SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE.

HC Deb 01 June 1849 vol 105 cc1039-78

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.

Upon the Question, that the sum of 103,467l. be voted for the maintenance and repairs of the Royal palaces and public buildings,

MR. B. OSBORNE

said, no man in the House had greater respect for the Sovereign of the country than himself. While he was sure he was only expressing the feeling of the House in saying, that he was most anxious that the Sovereign should be lodged in a way that would do credit to the country and the station She occupied in Europe; at the same time, he thought the House was bound to inquire into the system by which these enormous sums were, year after year, brought before the House of Commons for public palaces. He was sure the Sovereign would be the last individual in the country to wish that sys- tem to continue without proper inquiry being made into it. Hon. Gentlemen who knew nothing of the estimates, were not aware that, besides a sum of 750l., there was one of 50,000l. for improving Buckingham palace; making a total of 50,750l. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] But that right hon. Gentleman would admit that the 50,000l. had to be provided. The House ought to know what had already been spent on Buckingham Palace. A Committee sat in 1841, and they made a report, by which it appeared that the agregate sum expended, exclusive of the marble arch, on Buckingham Palace, was 613,296l. If to this were added other votes amounting to 150,000l., it would be found that that palace had cost the country, altogether, 763,296l. Now, for such a sum as that the House ought to have been able to build a palace every way fitting for the Sovereign of England, and not the sort of patchwork building erected in the hole in which Buckingham Palace stood at present. So much for the palace. The vote for Windsor Castle was for 6,550l. for stables and other detached buildings, and that was followed by a vote for 10,000l. for an increased supply of water for general clearance of drains, and especially for the further protection of the castle from fire. The entire vote was for 16,550l.; and the House might probably say that that was a small sum. But he found that since the year 1824 there had been expended upon Windsor Castle no less a sum than 1,498,516l. Thousands had been expended upon it in the glorious days of George IV.; and, amongst other items, the sum of 267,000l. had then been paid for furniture. Was this system to continue? Did hon. Members deserve the name of guardians of the public purse if they suffered it to exist? He hoped they would express some strong opinion upon the subject. It was not his intention to divide upon the present occasion, because, if he did, he would probably go with only a baker's dozen into one of the lobbies. But he wished to point attention to the fact, that they were allowing enormous sums to be squandered, and that there was no knowing when the Minister would come down to the House and ask for increased votes. There was, in addition to Buckingham and Windsor, the new palace at Westminster, upon which 2,000,000l. had already been spent. They were erecting a hideous gallery in the House of Lords for the reporters; and they would not be able, after all their expenditure, to hear one word in the new House of Commons. He objected to the item of 4l. 14s. in the votes for keeping up the Palace Court, and he must enter his strong protest against that court in any and every shape. All the details of these palaces were given in separate votes; but he thought it would be a great improvement, and that it would tend to put hon. Members on their guard, if the aggregate amount expended upon these buildings figured in the Votes also. He attributed no fault to the Government for the heavy estimates they were bringing forward; but he called upon the House to put a stop to the profuse expenditure which was perpetually going on.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, with regard to the expenditure on Windsor Castle, he would not enter into any defence of it, as his hon. and gallant Friend would admit, that, when they had a building, it was indispensably necessary, if they would save money, to keep it in repair. It was a remarkable fact that there was no drainage in Windsor Castle, nor was there any apparatus to supply it with fresh water. Neither did he suppose his hon. and gallant Friend would object to taking the ordinary precautions to prevent fire. With regard to the rest of the expenses, they were for ordinary repairs; and his hon. and gallant Friend must know, being himself a housekeeper, that it was bad economy not to keep a house in repair.

MR. SLANEY

had been told by an eminent engineer, that the drainage in Windsor Castle was absolutely necessary, and that the inhabitants of Windsor were much interested in its being executed.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

complained that the barracks at Windsor were in a' deplorable state with regard to drainage, though he had seen no item in the votes to remedy the defect.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

That belongs to the Ordnance estimates.

Vote agreed to.

The next vote was 14,200l. to defray the expense of enlarging and improving Buckingham Palace.

MR. B. OSBORNE

asked if there was any estimate of the furniture wanted for the palace?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

hoped the answer he had to give would be extremely satisfactory to his hon. and gallant Friend. The public would be put to no expense whatever for furniture.

MR. B. OSBORNE

was delighted to hear that. As he was on his legs, he might ask what was to be done with the marble arch? That arch had originally cost 80,000l., and a charge had since been made for taking it down.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said his hon. and gallant Friend had at last asked a question which puzzled him to answer. He could not tell what was to be done with the arch. It was quite clear it could not stand where it was, and where it was to be put he did not know.

Vote agreed to.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

here intimated that he would postpone the main vote for the new palace at Westminster till certain papers were produced.

On a vote for 3,284l. for the temporary accommodation of the Houses of Parliament,

MR. B. OSBORNE

said, the House, perhaps, was not aware that on these temporary buildings they had already spent 200,000l. The charge for ventilation was 20,000l.; and he observed Mr. Justice Wightman complaining the other day that he could not sit in his court owing to the defective system of ventilation. The House of Commons was, under all the circumstances, pretty well ventilated; but still he thought that 20,000l. was a large sum to pay for it. He observed that the Fine Arts Committee cost 6,000l., and he wished to ask the members of that Fine Arts Committee if they were aware of that hideous gallery which was now in course of erection in the House of Lords, which he supposed the country must pay for?

