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

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 24.
CASE OF JOTEE PERSHAUD.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH moved for the pro-
duction of the charges against Jotee Pershaud, an army
contractor in India, and of the verdict given on the trial.
Jotee Pershaud was no ordinary person. His
father had long been connected with the Indian
Government, and Jotee Pershaud had continued
to take contracts for the supply of the Indian
army. He had contracted to find the army
of the Sutlej, and never had army been better provided,
and in the last war in the Punjaub he had contracted
to provide the army in provisions and horses, and that
army was always well supplied, whilst the enemy had
been compelled to surrender for want of provisions. He
was always at head-quarters and had agents in all parts
of India, over whose conduct of course he could not ex-
ercise any control. He was a man of gentlemanly
demeanour and had performed great services, yet at
the end of the war he had had charges
of the gravest character brought against him. Now,
nothing could be more dangerous than to bring grave
charges against a man who had performed great services
without being very certain that such charges could be
proved. Now be stated upon the most high authority, that
it would have been very difficult to carry on operations
effectually if Jotee Pershaud had not had the manage-
ment of the commissariat. The charges against Jotee
Pershaud had been referred to the military authorities,
and they had reported that those charges were frivolous
and vexatious, and bad recommended that they should
not be followed up. This report was sent to the military
board, and the military board was divided in opinion as
to its adoption. It was not, however, equally divided;
for two of the Members concurred with the conclusion of
Major Ramsey, while the other thought that the whole
metter should be referred to the President in Coun-
cil. On the 19th January, 1850, accordingly, reference
was made of the matter to the president in council, and
on the 15th of February following the President in Coun-
cil referred the case to the Lieutenant-Governor of the
north-western provinces. On the 11th of March the
Lieutenant-Governor Further referred it to the magistrate
of Agra, who made his report on it on the 27th of
June. o.her reports were also made, one on the 9th
and one on the 12th of July, by two other gentlemen,
civil agents, engaged in the investigation of parts of
the charge. After the first report was presented
it was withdrawn, and the report of one of these gen-
tlemen substituted in its place; because it had been
discovered in the meanwhile that, unfortunately, the ma-
gistrate of Agra, to whom it had been referred, was a
debtor in a large amount to Jotoe Persaud. On that
account the further prosecution of the inquiry was con-
fided to another person, who, on the 7tn of November,
made a final report upon the case. The lieutenant-
governor thereupon directed the prosecution to proceed
as against Jotee Persaud, which was confirmed by the
Governor-General. AU this while, however, the Go-
vernor-General of India appeared to be without any
cognizance of the early proceedings in this case. In
January and February, 1850, the Governor-General was
at sea, on his voyage from Bombay or to the eastern
islands, and he could not therefore have cognizance of
this part of the proceedings. In fact he only became so
when the final report was made. The trial took place
on the 27th of March, and, after twenty days' trial, the
accused was acquitted. He (the Earl of Ellenborough)
should state that in September, 1850, after he had been
arraigned, Jotee Persbaud proceeded to Calcutta and
instituted a civil suit for 5763,000/., the balance of his
claim against the Government. This was a proceeding
grounded on misapprehension and ill-advised. Because
if it had been brought at first it would not have been
competent for the Government to interpose a criminal
prosecution while a civil suit was pending. Ho (the
Earl of Ellenborough) did not think it very extraordi •
nary that Jotee Pershaud, seeing that he was to bo tried
under the new Act in the Mofussil court by a judge and
jury appointed by the Government, and seeing the way
in which the trial was to be got up, should prefer a
trial in the Supreme Court to a trial at bar. He thought
the President of the Council consmitted a great error
when he did not adhere to the opinion of the majority
of the military board, and not proceed further with the
inquiry. But he thought the proceedings from the first
founded in error as to the course the Government ought
to pursue. That course should have been to direct the
military accounts to be investigated, to pay to Jotee
Pershaud what they believed to be due to him, and leave
him to bring his action for whatever balance he might
deem due to himself. But undoubtedly they were grave
charges which were brought against the persons who
were concerned in those transactions. He understood
that the witnesses against Jotee Persbaud were per-
sons who had been concerned in the military con-
tracts, and that they had been brought by force under
the escort of the police to Agra; that at first their evi-
dence was in favour of Jotea Pershaud, that they were
then threatened with prosecution fur their own mal-
practices, but were also told that if they made a full
confession they would be pardoned, and some of the wit-
nesses were kept in durance until the trial commenced.
