The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-20 00:00:00

INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL.

Petitions were presented against this Bill from Hull, by
Mr. HUTT ; and from Liverpool, by Lord SANyoN.

Mr. POULETT THOMSON, in moving- that the
Speaker do leave the Chair, would offer a few observations
on the principle of the
:Bill. At present the Treasury
possessed the power of extending the warehousing system
upon the recommendation of the Commissioners of Cus-
toms, to all ports. A difficulty had arisen as to the mean-
ing of the word port, and to obviate this difficulty the pre-
sent measure had been brought forward, empowering the
Lords of the Treasury to extend the warehousing sj stem
to inland towns. The revenue would suffer no damage
by this alteration. France aed Germany had adopted
the system sought to be established by this Bill to the
fullest extent ; and it was, only in England the system of
permitting towns inland, as well as towns on the coast, to
enjoy the advantages of bonding had not been adopted.
—(Hear, hear.) He knew opposition to the Bill would
come from the ports, because they thought their exclusive
advantage would be somewhat diminished by this Bill, but
he hoped no such motive would be allowed to prevail in
that House. It was not the duty of the House to protect
the interests of one class against another, and they pos-
sessed no vested interests on which they could pretend to
sat up the claim that their fellow-subjects should be de.
prived of the advantage to which they were so justly c.iti.
tied. The system propoEgi by the Bill was this. Ile
did not mean to piopose that parties transferring goods
from a poet to an inlatei town should have the opportunity
of bonding their goods at an inland town subject to all
the allowances which were made in the watch, uses
at the ports, but he proposed that the weights
and measures should be taken at the port, and
that the duty should be paid on the weights and measures
as thus fixed when the eoods were taken out of the bond
at the inland towns. By that t ere would be no insecurity
to the revenue, and little or no increase of expense to the
Customs department, because the method of teissing good=,
under accounts thus rendered, would be so simple as to re-
quire the presence of but one or two officers, and those sub-
ordinate. He (Mr. P. Thomson) had heard there bad
' had been a considerable canvass made on the subject of
this Bill, and there had been a canvass going on for the•
town he bad the honour of representing, but be differed
from his constituents, because the shortness of the inArney
from Liverpool to Manchester, and the facility of communi-
cation between those towns was such that he did not believe
the Bill would be of great advantage to Manchester. But
he thought it would be of great advantage to other townm
that were more inland, such as Birmingham, Sheffiecd,
Leeds, Halifax, and ea on. He wished the Bill to be_
uset,d-
cussed on its own merits—he did not believe the.
_
would allow the interest of the ports toprevail ligalinc'et'otinhe.
Bill, and he hoped they would allow it to go
mittee.
b r oLti ogrhdt SfoArwNaprPaNt arengereatrtleiedr
isthseubject would be
more properly conveyed
cause the views he
byentertaminoevdingonotaht
Bill be referred
tptirsiosdutOifetehte hadn9t
Session, been
to a Select Committee. He hoped the House would take
ample time to consider before they itteda principle
which would tend to disturb the immense property
vested in warehouses in seaport towns. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had referred to foreign countries but in fo-
reign countries there was a system of security for the
transit of goods, which he hoped never to see introduced
into England—a system of passports and examination at
tne gates of fortified towns ; and notwithstanding what
had been stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman he (Lord
Sandon) thought the revenue would suffer materially if
this system were adopted. Another objection he had to
this 1111 was that it would have the effect of aggregating
large quantities of valuable goods in inland towns which
might be subject to insurrection. Many of his constituents.
eminent mercantile men, considered the measure futile and
useless, and if he were rightly informed the Revenue
Board were opposed to the Bill. He should therefore
move es an amendment that the Bill be committed that
day three mon:bs.

