The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-25 00:00:00

ON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 2i, 1851.

eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Graham,, Coleman-
street.

E. Benassit, Lime-street, City, wine merchant, sed.,
on Thursday, June 26, and three following Thursdays,
between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Graham,
Coleman-street.
S. Brtyly, Folkestone, grocer and cheesemonger, lid.,
on Thursday, June 26, and three following Thursdays,
between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Graham,
Coleman-street.
C. A. Harris, Bushey, Herefordshire, and Great
Grimsby, Lincolnshire, flax spinner, 3d., on Thursday,
June 20, and three following Thursdays, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Graham, Coleman-street.
Elizabeth Mc Knott and J. Glass, Belvidere-road, and
Blackfriars-road, coal merchants, 2s. id., on Thursday,
June 26, and three following Thursdays, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Graham, Coleman-street.
NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
G. Wheeler, Richmond, Surrey, grocer and cheese-
monger, July 16, at eleven—R. Gudgin, Cople, Bed-
fordshire, licensed victualler, July 17, at eleven—J.
Marshall, Southampton, coal merchant, July 18, at half-
past one—W. L. Martin, Gravesend, Kent, ironmonger,
July 18 at two—J. Moores, jun., Aylesbury, Bucking-
hamshire, draper, July 18, at two.
In the Country.
II D. Stevenson, Bishop Wearmouth, merchant, July
16, at one, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—J.
Mitchell, Monkwearmouth Shore, Durham, shipowner,
July 16, at half-pastlen, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne—W. Andrews, Liverpool, agent, July 15, at eleven,
at the Court, Liverpool--T. H. Butler, Lichfield.
ironmonger, July 17, at twelve, at the Court, Bar
mingham.

might mention that Major Bygrave, who had been ap•
pointed to examine those accounts, had reported that
there was a balance in favour of Jotee Pershaud.
Lord BROUGHAM—How much?
Lord BROUGHTON did not know the exact amount.
Major Lawrence, who signed the minutes of the Council
of the Government, in a minute, an extract from which
he had now before him, made mention of an offer which
bad been made on the part of Jotee Pershaud of' a com-
promise, in which he agreed to put an end to the civil
suit if the Government would abandon the criminal pro-
ceedings against him. The offer was refused. Subse-
quently the whole of the proceedings were reviewed by
the Governor-General; and, in his minute of the 4th of
November, Lord Dalhousie expressed his approval of the
determination of the Council to persevere in the prosecu-
tion, in order that, if it were true, as alleged, the cha-
racter of high departmental officers was implicated, their
misdeeds might the sooner be brought to light; or, on the
other hand, if there was no foundation for those imputa-
tions that their character might be the sooner vindicated.
With respect to some of the minor charges, he had only seen
them in the newspapers. Mr. Wylie showed that the great-
est indulgence had been shown Jotee Pershaud; there had
been no extortion practised on him. He had forfeited
his recognizances, and he had been left unmolested. He
knew, therefore, of no charge which could be brought
against the Government in the matter, unless the Noble
Earl said he was not fairly tried. That, however, could
not be justly maintained; for the jury consisted of four
half-castes and a native, a very able advocate had de-
fended him, and he was acquitted. What, then, did the
Noble Earl complain of? Was it of an error
of judg-
ment on the part of the Governor-General in having
ordered his trial? Had he not ordered the trial, would
it not have been said that it was in consequence of some
complicity between Jotee and some high departmental
officers, whose conduct the Government did not want to
have exposed? What, too, was to be done with the re-
ports of the magistrates, four of whom had given it as
their decision that the charges against Joteo Pershaud
were well-founded, and ought to be prosecuted? The
Government had, in fact, no other, alternative than to
order the trial, and he could not see that it should be
made a ground of complaint against the Government
that they had failed to obtain a verdict. Their Lord-
ships knew that it was not always possible to obtain a
verdict in this country. All that he contended for was,
that there had been a sufficient case to go before ajury in
the matter.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH replied. He con-
tended that there had been a great error in judgment
committed in the proceeding criminally until Jotee Per-
shaud had proceeded with his civil suit, and had
been found to rely upon upon documents liable to im-
peachment. He brought no charge against the Gover-
nor-General, who he believed could not have acted in
any other manner than he had done; but still he doubted
if the prosecution would have been sanctioned by him
had he been in Calcutta in February.
REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed that in the
passing of that Bill it was his belief that they had ar-
rived at the satisfactory solution of a most important
qeestion—a question, too, that for centuries had been in
agitation. Although this Bill had been introduced
with the sanction of the Government, still the chief
merit of the solution of the difficulties in its details
mainly belonged to his Noble and Learned Friend
(Lord Campbell), who had been the Chairman of a Com-
mission for the investigation of this subject. The
measure was one not hastily or rashly adopted. It was,
on the contrary, the result of the most careful inquiry. It
was a measure that went from that House with greater
sanction as a measure of law reform than any that had
ever before been approved of by their Lordships; it went
from them with their unanimous approval; it was a
measure more entitled to the approbation of the public
than any that he knew of, and he trusted that it would
meet with the concurrence of the other House of Parlia-
ment.—(Hear.)
The Bill then passed.
SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of ARGYLL, thin Bill
passed through Committee.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Lord BERNERS presented a petition from Leicester
against Papal aggression, and then stated that nothing
but an imperative sense of duty would induce him to
proceed with the notice he had given of presenting peti-
tions complaining of the continuance of agricultural dis-
tress, and praying that the laws of settlement and re-
moval might be repealed. He had hoped that some
measure would have been introduced by her Majesty's
Government in consequence of the report of a Select
Committee of their Lordships' House; bat now the
petitioners whose cause he advocated were placed at a
disadvantage in not having the aid of the Noble Duke
the Lord-Lieutenant of Leicester. The petitions he
had to present were signed by upwards of 1,000 respect-
able farmers in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, who
were suffering very great distress, and who hoped some
measures would be adopted, relieving them from the
great burden of taxation to which they were sub-
jected. There had been other petitions to the same
effect entrusted to him, but he would not occupy
their Lordships' time with them at that hour, espe-
cially as some Noble Lords who intended to take part
in the discussion had left the House. There were three
allegations made in those petitions—first, that there
was increased distress; second, as to the mischiefs of
the law of settlement; third, as to the injustice of an
unequal system of rating. He reserved, however, to a
fitter oecasion the discussion on these points which he
hoped would receive their Lordships' attention.
COMMON LODGING-HOUSES BILL.
The Earl of SHAFf ESBURY, in moving the second
reading of this Bill, hoped that it would meet with the
same kind indulgence from their Lordships which it had
received from the other House.
After a few words from the Earl of MINTO,
The Duke of ARGYLL said, he hoped that the Bill
would be extended to Scotland, where the lodging-houses
were worse than in any part of England.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE complimented the
Noble Earl (Shaftesbury) on the success of his labours
in the improvement of the condition of the poor.
The Bill was then read a second time.
BRITISH WHITE HERRING FISHERY BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
MARRIAGES (INDIA) BILL.
The report on this Bill was agreed to.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

consequence was, as had actually occurred in a district
with which he was connected, that large portions of the
population went entirely without church accommoda-
tion. It was not the doctrine but the discipline of our
Church that required reformation, and before the
House entrusted greater powers to Right Reverend Pre-
lates they ought to insist upon reforming their discipline.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said the two preceeding speakers
was
had
not taken a very erroneous view of the Bill, though he
prepared to dispute that some of its rovisions
were highly objectionable, but these could be repmoved in
Committee and the Bill made a very useful one.
Mr. W. J. FOX said this Bill had been brought for-
ward at a time when it was utterly impossible to con-
sider it fairly, either in or out of doors, and he con-
tended that it was only an act of justice that the second
welding should be postponed to some future occasion.
