Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

pressed by the Company's machinery, as it was always intended by this process to demonstrate to the trade of Lancashire that India could furnish cotton of such quality and in such condition as would compete with that of America. The absence of both pier and road has so far totally defeated this intention.

30. The allegations of your letter have now been successively and fully replied to, and the Directors repeat their claim for compensation on the grounds stated in their former letter.

I have, &c.

(signed) Hugh Mason, Chairman. T. G. Baring, Esq., M.P., Under Secretary of State for India.

To Hugh Mason, Esq.
Sir,

India Office, 22 May 1863. 1. I am directed by Sir Charles Wood to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23d of March, and to inform you that it has received his careful consideration in Council.

2. The Directors of the Manchester Cotton Company (Limited), repeat their original statement, that the communication to them on the 12th of April 1861, of the intentions of the Madras Government with respect to the probable date of the completion of the works in connexion with the port of Beitcıl “conveyed by Sir Charles Wood to the Directors a clear and positive promise as to a definite time by which the pier and the road would be ready.”

3. On this point Sir Charles Wood can only repeat that the communication of the intentions of the Madras Government could not constitute a promise on the part of the Secretary of State as to the time when the road and pier would be ready. He gave to the Directors the only information of which he was in possession, and he had no other means of forming an opinion. The Directors admit that within two months, namely, on the 7th of June 1861, they were informed that the Government of Madras did not expect that the road would be completed by the time mentioned in the letter of the 12th of April, but they state that their expectations were not materially modified by that information. They appeal to the opinion of Dr. Forbes as to the date at which the works would be finished, and contend that the Secretary of State is responsible for that opinion, because Dr. Forbes" was unquestionably the accredited and recognised medium of communication in all the negotiations then in progress between them and the India Office.”

4. Sir Charles Wood is not aware what opinions or information Dr. Forbes gave to the Company, but that gentleman certainly was not the accredited and recognised agent of the Secretary of State in the communications with the Company. The nature of his connexion with the Company is clear, from a correspondence which commenced with an urgent request, addressed to the Secretary of State by order of the Directors, in the following terms :

“ Manchester Cotton Company (Limited),

i Newall's Buildings, Manchester, “Sir,

20 February 1861. “A Company has been formed in Manchester styled the Manchester Cotton Company (Limited), having for its object the purchase of cotton in India and other countries. From the very valuable information obiained through Dr. Forbes, the acting Directors of this Company have determined to establish an agency in the cotton-growing district of Dharwar. It has been resolved, as a preliminary measure, to send out a representative of the Company, to make the necessary local arrangements for commencing their operations. In taking this step, the acting Directors feel that the advice and co-operation of Dr. Forbes on the spot is a matter of essential importance to the success of the project. The Directors, therefore, respectfully request that the Right honourable the Secretary of State for India will be pleased to place the services of Dr. Forbes temporarily at the disposal of the Company, to aid their representative during his stay in India (which may extend over a few months), in carrying out the objects of his mission. As the representative of the Company will leave England in the same steamer with Dr. Forbes, the acting directors will feel greatly obliged by as early a reply as convenient to this communication.

“ I have, &c. “ To the Right Honourable

(signed) G. R. Haywood, Secretary." Sir Charles Wood, Bart., M.P.”

5. To this letter Mr. Merivale replied on the 25th of February : “I have to acquaint you that Sir Charles Wood will be happy to authorise Dr. Forbes to render to the representative of the Company any assistance which he may be able to afford, consistently with the due discharge of the duties of the office which he now holds. A copy of this letter will be furnished to Dr. Forbes."

6. The office which he held was not any office in this country, but that of su perintendent of the cotton gin factory at Dharwar; and the inference from this correspondence is, tha: he was, as regards the matter in question, rather attached to the service of the Company than to that of the Secretary of State.

7. But further, there were no negotiations between the Government and the Company which required the services of an agent. The Directors addressed their requests for information directly to the India Office, in the usual manner, and received answers to thein direct from the India Office; and, in reference to the time for the completion of the road, they did receive direct from the Secretary of State within two months after the communication of April, and five months before their first vessel was dispatched, information that the road would not be ready by the time mentioned in the communication of April. If they neglected that information, the Secretary of State clearly cannot be held responsible for any consequences which may have occurred, and the Directors cannot complain that they were misled by any previous communication from him.

8. With reference to the further question whether the Directors are justified in asserting that the Company have sustained serious losses, in consequence of the delay which has occurred in completing the works at Beitcul, I am to make the following observations.

9. As to the expense incurred for the trans-shipment of the machinery, the Directors admit that it was unloaded on the side of the Bay opposite to the Company's premises on account of the approach of the monsoon; but they say that this was entirely owing to the absence of the pier promised to be provided by the Government. Sir C. Wood is informed, on the contrary, that if proper preparations for the shelter of the machinery had been made on the Company's premises, it might easily have been landed there; and I am also to observe that the pier was not intended for the parpose of unloading the cargo of machinery which the Company proposed to dispatch. The object of constructing a pier was to facilitate the shipment of cotion from the port of Beitcul, and so far from any expectation having been held out to the Company's agent that a pier would be constructed on the land which he purchased for the Company, Sir William Denison distinctly states that Mr. Haywood was perfectly aware when he selected the site that no such pier was intended to be built there.

10. The Directors state that if the road to Beitcul had been ready, the cleaning machinery intended for the cotton districts would have been dispatched up country before the monsoon of 1862 set in. Sir Charles Wood is informed thai the machinery having arrived in the month of May 1862, that is at the very beginning of the monsoon, could not possibly have been moved until the fair season had opened the roads for traffic.

11. The Directors having complained that losses had been incurred by the Company in consequence of their not having been able to purchase and cart cotton to Beitcul," I was directed to acquaint you that Sir Charles Wood' had been informed by Dr. Forbes that the Company's agent had no authority to purchase cotton, and in fact declined to do so when a favourable opportunity offered. It now appears that the original intention of the Company to purchase cotton was abandoned before Mr. Haywood left England, and therefore Sir Charles Wood cannot understand how the Company can complain of losses and prefer a claim for compensation on the ground that they were prevented by the act of Govern inent from pursuing operations which they had themselves determined to abandon.

12. I am directed, in conclusion, to acquaint you that the Secretary of State in Council adheres to the decision communicated to you in my letter of the 19th February last, that the claim for compensation in the amount of 20,000 l. advanced by the Directors of the Manchester Cotton Company (Limited) cannot be admitted.

I am, &c. (signed)

T. G. Baring.

[blocks in formation]

Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,

1 June 1863.

307.

Under 2 oz.

· RETURN to an Address of the Honourable The House of Commons,

dated 5 March 1863 ;-for,

“COPY of any REPORTS made to the Government on the EXTENSION of

Tea PLANTATIONS in India."

India Office,
9 March 1863.

}

FRANCIS W. PRIDEAUX,

Secretary, Revenue Department.

(Mr. William Ewart.)

Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,

12 March 1863.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »