Dr. Bancroft has investigated the whole subject of black dyes and inks with great attention, and has made many elaborate experiments respecting them. Some of these experiments have indeed been productive of no immediate practical improvement; but in these, and in other similar instances, he describes his failures with a degree of candour which does him no less honour than his success ou more fortunate occasions. We sincerely wish that he may be enabled long to continue his favourite pursuits, and that the public may hereafter profit by the additions' contingent on the prolongation of a life, of which the sixty-ninth year is now passing away.' In vol. ii, p. 325, l. 16, by the oxide,' we suppose is meant the oxide of tin; and p. 361, 1. 10, by a little,' probably a little lime.

ART. XV. 1. Remarks on the Calumnies published in the Quarterly Review, on the English Ship-builders. 1814.

2. Substance of the Speech of William Harrison, Esq. before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on East Indiabuilt Shipping. 1814.

3. Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee, to whom the several Petitions of the Ship-builders and others interested in the Building and Equipment of Ships, built in the East Indies, were referred, &c. Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be printed. 1814.

4. The Substance of the Speech of John Adolphus, Esq. on summing up the Case of the English Ship-builders. &c. 1814.

IT

T was not to be expected that words, which are but the imperfect representatives of things, should be exempt from that universal law of change which operates on the things themselves. Among others, the word 'calumny,' which, if Dr. Johnson's authority be worth any thing, was once used to signify false charge--groundless accusationis now very frequently employed to express an ́ unpleasant truth,' and sometimes the opposite of its original meaning. In the instance before us, we shall have no difficulty in shewing that for the calumnies of the Quarterly Review,' we might, without the least violation of truth, substitute 'true charges,' or 'well-founded accusations.' We did not, however, prefer charges or accusations, either true or false, against the English shipbuilders; though in the course of our examination of certain important papers on the state of oak timber, of the navy, and of recent improvements in naval architecture, we had occasion to animadvert on some part of the conduct of the Thames ship-builders; and this is a distinction which we beg may be kept in view. Our

remarks indeed were equally applicable to modern built ships of war in the King's yards; nay, the very first ship that caught our attention was the new first-rate, the Royal Charlotte, and we blended in the same censure the Ocean and Foudroyant with the Albion and the Ajax. But these gentlemen, or their indiscreet advocates, were so very tender of their own handicraft, that they instantly levelled their whole artillery against us through the medium of the daily prints. They, therefore, and not we, were the aggressors. We have little disposition for controversy, and still less desire to speak of our own labours: and however unpleasant so serious a charge as that of calumny may be to those who wish to stand well with the public, we should probably have submitted in silence to be "pestered with a popinjay; and this the more readily, when we found that the champion of the Thames builders had brought to the task of writing 'Remarks' on our calumnies' no one qualification beyond that of dauntless assurance, and a fearless contempt of truth.

We now find ourselves, however, literally put upon our trial; we are attacked unmercifully by a host of lawyers and attorneys, purveyors, ship-builders, timber-merchants, underwriters, ropemakers, twine-spinners, and the whole click connected with the shipping interest of the Thames; some of whom are our accusers, and others are brought forward to give evidence against us before a Select Committee of the House of Commons; the object of all is that of refuting our original opinions and falsifying our facts. Nothing therefore remains for us but 'to play the part of advocates' in our own cause, which, according to the writer of the Remarks,' is one of our grievous offences. Before we proceed to justify, it may not be out of place to say a few words on the general character of the articles we propose to examine.

The author of the Remarks on the Calumnies of the Quarterly Review' has indulged in all the latitude which this sweeping title may be supposed to give him-some of his remarks having nothing to do with the question, others being very remotely connected with it: he does not attempt to argue; but he declaims and asserts, and moralises and whimpers; he is sometimes scurrilous, and sometimes ventures to impute motives to us which could exist only in his own mind. The blunders and misrepresentations that occur in every page afford the best evidence of the utter incapacity of the writer for subjects of this kind; and if we should venture to designate him, from his works, we should say he is one of those inferior instruments of the law, who, in our times, have succeeded in persuading mankind, that the most ordinary concerns of life require their helping hand, and who thus contrive to put their paw into every man's mess.'

The opening speech of the learned counsel, William Harrison,

Esq.,

Esq., is just such a speech as might be expected from the materials of his brief, which appear in substance to consist of those contained in the pamphlet; and if his case has not been made out by the evidence, he is at least entitled to the benefit of the Israelites' plea when in Egypt, that he was required to make bricks without straw.' But, we understand, he had another difficulty to struggle against—having given his assistance to draw up the bill which he was now employed to assist in throwing out, he had not only to get rid of all the ideas which he had imbibed against the ship-builders, but to endeavour to turn them to their account. He not only goes over to the enemy, but carries his artillery with him. He seems, however, to have surrendered, in the outset, the most material point for which the builders were contending the illegality in admitting India-built ships to a registry in England; and he now demands an alteration in the navigation laws legally to exclude them; he would finally close the door of justice, which before was partially open, against sixty millions of our fellow-subjects in India, to enrich some sixty individuals on the banks of the Thames. If it were a mere question of competition between the ship-builders of the Thames and the ship-builders in India, as he is disposed to consider it, we should scarcely deem it a subject worthy of discussion; but it embraces higher objects. The bill about to be introduced is connected with the preservation of our navy and our native forests of oak, the safety and extension of commerce, and the improvement of a considerable portion of mankind, in which their own comfort and happiness, and the honour and advantage of the British character and interests are deeply involved. But these objects, it would seem, were beneath the consideration, perhaps we should say, the comprehension, of the writer of the Remarks,' and consequently made but a miserable figure in the learned counsel's speech. These gentlemen or their employers seem, indeed, to think India unworthy to be treated either as a British colony or a foreign nation; they regard with a sort of horror its progress in arts and manufactures; and repine at the bounties which nature has so liberally bestowed on that vast and populous country.