—(Hear, hear.) The Bill contained many clauses,
all of which were of great importance, and some of
which would seriously tax the poor. Ancient parishes
were to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, so
that a man would be taxed for living in a comparatively
speaking new church district, while another clause pro-
posed to pay the clergymen of the churches which the
Bill would embrace out of pow rents, thereby introduc-
ing into the church establishment the worst feature of
dissenting voluntaryism.
Sir R. H. INGLIS admitted that the Bill had been
pushed forward a little too rapidly to allow of its being
fully discussed, but it did not follow from that circum-
stance that the Bill was either bad or undesirable. He
denied that the Bill was the Bill of the Bishop of Lon-
don, or that it was prepared for the sako of extending
the patronage of that Right Reverend Prelate. Why,
it would not, in point of fact, confer upon him
more patronage than many Honourable Members of
the House bestowed upon their butlers. He agreed
with the Hon. Member for Oldham, that paying clergy-
men by pew-rents was a bad system, but that defect
could be medided or remedied in Committee; and as the
Bill on the whole was a good one, he hoped the House
would not hastily reject it.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR assured the House
that the Bill was very much desired by the working
classes, because it would remove many of the existing
obstacles that stood in the way of building and endow-
ing new churches, and so far from its object being to
increase the patronage of the Bishop, it would in point
of fact have the effect of reducing it.
Mr. HENLEY should vote for the second reading
upon the recommendation of the Noble Lord; but it
must not be held from that feet that he was pledged to
all the provisions of the measure. Indeed he disap-
proved of many of its clauses, and when they got into
Committee be should endeavour to get them omitted.
He thought more time ought to have been given to the
House for discussing the principle of the Bill.
Sir G. GREY. said the report upon which the Bill
was founded was laid before Parliament more than two
years ago. It was unfair to assert that the object of the
Bill was either to increase the patronage or the revenues
of the Bishops. He should be prepared en going into
Committee to alter many of the provisions, and he
therefore hoped the House would consent now to read
the Bill a second time.
Lord DUNCAN complained that the Bill had been
too hurriedly pushed forward, but his main objection to
the measure was that it sought to maintain clergymen
out of pew-rents, which he certainly thought a most
unwise principle. The thirtieth clause related to the
validity of marriages, and as it was a most improper
clause to introduce into a measure of this kind, he should
be glad to know how it came there.
Mr. MO WATT had had ample time to make up his
mind upon this Bill, which he thought was highly ob-
jectionable, and ought to be rejected by the House. The
Church had within its own revenue the means of making
adequate provisions for the spiritual wants of the poor,
and he should be the last to assent to a Bill of this
nature, which it appeared to him was intended to im-
pose a tax on the poor for the benefit of the rich.
On the motion of Sir GEORGE PECHELL the de-
bate was then adjourned until Friday.
ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. BANKES hoped the motion would not be pressed
at that hour, four o'clock, otherwise he must be allowed
to state his objection to it.
Mr. ELLICE said he would withdraw the motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn, and re-ap-
pointed for Friday.
The House adjourned at ten minutes past Four until
Six o'clock.

The House resumed at Six o'clock.
MR. DISRAELI'S RESOLUTION.
Mr. DISRAELI said, in answer to the question of the
Hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, the other night,
as to what stage of the Government measure he in-
tended to move his resolution, that he had found that
his Hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (111 r.
Baring) had given notice of a motion respecting the
duties on coffee, which must be brought forward
on the first measure of the Government on Mon-
day, the 30th instant. Therefore, it would be ne-
cessary for him to move the resolutions, by way
of amendment to the Government propositions, on the
second measure as it applied to the general policy of
the Government, and not to any particular measure.
