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

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 West
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, how is that 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 amount 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, housing, anti shipping of goods, in the year 1790 ; and
the wharfage is 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 .shewn, 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 therefore are continued at the rates fixed in 1790
and in MOO (and Mr. Chapman says it is only " on some par-
" neuter articles that the Directors have lowered their charges,"
they must be, AT THE VBIIY LEAST,II3 much higher- than the)
West India Dock rates as the latter are shown in 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 monopoly, and how mischievous that of the West India
ock ComP
Mr. Ilibb
ttnY has been.
en, when asked, " Were those rates, comparing
the degree of labour that was pertbrmed, higher or lower than
the general rates of the port of London at that time ?"—answers,
" they were in some respects equal, in some,resnects lower, but
in no respect, as far as my knowledge goes, pig ter.
Mr. Drinkald speaks to the same point ; having been con-
sulted by Mr. Milligan in fixing 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 average.
The
Proof diet this was the case, as respects the tonnage
rate, is to be found in the aendix of a report given in by Mr.
Hibbert, with these 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 concurrence 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 701. 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 with 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,•;g4 4 4tOS4 R ggiP.t:/Pg9. P;5
s• ZI
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 ..ty .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; 1111
nn n n
;.13; g;. 22`64-13_4=1=1=gosooaq r cr4 tpct 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.
$3.
rts oci eTS href 'll.O 'LI 'CI RS TVS TIVIC 4:1 •C$ 47PV
;I .1 A ti• g
`f44`;‘'.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:

pp, Cr.t 44 44 CO C sik. dr. Nr. t•-,*

.t ..

• g-
g
•-•