The Sun.
London, England, 1823-09-17 00:00:00

PORTUGAL.

Lrsnox, Atm. 22.—T0-day there have arrived in this port
the English galley Porcupine and the Hamburgh schooner
Louisa, In 60 days from Bahia, having on board, first, 33 pas-
sengers (merchants and civil officers) ; and secondly 85 per-
sons belonging to the ariny, and Major Antonia Pitnentel Mal-
donada. These two vessels are part of a fleet (00 sail), among
which there are 20 men of war, which are bringing from Bahia
the troops and many of the principal families of that city
to Lisbon, The passengers on board give the following
accounts
" That General Labatour was taken three months ago, and
that the command of the troops that besieged Bahia devolved
upoa Colonel Jose Jeaquhn Lima. At the end of' June a
council of War was held at Bahia, at which all the Chief Offi-
cers of the Army and Navy were present, in consequence of
which all the Portuguese troops embarked, and left Bahia on
the 2d July, on which day the squadron sailed with the con-
vay, consisting of above 80 sail, bound for this port. The
squadron of Lord Cochrane followed the convoy for the space
ut three days. This galley (the Porcupine) separated from the
convoy the 4th day of the voyage. Some other vessels have
armed that have separated from the convoy, bringing us the
first troops and private persons. General Madeira has not yet
arrived." _ _ .

The Cardinal Patriarch made his- solemn entry into this
city on the lifth, and was received by his Majesty with great
honours. ,
Au°. 28.—1 t is certain that in the island of Madeira some
few ill-disposed persons, connected with secret societies, formed a
plot for the purpose of separating that island (unknown to its
inhabitants) from the Portuguese dominions ; and though the
number of these disturbers of public tranquillity, was not suf.
flcient to excite the fears of the Government, his Majesty, who,
is he deigned to cast a veil over past crimes, is resolved prompt.
ly and severely to punish all those who shall in future attempt
to excite disorder and defy the laws, ordered an expedition to
be sent to that island, which landed on the 21st, with the new
Governor, a corps of troops commanded by a distinguished of-H.
composed ofJudges ofacknow-
car, and an Alcads (Magistracy),
'edged probity, to inquire into what has passed in this respect,
*ad proceed immediately to inflict just punishment on the
criminals. 'nos we see that the spirit of vertigo and faction is
not extinguished; but if liberalism is not yet sufficiently unde-
ixived by the successive blows which it has received in the
whole extent of the ground which it the most infected, it must
shortly be necessarily dismayed at the punishments which jus-
tice, provoked to the utmost, will not fail to inflict on its ob.
Jai nacy.—(Lisbon Papers, Aug. 28.)

WEST INDIA DOCKS.

REPLY TO MR. MARRYAT'S OBSERVATIONS
MN THE WEST INDIA DOCK CHARTER, &c. &c.

(cowriwrEn.)
(No. IV.)
No• 7.-SECURITY AGAINST PLUNDER.

The only points, on which Mr. Marryat is at an correct
under this head, are where he admits that .it " is a subject of
great importance," and where he states, " that dreetual place-
" tion is given to property at the West India Docks, is admitted
" on all hands."

Notwithstanding this admission, however, he still dresses up
the evidence in the•character he is disposed to give it, but the
cloven foot appears undei the disguise ; the evidence of Mr. Til-
stone, Mr. Burne,lllr. Mitchell, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Colvile, Mr.
Drinkald, and Mr. Stuart,. are all slightly glanced over, and
that of Mr. Inglis, Mr. Chapman, MT. Gibson, Mr. Eilbeck,
Mr. Martin, Mr. Glenniet Mr. Lampson, Mr. Manning, Mr.
Tooke, and Mr. Wilson (the two latter avowedly knowing
nothing about the matter), is placed in conspicuous contrast,
and Mr. Merryat conceives that his readers will be brought to
his conclusion, " that in the estimation eon the witnesses, those
" connected with the West India Docks excepted, full security
" is given to property by the regulations adopted in the other
" Wet Dock establishments."