The resolution which he intended to propose was as
follows:—" That according to an estimate of the
probable future produce of the existing taxes, sub-
mitted to this: House by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, it appears that a surplus revenue may be ex-
pected in the present year to the extent of about
2,000,0001.; that in the revenue so estimated is included
a sum exceeding 5,000,0001., derived from the tax on in-
come, respecting which an inquiry has been directed $
be made by a Committee of this House, on the result of
whose labours may depend the future renewal or modi-
fication of that important impost; that in this provisional
state of the financial arrangements of the country, it ap-
pears to this House to be most consistent with a due
regard to the maintenance of public credit, and the exi-
gencies of the public service, not to make auy material
sacrifice of public income in effecting such changes as
may be deemed advisable in other branches of taxation."
BONDED WAREHOUSES AT MANCHESTER.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON rose to move for a Select
Committee, to inquire into the working of the system
of warehousing foreign goods, in bond, in Man-
' ohester, as it affects importers, dealers, and
consumers of goods liable to Customs duty,
residing in Manchester and the neighbour-
ing towns ; also as to its effects on the Cus-
toms revenue, and to report to the House as to the
expediency or otherwise of placing Manchester on an equal
footing with all bonded towns in the United Kingdom.
He did not ask for this Committee on behalf of the cor-
poration of Manchester, or of any particular interest in
that town, but on behalf of the whole in-
dustrial population in that immense and im-
portant district. At present foreign goods were
allowed to be bonded in Manchester; but it was under-
stood that the Government were about to nemove these
bonded warehouses, and his object was to ask for a Com-
bmittee to inquire into the propriety of that removal.
In 1840, when a Bill was brought forward for establish-
ing bonded warehouses, an exception was made by those
who opposed the Bill in favour of Manchester. By the
law as it now stood the Corporation of Manchester were,
in the first instance, liable for the expenses of the Cus-
toms' establishment in Manchester, connected with the
bonding system; but as that expense (2,709/. a year) was
not deemed to be a proper application of the funds of the
ratepayers, the Corporation had given notice, as they
were entitled to do, of their desire to terminate their
liability. It had been said that to allow bonding to be
carried on at the expense of the State would lead to the
establishment of a general system of inland bonding.
Hon. Members on the Treasury bench need not be alarmed
on that point, for they had supported the Bill introduced
by the late Lord Sydenbam in 1839, for establishing a
j general system of inland bonding. The privilege of a
bonded warehouse had been granted to Manchester,
but was clogged with the condition that the borough
funds should be liable for the expense of the Cus-
toms' establishment. That condition was proposed at
the eleventh hour, and was accepted by Manchester
because it could not be resisted ; but it was alwiam.
always
believed that they would be relieved from this
proved
proper liability as soon as the experiment had
of Man-
successful. Supposing it was worth the
do so. Well,
s%
Man-
cheater to continue that system, why le
then, and if other towns similarly circumstanced stanict
shouldedclai be
the same privilege he had no objection . ,
the men
granted to thorn. The State having granted thesem
,
privi-
lege to eighty other places of having bond
and having undertaken the expenses of n
officers, why not bear the expense in that case also? If
the Chancellor of the Exchequer w
the bonding warehouses system wascarried
would ask was it reasonable to commenceereopinion that
o of
wtito far, h
with
asowae
a large amount
which was eighth on the list, and where
of revenue was collected? There were
towns in which a larger amount of
revenueoul
collectedywsaeoven
other
than in Manchester. He did not ask that bonding
should be discontinued anywhere;
his
bonding he thought the
should Chancellor of the Exchequer
bonding facilities in the midst of such a locality as that
was. It might be said that M
wanancster was not a seaport;
and he knew great stresslaidhe
upon
that argument.
But Manchester had communicationu
ownisteh i
nthe
LSoenad obny
l
water. Was it not frequentlyn communication
that goods were taken out of ships down the river,
and brought up here
to be bonded?
