Boatswain’s, Gunner’s, and Carpenter’s stores, as usual, that are not particularly before mentioned, seeing them to be such.
[APPENDIX No. 14, Vol. ii. p. 483.]
A List of the Large Ships belonging to the East India Company’s Service in 1831, and how disposed of, with the prices realised for them.
| Sum. | Ships’ Names. | By whom purchased. | Date. |
|---|---|---|---|
| £8,000 | Abercrombie Robinson | Messrs. Palmer, McKilloh and Co. | Oct. 9, 1834. |
| 6,500 | Asia | Thomas Heath, Esq. | Sept. 20, 1831. |
| 4,100 | Atlas, broke up | Charles Carter, Esq. | May 20, 1831. |
| .. | Berwickshire, at sea | .. | .. |
| .. | Bombay, at sea | .. | .. |
| 10,550 | Buckinghamshire | Messrs. Thacker and Mangles | June 25, 1834. |
| 5,750 | Canning, broke up | Joseph Somes, Esq. | May 7, 1834. |
| 10,000 | Castle Huntly | Bought in by Owners | Decr. 11, 1834. |
| 8,500 | Charles Grant | Messrs. Hyde and Lennox | Feby. 15, 1834. |
| .. | Duchess of Athol | .. | .. |
| .. | Duchess of Sussex | .. | .. |
| .. | Dunira, to be broken up. | .. | .. |
| 10,700 | Earl of Balcarras | Thomas A. Shuter, Esq. | Sept. 17, 1834. |
| 7,500 | Edinburgh | James Gardner, Esq. | July 2, 1834. |
| 6,000 | Farquharson, laid up. | Joseph Somes, Esq. | May 23, 1834. |
| 6,600 | George the Fourth, outward bound | John Nicholson, Esq. | May 28, 1834. |
| 6,600 | General Harris, broke up | Joseph Christall, Esq. | Oct. 29, 1831. |
| 6,250 | General Hewett | William Tindall, Esq. | Sept. 22, 1830. |
| 9,100 | General Kyd | John Pirie, Esq. | Oct. 8, 1834. |
| .. | Herefordshire | .. | .. |
| 9,150 8,000 | Inglis | Bought in by Owners Bought in by Capt. J. C. Lochner. | Oct. 30, 1834. Nov. 15, 1834. |
| 5,900 | Kellie Castle | Capt. R. Pattallo | Nov. 1834. |
| 10,000 | Lady Melville | John Campbell, Esq. | Aug. 1832. |
| 8,650 5,300 | Lowther Castle, to be broken up | Joseph Somes, Esq. | Sept. 24, 1830. June 18, 1834. |
| 5,900 | London, broke up | Thomas Ward, Esq. | May 7, 1834. |
| 7,500 | Lord Lowther | Capt. A. Grant | July 16, 1834. |
| .. | Marquis of Camden, at sea | .. | .. |
| .. | Marquis of Huntly, to be broken up | .. | .. |
| 7,000 | Marquis of Wellington | Don Pedro | Sept. 11, 1832. |
| 9,400 2,400 | Minerva, for Captain’s stores at sea | Henry Templer, Esq. | Aug. 20, 1831. |
| 6,600 | Orwell, at sea | Messrs. Isacke and Co. | Jany. 21, 1834. |
| 6,500 | Prince Regent, at sea | Messrs. Wigrams and Green | Sept. 28, 1830. |
| 3,000 | Princess Charlotte of Wales, broke up | J. Childers, Esq. | April 20, 1831. |
| .. | Reliance | .. | .. |
| 4,500 | Rose | Bought in by Owners | Oct. 16, 1834. |
| 6,900 | Scaleby Castle. | Henry Templer, Esq. | Aug. 6, 1834. |
| 13,500 | Scaleby Castle. | Bought by Jas. Walkingshaw, Esq., with stores, and ready for sea | Oct. 11, 1834. |
| .. | Sir David Scott | .. | .. |
| 10,700 | Thames | John R. Pidding, Esq. | Aug. 1832. |
| 3,550 | Thames, 40/64th of ship | James Christall, Esq. | Sept. 10, 1834. |
| .. | Thomas Coutts, outward bound | .. | .. |
| .. | Vansittart | .. | .. |
| 6,650 | Thomas Grenville, laid up | Messrs. Ward and Somes | July 2, 1834. |
| .. | Warren Hastings | .. | .. |
| .. | Waterloo, materials sold, and began breaking up,fetched about £7,200. | At Public Sale | June 11, 1834. |
| .. | William Fairlie | .. | .. |
| .. | Winchelsea, broke up | .. | 1833. |
| 7,950 | Windsor | William Dallas, Esq. | Nov. 13, 1834. |
[APPENDIX No. 15. Vol. ii. p. 84.]
Memorial Letter from Captain George Probyn, Chairman of the Committee of Commanders and Officers of the Maritime Service, dated 30th July, 1834.
To the Honorable the Court of Directors of the East India Company. The Memorial of the Commanders and Officers of the Maritime Service of the Company
Sheweth:
That the Maritime Service of the East India Company has existed for a period of upwards of two hundred years; that the ships and seamen employed by the said Company have been, in a great degree, instrumental in acquiring and securing the now vast territory of British India, and in advancing its commercial success to that degree which it so long maintained. That your Memorialists entered into that service in the confident expectation that it was a provision for their lives, and they were justified in such expectation by the fact that the Company’s trading Charter was perpetual, and that the continuance of their trade must have rendered a Maritime Service necessary. That by the measure of last session of Parliament, the trade of the Company being suddenly stopped, your Memorialists are altogether deprived of their profession, and those prospects on which they relied for their advancement in life, in entering the service of your Honorable Company, are destroyed.
Under such circumstances, your Memorialists, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the service, most respectfully urge their claim on your Honorable Court for that compensation which, by the Act referred to, the Company is authorized to grant to persons employed “by or under the Company, who have suffered loss by the discontinuance of their trade.” Your Memorialists trust that it is not necessary for them now to urge the validity of their claim as persons employed by or under your Honorable Company. The words in question were introduced into the Act expressly to meet the claims of your Memorialists, which were recognised by Parliament as within the scope and object of the Legislature; and if it were doubtful whether your Memorialists were employed “by,” there could be no doubt that they were employed “under” your Honorable Company. The Maritime Service, however, has been so frequently recognised by the Company as a branch of its establishment, that no substantial doubt can exist that your Memorialists were in the direct service of the Company. It is true that, by the arrangements of the Company, the Commanders and Officers were allowed to be recommended by the Ship-Owners, but they were recommended to the service of the Company. They were examined and approved by your Honorable Court, and sworn into the service of the Company; they were paid by the Company, and subject to fine, suspension, and dismissal by the Company, and not by the Owners; they wore the uniform of the Company, enjoyed rank and command under the Company, and became eligible to offices of high honour and emolument. The officers of the Maritime Service took precedence of the officers of the Company’s Bombay Marine; the Commanders ranked with Field Officers in India, and were eligible to the office of Master-Attendant and other offices of profit in India.