount of those usually made at the London Docks, in comparison with those which the same goods would be liable to in the West India Docks; he stated the 'comparison thus—" The difference amounts to this, the total amount per ton of the London Dock charges, upon a par cel of Brazil sugar, was U. 3s. 7d. ; and at the West Indic Docks, the same parcel of sugar, fbr the whole of the services stated by Mr. Chapman, with the additional advantage of pro per surveys being held on board ship to enable the proprietor to recover compensation for injury from improper stowage, and the convenience of having the samples transmitted to London, would at lid. per cwt. (the highest charge we have for Brazil sugar) amount to 101.—the difference being 13s. 7d. per ton." This was the' state of the case at the time the evidence was given ; but now the excess would be 15s. 3d. per ton, the whole charge of. the Vest belie Dock Company being now only lis. 4(1. per ton. It-appears, that the rent charged by the West India Com pany is 3d. per ton per week less than that of the London Docks; it is imputed to the former, that they charge the rent for the first three months (it being' included in their prime rate), whe ther the goods remain as long or not: but striking all charge for rent out of the London Dock account, and giving the whole rent for 12 weeks at the West India Docks, the difference was lim. 7d. and is now Os. and 3d. per ton more at the London Docks. It also appears, that the London Duel: consolidated rate upon a puncheon of brandy, would be one pound; and the West India Dock charge for a puncheon of rum, for the same services, with the addition of furnishing sample phials, and corks, and delivering the samples in London, would he only one penny per gallon, or nine shillings and two-penee; the rent at the latter being only three-pence per week; while at the former it is double that a mount for the first year, and seven pence per week afterwards : but at present the London Dock charge is 12s. 10d. per cask mere than at the West India Dock, the latter being only 7s. 2d. instead of IL Throughout the whole body of evidence produced before the Committee, it was not attempted to point out a single charge of the West India Dock Company as excessive ; and here is the result of actual comparison, a comparison which it did not suit Mr. Marryet to make, and therefore he has sup pressed alit& evidence upon the paint. , it would be a waste of time to compare the charges further, but it may be well to shew upon the Osumi principle how they really stand :—Mr. Chapman, speaking of the charges of the London Docks, says, "Our charges are regulated by what were charged in the port of London on dry goods, for blotting, loading, hou s ing, anti shipping of goods, in the year 1790 ; and the wharfage i s regulated by an order of King in Council of the 25th of - July, MOO, directing what should be charged at the legal quays , at that period." And he admits that " the gene " rality ofthe charges so fixed are still required to be paid by the " Directors , of the London Dock Company." It' these he the foundations upon which the charges of the London Docks rest,. those of the West lnd:a Dock Company, as it will be .she wn , were lower in the first instance; were reduced still lower in 1017; lower still in 1822,—and again yet lower in the Present ~year. Whatever charges of time London Docks th ere f ore a re continued at the rates fixed in 1790 and in MOO (and M r . Chapman says it is only " on some par " neuter articles that the Directors have lowered their charges," they must be, AT THE VBIIY LEAST,II 3 much higher- than the) West India Dock rates as the latter are shown i n the annexed table to be now lower than the rates fixed by the Act of Par liament, and that is from 201. to 761 ' 17a. 3d. per cent.! This Table :thews how much time public have to complain of, in respect to the amount of charges ; how dangerous it is to grant a mo nopoly, and how misc hievous that of the West India ock ComP Mr. Ilibb ttnY has been. en, when asked, " Were those rates, comparing the degree of lab our th a t was pertbrmed, higher or lower than the general r ates of the port o f London at that time ?"