Sir W. JAMES seconded the amendment.
Mr. BROTHERTON said this measure would ein-
doubtedly be advantageous to Manchester and Salfordebut
it ought to be carried into effect without any risk or lokiI:b
the revenue. He conceived the request to be a reasottahle
one, and trusted the House would grant the privilege.
Sir F. TRENCH believed that the revenue would not
bo secure if the plan was carried into execution. Parties
ought not to be defrauded of the rights which they bad
possessed for so long a time. In the transmission of
goods from seaports to inland towns it was impossible •thet
the revenue should not be injured.
Mr. LASCELLES was in favour of the Bill, and
trusted that at some future time restrictions of this nature
would be still further removed,
Mr. F. H. BERKELEY said, that by the plan now
proposed, the interests of a great number of persons would
be sacrificed, to what, at the best, was only a doubtful
boon; and the House ought to be cautious how it pro-
ceeeed to legislate on this subject. It was said that this
was a monopoly, and ought to be put down. He was
opposed to all monopolies.—(Hear, hear.) But he con-
sidered there were many
subjects which ought to be con-
sidered before they ietsrfered with private property, by
which great injury would be inflicted on individuals.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN contended that the measure now
proposed would be very injurious to the seaports ; and he
also objected to the patronage which it would confer on
the Government by the appointment of officers.
Sir W. JAMES objected to the introduction of so im-
portant a measure at so late a period of the Session, when
the parties who were deeply interested, had not time
to make their representations to the Board of Trade.
The argument of the Noble Lord the Member
for Liverpool as to vested rights he conceived to be per-
fectly unanswerable. He was convinced that proper se-
curity would not be given to the revenue in the transit cf
goods, and for these reasons should oppose the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on bebalfof his con-
stituents, returned thanks to the lion. Member the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, for bringing in this Bill.
Edinburgh was considered a seaport, but it was excluded
from the benefits which seaports enjoyed, in consequence
of the river not running up to that city. Was it there-
fore to be debarred from the privileges which Leith en.
joyed ? All towns ought to be put on one footing, and
he trusted this was only a step towards giving free trade
to every part of the country.
Mr. HOPE said, although considerable weight at-
tached to the arguments used in favour of the mea-
ure, yet considering the large interests involved
and the great doubts expressed by those whose
opinions were entitled to the greatest weight, he thought
that at this late period of the Session the measure ought
not to be pressed forward with this undue haste, but an
opportunity ought to have been afforded of investigating
the subject before a Select Committee. He should sup-
port the amendment of the Noble Lord.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS supported the Bill. A great deal
had been said of vested interests, but be would just men-
tion one fact to show that no very great apprehensions
were entertained on this point. About three months ago
a discussion took place in the Town Council of Liverpool,
as to whether they should erect new warehouses. This
very circumstance must make it perfectly clear that they
were still short of warehouse accommodation, and that
if there was a transfer from Liverpool to the interior,
there was still business to fill the warehouses.
The duties paid at Liverpool amount to four millions an-
nually, and Manchester paid two millions of this sum an-
nually, and it was but right that the merchants and manu-
facturers should have controul over the produce in which
their capital was invested. Why should the merchants of
Manchester be compelled to bond in Liverpool, or those of
Yorkshire in Hull, and thus be subjected to additional
charges ? He thought this Bill was likely to benefit the
mercantile interests generally,
.and he should therefore
support it. The Noble Lord had stated that by having
property warehoused in inland towns, it would be liable to
be destroyed by any popular commotion ; he was sorry the
Noble Lord had such a bad opinion of the manufacturing
districts, but the present system did not altogether do
away with this danger, as the enormous destruction of pro-
perty which took place at Bristol during the riots there
would prove.
Lord SA NDON explained.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT thought this discussion
had been a valuable one, inasmuch as it tended to show
that the subject was much more extensive then had at first
been supposed. He thought they should proceed with
caution where so large an amount of property was in-
terested, and that this Bill had been brought forward at too
late a period of the Session. It ought to be referred to I
a Committee up stairs to ascertain the facts.
Mr. H urr said that every one who had considered the
subject, whatever opinion he might adopt, must agree that
this was a question which would place in jeopardy large
parcels of property, and that, therefore, it was a subject
which should be approached with caution and consideration.
He was sure his Right Hon. Friend, however much be
might feel convinced of the soundness of the principle, must
also feel that this was a subject not to be approached in
a spirit of carelessness or of indifference. He therefore
must say, that in the month of July, and with such Houses
as generally assembled at that period, the Bill was intro-
duced under circumstances that were not likely to ensure
for it the consideration which was due to it. He hoped his
Right Hon. Friend would withdraw his Bill for the pre. (
sent Session—( No, no)—and introduce it early next Sea.
sioa, so that it could be referred to a Committee up stairs,
who would have an opportunity of investigatinp, all the .
circumstances of the case. He was convinced that the
adoption of such a course by his Right Hon. Friend, would