Meat was to
prevent the same thingfrom i
being done n Man.
cheater? In Chester, of
a very largo proportion
the
ht fro
goods warehou.sed was broug m other places, and
• to the place. 11
not imported directly in ,...e could not see
between
o, there had boon
what difference there was Chester and Man-
chester in that respect. In Carlisle, to
one year Customs received for to the amount of no leas
goods
than 36,4714 for bonding foreign
fraction of them had been imported into Carlisle direct
ships could not go up there, for he believed it was ten
; but all these goods had
or twelve miles from the sea
been received from other bondingth warfehouses. In the
case of one principal article, vii
only seven places into which it v; at
of
tea,
ported; but there were 40 others brought, and therefore th there were
a.s permitted to be im-
Into which it might be
oiple
of
only
allowin . ey. did depart from the prin-
port. The same
other articles in the
tablishment in Mancbway
discontinue it. If might bonding to take place in a sea-
be said of tobacco and various
of trade. If their bonding es-
ester was not worth keeping, then
the Committee for which he sought
thought it was im roptehr to put the public to the ex-
pense of chargepof Manchester
tisfid warehouses and
Customs then he would bee , but if they thought
otherwise then he would saga,y in the words of Lord G.
Somerset, that the Government would be acting on a
mo‘t ruinous principle, if for the sake of any pantic
attachment to the opinions of old Customhouse officers
they were to refuse paying the expense where such
establishments were already placed. Mr. Goulburn's
opinion had been in favour of the system which he
recommended, provided the necessary exp would be repaid by the benefit to the public.enditure
Go-
vernment, no doubt, would be well represented on the
Committee for which he moved; in fact all parties

would be cared for on it. The amount of rev:001
collected at Manchester was no less than 35°sw_ii;
on
l;
that had been collected at an expense ot,"
17s. per cent., whereas in other places the expense e
21
reached as much as 51. 16s. 6d. per cent. e. er e would
_ 0
therefore, without trespassing further on the attention
the House, conclude by moving,
of his notice.
aid hi
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 80,
had often admired the eloquence and ingenuity "'
en.
Right Hon. Friend, but never so much as on that
eo
en.
sion, for if people only took their ideas of the Pr!„ini
question from his apeech they would have but s_ls I.
notion of what the real merits were.—(Laughter') according to the term,
he were to confine himself to the mere point of opP
tng
the appointment of the Committee he would not nay:.
much to address to the House on that occasion; not
would he have to go into the various subjects touched_.
upon by his Right Hon. Friend. But his Right .11°,°
worut
Friend had made it necessar for him to say a few • •
If his Right
granted, it
Friend's
on
on these topics to which he had adverted.
meaning of the term; for if the fact of ManunflE'ciseet
having some communication with the sea was
definitionl
d be rather of a
difficult port
as
maketo boeu out takentheer eftoeer:
tt oh e n make
almostit a everyor ei f
towntha t di
ne s cErinpgtliaonnd was
mightto claim
adopted,
then be
considered as a port. The warehousing systernwet,°
been hitherto confined to the ports alone,
there
the single exception of Manchester; although_ tnit,,e
were other places which formerly enjoyed
privilege, and from which it bad not been taken spay'
Otherwise it was confined to those pa as 030 ,
laces which came
under the well-defined term of " ports." In 1840 s
mittee had sat on that subject, and they had reported'
" that if, with advantage to trade, and safety tothere
venue, inland bonding.warehouses might be estab,i
they could be conceded under certain restrictions.
And
when an application was made by Manchester
_o1:11;
subject, the privilege had been allowed to that plseu .
e,
,he
condition that the expenses were to be borne ld
byto thewn. TreasuryH e denied t thatat they x
t an
expenses seheaa everwdasto b borne by
been
held out
the public. Nor did he think his Right Hon. Friend_
the
Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulbourn), who, be
re-
gretted, was not then in his place, could ever have
given
reason to expect that after a certain number of years
such
been embodied in an Act of Parliament. Probably,hp;d
retdheincatose.by arrangementtßhnetcotnhseentOf
ever, after the removal of the duty on cotton,
been a large item in the Customs, the people
tem'
did not find it was so profitable a bargain as they con
plated, and, therefore, they sought a change. They_n?!
come to him asking him to take the charge of the
al Ipar e! which
obts-e:
duties upon himself; but he had said be thought..
they had no right to ask the public to Pay
of Blanchester
for that which was for their own particular benefit.