With the same ingenuity with which he paised over all dan-
ger of navigation from Blackwall to the London Docks, Mr.
Marryat has here as dexterously evaded the risk of plunder
which occurs in that passage.
The evidence of Mr. Domatt, he has neither commented
upon nor extracted ; 'probably because he well knew, that from
the character of that Gentleman (who cannot come under the

illiberal imputation of being connected with the West India
Docks), and, his ability and experience, his testimony alone
would. outweigh all that has been adduced on the other side ;
even if it was not in strict accordance with that of Mr. Drink-
ald anti Mr. Clippingdale, and with the still stronger evidence
taken in the year 179 d.
Mr. Dom:tt's replies to the following questions show his
opinioa.upon the subject :
" Do you consider that there would be a greater risk of
plunder in a ship that was coming to discharge her cargo in the
London Dock than in a vessel that came up with a flowing
tide, and entered at once into the West India Dock; would
the passage between the two affbrd additional facilities to
plunder?--I think it does afford additional facilities to plunder,
because part-of the cargo is stowed where the people live, and
is accessible consequently to the menthemselves, or to any of
their friends that may come on board to visit them. Notwith-
standing any activity of the police, or any vigilance of the cap-
tain, might not plunder take place in the way .you describe,
between the entrance to the West India and the London Docks ?
—Yes ; I think so, because it is much more exposed between
the entrances to the two docks. Would you consider the lock-
ing down the hatches an adequate protection ?—All the hatches
can hardly be locked down, because the people live under the
after-hatchway, and there they have access to the cargo ; you
cannot do that unless you lock out the people. There is 'no
difficulty in preventing persons coming on board, if the captain
and crew are determined to prevent it ?—I think, under the cir-
cumstances
I have stated, it is difficult; when a ship is moving
in the river, every person is actively employed. 'lf the ship
stop
s a whole night in an intermediate place between the West
India and London Dock, I think there- would be great danger
of plunder."
Mr. Dornett also considers that a ship (even after getting into
the docks) "world not be so _safe and secure from plunder,
laying alongside a foreign vessel with all the crew on board, as
if the crews were entirely excluded ; that sugars would not be
so safe upon the quay, to which every person had access, and
where persons were passing and repassing, as at the West India
Dock, where all persons are excluded.' He considers the ex-
port dock attended with great convenience ; and is asked,
" would you consider a dock where there was not that accom- I
Imulation for export; and where vessels discharging their cargoes'
inwards, and taking in their cargoes outwards, are all mixed
together, as equally advantageous to one where they were sepa-
rated, as in the West India Dock ?" He replies, " I do not,
for the reason I have before given ; that property would not be
an secure."
From Mr. Clippingdale's evidence Mr. Marryat makes an
extract, but omits to notice it in his observations—it is this—
" If such a vessel as this " using the West India Trade, and
" with a 'rest India cargo on board, were detained in the
" stream at Deptford, is it your opinion that the risk of plunder
" would be increased to any consequence ?—No doubt of it.":—
This must have been unintentional.
As a specimen of that peculiar candour and disinterestedness
• uhich, it is universally allowed, distinguish Mr. Marryat's
conduct in all public questions, whether he is the advocate or
opponent, the following may he taken : he says—
" Mr. Lampson does not know that there is more liability to
plunder, from crews being permitted to remain on board, un-
less they can remove articles out of the ships ; and he does not
know where they could take them to. Ile imagines they could
not be carried out of the Docks. He never was there at night ;
but he supposes the dock gates are shut, and they are guarded
during the day-time, and persons searcheilon going out."
Now the following are questions put to Mr. Lampson, and