The whole of the evidence, too, on which be was ar-
rainged was evidence taken in his absence. Jotee Per-
shaud in the meantime went to Calcutta, and not having
returned at the expiry of his term of bail his recog-
nizanoes were entreated, and Mr. Laing, who was his ad-
vocate and also his bailsman, instead of having his goods
seized, had an embargo laid upon his press—for he was
the editor of a newspaper—the object teeing to atop the
mouth of the paper. In this country how great would
be the indignation excited if a party were to enter the
bedroom of a lady and seize her jewels; but in India to
violate the sanctity of the zenana of a Hindoo was cal-
culated to excite not merely the indignation of the
people, but to raise a spirit of insurrection from one end
of the country to the other. It was an offence never
to be forgiven, and if they disregarded the opinions and
feelings of the people in matters of that kind they
might be cure their dominion in India would not be
worth a fortnight's purchase. He thought he had es-
tablished sufficient grounds fur the production of the
papers be had moved for.
Lord BROUGHTON said that the Noble Earl had
given an accurate account of the early part of the pro-
ceedings to which he had alluded. But there was this
inconvenience in discussing the subject in the present
state of their information, that the official documents
which had reached him did not come down no the par-
ticular transactions to which the Noble Earl had espe-
cially alluded, and which he thought most worthy of
censure. He was happy to fiad that the charges which
in the first instance were brought against the Govern-
ment of India had not been repeated by the Noble
Lord; that, on the contrary, he had the candour and
straightforwardness to state, that the charge against the
Government of having instituted the criminal investiga-
tion fur the purpose of putting a stop to the civil suit
was wholly without foundation. The contrary was the
fact; the civil suit was not instituted until a great part
of the criminal investigation had beewproceeded with.
The facts were shortly these:—On the 50th of March,
1849, a native contractor sent a communication
to the authorities, charging Jotee Pershaud with
fraud, embezzlement, and forgery. A. military
board, consisting of three members, was appointed
to investigate the matter, and two members of the
board reported that the charges were not sufficiently
well founded to be worthy of being further prosecuted;
the third officer, however, being of a contrary opinion,
and Sir John Littler, the Governor of the north-western
province, on receiving those two different opinions,
ordered the investigation to be pursued. The inquiry
was put into the hands of Mr. Denison, who, after ex-
amining the accounts, reported that he bad discovered a
false charge fur 4,400 bullocks, which had never been
used, and also that another false charge for 2,500 bul-
locks had only been withdrawn on the announcement
of the inquiry having been instituted. Subsequently the
inquiry was put into the hands of Mr. Cumming, who
reported that he bad examined all the proceedings and
all the witnesses, and that he was fully satisfied there
existed the most extensive frauds. It was true that Mr.
Denison on a former occasion had borrowed a sum of money
from Jotee Pershaud, with which he purchased a house;
which, however, he had subsequently mortgaged to him
for the money thus lent, and before the close of the
investigation the money was repaid. But when Lord
Dalhousie became acquainted with the affair he at once
ordered the investigation to be entrusted to other hands.
Two other magistrates also investigated the charges, and
reported that they had discovered frauds of greet extent.
Tuat was in July, 1850, and up to that time there had
been no hint, on the part of Jotee Pershaud or his ad-
visers, of an intention to proceed by civil suit to recover
in the Supreme Court balances alleged to he due to hire.
It was not till after the ccmmencement of the criminal
inveatigatiou that sucivau intention was announced.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—After his arrest.
Lord BROUG El lON—The amount of those balances
was sot down at 570,0001., and respecting
them
Newbold, the assistant commissary-general. x
Colonel
his surprise at such a demand, as no previous
epressed
claim had
been made by Jotee Pershaud. But, to
conducted, heo show the spirit
s
of fairness in which the whole affair was
might mention that Major By grave, who had been ap-
pointed to examine those accounts, bad reported that
there was a balance in favour of Jotre Persbaud.