—answers, " they were in some respects equal, in some,resnects lower, but in no respe ct , as far as my know ledge goes, pig ter. Mr. Drinkald speaks to the sam e p oint ; havin g been con sulted by Mr. Milligan in fi x ing the original rates, he says, " Mr. Milligan frequently sent for me, to give him a list of the diffarent Charles of the port upon.the different ships and their, cargoes;" am when asked, if time original rates were not fixed lower than the rates taken generally in the port of London, he replies, " On a great number of ships they were considerably lower; they were taken at the lowest avera g e. The Proof diet this was the case, as respects the tonnage rate, is to be found in the aen dix of a report given in by Mr. Hibbert, with th ese remarks: " I beg leave to confirm this re port, and to say it was made with very great care : and if the Committee will look at the names of those who furnished part of the tables, they will tied they were gentlemen who at that time were not very amicably disposed to the West India Colo pany, and yet it is from the result of the evidence given by those gentlemen, in concurr enc e with others, that the facts this report ascertains are deduced ; I believe there is not any thing overstated.' No. 6, of the documents • produced, shoivs the expence per ton ler discharging ships to have been 7s. Mad., which. is Is. 2Ad. more than the tonnage rates fixed by the Act; the other talks do not go to the point of charge, but show the immense saving of property to the planter and to the revenue. The amount of the advantages, exclusive of saving from re duced charges, is stated (Table VIII.) to have been in the first seven' years only,' To the Revenue, about - . €1,049,572 0 10 To Proprietors, Importers, Ship-owners, &c. 1,652,070 7 0 £2,702,542 7 10 Bag equal to an annual saving to the Re venue of . - • - 4. £149,933 17 3 To the Proprietors7Sce.... 236,1311 12 5 And a total annual saving of - £386,077 9 8 Under such circumstances the rates, as originally fixed, were not likely to be objected to; and it is in evidence that no gene ral application was made for a reduction until that of 1816, by the Committee of Ship Owners; that the rates were reduced early in the following year, and that the rates so fired were " as low as the rates at Glasgow, rather lower than the rotes at " Liverpool, and CONSIDEUABLY LOWER than the rates at Bristol." As the West India Dock rates have been reduced twice since; it iv presumed that their charges, if no others in the Port of London can, will bear comparison with the outpofts ; the re sult of the evidence is, that although the. original tonnage rate upon ships of as. Bd. was is. 26d. per ton less than the average cost to the owners before the establishment of the docks, they now havnthe benefit of abatement from that reduced rate of charge,. amounting from 601. IBs. 9a. to 7 01. 10s. per cent. and that as compared with the average cost formerly, they save from ss. 31d. to 63. 34d. per ton ; that although the rates upon goods, as proved by Mr. Bibbed and Mr. Drinkald, Were originally fixed at the lowest average of the charges of the port, the ini porters and proprietors now derive the benefit of reductions, from those low rates, from 201. per cent. to 7.51. I7s: 3d. per cent. In addition to the advantage of these great reductions, it must not be forgotten that both the planters and the ship owners were protected .from the progressiVe increase which, during the war, took place in the general chargei if the port of London. Alt that was asserted in the commencement of the observa tions under this head, was, that Mr. 111arryat had insinuated that the charges were too high ; he, could have no other mo tive in abstracting the following evidence, or in his mode of do ing it. Ile says— " Mr. Pallmer thinks the clock charges unquestionably too " high : and that the West India trade, from the present value " of produce, is not so well able to bear them. " Mr. Martin says, that he has referred to the 'West India " Dock rates, and is satisfied the Commercial Dock Conipany " could do the business under, and be glad of it too. " Mr. Ulennie repeats