Vote agreed to, as was also

A vote of 45,771l., for the new packet harbour at Holyhead.

On a vote for 141,500l., to defray the expenses of harbours of refuge, being proposed,

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he wished clearly to understand whether these harbours were for military or commercial purposes. He had heard it doubted whether the works at Dover could be of any use to merchant vessels. Indeed, the French regarded them as military defences.

MR. ROBINSON

, as chairman of Lloyd's, thanked the Government for constructing them.

SIR J. TYRELL

thought that the onus of proving the use to which these harbours were to he applied, lay with the right hon. Member for Manchester, and his friends. For his part, he should be disposed to call these works "pacific arbitration harbours."

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed, that in his examination before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee last year, he had stated that these harbours had been constructed on the recommendation of the shipping interest, and that they had been approved of by that interest.

Vote agreed to, as was also a vote of 10,000l. for the Caledonian Canal.

On a vote of 24,233l. for maintaining public buildings in the department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and on account of inland navigation,

MR. SPOONER

moved the reduction of the vote by the sum of 1,226l., the amount appropriated on account of Maynooth College.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed that a certain sum had been voted for additional buildings; but that provision for the repairs of the old building could only be made by an annual vote.

Afterwards Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 23,007l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; also the Expense of Inland Navigation and other Services, under the direction of the said Commissioners, to the 31st day of March 1850. The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 96: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.
Alcock, T.	Hill, Lord E.
Anderson, A.	Hindley, C.
Arkwright, G.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Benett, J.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Buck, L. W.	Knox, Col.
Cole, hon. H. A.	Lockhart, W.
Dod, J. W.	Martin, J.
Drummond, H.	Neeld, J.
Duncan, G.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Fergus, J.	Sidney, Ald.
Fordyce, A. D.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Fox, W. J.	Wyld, J.
Galway, Visct.	TELLERS.
Goring, C.	Beresford, W.
Heyworth, L.	Spooner, R.

List of the NOES.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Blackall, S. W.
Baines, M. T.	Bowles, Adm.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Boyle, hon. Col.
Bellew, R. M.	Brotherton, J.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Brown, W.

Burke, Sir T. J.	Littleton, hon. E. R.
Cardwell, E.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Magan, W. H.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Mahon, Visct.
Clifford, H. M.	Mangles, R. D.
Cobden, R.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Milnes, R. M.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Denison, E.	O'Connell, M.
Divett, E.	O'Connor, F.
Dundas, Adm.	O'Flaherty, A.
Dunne, F. P.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Ellis, J.	Palmerston, Visct.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Parker, J.
Estcourt, J. B. B.	Pechell, Capt.
Evans, W.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Foley, J. H. H.	Philips, Sir G. R.
Forteseue, hon. J. W.	Power, Dr.
French, F.	Robinson, G. R.
Gibson, rt hon. T. M.	Romilly, Sir J.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.	Russell, Lord J.
Glyn, G. C.	Russell, F. C. H.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Rutherford, A.
Grace, O. D. J.	Shelburne, Earl of
Greene, T.	Shcridan, R. B.
Grenfell, C. P.	Slaney, R. A.
Grenfell, C. W.	Smith, J. A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Smith, J. B.
Grey, R. W.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Guest, Sir J.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.	Tenison, E. K.
Hawes, B.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.	Thompson, Col.
Henry, A.	Thornely, T.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Townshend, Capt.
Hervey, Lord A.	Verney, Sir H.
Howard, Lord E.	Willyams, H.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Wilson, M.
Humphery, Ald.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Jermyn, Earl	Wood, W. P.
Jervis, Sir J.	Wyvill, M.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Lascellcs, hon. W. S.	TELLERS.
Lemon, Sir C.	Tufnell, H.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.	Hill, Lord M.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

A vote of 9,550l. on account of the works and repairs of Kingstown harbour was also agreed to, as was a vote of 93,200l. as salaries and retiring allowances of officers of the two Houses of Parliament.

On a vote of 57,200l. for the salaries and expenses connected with the department of Her Majesty's Treasury,

MR. GOULBURN

objected to the principle upon which the reductions in this vote had been made, contending that no real economy could be effected by reducing the salaries of the superior officers. In the present instance, such a curtailment could only tend to impair the efficiency of the department. Whilst on this subject, he could not refrain from drawing attention to an act of generosity on the part of a Member of Her Majesty's Government. By a Parliamentary paper, which had been laid on the table of the House, it would be seen that compensation had been awarded to those clerks of the old county courts who had been displaced upon the passing of the Act of Parliament establishing the new courts. It appeared that the hon. Gentleman who formerly held the office of Secretary to the Treasury, and was now the Secretary to the Admiralty, had been displaced from a quasi freehold office, and that he had foregone the receipt of a sum of 1,200l. a year, awarded to him as compensation under the Act. He (Mr. Goulburn) thought it only right to mention an act of liberality on the part of the hon. Gentleman, which might have escaped general notice.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his kind mention of his Colleague. With respect to the reduction in the amount of the vote, all he could say was, that it had been resolved on after ample communication with those best qualified to form an opinion as to what would render the office efficient.