be much fairer than pressing the Bill, awl one more likely
on reflection to give satisfaction to his upright and hon-
ourable mind.
Mr. WARBURTON said the necessity of legislating
at all in this matter, arose front the imposition of high
duties, and if they were lessened, the inland towns would
have their fair share of commerce, which was all this could
give them. He looked upon the fears of the merchants
and warehouse proprietors of the seaports as utterly chi-
merical ; and with regard to the argument of vested rights,
it was utterly futile, and might as well have been urged by
the shareholders of the London and West India Docks,
against the formation of the St. Katherine Docks. He
represented a seaport which possessed the privilege of
bonding, but be should be ashamed of himself, if that pre
vented his doing an act of justice, and supporting this Bill.
Mr. H. HINDE said that when so large an amount of
capital was invested, great caution was requisite before
interfering with it; and as yet they had no information as
to the bearings of the Bill, cr as to the mode of carrying
it into effect. He was exceedingly jealous of the discre-
tionary given to the Treasury, of bestowing this boon on
one town in preference to another, as he knew that every
successive Government had abused the power they at pre-
sent possessed, of granting to individuals the right to bond,
with great unfairness.
Mr. PRYME rose, amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide." He imagined the real question to Le, Would t
this measure benefit one class more than it would injure j
another? Not thinking that it would do so, and being of
opinibn that it would injure the revenue also, he should - I
oppose the Bill.
Mr. F. BARING said if the Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site would state any instance of abuse of the power of
granting individuals the right of warehousing, the Trea-
sury
weuld direct an investigation into the facts.
Mr. H. 11 INDE explained.
Mr. BAINES supper ed the motion for the Bill going
into Committee. The bonding system was ono from
which great advantage had beea.deiived, and the only
question was, whether it should be extended over.the whole I
country. He believed that extension would effect great
good, and he should therefore give it his support.
Mr. DARBY opposed the Bill going into a Com- i
mitten of the whole House, believing it would be much
better considered in a Select Committee.
Mr. HINDLEY supported the Bill.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL protested against the course
that had been pursued by the Government in pressing on
at the present period of the Session, a measure of such
vast importance. He considered is most unjust towards
thfise vhose interests were to be interfered with by the
Bill. He should oppose the further proceeding of the
Bill, because ho looked with great distrust upon any ;
measure brought in by the Government with respect to
the Customs at so late a period of the Session.
Mr. P. THOM SON defied the Hon. Baronet te point out a
single instance in %hide the Government of which be was
a Member had every displayed partiality on a question re- I
specting the Customs.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided. when the numbers were—
For the amendment 39
Ag:tinst it lO2
Msjority
Thhealiir.ouse thou melt into Cowi, tee, Mr BERNAL in
the c
Atter a few words from Mr. Hume and Mr. W. ATT-
WOOD, the Bill went through Committee, and was ordered
to be read a third time tomorrow (this day).
CATHEDRAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
PREFERMENTS.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the third reading of the
Cathedral and Ecclesiastical Preferments.BilLf h
iibc. dpeocrert,
ooeadvmesil
dignities
.fint,ovtilnrati oniseedaasuons
aeft
toathanner
doorsmeatsivadsei
aforesaid
being
:
such
.ea.nonitirioeris,udhPircbehybi
of
I‘'
1.1;
AndeAh Ghe
he
iiiiiira°edaNsgßci :Yes tn,m,sinitiiniadnlyoesvt, lessees . of
.proper belonging to
nma:iii%daLuaring, the continuance of this Act, have been and
may be deprived
Act., life or li
ve and omfigthhits
hAacvte.
boafdththee mmeeaannssooffobotbatianiinnigngthief :hue.
melon of aves on the renewal of their leases,
asepi
whichii
theyntrneras to such canonries, prebends, and dignities,
had not been or were not to be suspended by the said re-
cited Acts and by this Act ; and whereas it is reasonable
in such cases, during such suspension, to provide for the
continuance of such leases, and to place such lessees, as
nearly as is practicable, in the same situation as they
would be in it such appointments had not been or were
not to be suspended as aforesaid : Be it enacted, That the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England shall, upon the
application of the lessee of any messuages, lands, tithes,
or other hereditaments, being the separate property of or
belonging to any such vacant canon, prebend, or dignity,
if in the case of lease for lives one or more of the persons
for whose lives the same was held on the 4th day of Febru-
ary 1835, he dead, or if in the case of a lease for years the
i
or fperiod e shallhold ehraorfe s
ue
cl elapsed
canon,sd a w.hich prebend,it wooru I d
dignity,bee lief wtthue
same had not been vacant, to insert a life or livesrenewa.
re-
new such lease, to insert a life or lives or grant
tait
of
finest
of such lease in like manner, and en the
been
life
or lives, or OR
s
in each instance, on the insertion of ama
be.
tsoambee
teearlnclus' aatnedd
conditions,
ieo
nssa,mshave principle and ph:rs
eurntbocjfeoerte t o
usedt e
the renewal of such leases, as thhe,
such en
:irseest
snetehsyi
any
yc t
greatercontained
r
would have had, or would
eh allPlereovciodnesdt ruale'd
had not been, or were not to
have, if such apeoinancr!!..„
other powers or rights
be, suspended as aforesaid
cleave
RUSSELLhaving
fore
t been
he tiw brought
uotutaled nt
ta up,
objesomect to the Blau e,
statue that there was a general opinion when the mca.
at
always,
s 'g
vh
eah
sna ttothne° •
sure was . •
such clause was
I required. His own opinion, however, was azienst it, as
Tlohred
J.

Zlj-=

.~ •~► y~
.~',;;~C''' j~

~.~5..
~~

kt4"\_
• •