Lord BROUGHAM-110w much?
Lord BROUGHTON did not know the exact amount.
Major Lawrence, who sign, d the
amineuxttersott
tropthe C Council
of the Government, in a minute, uac
he bud now betore bins, made mention of an offer which
had 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 bad been shown Jotee Pershaud; there had
been no extortion practised on him. He had forfeited
his recognizances, and he had been left unmolested. Lie
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 Jotee 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 tho Government
that they had failed to obtain a verdict. Their Lord-
ships know 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.
Oa 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 thew 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, this Bill
passed through Committee.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Lord BERNERS presented a petiiion from Leicester
against Papal aggression, and then stated that nothing
but au imperative sense of duty would induce him to
proceed with the notice he bad 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. Ile had hoped that some
eiewpre would have been introduced by her Majesty's
Government in consequence of the report of a Select
Committee of their Lordships' House; but 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
bed to present were signed by upwards of 1,000 re.pect-
able farmers in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, who
were suffering very great distress, and who hoped some
measures would be edepted, relieving them from the
great burden of taxation to which they were sub-
jected. There had been other petitions to the same
,fftct 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 di-cussion 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. Ho reserved, however, to a
Etter occasion the discussion on these points which he
hoped would receive their Lordships' attention.
COMMON LODGING-HOUSES BILL.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, 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, ho 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.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 24.
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-
chester, 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
expediencyor otherwise of placing Manchester on an equal
rooting with all bonded towns in the Ucited 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 nernove these
bonded warehouses, and his object was to ask for a Com-
mittee 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
!ivy 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
rate-payers, 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 Sydeuham in 1839, for establishing a
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 always
believed that they would be relieved from this im-
proper liability as soon as the experiment had proved
successful. Supposing it was worth the while of Man-
chester to continue that system, why let it do so. Well,
then, and if other towns similarly circumstanced claimed
the same privilege he had no objection it should be
granted to them. The State having granted the privi-
lege to eighty other places of having bonding warehouses,
and having undertaken the expenses of Custom-house
officers, why not bear the expense in that case also? If
the Chancellor of the Exchequer were of opinion that
the bonding warehouses system was carried too far, he
would ask was it reasonable to commence with a town
which was eighth on the list, and where a largo amount
of revenue was collected? There were only seven other
towns in which a larger amount of revenue was collected
than in Manchester. He did not . ask that
that
bonding
should be discontinued anywhere; but he thought thehis
bonding facilities in the midst of such a locality
Chancellor of the Exchequer should not le
ese s
was. It might be said that Manchester was not a seaport;::
that argument.
and he knew great stress was laid u
London
that wßau.terll.lanwchaessteirt
not
td communicationfrequently
What
apt! acwesa,santdo
ships down the river,
goods were taken out of
done in Man.
th the case owni
tth
in the
.
prevent the same
large proportion of the
and brought upmehetrheintgo bfreombonfrbdoeemidn?g .
chester? In Chester, a very
otherW
ht
too, there had been
• to the place. He could not see
not imported directly in
goods warehoused
between Cheater and Man-
what difference there was
Carlisle,
cheater in that respect.
was blronug
Customs received for one year to the amount of no less
than 36,471/. for
bonding foreign goods; yet notone
fraction into • e
fraction of them had been
Carlisle direct.
- not go up there, for he believed it was ten
Ships could
or twe!ve miles from the sea; but all these goods had
received from other bonding been rece warehouses• In the
case
of one principal article, vit, that of tea, there Here
ported; seven places into which it vette permit ' e
im-
ported; but there were 40 others into wh' hod
ic gmight be
brought, and therefore they did depart from the prin-
ciple of only allowine bonding to take place in a sea-
port. The same might be said of tobacco and various
oth.r articles in the Nva f'
y o trade. If their bonding es-
tablishment in Manchester w
discontinue it. Hole G. as not worth keeping, then
minittee for which he sought
thought it was improper to put the public to the ex-
e Manchester warehouses and
Customs then he would be sattoi-ii• but if they thought
otherwise then he wood .*
ti,,.
'
say, in the words of Lord G.