MR. HENLEY

contended, that as the Legislature by its policy had cut down the prices of everything in this country, it was unjust to retain the present scale of salaries to officers of State. He moved the reduction of the vote by 5,040l., which he thought a very moderate proposal.

MR. DRUMMOND

had paid great attention to all the discussions which had taken place last year, and during the present Session, on those questions of expenditure and estimates; and his deliberate conviction was that hon. Gentlemen had not succeeded in reducing useless expenditure so much as they might have done, because they had encumbered themselves with minute points of detail—in point of fact, making themselves the Executive, instead of leaving the Government to arrange the details of reduction in the best way they could. He was satisfied that the only effectual mode in which reductions could be properly made was by the Administration itself undertaking to effect them; and the only way for the House to secure that object was by agreeing to some such resolution as he (Mr. Drummond) had put on the Paper, the substance of which was that we could not afford to pay so much any longer; but whether it should be this person's or that person's salary that should be reduced, was a matter of perfect indifference to the country, and one that should be left for the Government itself to decide. He was sure that the public business had increased to such an extent as to require more public servants than formerly sufficed, and that was particularly the case in the higher departments. His only objection to this vote was, that it was part of a system requiring amendment; and the House ought to declare that, for the reasons alleged by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and many others, the present amount of public burdens could not be endured any longer. Much retrenchment must be made in every department; and even if this Motion, which he intended to support, should be carried, it would be only as a drop in the ocean.

COLONEL THOMPSON

said, he did not see why, at the time when there was something like a national jubilee in consequence of their ceasing to pay a great deal more than was necessary for articles of consumption, Her Majesty's servants, of all men, should be excepted, and should give up their chance of a participation in the same. He could not agree to help to authenticate the principle advanced by the mover of the Amendment. The general diminution of prices had surely been a benefit to all, except those who had previously profited by the enhancement of prices; and if some had lost by the removal of the system, others had gained, and the general gains were more than the general losses. This was certainly nothing like a reason why they should begin by reducing the salaries of Her Majesty's servants, As had been said by the Cornish vicar on the occasion of a wreck, "Let us all start fair;" and let us not begin by an invidious attempt at reduction in one department alone. Wherever there was a feasible ground for reduction, he would be found voting for it; but not thinking this a just occasion, he hoped he should not be blamed if he voted against the Amendment.

MR. F. O'CONNOR

would ask what the people out of doors would say, when they saw that those who, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who last spoke, were most enthusiastic on the public platform as financial reformers, were the first in that House to object to begin retrenchment by cutting down the salaries of Her Majesty's Ministers? In his (Mr. O'Connor's) opinion Her Majesty's Ministers were the fittest cases to commence the system with; and he should vote with all his heart with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, to whom he felt bound to pay this just tribute of com- mendation, that the working classes of this country had not a hotter or more sincere Friend in that House, or one whose measures generally, if carried out, would tend more to their benefit.

MR. SLANEY

did not think the present scale of prices would be of permanent duration; and, therefore, he thought it would be better to wait some time longer before they thought of adjusting the salaries of the officers of the Government to a standard of prices which they did not know would continue. Besides, considering the greatly increased work which Her Majesty's servants had now to perform, he did not think they were paid a farthing too much.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the salaries in question had been inquired into on two very recent occasions, and now stood at the amounts which two separate Committees of the House had fixed upon. In 1831, Lord Ashburton moved for and obtained a Committee on the salaries of the higher officers of the Government; and a considerable reduction was made at that time in the salaries of many officers. The same question was inquired into last Session by the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, when a proposal was made to reduce the salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the Motion was only supported by two votes, while there were eleven against it; and, strange to say, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire was himself among the number of those who opposed the reduction. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) agreed with what had been said the other night by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, namely, that he did not think that persons in the public service were generally overpaid—

MR. COBDEN

I beg your pardon. I was speaking of the officers of the Army and Navy, and I said that those on active service were not overpaid, but that we had too many of them.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

had thought the hon. Gentleman alluded to public servants generally. However, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) entertained the strongest feeling that the permanent servants of the public, in the different offices, speaking generally, were not an overpaid body of men; and he could not adduce a better proof of the assertion, than to mention the fact that parties were frequently tempted to leave the public ser- vice by the superior advantages often offered by private service.

ALDERMAN SIDNEY

thought the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire went in the right direction, and should support it, as satisfactory to his own feelings, and only what was just to his constituents. The proposed reduction was perfectly justified by the reduced prices of articles of general consumption, such as tea, sugar, and other necessaries of life, which had fallen from 20 to 25 per cent, as the result of their recent legislation. Experience proved that low prices did not benefit any one class of the community; and he could speak from his own knowledge, that they were anything but advantageous to the commercial classes. They had increased local and national taxation to an extent rendering measures of economy and retrenchment indispensable for the relief of the country. The Government themselves ought certainly not to vote on a Motion like this, relating to their own salaries. It was entirely a question which the private Members of the House ought exclusively to be left to decide.

MR. HENLEY

observed, that he had studiously avoided saying that any one class of public servants in particular were overpaid; but if he must give an opinion on the subject, he must say that he considered the Chief Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chief Secretaries of State, were the worst paid of all Her Majesty's principal public servants. But still he considered his Motion one that was founded upon justice, and such as the public would generally approve of.

