Commons Sitting of 20 March 1843

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. John Salusbury Trelawny Esq., for Tavistock.
BILLS. Public.— 2°. Indemnity.
Reported.—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
3° and passed: Sudbury Disfranchisement.
Private.—1a. Great Bromley Enclosure; Leeds Road.
2°" Leeds Gas; Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway; St. Helens' Waterworks; Glasgow and Three Mile House Road; Northampton Improvement; Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal; Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Foot Bridge; Newport Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bodkin, from Tuam,

1125
Valentia, Balinasloe Union, and Galway, against the Irish Poor-law By Mr. C. Bruce, from Females in Halbeath Coal Mines, and from Clackmannan Colliery, against the Mines and Collieries Act.—By Mr. Thorneley, Mr. Brotherton, and Dr. Bowring, from Liverpool, Sabden Fould (19 Petitions), and from Thomas Hartley and Family, against the Corn and Provision Laws.—By Mr. Grogan, from St. Michan's, Dublin, against Local Vestries—By Mr. Christopher, from Carmarthen, Grantham, Holbeach, Long Sutton, and Kirton-in-Lindsey against the Ecclesiastical Conrts' Bill.—By Mr. V. Smith, from Northampton, against the New Bankruptcy Act.—By Sir J. Hanmer, from Crewkerne, Wolverhampton, Isle of Man, Horncastle, and Shenston, against the Union oi the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor—By Mr. Christopher, from Newton-upon-Trent, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Attorney-General, from a Law Society, for Removing the Courts of Law from Westminsterr — By Captain Pechell, from the Wife of Lieutenant Forbes It. N., a Lunatic in Haslar Hospital, against deduction of Pay for his Support—From Kendal, against the Government Scheme of Emigration from Africa to the West Indies.

EJECTMENTS (IRELAND.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordrose for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Secretary for Ireland, of which he had given notice. It related to the ejectment of 225 families at Knockhall and Renefarna, but he had since understood that the property was not that of the Marquess of Westmeath, as he had supposed. He wished to know whether the police had been called in on that occasion, and whether the dispossessment had actually taken place, which he had seen noticed in several of the Irish newspapers?
Lord Eliotobserved, that as the question had arisen out of what the hon. Member had seen stated in the newspapers, he might, perhaps, be excused for reading an extract from one of them as his reply. In the Dublin Evening Post, of March the 14th, he read as follows:—
"EJECTION OF TENANTRY.—Having copied the statement referred to in the subjoined extract from the Roscommon Journal, it is due to Lord Westmeath that we should now publish the contradiction:—We were misinformed with respect to Knockhall and Renefarna being the property of the Marquess of Westmeath. That extensive ejection of tenantry was carried into effect by a Roman Catholic landlord! However, we are delighted to learn, from a respectable gentleman iu that neighbourhood, that Mr. Hanly, the newly-declared tenant, has humanely restored every one of the creatures to their former occupancy.'"
The only official report he had received upon the subject was from the inspector of police, which stated—
"On March 2, sub-inspector Blakeney, with thirty-two constabulary, attended, at the requisition of the sub-sheriff, on the lands of Knockhall, parish of Kilglass. The sub-sheriff took possession of houses and lands without any
1126
resistance on the part of the peasantry. On the next day the police again attended, when the sub-sheriff permitted them to return to their quarters, owing to the assurance of the persons to be dispossessed that they would offer no resistance, he finished his duty and met with no opposition. The persons dispossessed were immediately after put into possession of their holdings on attornment to their landlords."
He had no doubt of the correctness of the statement, and it would be recollected that it was the duty of the police to act on the requisition of the sub-sheriff.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. F. Frenchwished to be informed whether the report was correct, that 4000 armed men had entered Waterford, from a neighbouring barony, and had taken possession of the city, stating their determination to resist the collection of poor-rates, under the recent law? He regretted also to have to put another question to the noble Lord, founded upon a statement he had seen to-day in the newspapers, that a collector of poor-rates had been found with his brains beaten out by stones, but the amount of poor-rates he had collected untouched in his pocket?
Lord Eliotwould read to the House two reports, one from the mayor of Water-ford, and the other from the inspector of the constabulary to the Secretary for Ireland? The first stated—
"Waterford, March 13, 1843.
"Sir—I think it my duty to state, for the information of his Excellency the Lord-lieutenant, that a large number of persons (computed at about 1,000 men), armed with sticks, marched in this borough this day, at about two o'clock in the afternoon, apparently making a display of resistance to the payment of the poor-rates.
"I felt myself called upon, in consequence, to require the aid of the military force, under the command of Major Reid, of the 70th regiment, who promptly attended to my directions. No attempts at riot or disturbance, however, took place, and at this hour, half-past four P.M; I think they have all left the borough, and gone towards their respective districts.—I have, &c.
(Signed) "THOS. MEAGHER,
Mayor of Waterford.
"E. Lucas, Esq., Castle."
The second document was from the Inspector of police, and was to the following effect:—
Waterford, March 13th, 1843.
"I have to report that about the hour of two P.M., this day, a number of persons,