his replies' not one of which has Or. Marryal thought it safe
to.notice ; the Public will judge whether they are relevant or
not:--" Were those goods -liable to plunder? They were
" liable to plunder, because plunderage has taken place. In
" the Commercial Docks?—Yes ; but not in the state in Which
" the Commercial Docks are now; they are in a different 51-
" tuation. You would not consider that with a fence of twelve
" feet high, the produce left in the course of discharge there
" would be safe ?—I mean to say, that no produce Can be safe,
" If left upon the quay. after the legal hours. When you
" speak of sugar not being liable to plunder at the Commer-
" cial Docks, have you ever seen sugar there that had not un-
" dergone cooperage at the West India. Docks ?—No. Then
" is it liable to plunderage at all after being so coopered P—l
" am not aware that it is. Does not plunderage take place be-
" fore cooperage ?—Certainly. A fter cooperage, is it in. danger
" of any depredation ?—No ; I think it is not. '
Probably some excuse for this omission is to be found In the
circumstance of this evidence having crept out of sight, as it is
not to be found in Mr. Marryat's Lucid Analysis, under its
proper head, but under that of" Means of Accommodation."
It Is hardly necessary to confirm Mr. Marryat's own witness,
but if such confirmation were wanting, it might be found
throughout the evidence; all the most competent witnesses de-
claring, that West India produce, from the nature of the
packages an whiCh it is imported, would be exposed to exces-
sive depredation in a Dock of indiscriminate resort, while it
wag, as it necessarily must be, exposed upon the Quays.
With reference to the insufficiency of all ordinary precautions
against plunder in a-trade so peculiarly liable to it, Mr. Ilib-
ben gives the strongest opinions, and declares that he thinks,
" with the present accommodations of the port, the principal
apprehension is of a loss before the goods have passed the
King's beam." When asked it' the West India trade resorted
to the Commercial Docks there would not be as great security
from plunder, he replies, " if am so far from believing it, that
I do most firmly believe the direct contrary. I do not see how
they could adopt the West India Dock system, unless they bad
a monopoly of the trade." lle declares his opinion, " that the
monopoly is essential to the system, which' at present protects
both the planter and the revenue," but that it is not essential
eithet to the prosperity of the Dock Proprietors, or to their di-
viding ten per cent. yearly.
In explanation of his opinion as to the danger of plunder, he
says, " I meant to say, that now I should apprehend plunder
more before the goods arrive at the King's beam than I should
subsequently, if the goods were to be warehoused in warehouses
approved by Government. I should not dread a loss in those
warehouses equal to that which did take pike in the ware-
houses which received West India sugars before the construe.
Lion of any docks. I am quite sure no such loss would accrue.
I But my apprehension is, that a great part, if not the whole, of
that loss which formerly took pla 6 before sugars arrived at the
t
King's beam, would again take dace, if ships are allowed to
go, at their own discretion, to thi or that dock further up the
river than the Isle of Dogs." He states his reasons in reply to
subsequent questions, " that' it is a difficult navigation; the
vessel is more in the neighbourhood of that description of per-
sons who formerly lived on plunder; the crowded state of the
river, and so on. The chief scene of plunderage was between
Liniehouse and 'Wapping, where the depredators lived. I
think the great scene of plunderage was between Limehouse
and the Legal Quays." All this took place notwithstanding
the hatches of the ships being locked down, revenue officers
being on board, and there being a River Police part of the time,
anti other precautions taken."
This accords with the opinibn of Mr. Domett ; and in reply
to the following question, Mr. Hibbert emphatically declares
the sincerity of his conviction :
" If you were totally unconnected with the West India
Dock Company, would you not, as a planter and merchant,
and agent for the island 0( Jamaica, and solicitous for the pro-