MR. HENRY

supported the reduction, because he considered it unfair to reduce the salaries of the subordinate officers, and yet to leave the salaries of the higher officers of the Government to stand just as they were. For the same reason he must strongly condemn the report of the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, who had not dealt with the higher salaries as they had done with the inferior ones.

SIR J. TYRELL

, as an old Member of the House, remembered that the cry for economy and retrenchment in 1831, which had been alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a mere party movement, and that the diminution of expenditure was the every-day stalking-horse of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, who at that time sat at that (the Opposition) side of the House. With regard to the Amendment before the House, he would cordially support it, seeing the generally depressed state of the country, and particularly of the agricultural interest, especially in the south of England and in Ireland; and he felt greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire for proposing to test the sincerity of the Manchester school's professions of love of economy.

MR. GOULBURN

observed that the hon. Gentleman who proposed this reduction said he did so because a general reduction of prices to the extent of 25 per cent having taken place, the salaries of gentlemen in office ought to be somewhat proportionately reduced. If such a reduction in prices really had taken place, he (Mr. Goulburn) could only say for himself that he had not yet experienced the benefits of it. But how had this reduction been effected? Why, by taking off the duties on articles of general consumption, and imposing an income tax on other classes of the community. Therefore it should be remembered that if the persons receiving salaries now wished to be reduced had benefited by the reduced prices, they had had, at the same time, to pay an income tax as compensation for these low prices; and it would not be fair to overlook that circumstance when proposals for reducing their salaries were brought forward.

MR. BUCK

would support the Motion, because he considered the general depression and discontent were never so great in the country as they were at the present moment. The period had therefore arrived when propositions like those of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire ought to receive the earliest attention of Parliament. As a representative of one of the largest counties in the kingdom, he was sure that the public would feel greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for introducing it.

MR. BROTHERTON

, if he had any influence with Her Majesty's Government, would recommend them voluntarily to accept the proposed reduction. At the same time, if it were proposed that there should be a general reduction in the salaries of public servants, he would cordially vote for it; but he considered it unjust and invidious to pick out particular salaries, here and there, and subject them alone to reduction.

MR. SPOONER

begged to make a remark with reference to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, that the income tax was equivalent to the reduction that had been effected in the price of articles of consumption. He would remind him that the income tax was in existence before the year 1846. The Government had by their policy reduced every man's income; they had called upon every class of society to submit to reductions; but they who had done this were the only persons who had escaped the effects of those measures. In common justice they were bound to reduce the salaries of all the officers of State; and the only fault he found with his hon. Friend's Amendment was, that it did not go far enough.

MR. COBDEN

wished to state the reasons why he should support the Amendment, inasmuch as they were not the same as those given by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Members opposite had supported it on the ground that a great reduction had taken place in the price of commodities, and they attributed that reduction to recent commercial legislation. He would remind the House that if recent commercial legislation had affected the price of corn, it had not affected the price of manufactures. Cotton and woollen goods were, previous to that legislation, sold cheaper here than in any country on the face of the earth; otherwise they could not have been exported to all parts of the world. The recent commercial legislation had been of very great advantage to the community which he represented, and had so far rendered them better able to pay these salaries. He wished to guard himself against being supposed to give a kind of vindictive vote against the Government. The tone of hon. Gentlemen opposite indicated that they wished to take revenge against the Government for their commercial policy; but for his own part, his vote would be given on the same grounds as it would have been five years ago. He was of opinion that the higher functionaries in the civil departments were paid more than they need be. He was not, indeed, for paying low salaries; nor was he one of those who thought that cheap bread meant low wages; but he must say that when a Minister received 5,000l. a year, there was room for reduction, while an ample sum was left to maintain the state, rank, and dignity of those great officers. He would undertake to say that it was more than double the amount paid to any similar functionary in any country in the world; and Ministers of State abroad did not, he believed, find any difficulty in discharging the duties of their offices. One of the advantages which he contemplated would result from putting their highest functionaries on lower salaries was this, that they would probably afterwards set the fashion here, in imitation of that of other countries, of adopting a greater simplicity of habit of living, so as to be able to indulge in hospitality at a less extravagant rate. If the salary of 5,000l. a year were reduced to 4,000l., he thought the amount would still be very high, and he did not think any man, whatever might be his private fortune, would be precluded from filling those offices. The filling of the office of Secretary of State did not necessarily involve any great additional expenditure on the part of the individual; on the contrary, the man who had almost incessant occupation had but little time for extravagance. The mode in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire proposed to save this 5,040l., was one of which he (Mr. Cobden) could not approve. It would not be fair to strike 10 per cent off the whole of the salaries. In the Treasury there were a great number of clerks, receiving 150l., 146l., and 109l. a year; and in the same establishment there were messengers receiving 70l. With such salaries he would on no account deal in the same manner as with salaries of 5,000l. And if the Amendment were carried, he would certainly propose that the saving should be distributed in a manner different from that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The country was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for facing the Government as he had done, by moving a reduction of their salaries; and if the Amendment were carried, the reduction effected would, he believed, lead to corresponding reductions in other departments. If the First Lord of the Treasury had not 5,000l. a year, he would not, perhaps, get up in that House and say that he thought a bishop ought to have 10,000l. or 12,000l. a year. Other important reductioms might be expected to follow the reduction of the salaries of the Ministers of the Crown.