1127
amounting to nearly 1,000, who I am informed attended at a meeting in the barony of Gaultier, in the county of Waterford, from the barony of Middlethird in the same county, and from the county of Kilkenny, marched into this city, with a view of intimidating the authorities, no doubt, and all others favourable to the payment of the poor-rate. They were armed with large sticks and spade-handles, and kept up shouting as they moved through part of the town. This visit took all by surprise. The mayor (Thomas Meagher, Esq.) called out the military, and along with the high sheriff, Sir Benjamin Morris, J.P., and Simon Newport, Esq., J.P. together with the city constabulary, paraded the streets, but the intruders had disappeared before this manifestation could be made. There was no violence committed; a party of the city force is ordered by the magistrates to remain at the poor-house this night for its safety, and I shall keep up strong armed patroles during the night.
(Signed)
"GEORGE WRIGHT,
2d Sub-Inspector.
As soon as the Irish Government received this information, it despatched Mr. Fitzgerald, an experienced stipendiary magistrate, in order that he might put himself in communication with the magistrates. That gentleman had no doubt that he should be able to enforce obedience to the law, and he entertained a confident expectation that there would be no further resistance to the poor-law in that district. Another stipendiary magisstrate, upon whom the Irish Government also placed much reliance, had made a similar report, and his Lordship entertained little doubt that the accounts, to which the hon. Member had referred, were much exaggerated. As to the second question, he (Lord Eliot) had great satisfaction in stating, that there was no ground for believing that the report was true. He would not undertake to contradict it, but he would mention that no such distressing account had reached Government, although it had received reports from the immediate neighbourhood.

KNUTSFORD GAOL.
On the motion that the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. T. Duncombesaid that it would be recollected that, on a recent motion respecting the conduct of a noble and learned judge, he had referred to certain transactions in Knutsford House of Correction. A few days afterwards the hon. Member for North Cheshire had given the most unqualified contradiction to his
1128
(Mr. T. Duncombe's) statement. To this statement, after making inquiries of certain parties, he had adhered, notwithstanding the contradiction of the hon. Member, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had consented to institute an inquiry into the conflicting accounts. In fulfilment ot this promise he had sent Capt. Williams, the inspector of prisons, to Knutsford, and he arrived there on the 2d instant; and this morning he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Brown, the chaplain of Knutsford House of Correction, asking him to lay his statement before the House of Commons, justly considering that the investigation instituted by the right hon. Baronet, besides being an inquiry by Government, partook also of the nature of a Parliamentary inquiry. It appeared that the Rev. Mr. Brown had been summoned before the prison inspector, and had subsequently found considerable reason to complain of the conduct of the magistrates. The statement of the chaplain was contained in the following letter, which, with the leave of the House, he (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) would read:—
"Knutsford, March 18, 1843.
"Sir—As you were the Member who brought forward in the House of Commons the conduct of the gaoler of the House of Correction, Knutsford, and obtained from the Secretary of State an inquiry into the state of that prison, I have to beg you will bring forward in the House of Commons the conduct of the magistrates towards me, the chaplain, for having spoken the truth to the inspector of prisons when I was on oath.
"On the arrival of the Inspector at Knutsford, on Thursday, the 2d of March, he sent for me to the George Hotel, where he was staying, and asked me several questions with respect to the Chartist prisoners and the general state of the gaol, which I answered in sincerity and truth. The magistrates met on Friday last, the 17th instant, and asked me several questions on the subject of my private interview with Captain Williams. I at first refused to divulge a private conversation. They then said, 'If you do not tell us what passed during the two hours you were with him, we shall consider it as a refusal to answer the questions of the magistrates, and shall deal with you accordingly.' They then asked if I did not tell the inspector in private that the gaoler had used these words, 'D—n these Chartists, I will give them a bellyful before I have done with them.'
"My reply was, that the inspector had asked me if I had ever heard the gaoler use violent language about them. I then stated to him the above language, which the keeper

