gation, naturally led to a continuance of the commanders who had once served with approbation; hence was soon established a principle of preference-preference not of a set of commanders only, but of the ships they commanded, and in process of time of a particular set of owners, with whom bottoms in ships became at length perpetuated, without any previous stipulation for the rate of freight at which they were to be employed. Thus an opulent, highly respectable, but, as regarded the East-India Company, a very powerful body was created, under the denomination of the India shipping interest.

A by-law was established in July 1773, by which ships were not to be engaged for a service of more than four voyages at a certain rate of freight, which was calculated on an estimate, or rough abstract, of the building and expense of fitting out a vessel with provisions and stores for a certain number of months.

In 1780 and 1781, differences of opinion arose between the owners and the Court of Directors as to the rate of freight demanded; the former claiming a considerable increase in consequence of hostilities with the Dutch, by which the rates of insurance, as well as expense of outfit, were stated by them to have occasioned an additional charge of £10. 148. per ton. The Committee of Shipping intimated to the owners that the distress of the Company for tonnage was such, that the Court must be forced to submit to any terms the owners should think fit to insist upon, however disadvantageous to the Company, as there was no other channel through which the Company could get a supply of shipping.

In August 1783, the Court came to a resolution, fixing the rate of freight (which they deemed to be fair and equitable towards the owners), at £32 per ton for a ship of 750 tons. The owners declined to agree to a less rate than £35; upon which the Court resolved to advertise for tenders, and an advertisement was issued accordingly: when twenty-eight ships were tendered. The report of the Company's inspecting-officer on the ships tendered was generally unfavourable, many of them being of a foreign build, others of a slight and weak structure, and some nearly worn-out. In the interim the old

owners

owners had tendered their ships at £33 per ton. The amount of tonnage required was 10,000 tons. That quantity, if taken from the old owner at £33 per ton, amounted to £330,000; the same quantity of the new ships to £311,586. As the difference was only £18,414 the Court determined, with reference to the strength and abilities of the regular ships, which had been built under the direction of the Company's officers, and to the safety with which valuable cargoes might be laden on them, to reject the new tender, and to agree with the owners of the regular ships. At the same time it was resolved, that the Committee of Shipping should prepare an estimate of the expense of building, outfit, and other charges of an East-India ship, fit for sea, to be laid before the Court the 1st of May in each year.

In October 1784, the number of ships abroad and at home in the Company's service was sixty-six; the Court resolved that not less than seventy was necessary: leave was accordingly given for six ships to be built forthwith. The conditions were, that the keel should be laid within six months after leave had been obtained to build the ships, which were to be ready to be launched within twelve months from the date of the keel being laid.

In order to ascertain whether any mode could be adopted for altering the construction of the Company's ships so as to make their freight to India and China cheaper, it was proposed that leave should be given for three ships being built of 1,000 to 1,200 tons, always to be stationed for China, but nothing was finally determined.

In November 1785, it was deemed expedient to have three sets of shipping, at about thirty ships each set; leave was accordingly given for building eight new ships.

In December 1785, a tender was made by Mr. Anthony Brough to build eighty ships for the Company's service at a freight to China of £22 per ton; to Madras and China £23, and to all other parts, £24 for the first and second voyage, and for the third and fourth, £20, £21, and £22; by which he calculated a saving in freight would be effected of £150,000 per annum.

Mr. Brough having been furnished with every information as to the size and dimensions of the vessels which the

Company

Company required, attended the Court on the 8th February 1786, and having withdrawn, it was unanimously resolved, that it appeared from the conversation with Mr. Brough, that he could not furnish ships agreeably to the dimensions transmitted to him.

The Court having advertised for ships in the month of January, the old owners addressed the Court under a persuasion that the advertisement was immediately directed against their interests, repelling the assertions which had gone forth as to the exorbitant freights which they had exacted, setting forth the claim which they had upon the Company for the engagement of their ships, and the immense property embarked in the shipping built expressly for the Company's service. They were informed in reply, that the Court had ever been attentive to their interests, and trusted, upon reflection, that the owners would send in their tenders, otherwise the Court would feel themselves under the necessity of proceeding upon such tenders as might be offered.