MR. SIMEON

said, that it was not desirable that a question involving so important a consideration as general economy in the public expenditure should be brought forward in the spirit with which that Amendment had been introduced, and therefore he would vote against it.

Afterwards Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 52,160l. be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, to the 31st day of March, 1850. The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 84: Majority 51.

List of the AYES.
Beresford, W.	Lockhart, W.
Buck, L. W.	Lushington, C.
Clay, J.	Martin, J.
Clay, Sir W.	Mitchell, T. A.
Cobden, R.	O'Connor, F.
Cubitt, W.	Pechell, Capt.
Drummond, H.	Perfect, R.
East, Sir J. B.	Plowden, W. H. T.
Ellis, J.	Sidney, Ald.
Fergus, J.	Smith, J. B.
Fox, W. J.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Galway, Visct.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Greene, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Henry, A.	Wyld, J.
Heyworth, L.	TELLERS.
Knox, Col.	Henley, J.
Lacy, H. C.	Spooner, R.

List of the NOES.
Anson, hon. Col.	Howard, Lord E.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Jervis, Sir J.
Armstrong, R. B.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
	Lewis, G. C.
Baines, M. T.	Littleton, hon. E. R.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Magan, W. H.
Bellew, R. M.	Mangles, R. D.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Blackall, S. W.	Monsell, W.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Morison, Sir W.
Brotherton, J.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Brown, W.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Busfeild, W.	O'Connell, J.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Owen, Sir J.
Coke, hon. E. K.	Paget, Lord A.
Craig, W. G.	Paget, Lord C.
Crowder, R. B.	Palmerston, Visct.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Parker, J.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Power, Dr.
Denison, E.	Rich, H.
Dundas, Adm.	Romilly, Sir J.
Dunne, F. P.	Russell, Lord J.
Ebrington, Visct.	Russell, F. C. H.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Rutherfurd, A.
Evans, J.	Shafto, R. D.
Evans, W.	Shell, rt. hon. R. L.
Foley, J. H. H.	Simeon, J.
Fordyce, A. D.	Slaney, R. A.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.	Smith, J. A.
Freestun, Col.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Tenison, E. K.
Grace, O. D. J.	Thompson, Col.
Grenfell, C. P.	Thornely, T.
Grenfell, C. W.	Townley, R. G.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Verney, Sir H.
Grey, R. W.	Villiers, hon. C.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Willyams, H.
Guest, Sir J.	Wilson, J.
Haggitt, F. R.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Hawes, B.	Wyvill, M.
Hay, Lord J.	TELLERS.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.	Tufnell, H.
Heywood, J.	Hill, Lord

Original Question put, and agreed to.

On the vote of 25,400l. being proposed, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Home Department,

MR. COBDEN

asked the hon. Member for Oxfordshire whether he meant to persevere in his proposal for reduction with regard to other departments? Had notice been given, many other hon. Members would, he believed, have supported the hon. Member. It would evidently be useless to propose reductions then; but he would suggest that a Motion should be brought forward embracing all departments.

MR. HENLEY

said, he had endeavoured to express to the Committee that his object in making the Motion with regard to the Treasury, was to lay down a general principle. With respect to giving notice of his Motion, the miscellaneous estimates had come on much sooner than he had anticipated, or he should have given notice of his Amendment. He believed the principle laid down by him to be a just one; but of course he would not ask the Committee to divide on every item. That, however, would not preclude him, or any other Member, from again bringing forward the matter.

Vote agreed to, as also the following: 76,000l. for the payment of the salaries and expenses of the Foreign Office; 36,900l. for payment of the salaries and expenses of the office of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; 43,000l. for payment of the salaries and expenses of the Privy Council Office and Office of Trade; 2,000l. for the Lord Privy Seal; 23,900l. to pay the salaries and expenses of the office of Paymaster General; 6,626l. to pay the salaries and expenses of the office of the Comptroller General of the Exchequer; 2,700l. to defray the salaries and expenses of the State Paper Office; 3,540l. to defray a portion of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commission of England.

It was next proposed that a sum of 240,000l. should be voted to defray the expenses connected with the administration of the laws relating to the poor.

MR. HENLEY

observed an increase in the vote with respect to which he asked for an explanation. Where a sum of 103,000l. was voted last year, it was now proposed that a sum of 107,000l. should be granted.

MR. BAINES

observed, that the increase from the sum of 103,000l. to 107,000l. applied to the three commis- sions— the English, Irish, and Scotch—and the whole of the increase applicable to England was 850l. In the early part of the last year, his right hon. predecessor was of opinion that eleven inspectors would be sufficient for discharging the duties of that department; but about the summer he came to the conclusion that thirteen would be necessary, and subsequent experience showed that his conclusion on that subject was correct. The addition of two inspectors, at 500l. a year each, made 1,000l.; but the total increase was only 850l.

CAPTAIN PECHELL

was happy to say, that since the change which took place some few years ago, owing to the result of the inquiry in the Andover union, he had reason to believe a totally different system was adopted.