sperity.ot that community, desire a continuance of the present
system of the Company, as feeling it most essential to the secu-
rity of property ?—I should most earnestly desire it.'
' Mr. Marryat,_with his usual good 'taste, thus alludes to the
honourable zeal which hns distinguished Mr. Elibbert and
those who have acted with him

" It is very natural, that they who have framed a system
" should extol it as a model of perfection. We have the same
" partiality for our intellectual as for our natural offspring;
" and as ()lay asks,
" Wherever yet was found the Mother
" Would give her booby for another ?"

The same sentiment is expressed by the Honourable Com-
mittee on Foreign Trade whether in a more liberal manner
or not the Public will decide.

Your Committee are fully prepared to believe that the Di-
" rectors of the West India Dock Company, in contending
" against alteration; are actuated by no feelings of pecuniary
" interest,—that their interests, in fact, as Planters or Mei.-
chants, are infinitely superior to any they can have as Dock
" Directors; and that they are influenced only by.their im-
" pression of the utility and advantage of this Establishment
" as affecting the public through the peculiar branch of corn-
" merce to which it is appropriated; increased, perhaps not
" unnaturally, by a solicitude for the preservation of that
" which they have, with great care and attention, fostered and
" brought nearly to perfection."

No. B.—EXCLUSION OF CREIVS AND APPRENTICES.
" This (says Mr. Marryat) is a point of considerable inte-
" rest, not only as it affects the security of property -but as it
" relates to the owners, officers, crews and apprentices of the
" shipping employed in the West India Trade."
Mr. blarryat well knows that the crews never were retained
on board their ships formerly; that their employers could not now
retain if they would, and would not keep them if they could.—
To give interest to this subject he has embellished it with some
benevolent sentiments, as to the " regard due to the interests,
64 the comforts, and the morals of British seamen, their acquit-.
" fug regular habits, and contracting an attachment to their
" officers and Owners!"
This may sound pretty enough to certain sea-faring electors,
but his own experience ought to have taught Mr. Marryat
better; a case in point is to be found in the evidence of Mr.
Mitchell ; it is this Have you not heard of British ships
" discharging their crews, on entering the London Docks, as a
" matter of preference, although they had the option of retain-
" ing them, and hiring lumpers to discharge their cargoes ? I
" had occasion lately to observe a ship that had entered the
46 London Docks which I believe was formerly a regular ship
" in the West India Trade, that discharged a cargo from
" South America ; and I understood, that upon her entering
44 the Docks, her seamen were immediately discharged, and the
" owners of the ship hired lumpers from the proprietors of the
" London Docks to discharge her cargo. The owner or char-
' " terer, therefore' bad no greater confidence in the fidelity or
" attachment of her crew than in perfect strangers ? Certainly
" not; in that instance where they had the option, they pre-
" ferred discharging the seamen. Can you state to' the Com-
" mittee what became of the seamen in the, case to which you
" refer ?—I do not know ; it was the case of a ship that I be-
" lieve belonged to Messrs. Marry;rt and Co., called the Baltic
Ai