,
They had been recommended to put a reasonable rate
duty upon goods warehoused in order to meet th,err:d
penses, but that they bad refused doing. They preferred
for
coming to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to as did
that which he was obliged to decline granting. gesso.
not think there was any use for an inquiry in thst _
He had been applied to last year to put an end to bonding
altogether, and he had agreed to their proposal, but 0
told them, that as an Act of Parliament had been panea
in the matter, they would have to get another to repeal
it. They had accordingly introduced a Bill, but h_
objected to the one they brought in. An officer of tn,
•
toms had been then sent down to make all due inquiry'
and to examine whatever witnesses they thought propera
to produce; and at the end of that inquiry the officerr bad
been highly complimented by them for the manneero
which he had conducted the inquiry. The "hid be
taken upon that occasion was then before him, sad be
had no objection that it should be printed; but any of
ther investigation into the subject would be a waste
idoce
time and money. But he would say that the ev so
taken before that Commission did fail in makingout a
of any great advantage to be derived from that boo
ew_s:
system. The Right Hon. Baronet here read several ex'
tracts from the evidence alluded to with respect to various
articles, to show that what be had stated was correct'
But, after all, it was only a question of benefit to a!:
people of Manchester. And some of the witnesses oefe:
in favour of the proposition of his Hon. Friend were
obliged to admit that it was an advantage to the tor!
worth paying for. One of the Manchester witnesses also
said that the advantage was worth paying for, bat that
was a matter of feeling with the inhabitants of they
cheater to obtain it through the Government, and "
complained that they should be singled out to bear that
charge. But it should be observed that they had been
charge. But it should be observed that theyb
wa'
singled out at their own request. The question
whether the revenue should at present be charged with
a sum of 2,700/. a year for the purpose of carrying o,ul,
an arrangement into which the people of Manchell7.
had voluntarily entered, with a view to promote their
own interests. His Right Hon. Friend seemed to think
that there was something peculiar in the case of Mal_
,e
1„,,
ohester; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) n°,"
fessed that he could not see it. On the contrary, P
thought that Leeds and many other large towns, rir,
moved far inland, had a stronger claim to the indulgen'a
in question than Manchester, which had an easy an
most rapid means of communication with the great pore
of Liverpool. But the consequences of extending Ob
rd
proposed concession to all large inland towns, would
be to create a serious loss to the revenue.
thought it was a wise principle, that when a town
asked for the benefit of the bonding system, it should
undertake to pay the expenses rendered necessary by
the concession. His Right Hon. Friend had referred to
the small cost of collecting the revenue at Manchester
as compared with other towns. But it should be re"
membered that in Manchester it was unnecessary to
incur the expense of a landing establishment, which el
indispensable at a seaport, and ho would further relniaw
his Right Hon. Friend and the House that whether thr
bonding system was or was not adopted at Manchester,
it would still be necessary to incur at the seaport the
present expenses of the landing establishments. la
reply to the application for an inquiry into the subjeot,
he had only to observe that they had already enough
of evidence before them, and that he did not see holy
they could derive the slightest advantage from the col-
lection of any additional quantity.