The minutes of the evidence are so loose, rambling and unconnected, and so voluminous withal, (that part of them only, taken in behalf of the ship-builders, and the only part on which we shall rest our case, occupying, with the returns and accounts, no less than 448 folio pages,) that to remark upon the various contradictory statements and jarring opinions of the witnesses examined, would be an endless and an useless labour. The cause of the ship-builders would not have suffered had their indiscreet agent kept back many that were incompetent to give correct information, and more that were materially interested in the fate of the bill.

The

The committee too might have spared itself the time and trouble of inquiring from a block-maker the number of ships that clear out from the Custom-house, and examining an underwriter at Lloyd's in naval architecture. From such evidence, a good case could not easily be made out for the Thames ship-builders; a weaker than that attempted in the summing up of John Adolphus, Esq. we never remember to have met with. This gentleman, however, in his attacks upon us, appears to be well skilled in the art of supplying what may be wanting in argument or evidence, by unfounded assertions, and by insinuations to which we disdain to reply, but which we repel with the contempt they deserve. We are not hired to make the worse appear the better reason.' While we disclaim

most distinctly all intention to calumniate the ship-builders of the Thames, with none of whom have we the least acquaintance directly or indirectly, from London-bridge to the Nore; while we admit them to be an useful and respectable body of men, so long as they confine themselves within their proper sphere, we claim the benefit of that free discussion of great national questions, which even Mr., Adolphus is sure this particular case merits. To give, however, an idea of this gentleman's fairness in his attack upon us for what he too is pleased to consider as a 'calumny,' we shall select a specimen from page 3 of his printed speech. After quoting our observations on the change that has taken place with regard to some of the present builders not being brought up to the trade nor residing upon the premises, but leaving the superintendance to others, he thus proceeds:

66

Now, Sir, on this subject I have thought it necessary to interrogate every witness competent to give an opinion, and I have asked, were Messrs. Wigrams and their house regularly bred to the business?”—“ Did they serve an apprenticeship?"—“Yes.” "Do they reside on the premises and superintend the works going on in their own yard?"—"Yes."

"Are they duly and properly employed, and is their stock of materials a proper one to be had?"" Yes, certainly," has been the answer to all the questions. So I have asked of all the other yards, and what have the answers been?-uniformly the same.'

Now, without stopping to inquire whether Sir Robert Wigram is a builder and served his apprenticeship to a builder, let us hear what Mr. Samuel Jordan, late clerk and superintendent to Messrs. Dudmans, has to say. This gentleman informed Mr. Adolphus that they (Dudmans) had assigned their interest in the yard to Messrs. Borradaile, Ritchie and Co.

• Committee. "Are Messrs. Borradaile and Co. ship-builders ?"— "No, they are not."

Committee. "For what purpose have they taken the yard?”—“ For the purpose of repairing ships.'

Committee.

Committee.
Committee.

66

"Their own ships?"-" Any ships, if they can get them." They are great ship-owners, are they not?"" The house of Borradaile is."

Committee."6 They own a great many East India Company's ships?" "They do; the management of the yard is under the superintendence of a master shipwright."

Committee. 66

not."*

They do not superintend it themselves?"-"They do

But we shall see more of Mr. Adolphus as we proceed, entertaining very little fear of being able, from the large mass of desultory matter now before us, to overturn his arguments, to corroborate our original opinions, and to confirm our facts. The two learned gentlemen, having printed their speeches, are fairly before the public, and they will not be surprized at our using the same freedom with them that they have exercised towards us.

The most material points that the advocates for the Thames ship-builders have endeavoured to establish may be comprehended under the following heads:

1. That there neither has been, is, or is likely to be, any scarcity of large oak timber, the growth and produce of Great Britain.

2. That ships of war built in private yards are equal, if not superior, both in materials and workmanship, to those built in the king's yards; and that the establishments of the private builders on the banks of the Thames, are absolutely necessary for the assistance and support of the king's dock-yards.

3. That Thames-built merchant ships are at least equal to Indiabuilt ships, and superior to those built at the out-ports of the kingdom.

4. That the introduction of India-built ships into the Company's service, and the general commerce of the country, interferes so materially with the Thames builders as to occasion the ruin of their establishments, involve thousands of shipwrights and other artificers in poverty, promote emigration, and finally effect that most serious of all evils, the colonization of India.

Our present object will be to shew, from the writings and speeches of their own advocates, and their own evidence, without waiting for what the India ship-owners may have to bring forward, that they have made out no case, but have completely failed in every point.

1. With regard to a scarcity of oak timber, that important question is dispatched by the writer of the Remarks,' in a single paragraph, which we shall transcribe as a specimen of the facility and logical precision with which he arrives at his conclusions, and refutes our statements.

'To give foundation to the claims of the Indian ship-builders it is

* Minutes of Evidence, p. 431.

assumed