Somerset, that the Government
tff()rth would be acting on a
ref)st ruinous principle sake of any pedantic
attachment to the opinions of eled
they
were
to r , . Custom• house office; a
. (fuse payieg the expense where such
establitnments a ere already
Mr. Goulburn's
opinion had been in favour of the system which he
recommended, provided the necessary expenditure
would be repaid by the benefit to the public. Go-
vernment, no doubt, would be well represented on the
Committee for which he moved; in fact 4 parties ll

would be cared fir on if. Tee al:Joule; ei rev, ntte
collected at Manchester was no les that: 350,0001
and that had been collected at an expense of onlyl7s. per cent., whereas in other places the expense had
reached as much as 51. 16s. 61 per cent. He would,
therefore, without trespassing further on the -attention of
the House, conclude by moving,
according to the termof his notice.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had often admired the eloquence and ingenuity of hi
Right Hon. Friend, but never so much as on that occa-
sion, for if people only took their ideas of the present
question from his speech they would have but a faio_t,
notion of what the real merits were.—(Laughter.)
ho were to confine himself to the mere point of opposing
the appointment of the Committee he would not have
much to address to the House on that occasion; nor
would he have to go into the various subjects touched
upon by his Right Hon. Friend. But his Right Hon.
Friend had made it necessary for him to say a tow words
on those topics to which he had adverted. If his Right
lion. Friend's definition of a port was to be taken for
granted, it would be rather difficult to make out the "al
meaning of the term; for if the fact of Manchestert
having some communication with the sea was sniffier,
to make it a port, if that description was to be adopted,
then then almost every town in Ettgland might claim 0)01 _
considered as a port. The warehousing
been hitherto confined to the ports alone,
w
the single exception of Manchester; although there
the
were other places which formerly enjoyed
privilege, and from which it had not been taken away.
Otherwise it was confined to those places which came
system
with
under the well-defined term of " ports." In 1840 a Com-
mittee had sat on that subject, and they had reported
" that if, with advantage to trade, and safety to the_e; re-
venue, inland bonding warehouses might be established,
they could be conceded under certain restrictions: Andt
when an application was made by Manchester on the
subject, the privilege had been allowed to that place, on
condition that the expenses were to be borne by Le!
town. He denied that any hope had ever been held oute
by the Treasury that the expenses was to be borne by
the public. Nor did he think his Right Hon. Friend neMember for Cambridge (Mr. Goulbourn), who, he
re-
gretted, was not then in his place, could ever have give;
reason to expect that after a certain number of years.e
such could be the case. But the arrangement %vndal;
had been entered into by the consent of all parties
d
been embodied in an Act of Parliament. Probably, how-
ever, after Vie removal of the duty on cotton,;
been a largo item in the Customs, the people of
bad
e• They plated, and, therefore, they sought a chang
of the
did not find it was so profitable a bargain as tbeyacontem-
come to Lim asking him to take the charge
dutiesfhey h
audp
()linor;:hhester
benefit.
for that 'which was for their own particular
h i
rightsel ;
tobut
askhe hadthe said
public he
to thoughtpsT
duty upon. goods warehoused in order to meet the
They had been recommended to put a reasonablerateexo!
penses, but that they had refused doing. They preferredask for
coming to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
_e
...
that which he was obliged to decline granting. H dla
not think there was any use for an inquiry in case.thatt
He had been applied to last year to put an end to bonding
told them, that as an Act of Parliament had been passed repeal
altogether, and he had agreed to their proposal, but bad
in the mateter, they would have to get another tokreep
bad
it. They had accordingly introduced a Bill. but _
objected to the one they brought in. An officer of Cus-
toms had been then sent down to make all due inquiry,
and to exaznine whatever witnesses they thought pro
r
to produce; and at the end of that inquiry the officer had
' been highly complimented by them for the manner in
which he bad conducted the inquiry. The evidence
taken upon that occasion was then before him, and be
had no objection that it should be printed; but any fur-
ther_
investigation into the subject would be a waste of
time and money. But he would say that the evidence
Liken before that Commiteiion did fail in making out a case
of any great advantage to be et rived from that bonding
system. The Right Hon. Baronet here read several ex-
tracts from the evidence alluded to with respect to various
articles, to show that what he had stated was correct.