1129
or gaoler had made use of to me when he had seen some of the Chartist prisoners who had complained of their food.
"Mr. Trafford, the chairman of the quarter sessions, said, why did not you report these words to the magistrates at the time they occurred? I answered, because you, sir, in April, 1830, in consequence of some misunderstanding having taken place between me and the gaoler, told me not to interfere in the discipline of the gaol, but confine myself solely to my spiritual duties, which I considered a prohibition to report that or any such language, or anything relating to the gaoler. After that order I made a note in my private diary on the day it was given. The letter addressed to me on the 3rd of February, 1843, by the gaol committee, desiring me not to put anything on my public journal with respect to the gaol discipline until I had first laid it before the gaol committee, which letter is in Capt: Williams's possession, will show that ray construction of Mr. Trafford's order was correct. After sitting for some time in deliberation the magistrates sent for me, and Mr. Trafford told me that they had come to the determination of recommending to the quarter sessions to be held at Chester, on Monday, the 27th inst., to remove me. I asked what charges were against me? The answer was, none. No unfaithfulness in the discharge of my duties, no immoral conduct, nothing whatever; only that I had stated to the inspector of prisons what I ought to have stated to the magistrates. I again repeated I considered myself under restraint from the order given me by Mr. Trafford to confine myself to my spiritual duties. The magistrates replied it was absurd to consider such an order a prohibition. Mr. Trafford and Mr. Lloyd shortly afterwards observed to me, 'We find it impossible for you and the governor to go on together; we cannot part with him, out with you.' Mr. Lloyd added, 'If you were to remain, it would soon be no gaol at all.' This remark had reference to the inspector having had all restraint removed, and liberty was given to me to report to the nearest visiting justice any improper conduct of the gaoler or any other officer; both Mr. Trafford and Mr. Lloyd added, 'There is no imputation on your character, and no charge for your neglect of your duties.' I replied, 'I will write to the Secretary of State.' 'With that we have nothing to do.'
"When the magistrates met on the 24th of February last, and took the depositions of some of the Chartist prisoners, which they forwarded to Mr. Tatton Egerton, as the ground of his statement in the House of Commons, they never called me; if they had done so I would have stated to the magistrates the words I stated to Captain Williams. Why they did not call me is best known to themselves.
"I have been thirty years in the Church, and some time officiated as chaplain to a garrison
1130
"By the next post I will forward to you testimonials from the magistrates, from the surgeon, and the gaoler in my favour, when I was candidate for the Pentonville Prison chaplaincy.
"Your obedient servant,
"W. BROWNE,
"Chaplain Knutsford House of Correction."
He now called upon the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to say whether a chaplain of a gaol, who had been for thirty years a member of the Established Church, against whose character there was not the slightest complaint, who, according to the magistrates' own account, had faithfully discharged his duty, and who, in obedience of that duty, had given information to the inspector of prisons sent down by the Government, ought to be visited by the displeasure of the magistrates, and, at a Court of Quarter Sessions to be held on the 27th inst., should be removed? It was clear, however, that by this falling out between the gaoler, magistrates, and chaplain the public would really get at the truth; and, if he had heard correctly, the magistrates would have reason to regret that this inquiry had been instituted, and that the statements he (Mr. Duncombe) had originally made would be mainly borne out. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, who had charge of the prisons, was bound in duty to preserve this chaplain from the anger of the magistrates, and see that he was not displaced.
Mr. Tatton Egertonsaid, that the magistrates were quite as anxious as the hon. Member that the truth should be known. They had intimated to their chaplain their disapproval of his conduct, because, being the officer of the gaol, he had not communicated to them what had passed in the gaol, which they looked upon as a violation of the confidence that ought to subsist between them and their officers. It appeared that during the last two or three years the chaplain had been in the habit of keeping private memoranda of what passed in the gaol. He should think that the House would expect such to be communicated to the magistrates, for unless it were made it would be impossible for the visiting magistrates to have accurate evidence of what passed in the gaol. [Mr. T. S. Duncombe: The magistrates prohibited him from making communications.] He could not conceive that any officer of the gaol could think that it

1131
was his duty to withhold such communications. The moment after Captain Williams had left they made the inquiry; they were only anxious that the truth should be known; he understood that the inspector's report had been received at the Home Office that morning.
Sir James Grahamthought the complaint of the hon. Member somewhat premature. Immediately after the hon. Member's statement on a former evening, an inspector of prisons had proceeded to Knutsford. The inspector did institute a searching inquiry, but his report had not yet been seen by him (Sir James Graham). It had been left at the Home Office, but on the request of Captain Williams, it had been forwarded to him for revision. He was not, therefore, in possession of the report, and he thought that the complaint of the chaplain was premature, inasmuch as it was his intention to lay the report upon the Table of the House. It was also, he conceived premature because the power to deprive him of office was not vested in the justices or in the visiting justices, but in the Court of Quarter Sessions, which had not yet met. They were, therefore, only discussing the apprehensions of an officer, which might be more or less well-founded, but still they were only apprehensions; it rested with the majority of magistrates at quarter sessions to say whether the removal should take place or not. The hon. Member had supposed, erroneously, that he (Sir James Graham) had a control over the election or removal of an officer. The power was absolutely vested by law in the Court of Quarter Sessions. Till he had come into the House he did not know of the complaint of the chaplain.
Order of the Day read. On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,

THE GOVERNOR OF ST. KITT'S.
Sir Charles Napierrose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies a question. The noble Lord had received several reports of the transaction in which the Governor of St. Kitts was involved to which he had referred the other evening; and he wished to ask whether those reports bore out the statement he had made in the House? He was induced to ask this, because, by the statement made by the noble Lord the other evening, it seemed as if the noble Lord wished it to be understood that a lady was in the boat when the circumstance took place. Now,
1132
the lady was not in the boat; she had been carried on board, and returned to England in bad health.
Lord Stanleysaid, that this was very much like asking him what his opinion was upon the case. The governor had been on board the steamer in consequence of a lady who was in ill health being there; but he believed it was quite true that she was not in the boat when it was returning from the steamer. He should be quite prepared to lay the information before the House as soon as Mr. Conyngham had had an opportunity of making any explanation he might wish; and in order that there might be no inconvenient delay, as Mr. Conyngham had made a statement to the directors containing a complaint against the officer, he (Lord Stanley) had desired a communication to be made to Mr. Conyngham's father, to know whether he was satisfied with that complaint, without making any further inquiry from his son, and if he was, the papers would be laid on the Table forthwith.