MR. F. FRENCH

objected to the item of about 63,000l. charged for the expense of the Irish Commission. The House would recollect that when the present poor-law was introduced into England, the expense did not exceed 30,000l. a year; and why, then, should this enormous expense be incurred for forcing upon Ireland a law not suited to her? He found that the office of architect to the commission was still kept up in Ireland, and that the architect received 800l. a year, his assistant, 300l., besides a sum for travelling expenses. He begged to move, that the sum be reduced 30,000l.

MR. HENLEY

called attention to the fact that the salaries of the inspectors cost the country 8,100l. a year; but besides that, for travelling and incidental expenses, there was charged for those gentlemen about 2l. a day. They were paid salaries, amounting to 750l. in some cases, and 500l. in others; but the sum charged for travelling and incidental expenses came to more than the salary. That was more objectionable than anything in the Irish charges. It would be satisfactory to have some explanation with respect to the travelling charges of the inspectors.

MR. BAINES

stated the duties of the inspectors to be almost constantly travelling about the country, and he believed that the sum of 10,000l. represented very fairly the travelling expenses of the thirteen inspectors.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

said, that additional labour had been thrown upon the commissioners during the last few years, which had rendered it necessary to increase the number of clerks employed in the office, and also to increase the salaries of some of the officers. With respect to the architect who had been employed in Ireland, he did not believe that gentleman was deserving of the censure which had been bestowed upon him by some hon. Members.

ALDERMAN SIDNEY

did not think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Poor Law Commissioner, was satisfactory with respect to the travelling expenses of the inspectors. If the whole of the thirteen inspectors had been engaged in travelling every day of the year, the amount allowed to them would be not less than 2l. 10s. per day. He should like to know at what rate they were paid for their travelling expenses.

MR. BAINES

stated, the expenses allowed were the actual expenses of the inspectors, and he had no doubt whatever but that the sum charged was correct.

MR. WYLD

thought the allowance for the salaries of medical officers was not sufficiently large. A sum of 150,000l. only was allowed for medical attendance upon nearly 6,000,000 of people. He hoped that some measure would shortly be introduced for increasing the salaries of the medical officers of the poor-law unions.

MR. SLANEY

wished to know the number of industrial schools established in connexion with the poor-law unions?

MR. BAINES

, in consequence of the hon. Member not having given notice of his questions, was unable to state the exact number of these schools. The attention of the Poor Law Commissioners had been drawn to the subject; and he was happy to say, that in some of the unions connected with the city of London persevering and energetic efforts were being made to bring about an improvement in the state of education in the pauper schools.

MR. J. O'CONNELL

thought that the effect of reducing the amount of the vote would be to throw an increased burden upon the poor-rates of Ireland, He should prefer, considering that they had paid for the constabulary, which was not exclusively employed as a police force in Ireland, upwards of 300,000l., that one-half of the expenses of the medical officers, together with the salaries of the schoolmasters and mistresses, should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, as in England.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

begged to inform the hon. Member that the salaries of the schoolmasters and mistresses and one-half of the salaries of the medical officers, amounted together in England and Scotland to only 120,000l., whereas the sum voted towards the Irish constabulary was 500,000l

Afterwards Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 210,000l, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1850. The Committee divided. Mr. French was appointed one of the Tellers for the Yeas; but there being no other Member to be a second Teller for the Yeas, the Chairman declared that the Noes had it.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The next vote proposed was a sum of 45,694l. to defray the expenditure of the several branches of the Mint.

MR. THORNELY

wished to know when it was the intention of the Government to issue the two-shilling pieces in the new silver coin, and which it was understood was to form a portion of the new system of decimal coinage?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

stated that measures had been taken to bring out the new coin, but it had been found necessary to have an Act of Parliament to legalise its issue, and he had placed a notice on the Paper for leave to bring in a Bill upon the subject.

CAPTAIN PECHELL

thought that the regulations respecting the distribution of medals required to be reconsidered.

SIR F. T. BARING

was not prepared to say that the whole question ought again to be reopened; there were some cases, however, which the Board of Admiralty had thought it necessary to reconsider.

MR. SPOONER

wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to act upon the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on the subject of the management of the Mint?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

stated, that the subject was under consideration, but it was impossible to decide at once upon the subject.

Vote agreed to.

The sum of 7,996l. was proposed to defray the charges of the office of the Commissioners of Railways.

MR. HENLEY

admitted, that the vote under this head was very satisfactorily decreased. It was rather out of curiosity than for any other reason, that he would ask the meaning of one item in this vote of 60l. for newspapers, an item not occurring in the charge for any other public department. Was it that the officials in this department had so peculiarly nothing to do that newspapers were to be provided for their entertainment?

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that his attention had not been especially drawn to the item in question, but he conceived that the newspapers supplied were those railway journals the contents of which were expedient, if not absolutely necessary, for the administration of the department. As to the vote itself, it exhibited a very material reduction upon that of the previous year, which was 10,600l., while the charge in the first year of the Board was 17,000l.

Vote agreed to, as were the following:

12,822l. for the Record Office.

11,879l. for the inspectors of mines, factories, &c.

1,755l. for the salaries of certain officers in Scotland, and other charges formerly paid out of the hereditary revenues of that kingdom.

6,464l. for the officers and attendants of the household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

24,235l. for the salaries and expenses of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and the Privy Council in Ireland.

5,596l. for the charge of the office of paymaster of civil services, Ireland.