Merchant:-
" As you seem to know something about the shipping
" concerns of the owners of the Baltic Merchant, perhaps
" you know that the crew that sailed out in that vessel
" were induced to desert at Valparaiso by higher wages,
" and that the crew that came home in her were not
" people in whom the owners could place confidence The
last question is very unfortunate for 111 r. Marryat's argument,
whoever put it ; it requires no answer, the witness did not know
the facts in the particular case, but all the world knows that the
circumstances are of continual occurrence, yet after such evi-
dence as this, the Member for Sandwich would induce his
Readers to believe, that all ties between the seamen and their
employers " are broken and destroyed by the roving and un-
" settled mode 'of life forced upon them by the West India
" Dock System," ." that if any thing can promote a tlisposi-
" tion to plunder, it is the loose and vagrant habits of life now
" forced upon those valuable classes of individuals," (risum
teneatis ! ) ll' there were no other seamen in the world but
those whose ships go into 'the west India Docks, the roving
and unsettled mode of life by which that class of men are uni-
versally distinguished, might be ascribed to some particular
Idefect in the Dock system.
The evidence completely establishes the importance of dill.
eprtloyy;intt the crews, both as to dispatch
charging vessels by the officers and servants of the Dock Com.
Pa
ren ceto,
property
the Secretary of the Company ; "e following facts are stated by
In the month of July, 1818,
rd Y
the in
securityprpreference
of io
161 ships were finally discharged anti searched, of those ships
`..P were reported " clean," there was fraudulent concealment
found in 15 of them, and quantities of various produce found
in 124 ; the total quantity of produce is 23 tons, contained in
506 packages."
When asked, if even after the first search, articles have not
been found more artfully concealed, he replies, " I have seve-
ral instances of that, but it may be sufficient to refer to one
of. the 4th July, 1817 ; this is a report of a second search on
that day, after a most vigilant search by the Company's police;
it states, that on board the Sir Edward Hamilton, Captain Bell,
from Jamaica, there were found 14 cwt. of clean sugar, in
twelve small bags,. and ewt. of clean coffee, in eight small
bags, concealed inside the linings of the lower deck, discovered
by J. B. Clarke, excise clearing officer, and taken away by him;
that there were 28 lbs. of clean sugar, in one small bag, and
20 lbs. of clean coffee, in three small bags, inside the lining in
the lower-deck, discovered by John Hanover, one of the Com-
pany's constables, and delivered to J. 13. Clarke, excise officer;
the report also states, that on the 2d,July there were discovered
20 bottles of rum, under the limber boards io the hold, disco-
vered by Wm. Taylor, one of the Company's constables, and
delivered to T. Dixon, an officer of the customs."
The following examination ensues upon the statement of
these facts:—" Do you think that b any vigilance such plun-
der could be wholly prevented?-- I do not conceive that it can
be possibly prevented during the discharge of any. cargo. If
ships were to be discharged by their own crews, or by inferior
people, not under the controul of the Company, do you think
such practices would increase ?—I certainly think they-would
increase inn very great degree, inasmuch as those reports show,
from the mode of concealment, that it must have been done by
the crews of the vessels."
Is the tiovernment of the country to allow the revenue to
suffer, or the importers of goods to have their property exposed
to plunder in deference' to speculative opinions as opposed to
such facts as these ,—and fur what object R Mr. Mitchell was
particularly examined to that point as follows :—" Mr. Chap-
" man, when asked if the London Dock Company are able to
" exercise the same controul over the sailors as over their own
" men, replied, 404 on board the vessel;'—what is your
" opinion as to the probability of exercising such controul in
" the West India Docks if the crews were admitted ?"—" It
" appears to me there would be no controul whatever on the
" part of the Dock Company. If the West India Dock Com-
" pony pursued the system which I understand is followed at
" other Docks, the expellees of the Company would be lest
" and little or no responsibility would rest upon the Company."'
'—`‘ What would be the advantages to the revenue ? I
" conceive none."—" What would he the advantage to the
" owners of the produce ?"—" It is my opinion that the owners
" of the produce, so far fromsderiving any advantage, might
" be subject to expence and loss."—" What advantage would
" result to the Ship-owner ?"—" No advantage could result to
" the Ship-owner, unless it was at the expence of the owner of
" the cargo."
And what advantage is the seaman to derive ? Let Mr.
Marryat speak for himself. " Every Ship-owner wishes to en-
" courage his officers and crews as much as possible. A
" West India voyage does not occupy them, in general, more
" than seven or eight months, and the remainder of the year
" they are without employment: The wages they earn on the
" voyage will net furnish them with means- of subsistence while
" their ships remain at home, and thus most of the seamen are
" obliged to change their ship every voyage. Instances, how,
" ever, occur of their making shift, by occasional employment,
" to continue with the same master for many years together ;
" but how much would their so doing be facilitated, and the
" interval they are out of work be shortened, by their being
" employed to discharge their own vessels, instead of being.
" turned out of them the moment they arrive at the dock
" gates?"
Even' Ship-owner who thus means to encourage his crews,
must find something more for them to do, than merely dis-
charging theirown vessels, that would, upon the average, just
give them five days work ; Mr. Marryat, therefore, in further-
ance of his benevolent object, must intend that his crews are to
take the ship into a dry dock, when necessary, and to be ex-
clusively employed in repairing him; or, should she not require
repair, that they are to be profitably employed in the ship
while she is laying up; he knows that, in the West India Ex-
port Dock, he may keep his ships full of men for months top.
titer, if lie likes it.
Marryat has overlooked one circumstance, viz. :
that neither tires nor lights atermitted within the Import
Dock ; if the crews were admitted, they must be allowed.. He
may argue that sailors would be as honest as labourers ;_ but lie
Can hardly contend that the 'risk of conflagration would not be
increased. The Insurance Companies attach a proper value to
this important regulation, their rates of insurance on goods
being much lower if they are lodged in the West India Docks,
than if-deposited in the London Docks ; if it were, therefore,
only for the sake of nreserving this part of the system, the
Dock Company ought to
which do not dischartheir crews.
ge •
As to the apprentices, it is stated by Mr. Marryat, that,
" instead of livin on board their own ships, under the care of
" their officers, they are lodged in different public-houses in
Wapping,"—if it be so, to the disgrace of the owners and