PROGRESS OF THE ESTIMATES—EXCHEQUER BILLS.
Mr. William Williams: Before the House went into committee, he must complain of the haste with which the estimates were to be passed, those now to be discussed having been delivered only on Friday and that morning.
Mr. Humebegged to inform the Government that he had no objection to passing the vote for Exchequer Bills and the Commissariat, but he could not agree to the immediate progress with the vote for Civil Contingencies.
Mr. William Williamsthought the right hon. Gentleman had better propose one vote for the whole sum required, than carry on such a farce as this. He desired to know at what rate of interest the new Exchequer Bills were to be issued. He hoped also that the House would not vote away the public money, unless they were assured that the taxes now in existence were sufficient to pay this vast amount of expenditure. He supposed that as the right hon. Gentleman had now received six months of the Income-tax, he would tell whether he had or had not the means, with the existing taxes, to pay the expenditure; and, if he could not, the House ought to wait till the Budget was before the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the Exchequer Bills would be

1133
issued at an interest of 1¾ d. a-day. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether the money already supplied would pay the charges already voted. Now, as far as the 11,000,000 l.. or 12,000,000 l. already voted, the revenue was ample to meet it. The appeals under the Income-tax had caused considerable delay, and he, therefore, was not able to give the hon. Member any information as to the exact amount of the tax.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that the civil contingency estimates extended over fifteen pages, which were all details, and it was rather too great a tax, even on the forbearance of the Opposition, now to press them.
Mr. W. Williamsobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated to the House that he meant to issue the Exchequer Bills at the interest of 1¾d. per day, which was 2¾ per cent., whilst money in the market was not worth more than I or 1½ per cent. He would ask, what were the circumstances of the country which required 1¼ per cent. more to be paid for money borrowed by the public than money raised by private individuals? Exchequer Bills now bore a premium in the market of 70 s., or 3½ per cent. That was the premium of the day, and it was equal to one-and-a-quarter year's interest. The circumstances of the money market did not warrant the right hon. Gentleman in entertaining the slightest alarm, besides he had always the power of raising the interest on Exchequer Bills, a most improper power, as he (Mr. Williams) thought, to trust with any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had no power of decreasing the interest; at any rate, he did not recollect that it had ever been exercised. He had no doubt if the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued the bills at the rate of 1¼d. a-day, he would have no difficulty in obtaining the amount required. It was most unjust towards the people to waste the public money, by giving so much more interest for money borrowed on public securities than was given by private individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman, or any one on the Treasury benches, wanted to raise money, or to make a purchase on their own account, they would not give more than the fair market price for what they required; and why should they not act in the same way for the public? He would like the right hon. Gentleman to show him the necessity for paying 2¾per cent. When
1134
the market price was not more than 1 or 1½ per cent. He had been told by one of the largest merchants connected with the trade of London, that he had 100,000 l., for which he could not get more than 1 per cent. As the amount to be saved was very large, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to clear up the matter to the satisfaction of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was imagined, because upon a particular occasion money could be obtained temporarily at 1 per cent, that the Exchequer Bills could circulate at that interest. With all deference to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge in matters of this description, he must say, that in regulating the interest on Exchequer Bills, they were not able to take the rate from a reference to a particular time or to the temporary circumstances of the market. In one week, in the City, the rate of interest might vary from I per cent. to 2½ or 3 per cent., and they would be involved in perpetual difficulty by adopting the lowest amount of interest for the moment in the market. The hon. Member must consider that the price of the funds gave 3⅛ per cent. interest; and although he admitted that it was the duty of the Government to avail themselves of every favourable opportunity to reduce the interest on Exchequer Bills, according to circumstances, yet he could not agree that they should make any reduction hastily and rashly, without considering all the facts which were calculated to affect the general rate of interest. He had been told the other day, by a gentleman connected with banking in the City, that money might be had for nothing. Of course, the meaning of that was, that money accommodation could be had at a very low rate of interest. But he did not think Government could avail itself of such a state of the money market without introducing the greatest confusion.
Lord John Russellobjected to going into the miscellaneous estimates that night, some of them having been delivered only on Friday, and the others only that day. Many were arranged in a different way, and connected with different portions of expenditure from what they were formerly; and it did appear to him, that taking these two things together, they were proceeding too rapidly. He must observe, also, that the course which he used to adopt when he held office was now departed from. The course which he (Lord John Russell)