39,562l. for the salaries and expenses of the board of public works, Ireland.

39,000l. for foreign and other secret service.

277,762l. for the expenses of stationery and printing and binding in the several public departments, including the charge of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

In relation to this vote,

MR. COBDEN

asked whether there would be any objection to change the form of the blue books from folio to octavo. The change would be to the infinite convenience of every person who had to handle the volumes, and he was prepared to show that there would be a saving of from 20 to 30 per cent effected by the alteration. There was already before them one blue book in the octavo form, a report of the Sanitary Commission, which distinctly illustrated the greater convenience of that form. As to statistical tables, they could be given just as well in the octavo as in the folio form; this was proved by the ela- borate tables given in the octavo volumes of M'Culloch, Porter, and other statistical writers.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the greater economy of the octavo form was disputed.

MR. COBDEN

said, he would prove the economy he had stated before a Committee, if the right hon. Gentleman would give him one for a fortnight.

Vote agreed to, as were the following:

16,000l. to complete the sum necessary to defray law charges, and the salaries, &c., in the office of Solicitor to the Treasury.

9,000l. for the prosecution of offenders against the laws relating to coinage.

17,700l. for expenses of sheriffs, formerly defrayed out of civil contingencies; also for the amount required to make good the deficiency in the fees of the Queen's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, and for other purposes.

10,370l. for the salaries and expenses of the Insolvent Debtors' Court.

73,730l. for law expenses and criminal prosecutions in Scotland.

63,991l. for expenses of criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland.

35,500l. for metropolitan police of Dublin.

258,000l. to defray certain charges formerly paid out of the county rates for pro secutions at assizes.

702,523l. was then proposed for prisons and convict services at home and abroad.

MR. HENLEY

said, that it was difficult, in the present form of the estimates, to draw any correct opinion as to how far the expense incurred in the county gaols applied to persons under sentence of transportation. He also wished to advert to one item of 17,132l., which was charged for the expense of confining and maintaining 674 male convicts in county gaols in Great Britain under sentence of transportation, until otherwise disposed of. He wanted to know whether the expense of maintaining these convicts was greater or less per head than the expense per head at Pentonville, Millbank, and the new establishment at Portland?

SIR G. GREY

said, that the difference in the form of the estimates arose from following out the recommendation of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which sat last Session. Part of these expenses were set in the colonial estimates, and part in other estimates which did not afford the proper opportunity for reference and comparison. Assistance had been obtained from the Paymaster General's office, and with the aid of a very excellent officer, Mr. Atkinson, the fullest information had now been afforded to Parliament of the particulars of the expenses incurred, as well as the aggregate expense. He admitted that the aggregate expense under this vote appeared greater than it had been; but there was a sum of 53,000l., which had been transferred to these estimates from the Navy estimates, for the conveyance of convicts abroad. There was also a charge of 25,000l. for conveying convicts from Ireland, which formerly never came under the consideration of Parliament at all, but was now placed under this head. With regard to the sum of 17,132l. for the 674 male convicts in county gaols under sentence of transportation, there was no doubt very considerable difference between one prison and another in the expense of maintaining convicts in this stage of their punishment. The whole matter was now in the course of revision, and he hoped that the expenses would be brought nearer a footing of equality.

MR. HENLEY

observed, that there was another extravagant item of 3,840l. for the expense of confining and maintaining 111 criminal lunatics in Bethlem Hospital. He saw no reason why there should be a higher rate of charge for keeping these persons in safe custody than was made at Hanwell, or any other well-conducted establishment.

SIE G. GREY

said, that a reduction had taken place this year in the expense of maintaining these lunatics; but there was a greater expense in taking the charge of criminal lunatics than of the lunatics confined at Hanwell. Many of those confined in Bethlem had committed very grave offences, and they required more care and more watchful superintendence than ordinary lunatics.

Vote agreed to.

The next vote was 125,000l. for Public Education in Great Britain.

MR. HENLEY

said, that some remarks had been made upon the management of this fund on the part of the Committee of Privy Council on Education. The hon. Gentleman who opposed the vote last year might probably raise the question again, as there was a feeling abroad that this grant was not fairly administered by the Government. He would not go more at length into the matter now, as he believed that it was not expected that it would come on to-night; but he reserved to himself the right of making such observations, and taking such a course hereafter, as he thought fit.

Vote agreed to.

On a sum of 120,000l. being proposed to defray the expenses of the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland,

MR. GROGAN

observed, that a notice had just been issued that early in this month the Commissioners of Education would publish two volumes of poetry, which they had prepared, from Chaucer down to the latest period, for the use of pauper children. He thought that the money spent in this manner might have been more usefully employed. It might have been devoted to the establishment of agricultural schools, or in procuring schoolmistresses to teach the female children embroidery work, which was very beautiful, and found a ready sale.

Vote was then agreed to, as were also the following votes:—

10,000l. for Schools of Design.

2,006l. for the salaries of Professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

4,000l. for the University of London.

7,480l. for grants to Scottish Universities.

300l. for the Royal Irish Academy.

300l. for the Royal Hibernian Academy.

6,000l. for the Royal Dublin Society.

3,100l. for the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, and for salaries of theological professors at Belfast.

36,288l. for the new buildings of the British Museum.