But, after all, it was only a question of benefit to the
people of Manchester. And some of the witnesses most
in favour of, the proposition of his Hon. Friend were
obliged to admit that it was an advantage to the town
worth paying for. One of the Manchester witnesses also
said that the advantage was worth paying for, but that
it was a matter of fc cling with tee inhabitants of Man-
chester to obtain it through the Government, and they
complained that they should be singled out to bear that
charge. But it should be observed that they had been
singled out at their own request. The question wss,
whether the revenue should at present be charged with
a sum of 2,7001. a year for the purpose of carrying out
an arrangement into which the people of Manchester
had voluuiarily 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 Man-
chester; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) con-
fessed that he could not see it. On the contrary, be
thought that Leeds and many other large towns, re-
moved far inland, had a stronger claim to the indulgence
in question than Manchester, which had an easy and
most rapid means of communication with the great port
of Liverpool. But the consequences of extending the
proposed concession to all large inland towns, would
rig to create a serious loss to the revenue. He
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 et Manchester
as compered with other towns. But it should be re-
membered that in Manchester it was unnecessary to
incur the expense of a landing establishment, which was
indispensable at a seaport, and he would further remind
his Right Hon. Friend and the House that whether the
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. In
reply to the application for an inquiry into the subject,
he had only to observe that they had already enough
of evidence before them, and that he did not see how
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 that
the people of Manchester were liable to the charge of
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
Lion. Gentleman had voted in favour of a Bill which had
been introduced by his colleagues for carrying out that
object, In his (Mr. Bright's) opinion it was a mere au-
peratition 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 Hob. 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 should be en-
titled to the privilege unless a town in which a sum of
100,000/. or 200,0004 a year were not collected, and by
farther enacting that all towns asking for the privilege
should bear the expenses of it for the first five years
There had been received in Manchester 70,0001. in
1845, 187,0001. in 1846, 177,000/. in 1847, 249,000/. in
1848, and 319,000/. in 1849. Manchester was at present
the sixth largest bonding place in the kingdom, and that
fact alone constituted a strong ground why the inhabi-
tants of Manchester should receive the privilege in
question. He 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 L, which
was at present raised from the ratepayers of .Manches-
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, among a vast and
prosperous population like that of Manchester and its
EaLs Lc
confined
n saidfi n e
d that
t o his his
bed Right
neighbourhood, must lead to some addition to the re-
venue of the state. But the people of Manchester only
asked for an inquiry into that matter; and that was, he
believed, a fair and reasonable demand.
the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr
had requested him to state what
by
had been the circum-
ilindoinsp.oFsirtiieonnd,
r.
stances under
G oMu uCr
nA) ,RwDh o W was
which the bonding
system had been ex-
tended to Manchester in the
year 1846. His Right
Hod, Friend had objected
which limited the o
privilege
to a departure from the prac-
ticecrivilege to seaport towns; and
he had stated that hed
not see why, if such a con-
cession were made to Manchester, it should not like-
wise be made to any other large town which might put
forward asi rei ar application. The proper check, in
the opinion of his Right .Honourable Friend, against any
abuse in snch 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
be an infringement of the understanding which bad
been come to upon the subject, if the concession at
present demanded were granted to Manchester. The
lion. Gentleman tho Member for Manchester (Mr.
Bright) said it was a superstition to suppose that the
bonding system should he confined to sea ports. But be
would remind the Hon. Gentleman that the great object
in introducing that system was to encourage the re-ex-
pert 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 as to Man-
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-
sity for any further inquiry into the subject. But if
his Right Hoc. Friend had moved for an inquiry
into the state of the different ports, and the expense
of collecting the revenue in them, he (Mr. Hume)
would readily have given his support to such a mo-
tion. He found that is many of those ports the expense
of collecting the revenue was greater ahem the sum col-
lected. In the port of Borrowstoeness, in Scotland, the
expense of collecting the revenue was 9411. a year, and
the amount collected was 541/. In the port of Tralee
the expecse of collection was 5284, and the sum col-
lected was 591. In Guernsey the expense of collection