1135
had been accustomed to take, was always to give notice in the votes of the particular orders which he proposed to proceed with. He was desirous that it should be stated upon the paper that certain orders of the day would be taken before the other orders.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, it appeared on the notices that his hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Treasury, Sir, George Clerk, would move the Exchequer Bills, the commissariat estimates, the civil contingencies, and the miscellaneous estimates, in committee of supply; and, as there was none but Government business on the paper, he thought it might be inferred that they would be taken first. However, he agreed with the noble Lord that it would be better to follow the course which he had suggested; and he would take care that that course should be pursued for the future. He believed that the order in which the estimates would be taken had been stated on Friday. The civil contingencies, he believed, had been delivered on Thursday morning. He proposed first to take the Exchequer bills, then the commissariat estimates. To that he imagined there would be no objection. He then proposed to go on with the civil contingencies, and if any objections should be made to going on with the other estimates he would not press them.
Mr. Humehad no objection to going on with the Exchequer bills and the commissariat estimates; but, with regard to the civil contingencies, they contained so many items many of them new, that he should certainly object to going on with them until further time had been given for their consideration.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the estimates for the civil contingencies had been in the hands of the hon. Member ever since Thursday morning.
House in Committee of

SUPPLY.—EXCHEQUER BILLS.
Sir G. Clerk Sir G. Clerk moved, that a sum not exceeding 18,182,100 l.. be granted for the payment of the Exchequer bills issued in 1842, and which yet remained unprovided for.
Mr. Humewished to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to state whether, in renewing these bills, he intended to make any alteration in the rate of interest of the bills for which this money was to be voted; and whether he intended to make any alteration in the
1136
rate of interest of the bills which were to be issued for the future.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the present vote was to make good the exchange of Exchequer bills which had been voted during the course of the last Session of Parliament. Other bills would be provided for in a committee of ways and means, at a subsequent period of the Session, in the month of June. To undertake to say three months beforehand what the rate of interest would be in June, was a proceeding which no man, having charge of the financial concerns of the country, could possibly undertake. The interest of money three months hence might materially alter, and it must be left to the rate of interest at the time of the exchange to determine what the rate should be.
Mr. Humewished to know whether the right hon, Gentleman paid the same interest to the Bank of England for deficiency bills as he did to the public viz., 2d. on all bills.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the interest on the Exchequer bills issued in June, was 2d and on those issued the day before yesterday l¾d.. The interest given to the Bank on deficiency bills was the same as that given to the public, it was 2d but when the new bills were issued no doubt the Bank would conform to the general rate.
Mr. William Williamssaid, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he had given interest at the rate of 2d. and expected to give it at the rate of 1¾d. to the Bank of England on the deficiency bills, astonished him. He had never known the same rate given except under great pressure. If the right hon. Gentleman sold the Exchequer bills to the public, he got money in exchange; whereas if he went to the Bank of England with deficiency bills, instead of obtaining money, as he did from the public, he got only notes, printed at a cost, as he (Mr. Williams) had once stated, of only l½d. for a 1,000 l., and an hon. director had laughed at him for estimating the cost so high. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had made a proper bargain with the Bank, he could have obtained any amount, in exchange for deficiency bills, at l¼d. a day, and he might have disposed of Exchequer bills to the public at the same rate. He would like that the right hon. Gentleman should show him how the