that assertion, with the exception of rum. " Mr. Tooke, in stating that the expences of the Port of " London were high, meant to exclude the charges at the " London and Commercial Docks; and meant to inelude the " charges on a quantity of pepper in the East India Docks, " which were very extravagant ; says, that the present charges " in the Port of London are apparently high enough to drive " away a considerable portion of the trade." This is precious testimony, as compared with that which has been referred to: but to shew the public its real value, Mr. Marry at ought to have given them a little more of what these Gentlemen stated : Ile should have told then: that Mr. Pall tiler, when asked if he could ' furnish he Conunittee with any estimate of the amount of the Dock charges upon produce, replied, I havo made no such calculation, and can give nu such information.' In reply to the uestions- 4 have you made yourself generally acquainted wi th the transactions of the West India Dock Company ?' and, you have not con sidered what proportion their charges bear to the value of West India produce ?' he unequivocally declared, No, I have not.' That, in another part of his examination, when asked, Are you enabled to form any judgment whether the Dock charges are high, or too high upon the West India trade ? he says, I 5,•;g 4 4 4 tOS 4 R ggiP .t:/P g 9 . P; 5 s• Z I ggi ivg-§& Is&. , t - Igg,i s g.T °a (.52, ; - F a ° 8 2 i . 2 . grl A. R. 1•=.p...i. g R.g g 4"4 0 R. g -14.1:: R. .. . . . . . . • . -1= x ,Y 3 -‘ R 5 . • IQ ~.... 5 • I '''' • •• 1 • • • CP vi to to 4 , IP 46 CL, 14 Ct CO 05 CO C 5 tO tO Ota CM CD GOCCO4 , Ca cO •-• CO CO -ci-J.cs P.l R 1 11 ' 4 1 1 11111111111 1 fts co oo A .. t y . 0 ..... e 3 ea ea .....• .- I . el e) n n co g n rb et *4 el ea el ," 3 4 4441044.1E,m ... al wx.• r r—:. rrrrr rrpr.6-r . r tP A 1:3 II I A II I • • • • • ......•... 6 g'..2 A ... . ... . . . . I 6-4.... a a ' :..' "c; a .. I . 111 I II I I I E ' ..., gi' . CP CA ti . tISI I I I I r r =cat =VA= o=o=•*CtOZalCzOC. , oooocl:,o 11111Tir11117C4 7; 1 111 nn n n ;.13 ; g;. 22`64-13_4=1=1=gosooaq r cr4 tp c t E 24 rrrrr r n n r r cf& CO CD rr b 2 AAA= 00 CA CIO =PN.; t 4 A tO b2. 14 .C. $3. r t s oci eTS href 'll.O 'LI 'CI RS T V S TIVIC 4:1 •C$ 47PV ;I .1 A ti• g `f 4 4 `;‘' . lgr,.•nnnn•nn ✓ nete3nran r.=te sso.s so. vv 4,v r9,..R. r r cr; r r I. a rrrr. r of? 44 t 515" 44. .44. eta WV O. 0. 47. C7ar.oc.a.—.Coci-pci.dieofilCraCAC4=9-ra C. 4 CA: 19 A. cp Coo I+2 C. 0- C.l Coi C 2 ,1 = .41 000 0 tO tA: cg t.. 1 0.4 0 Z 1 OCZ P.* C: p p, Cr.t 44 44 CO C sik. dr. Nr. t•-,* .t .. • g - g •-• consider them unquestionably to high ;' but that he never complained personally, and did not recollect any special com , plaint being made by the Committee of planters and merchants, of which he acted as chairman ; That although he used the phrase of the very high charges ; when asked; Is your judgment founded upon any calculation of the amount of rates at the West India Docks, compared with the amount of rates taken for the same description of services at anyt other place No.' —. 4 You have made no calculation of that bind ?'—' No.' Mr. Martin -may pass; but Mr. Glennie has been treated VittlV,l),by, such slant notice—he surely is a witness af ter r. BThrryat's own heart:--hei'contrary to all the other evidence, attempted to prove, that the original ehargcs were higher than those of the legal pays in 1799, by EXTRACTS from his ° so hook ; but when asked to look at actual " accounts of Porters " Quay, Botolph ',Vharf, Ralphs Quay, New Wharf, and " several others," which would have completely disproved his assertion, he replies, " I need not take the- time of the Corn " mittee to examine these; I know nothing of them ; but I " can speak to what I charged ; . I am confident we have n ot " Charged LESS than we paid, E MIGHT HAVE CHAINED " A LITTLE 31011 E incited Illr. Glennie ! A witness may attempt to prove too much. Mr. Tooke is entitled-to great credit for the candour with which he answered the following questions : " Your House has not been in the habit of trading at all to " the West India Colobies ? It has not. You have no experi " encc of your own with regard to the charges of the West " India Dock Company ? .1 have not, and I have expressly " disclaimed any knowledge of that kind; and rather mention " my want of it as a reason why I thought there would be no " sufficient ground for my being ekemined." The absurdity of bringing forward the evidence of such wit nesses, even if it had been fairly done, is intinifest. No. N.—REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS. No. 17.—ACCUSITILATED FUND. The " Repairs anti Improvements," and " Accumulated " Fund," says Mr. illarrYat, " are so connected with each " other, in.the evidence given before the Committee, (proiVon ",for both having been made out of the surplus rates) , that "it is impossible to treat them separately. They involve " however, many points, much more fit for. the discussion of " Gentlemen of the Long Robe than of any unlearned indivi dual." This " unlearned i»dividual," nevertheless, proceeds to the discussion—the mode in which he states the question is this : " Whether it was not the intention of the. Legislature that " the West India DO& Company should make their works " and buildings complete, at their own espencc, or whether " they meant to give theist .the power they have exercised, of " making them so out of the rates, Is a sul ! jeet- of much con " trorersy." That it was a subject which Mr. Marryat and others were in hopes of making something of there is no doubt ; but the question has been rationally and properly set at rest by the Honourable Committee, and therefore it would be idle to in dulge Mr. Marryat by again entering into the controversy i the Committee report as follows :—" whatever`tioubts your Corn " mittee might have entertained as to the extent of the dis " cretion intended to be given by the Act, under the words " extensions anti improvements," had itrested upon the original " Act alone, they feel themselves relieved from them by the " subsequent Acts of the 42d and 44th Geo. 111., the preambles ". to which, either recite the completion of, or contemplate the 1" most material improvements made; and the application of i." surplus rates to defray them is RECOGNISED AND BANC ii " TION ED. With this authority, your Committee cannot i " deem those applications to be an expenditure unimportant to " the purpose of the institution and the interests of the West i " India Trade." It would be equally idle to indulge Mr. Marryat with re t newed discussion upon the subject of the accumulated fund, ; that question having been set at rest in a manner which the i Committee have themselves commended and recommended to r,, the app.robation of the House, " as best calculated to cruet the ii public interest." 6 [ To be continued.] _,_ *::) C 4 C 4 0 INZ $ 44 C ~, Islss $ $ $ $ 00 CS 5 ... IP. C 73 I8I•$ I $ I . 0 a n el tiq pal! e- 1 al .-. ..•$1 I I 1 I 2 a ... E . .3.1 ...., . g ; , ~.. „ X g ...., . 5. „r 0 .., P.. R.c..1 co *p S' .-?, .4 F B ... 4 ; °' E . .}. , . . . 4 - - V, tv 9 r.,4:. 0 , 0 - , Q. P m ::: • . C en .••1 °. ,1.0 ~ Fti D. r - , to , ig 5 . t 4 Pe S . 0 ....,...., 41 1 t.D c, P .4 F-' tl. ta -, . t...... q r: q ••)*" - a g § ..t .no = o? g 4f, 0 5 . 1 . 0 iil t et raj 4 9 .., ,--, c , ... 1 .... ~ ..Einr.,...- . ,- * -4 5- 5 E o 55. t 4 : 4 lgr gi ' r bs . Ditz- "'rZ R. 8 " " - .11 .1. M .... 0 1 8 . ..1. 1 Ei . +1 `.I O ~., Cr > ' ~. .1 • 'I C 0 •Ci 0 . . 0 % U m o Hi 4 rs -.... J .. . ci 5 H‘.....„... , oz b ! c , : , ~.. . @ p!.e,t- ;134-61 .1 5...... .. <74 i ' - '3 O' 4, , - 9 ......„....../ 5' -0 o l-e ~.. . . . ark l"3 44 pr w., 0 V ' ? V V 03.4 1-3 • • • . . . ..-, :-.., ...,..., ' 0 to ....,. r g " r, : : :: ii = 5' V ro ;.? G .—, ..... a; cA: c 0 to ..5. s- -6- sr ig• 0.• F; r• eses a °I O E-1 i g ...,.- cts• 0.,,t0=7.;0 3 . 4* . I 5. 5. 5' 5- a. Ci ....... 41 ; 1-.. m- • b g -•--. 8 a --6▪ .• g'''' 11 1 %....„, .....4 ht 1....• g i• . i • ;,.. ...... :. y,• r 73, - 0" 0 , F.- P• F- 1.: L.° g i% 6°. 0 +PO *-7 ...., I. , .... c Ct• 2= F 2 t ' h ' S' E S. PO o 00 G. t g es. n o ,-; ral T r g .., 1 18 - s 7 ~ ...4 ,•• ( 7 ..... 0 p L' V a ? 4,, B . •-": . 1 ::::: o:. co • , E . a i - ..., P - • S '''' c, ,„,, = r 4 4 g . m 5 ~ ;,-.. i r '. , zl3 n 41 - F r r~ ~°,