Mr. BRIGHT said that, the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think the;
the people of Manchester were liable to the charge °'
knocking at the Treasury doors and asking the
Treasury to do something for them which they
were not ready to do for themselves. Now he (Mr;
Bright) would not undertake to defend the people of
Manchester against that charge, because he believed it
was perfectly notorious that there was no other portion
of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom against whom
it could be less reasonably urged. It appeared that the
Right Hon. Gentleman himself had formerly been an
advocate for that very concession to the people of Man'
chester.—(" No," from the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer.) Well, it appeared, at all events, that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had voted in favour of a Bill which bad
been introduced by his colleagues for carrying out that
object. In his (Mr. Bright's) opinion it was a mere su-
perstition to suppose that seaports only ought to have
the privilege of bonding establishments. There was no-
thing in the position of Liverpool, as compared with the
position of Manchester, which could prevent one of
these places from benefitting by the system as well as
the other. The Right Mon. Gentleman thought that it
would be necessary to impose some check on the exten-
sion of the system. But he (Mr. Bright) believed it
would be easy to impose any check that could reason-
ably be required by enacting that no town
and by
further enacting that all towns asking the privilege
should be en-
titled to the privilege unless a town
in which a sum of
100,000/. or 200,0001. a year weres!ot collected,
should bear the expenses of it for
the first five years
There had been received in Manchester 70,0004 in
249' 000/ in
0131.1i8n4 618,
4197.7,0m00a/n.chin 1847,
Manchester
place in the kingdom, and that
was at present
the sixth largest bonding
11 8844 andlB7 ' 301090,10 o i
fact alone constituted a strong ground why the inhabi-
tants of Manchester should receive the privilege in
question. lie did not wish to say anything offensive
to the Right Honourable Gentleman, but he should ob-
serve that any person with a capacity above that of an
exciseman for the consideration of such questions must
be aware that the exchequer could not, under the pro-
posed concession, lose the whole) sum of 2,700 Z which
was at present raised from the ratepayer ,
s of Wenches..
ter, for it was manifest that any measure which gave in-
creased facilities for the distribution
and consumption of
articles on which duties were paid,
prosperous population like that of Blanchester a vast
and
neighbourhood, must lead to and its
venue of the state. But the pro Some addition to the re-
asked for an inquiry into that ple of Manchester only
believed, a fair and reasonable Matter; and that was, he
Mr. CARD WELL 8•d demand.
the Member for th al
that his Right Hon. Friend
Goulburn), who Was
Univ •
ersity of Cambridge (Mr.
had requested him to confined to his bed by indisposition.'
stances under which state
what had been the circum•
tended to which the system had been ex-
Hon. Friend had • Manchester in the year 1846. His Right
tic • objected to a departure from the prun-
e which lieiited
he had stated that be the privilege to seaport towns; and
could not see why
, if such a con-
cession were made toßlanchester, it should not likes
wise be made to
any other large town which might put
forward a simile
the opi •
mon of his Right H
r application. The
check in
proper.
°Pourable Friend, against any
abuse in
finch cases, was that those "
towns which asked
for the privilege should bear the expense of carry-
ing it into effect; and he thought that there would
been come
infringement of the understanding which had
come to upon the subject, if the concession at
present demanded
were granted to Manchester. The
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr.
Bright)
. said it was a superstition to suppose that the
bonding system should be confined to sea ports. But he
would remind the Hon. Gentleman that the great object
in introducing that system was to encourage the re-ex-
port trade. The Hen. Gentleman thought that any man
with a genius above that of an exciseman would attach
no value to the sum of 2,7001. He should, however, ob-
serve that there was not a word in that resolution which
would not apply to many other towns as well Masto an chester •
,and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not
unnaturally shrink from giving up a sum of nearly
3,0001.
a year, multiplied by the number of all the large inland
towns in the kingdom.
Mr. lIUME said he could not support the motion, be'
cause the extension of the bonding system to Manchester
had been granted on the distinct understanding that
the inhabitants of that city should themselves bear the
expense of the measure. He could not see any neces-
si.ty for any_ further inquiry into the subject. But if
.his Rhieght . Friend had moved for an inquiry
oinftoeetile state of the different ports, and the expees°
would °uthe revenue in them, he (Mr. flume)
tion. He readilyf dhave given his support to such a in°'
of found
that in many of those ports the expenete
lected.collecting_ the revenue was greater than the sum col-
expense In the port of Borrowstonness, in Scotland, the
the " collecting
the revenue was 941/. a year, and
amount collected was 541/. In the of T lee
port ra
the expense of collection was 5284, and the sum cols
Rai 591, In Quernsey the expense of cellectioo