1137
public interest could suffer by lowering the rate of interest on those bills. It was not now, as it used to be, that Exchequer bills could be paid into the Exchequer for taxes; they could not be now so paid till they were due. Therefore, the public service would not suffer in the slightest degree by issuing Exchequer bills at a lower rate of interest. It was due to the public that this saving should be made, and he could not conceive why the right hon. Gentleman should give advantages to the money market which were quite uncalled for. Exchequer bills possessed a great advantage over funded property. The capital of Exchequer bills was at all times the same, whereas the amount of the funds was constantly varying. To-day they were at 97, and they had come down in 1825 and 1826 to 87. Exchequer bills on the contrary, were always paid in full. The reason why the interest on funded property was larger than on bills of exchange was, that the bills of exchange were of a certain amount: they paid the amount which they bore on the face, and were a full security. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not answered the question he had put to him, namely, why he now proposed to issue Exchequer bills at this high rate of interest, when they bore in the market a premium equal to the interest for one and a quarter year. 1: was apparent that he was not making the bargain for the public which he ought.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould answer the hon. Gentleman by reference to his own argument. He had said, that in the Three per Cents. the interest which was now given would be a proper rate; because a person who embarked 100 l. in those funds might lose a part of his capital by the depreciation of his capital; and then the hon. Member had gone on to say that Exchequer bills were now at a premium, being sold for 103 l. 10 s.. But did not the hon. Gentleman see that the value of Exchequer bills might also be depreciated by the diminution of the premium upon them, and that a party who held such securities might sustain loss, just in the same manner as a holder of stock in the Three per Cents. If a high rate of interest was necessary in one case, therefore, it must be admitted, though perhaps the argument was not equally strong in both cases, that it was requisite in the other. All that he could say was, that having considered this question most
1138
anxiously, he had made that reduction which in the present state of the credit of the country he had thought it fit to make, but that he did not think that he should have been justified in sanctioning an arrangement which would have caused any considerable alteration in the prices.
Mr. W. Williamshad no doubt that in the existing state of things the right hon. Gentleman could issue as many bills as were necessary at 1¼d. or l½s. at most, and that a saving of 150,000 l might be effected, without any prospect of injury to the public credit.
Mr. Divettthought that the object of the right hon. Gentleman must be taken to be to preserve a uniform rate of interest. It was said that money could be had at a less rate than that which was now paid; but if the right hon. Gentleman were to attempt to deal with the market in the manner proposed, a variable rate of interest would be established, and inextricable confusion produced.
Dr. Bowring: The question was whether, in the present state of the market, and with the increasing unwillingness of mercantile men and manufacturers to employ money in speculation or production, the time was not come when the interest ought to be reduced. It appeared to him, he confessed, that the Government might have reduced the rate of interest considerably below that at which it now stood.
Mr. Humethought that this was not a question upon which any doubt could exist, and he had been surprised that the hon. Member for Exeter should have exhibited so much ignorance on the subject. He believed that at the present time the amount of deposits in the Bank of England, exclusive of bullion, was from 8,000,000 l. to 10,000,000 l and this vast sum of money was waiting for employment. In the existing state of things, it was impossible to expect that commercial matters would revive; and with an amount of capital so large disengaged, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman paid too much interest. It was the duty of the Government to obtain their money in the cheapest market, especially considering the distress and the extraordinary taxation under which the country was labouring.
vote agreed to.
Sir George Clerk Sir George Clerk moved that the sum of 191,045 l. be granted for the expenses of the commissariat department. He was

1139
happy to inform the committee that in this department a saving of 9,864 l. had been effected, the vote of last year having been 200,919 l.
Mr. Humewas glad to perceive that the expenses of this department were reduced, but he thought the diminution too small. He could not account for the large expenditure of money in the colonies; and unless our expenditure were largely diminished, the country would be placed in a serious position. The present expenditure was altogether unjustified; we were running riot in our poverty; and the only remedy to which he could look with any hopeful anticipations, was a finance committee to inquire into and check our expenditure.
Sir R. Peeldid not justify the estimates upon any ground of the flourishing condition of the country; nor did he think that the fact of such a state of things existing could justify an extravagant expenditure. He went further than the hon. Member, and affirmed that whatever were the condition of the finances, that could not justify keeping up a single man more than was wanted. It must, at the same time, be admitted that an establishment, such as this country was compelled to maintain, could not be always reduced concurrently with the existence of distress. The total amount of the military force of this country, exclusive of the army of the East Indies, was 95,000 men; but with this force rested the protection, not only of the British, but of our colonial empire. Our regular army in all our colonies, exclusive of India, was less by 10,000 men than that retained by France in Algeria alone. A military force must be maintained for the defence of colonies. Let them take the case of Australia, and of the other colonies added to our empire within the last thirty years, and let them compare the present amount of our force, and that which we maintained thirty years ago. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the subject of a finance committee, but he did not see the advantage to be derived from an inquiry before such a body; and was of opinion that the governors of the various colonies must be better able to form a judgment of the necessity of maintaining military force than such a committee. The colonial committee of 1834 had been unable to suggest any reduction in our colonial establishments, and he thought that the same result would
1140
attend a like inquiry at the present time. Independently of other considerations, a certain amount of force was necessary to maintain the system of reliefs. The establishment of this year in other respects was not greater than was required. The hon. Gentleman the other day had suggested the immediate reduction of the naval and military forces of this country in China. He (Sir R. Peel) had said at that time that he did not feel justified in placing implicit reliance on the good faith of our new allies, and recent events had shown that it was wiser to incur a slight additional expenditure rather than run the risk of losing that advantage which had been gained by force of our arms.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Baronet was mistaken in the observation which he had last made, for in what he had said he had distinctly excepted China from the rule which he had endeavoured to lay down in other cases. The number of men employed in that part of the globe however, was only 3,102 out of the 45,000 men, devoted to our colonial possessions. He complained of the large forces uselessly maintained in the Mediterranean and in Canada; and he thought that the right hon. Baronet had admitted the weakness of his own argument when he had resorted to Algeria as a case in point.
Mr. F. T. Baringwas glad to see a reduction made in this vote, and made no objection to the amount. He thought that the maintenance of an efficient commissariat was highly necessary, for without such a body, there could be no check on the expenditure of our colonies. He approved of the method in which the present estimate was prepared, and expressed a hope that the estimates of the War-office would be similarly arranged.
Lord John Russellsaw no reason to offer any objection to the amount of force proposed to be taken for the ensuing year, nor to the expenditure of the year in this respect. Considering what had taken place, and the late termination of the war with China, he thought that the Government could not properly have asked for a smaller amount than that which was proposed.
Mr. W. Williamscomplained of the large amount of the army, which was 13,000 men more than it was in 1832.
Mr. Bernaldid not think the army too