capiainsbe It said. No man, however, who knows the respect-
ability of the owners and captains in this trade will believe
such a libel as this. _ _

Thefact is, that they are all of them in one or other of these
three situations, either on board the Naval School ship, main•
tained by the West India Dock Company*, on bpard their own
ship in the Export Dock, or on visits to their friends.
The Committee on Foreign Trade, although they express a
doubt " whether the discharge of a ship is performed with
greater promptitude and facility by hired labourers, under
" the inspection of the officers' of the Dock Company, or.by
" the seamen under the inspection of their own officers," have
nevertheless guarded themselves against being considered as
recommending such dangerous innovations as Mr. Marryatt's
benevolent but mistaken feelings have suggested : they report
as follows

.-..-..- .
" Your Committee, in recommending the adoption of an
" open system of competition in preference to one founded on
" exclusiye privileges, cannot omit a reference to the tti-
" monies, borne by Gentlemen deeply interested in the
" question (Mr.' Pannier and Mr. Turner), to the advantages
" of the West India Docks, which accord with the strong feel-
" ing expressed by, the Dock Directors, and are desirous not to
" he und.erstood as intending to convey any objection to the
" continuance of as much of the regulations, to which such im.
" portance is attached, as, in the discretion of the West India
" Dock Directors, may be found compatible with tho interests
" of the Company, and useful to the particular branch of trade
" they are desirous of receiving."
• The charge being seven shillings only, per week, for each
apprentice, including board, lodging„ and education, as an in-
ducement to their masters to send them.

(To be continued. )

°,„' For DONCASTER RACES,- see the Fourth Page.

PRICE OF STOCKS
THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Bank Stock shut India Stock
3 per Cent. Red. shut India Bonds 6Bs.
3 per Cent. C0n5............ 83 South Sea Stock
3h per Cent. shut Old Annuities
4 pFr Cent. Old shut Ex. Bills 34 46 pr.
1 New lO2ll Ditto Small
5 per Cents. 1797 Bank for Act.
Bank Long Ann. shut I India for Con. Acct.
Imp. 3 per cents. I Cons. for Acc. 883},}

PRICE or FOREIGN STOCKS x LONDON, SEPT. 17,
AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Five per Cents. 00.
1 Scrip, 24 pr.
Six per Cents. 00.
Russian Five per Cents. (Metallic) 00.
Ditto New 834.
Five per Cent. Bonds, 00.
Five per Cents. (Metallic) 00.
Five per Cent. Bonds, 1820, 00.
Spanish Ditto 11121, 351.
Ditto 1822, xi.
Five per Cent. Bonds, 88g.
1 Ditto New, 881.
Five per Cent. Bonds, 00.

French

Neapolit afi
Austrian

Prussian
Danish
Chili
Colombian
Peruvian

00.
Six per Cent. Bonds, 58i.

New Loan, 00.
Bank Shares £2l 15s.
Seven per Cent. 00.
American Six per Cent. 93i-1011
Five per Cent. 98-100.
Three per Cent. 70.

liloll WATER A'
Morning, 27 minut4

,T LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW.
,es after 0. ( Evening, 49 minutes after 0.

THE SUN.

SODEN QUIS DICERE FALSUM AUDE4T

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1823.