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 shipbuilders 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. و 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 shipbuilders 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: ( 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 mate rials 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. "Their own ships ?""Any ships, if they can get them." Committee." They are great ship-owners, are they not?"-" The house of Borradaile is." Committee. "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. “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 pa ragraph, 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 assumed that at Great Britain does not produce a sufficient quantity of oak timber for the construction of shipping, and the various other purposes about which it is employed. This is a mischievous and a dangerous clamour-the zeal of argumentation is even carried so far as to assert, that individuals, in attempting to aid the public cause by planting oak, are acting foolishly, sacrificing the produce of their land, and seriously injuring their families. The assertions are as void of truth as the arguments are of judgment and sense. THE SCARCITY OF OAK TIMBER NEVER HAS EXISTED BUT IN SUPPOSITION.-A reference to the accounts of the Navy Board and the Board of Ordnance, and to the testimony of their officers, and to some of the persons employed by the commissioners of the woods and forests, would shew that there neither is, nor is there reason to apprehend, a scarcity of oak timber, in Great Britain.** The malicious ingenuity with which this agent of the builders has contrived to distort and pervert our plain statement of an alarming diminution of oak timber, into a mischievous and dangerous clamour,' is an instance of misrepresentation not unworthy of the. lowest of the profession to which we have suspected him to belong. We did say, and we said it on authority that is not to be controverted, that the time is fast approaching when we must have recourse to other resources than our own for a supply of ship timber. We did say, and we repeat it, that a scarcity of large oak timber already exists, and has for some time existed; and we thought that it required no other argument to establish this fact, than the necessity of the recourse which was had to those ingenious expedients that have been employed in the king's dockyard for some years past, and which are now employed in the private yards, to obviate the serious inconveniences that would otherwise have been felt, from the utter impossibility of procuring timber of certain forms and dimensions, which was once considered as indispensable in the construction of ships of the line. If our assertions are void of truth,' the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the state of oak timber throughout the kingdom in 1771 is also void of truth. If our arguments are void of judgment and sense,' then the Report of the Commissioners, appointed to inquire into the state and condition of the woods, forests, and land revenues of the crown, made to parliament in 1792, is also not only void of judgment and sense, but founded in falsehood. If our assertions are 'void of truth,' the late Mr. John Fordyce, and the present Lord this officious agent of theenbervie and his colleagues, have taken uncommon pains to raise, according to the notion of ship-builders, a mischievous and a dangerous clamour.' The Report of the Commissioners for Remarks on the Calumnies, &c. p. 22. revising the civil affairs of the navy was, unnecessarily, as we think, withheld from publication, lest the concurring testimony of a body of evidence, given by a most numerous, respectable and well informed class of men, should create alarm in the public mind, at a time when an immediate remedy was not quite obvious. Yet even then the late Lord Melville (who deserves even higher praise than the ship-builders bestow) was not aware that any good could result from concealment'-he thought, as we do, that the knowledge of danger is the strongest incitement to the public to concur in the measures of government for warding it off. It is however understood, that this Report confirmed the well grounded apprehensions expressed in the former ones, and we believe that it most strongly recommends the replantation of certain crown lands for the future use of the navy. We endeavoured to account for the diminution of oak timber, as we thought, on the plain straight-forward principles of common sense; by the increasing consumption in the naval, ordnance, and barrack departments; in the mercantile marine; for machinery, and for various internal and domestic purposes; in all of which, during the last twenty years, the consumption had at least been doubled; as well as from the rapidly increasing population and prosperity of the country which required more food to be produced, and which of necessity raised the value of land nearly double within the same period: but these arguments it seems are delusive' and used only to produce despondency,' and are void of judgment and sense;' and all this is clearly and satisfactorily proved by one short sentence printed in Roman letters. But a reference to the accounts of the Navy Board and the Board of Ordnance, and to the testimony of their officers, and to some of the persons employed by the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests, would shew that there neither is, nor is there reason to apprehend, a scarcity of oak timber in Great Britain.' We deny that the accounts of the Navy Board, or the Board of Ordnance, will shew any thing of the kind; but they will shew that, owing to the increased demand, and a failure in the supply, the price of oak timber has been trebled within the last twenty years. The accounts of the Navy Board will also shew that, of the stock of timber in the king's dock yards five parts out of seven are of a description fit only for building frigates and smaller vessels; and if this agent had found it convenient for his purpose to make a 'reference to the testimony of their officers,' by causing them to be examined before the committee, which he did not do, he would have been told, what we have already stated, that the supply of large and crooked timber had long ago ceased; and that a single line-of-battle ship could not now be built after |