1141
large, considering the important station this country held in the world, and our extended colonial possessions. Nor was it fair to charge those who supported the present establishments with being indifferent to the sufferings of the people.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 47,945 l. be granted for the half-pay and pensions of the commissariat department.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the next vote which he had to propose was for the civil contingencies. As the papers relative to these estimates had only been distributed on Saturday, if it appeared to be the feeling of the House that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of them, he would not press them. He would only state, that in preparing this vote he had endeavoured to carry into effect the wishes of hon. Members expressed last year. He had prepared, which was printed, an abstract, comparing the proposed expenditure of the present year with that under this head in former years. The vote which he had to propose was nearly the same in amount as that of last year. He should have previously observed, that he had removed from the vote for civil contingencies all those charges which were of regular occurrence. The vote last year was 130,000 l.; the vote he had now to propose was 110,000 l. This difference, however, did not arise from any material reduction in the vote for, in the first place, there was the sum of 10,000 l. left unexpended last year, and there was the further amount of 10,000 l. transferred to other heads of permanent expenditure.
Mr. Humesaid, though the explanation of the hon. Member was satisfactory, yet there were a number of items in the vote which before he had not an opportunity of seeing. The vote comprised between forty and fifty items, some of which he thought would require further explanation, and, therefore, all he desired was sufficient time to be prepared to ask for those explanations. He observed there was one item of 2,500 l. for the preparations for the christening of the Prince of Wales, 600 l. being for changing his Royal High-ness's Coat of Arms. There was, further, a charge for the consecration of the five colonial bishops, besides some expences incurred on account of the Bishop of Jerusalem. These required some explanation, and be would, therefore, move that
1142
the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that when, on the occasion of a large sum of money being voted, any hon. Member stated bonâ fide he had not had an opportunity of looking into the items, he thought it was the duty of the Government to give way to the wishes of those hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for Montrose and the hon. Member for Coventry, devoted so much time to the examination of the public expenditure. He was unwilling unduly to press forward the estimates, though he regretted the hon. Member was not prepared to go on; but as the hon. Member stated he had not had a full opportunity of considering these items of expenditure— for they were not estimates—seeing that the House had already agreed on the propriety of the army, the navy, and the ordnance estimates—seeing that there was no disposition to a factious opposition—he would advise his hon. Friend to defer to the wishes of the hon. Member. But the hon. Member for Montrose had referred, among other items, to that for the christening of the Prince of Wales. With regard to that item, he hoped the committee would bear in mind that the expense had been incurred for a special and particular occasion, that a strong wish had been expressed by all classes that the christening should take place in one of the sacred edifices of the country, that the ceremonial was graced by the presence of his Majesty the King of Prussia; and he (Sir R. Peel) could only say that the civil list had borne a very large portion of this unforeseen expenditure, and therefore he trusted the committee would think that, in conformity with precedent, the other portion ought to be borne out of the civil contingencies. He would not enter into further details, but recommend his hon. Friend to take some other evening for these votes, which he was sure the more they were examined the more they would be found to be consistent with economy.
Mr. W. Williamswhile he admitted the perfect fairness with which the right hon. Baronet consented to postpone these votes, must say that the estimates already passed had been unduly hurried forward. Since he had had a seat in that House, he had never known the estimates brought forward and gone through at so early a period as in the present Session. With

1143
respect to these civil contingencies, he had so little expected them to come on this evening that he had not come prepared even with the papers.
Sir R. Peelhad already said, that if the hon. Member thought he could approach the consideration of these matters with more satisfaction to himself by a postponement, he would not press them. But the hon. Member complained of the haste in which the other estimates had been hurried forward. Now, he (Sir R. Peel) thought, that when the Government proposed perfectly reasonable estimates and took the House by surprise by the extent of their reductions—when, in fact, there was a general acquiescence in them, the hurry or haste in which they were got through did not arise from any precipitancy on the part of the Government, but from the universal consent to the Government propositions from both sides of the House.
Mr. Humesaid, so far from being contented with the reductions in the expenditure which had been made, he should have moved in many instances still further reductions; but seeing the support the right hon. Baronet had, he, for one, had given up the notion of fighting them.
House resumed. The committee to sit again.

COAST OF AFRICA — EXPENSE OF COLONIES.
House in committee on the Coast of Africa Bill.
Mr. Humeprotested against the Government proceeding hastily to form an establishment on the western coast of Africa. Before this was done some plan ought to be laid before the House.
Lord Stanleysaid, the object of the bill was to carry out the recommendations of the committee of last year, by the establishment of competent tribunals for adjudication in the cases of seizures under the slave-trade treaties. It was, however, not the intention of the Government to take more for the establishment than had been voted in the estimate.
Mr. Humesuggested, that it would be a great improvement in the management of colonial affairs if the colonial expenditure was brought annually before the House. In short, he thought there ought annually to be a colonial budget, an Indian budget, and a Treasury budget. At present it was impossible to ascertain what
1144
the vast colonial possessions of Great Britain cost this country.
Lord Stanleyremarked, that it would be practically impossible to submit to Parliament any budget with reference to the colonies. For some colonies, for instance, he, as colonial Minister, might be called upon, if the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose held good, to state its financial position this year as applicable to the years 1844 or 1845. That was a difficulty he would not undertake to meet.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienthought the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department would do well to exact from the governors of the colonies an annual report of the state and management of the finances of each, in order to lay the same in a blue book every year before the House. With regard to the bill now under consideration, it gave unlimited power to the Government, while at the same time it was impossible to see what was the nature of the settlement to be raised. He hoped the noble Lord would not object to the insertion of a clause limiting the operation of the bill.
Lord Stanleyhad no objection to adopt a limitation, but thought the bill had better stand in its present form. With regard to the production of blue books of governors' reports, as suggested, he could only say the plan, if carried out, would load the Table with a mass of matter which, while useless, would involve a vast expence in printing. Again, a colonial financial statement in that House would be calculated to excite a jealousy in those colonies which already had Legislatures of their own, inasmuch as they might object to the revision by the House of Commons of the financial proceedings of their own representatives.
Mr. Tufnellconcurred with the noble Lord in the opinion, that the production of the whole of the blue books would be useless, but there were many financial returns—from Ceylon, for instance—from the colonies, which he thought ought to be laid before Parliament.
Mr. Ewartagreed in thinking the self-governing colonies ought to be left to themselves with reference to the management of their financial matters; but with respect to those of the colonies which had not Legislatures of their own, he contended their financial arrangements ought to come under the review of Parliament. With regard to the suggestion of the hon.

1145
Member for Limerick, he thought no term of years ought to be adopted; but that Parliament should retain the option to recall the powers conferred under this bill at any time they pleased.
Lord Stanley: The Government would be quite content to leave the authorities under the bill as tenants at will.
Bill went through committee.

SLAVE TRADE—BOUNTIES.
Sir G. Clerk Sir G. Clerk moved, that the report on the Slave-trade (Payment of Bounties) Resolution be received.
Captain Pechellinquired, first, whether the tribunals by which vessels taken were to be tried, were to be under a mixed commission, or under the Admiralty Court; and, next, whether it was under this bill intended to give the bounty of 4l. on the tonnage of every vessel seized, but not containing slaves, though equipped for the Slave-trade; and, further, whether the bounty of 2l. 10 s. per ton would be paid upon all vessels seized and broken up
Sir G. Clerkreplied, that the tribunals by which vessels so seized would be condemned depended upon the treaties entered into on the subject of the Slave-trade. According to two of those treaties, the tribunals would consist of mixed commissions, and by the third the Admiralty Court. With regard to the bounty on tonnage, it was unnecessary to make any provision on this bill, because the statute 1 and 2 Victoria, chap. 47, gave power to the courts to grant such bounties.
Report agreed to.

THE MINT—COINAGE.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for,
"An account, in detail, under separate and distinct heads, of the manner in which the sum of 32,2002. sterling, voted in the miscellaneous estimate (No. 6) for the year ending the 31st of March, 1843, was expended; stating the amount paid to each salaried officer for the year, and showing the total charge for the Mint establishment for the year; also, the amount received by each of the officers from the Government, and from individuals, for duty performed by those officers in their various departments during the same period; and stating also the charge for each assay, and the aggregate amount received at the Mint for assays within the year; also the charge for melting; and the aggregate amount received in the year for melting; and stating the portion of these charges which have been brought to the account of Government, and the portion
1146
paid to the officers of the Mint, and the amount to each."
He wished to know if there was any objection to the return.
Mr. Gladstoneobjected to the return, as it would be of no advantage to the public. The officers of the Mint had the privilege, when not engaged in the public service, of earning private emolument.
Mr. Humesaid, they did this from the materials afforded them by the public. He complained of the amount Mr. Matthieson, of the Mint, had received for the assay of the Chinese silver as exorbitant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, considering that Mr. Matthieson had to furnish the materials for the assay, as well as the labour, and care, and skill, his payment was only reasonable.
Mr. Gladstoneproposed to omit all the words, after the word Government so as to exclude "individuals."
Mr. Humepersisted in his motion, the House divided; on the question that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 15; Noes 39: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Barneby, J.

Morison, Gen.

Blewitt, R. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncan, G.

Ross, D. R.

Ewart, W.

Stanton, W. H.

Fielden, J.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Yorke, H. R.

Gill, T.

TELLERS.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Hume, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Bowring, Dr.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Arkwright, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Buckley, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Northland, Visct.

Escott, B.

Patten, J. W.

Flower, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fuller, A. E.

Polhill, F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Pringle, A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tennent, J. E.

Greene, T.

Tollemache, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Grogan, E.

Vivian, J. E.

Henley, J. W.

Young, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hope, G. W.

Baring, H.

Main question as amended agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter 8 o'clock.