The owners accordingly tendered their ships at the same rate as the preceding season, £26 to China direct, Coast and China £27, Bombay £28, Coast and Bay £29.

On the 16th March, the Court resolved to offer the old owners to take up their ships already built at £23 per ton, including kintledge, and for those building or to be built £22 per ton.

Tenders to build, as well as to let ships on freight to the Company from various parties, were accepted by the Court, the former at £22 to China, £23 to Coast and China, and £24 to other parts of India for the first and second voyages, and at £2 per ton less for the third and fourth voyages: the party to have no claim to build in case of loss, or after the ship should have performed her fourth voyage.

Conferences were held with the old owners, but they did not lead to any satisfactory termination.

On the 25th May, the House of Commons called for an account of the freights paid by the Company for the preceding two years. On the 30th May, Robert Preston, Esq., the chairman of the Committee of Managing Owners, waited on the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman, and intimated the readiness

of

of the managing owners to accept of £24 per ton to China, which was the lowest that could be taken.

On the same day tenders were made and accepted to build ships of seven hundred and fifty tons, at £22 per ton to China. The Court of Directors, on the 31st, rejected the offer of the managing owners to let their ships at £24 per ton: a member of the Court dissented from such resolution, being of opinion that the owners had an equitable claim that their ships should be engaged at that rate. On the 9th of June, a letter was read from a gentleman, whose tender to build a ship for the Company of a thousand tons, at £22 per ton for the first two voyages and at £20 for the third and fourth, had been accepted by the Court, representing that the builders with whom he had contracted having pledged themselves jointly with several others who had been in the habit of building EastIndiamen, not to build a ship for any person who should engage to let ships at a reduced freight, he should be unable to fulfil his contract. The Court immediately ordered the opinion of counsel to be taken as to the measures proper to be adopted.

Counsel was of opinion that a combination between the ships'husbands and the ship-builders was highly reprehensible, and might turn out to be criminal in such a degree as to subject them to an information; and suggested that evidence should be obtained, to lay before the Court of King's Bench.

A requisition having been sent in from nine proprietors, calling a General Court on the subject of the Company's shipping, the same was held on the 22d June: when a motion was made, recommending to the Court of Directors to reconsider their resolutions, rejecting the offer by the managing owners to accept £24 per ton; on which a ballot was demanded by ten members of the Court of Directors. The ballot took place on the 28th June 1786: the number of votes for the question was 362, and 94 against it. The Court of Directors, in consequence of such determination, resolved on the 5th July to offer for freights to China direct £24; to St. Helena and China, Bencoolen and China, and Coast and China £25; Bombay £26; Coast and Bay £27; which freights were agreed to.

The

The size of the ships hitherto built for the Company's service was from 750 to 800 tons. In 1789 it was resolved by the Court that leave be given to build five ships from 1,100 to 1,200 tons. Mr. Nathaniel Smith, the chairman of the Court, dissented from that determination, on the ground that security and cheapness were best attained by adhering to the old scale.

It has already been remarked, that the by-law of 1773 restricted the employment of ships for more than four voyages. In May 1790, the Court resolved that from past experience ships would run three voyages without stripping off their sheathing; and if the practice should become general, ships which make the outfit of the fourth voyage the repairing voyage, might with great safety perform six voyages. The by-law was accordingly suspended, and agreements were entered into with the owners for their ships performing six instead of four voyages.

A gentleman who had tendered to build a ship for the Company, considering himself aggrieved by the Court not having accepted his offer, moved, at a general court in March 1791, that copies of all proposals for building or letting ships for hire to the Company, from 1st January 1780, be laid before the Proprietors, which motion was agreed to on the 31st of that month.

On the 21st March 1792, further papers were ordered; and on the 9th May 1792, the General Court met to consider them, when it was moved, "that it is the opinion of this Court that by "the mode of conducting the shipping concerns of the Company higher prices than was necessary had been paid for "freight." A ballot was demanded, which took place on the 15th May, when the numbers were 353 for, and 561 against the motion.

66

On the day following, the General Court resolved that the commerce of the Company could not be properly conducted, and effectually protected under all circumstances, without a regular establishment of an efficient fleet of shipping under the inspection of surveyors.

In the early part of the year 1793, the negociation was opened for a renewal of the Company's exclusive privileges.

Although