On a vote being proposed of 1,500l. on account of expenses incurred in procuring antiquities for the British Museum,

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, in reply to an inquiry from Mr. Grogan, said, that the grant was towards the expenses of continuing excavations in Assyria, and the transport of antiquities to England.

Vote agreed to.

On a sum of 1,500l. being proposed for the expenses of the National Gallery,

SIR W. JOLLIFFE

inquired whether any vote was intended to be proposed for a building to contain the additional pictures, namely, the Vernon collection, which had lately been presented to the nation?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied, that he did not think himself justified, in the present condition of the country, in proposing any vote which was not absolutely necessary. The object to he attained was a very desirable one, but he could not venture to propose such a vote this year.

Vote agreed to, as were the following votes:—

18,000l. for the geological survey and museum of practical geology.

5,000l. for magnetic observatories abroad, and scientific works and experiments at home.

2,800l. for completing the Nelson monument in Trafalgar-square.

4,049l., for the civil establishment at Bermuda.

2,000l. for the civil establishment of Prince Edward's Island.

On a vote of 11,578l. being proposed for the ecclesiastical establishment of the British North American provinces,

MR. J. B. SMITH

strongly objected to it. When it was considered that this charge was made for a religious sect, which comprised only one-fifth of the population of Canada, he thought he had good ground for calling it an unjust vote, and he saw no reason why the people of this country should be saddled with the expense.

MR. HAWES

said, that the grant was for the lives of the present incumbents, and expired with them. The grants were made in consequence of a distinct contract entered into by a former Secretary of State.

MR. J. B. SMITH

was glad that he had elicited so satisfactory an answer.

Vote agreed to; as were the following votes:—

14,102l. for the Indian department, Canada.

290l. for the civil establishment of the Bahamas.

18,028l. for the salaries of governors in the West India colonies.

41,150l. for the salaries of stipendiary justices in the West India colonies and the Mauritius.

13,680l. for the civil establishments on the western coast of Africa.

16,940l. for charges connected with the Island of St. Helena.

7,379l. for Western Australia.

1,763l. for Port Essington.

On a vote of 20,000l. being proposed for the colony of New Zealand,

MR. J. B. SMITH

remarked that he saw an item of 600l. for the Bishop of New Zealand. He wished to know whether this charge was put on the same footing as the charges for the ecclesiastical establishments of Canada, and whether it would die out with the life of the present bishop?

MR. HAWES

could not say that this would be the case. The present charge on this country was owing to an arrangement which was made some years ago. At the same time he ought to inform the House, that the revenues of New Zealand were increasing so rapidly, that in a very short time he hoped the Government of New Zealand would take on itself its own charges.

MR. F. SCOTT

observed, that there was a charge of 1,500l. for a colonial vessel. What was the meaning of that?

MR. HAWES

replied that this item was for a steamer in which the governor visited the different ports of the colony, it being very important that he should have the means always at hand of doing so.

SIR W. JOLLIFFE

remarked, that there was an item of 1,245l. for the chief secretary and his establishment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would explain how much was for the colonial secretary, and how much for his establishment?

MR. HAWES

did not know whether the colonial secretary had 600l. or 800l. a year, but it was one or the other. The rest went to his establishment. He begged to observe that 600l. was not the whole income of the bishop, although that was the whole amount of the charge borne by this country.

SIR W. JOLLIFFE

said, that the lieutenant-governor had a salary of 800l. a year. What necessity was there for a lieutenant-governor as well as a governor of New Zealand?

MR. HAWES

replied, that the governor of New Zealand resided at Auckland, in the north-eastern part of the island. It was thought desirable, therefore, that a lieutenant-governor should be appointed for the southern division of the colony. The island was about to be divided, in accordance with an Act of Parliament, which had been passed some time ago, into two provinces, for the purposes of representative government, and it was important that there should be a lieutenant-governor in one of them,

MR. CARDWELL

expressed his satisfaction at hearing that the colony of New Zealand was likely to obtain representative institutions, and also to pay its own expenses. He must say that no colony in the world was more fortunate than New Zealand, in having such a governor as Governor Grey, and such a bishop as Dr. Selwyn. Any payment which might have been made by this country to Bishop Selwyn had been more than repaid to the public treasury by the conspicuous services which he had rendered to the cause of order and good government in New Zealand.

Vote agreed to, as was a vote of 1,023l. for the establishment at Heligoland.

On a vote of 5,700l. being proposed to defray the charge of the Falkland Islands,

MR. COBDEN

objected to it as a most enormous charge. He should like the Under Secretary for the Colonies to inform them what was the population of the Falkland Islands. Was he exaggerating when he said it did not exceed 200? [Mr. HAWES: No.] Then here was a colony with a population of 200 souls, or he believed he should be nearer the mark if he said 160, costing 5,700l. a year for government. About 35l. a head for governing them! Why, they might bring the inhabitants to this country and support them here comfortably for less money. He asked, of what possible value could the Falkland Islands be to England? The climate was so bad that no one could live there, and "no ship ever touched at their inhospitable coast," as was said by Dr. Johnson many years ago.

MR. HAWES

could not assure his hon. Friend that this estimate would be altered, though he thought that it would be reduced. The Falkland Islands were not held simply for colonial or commercial purposes; but there were political considerations also in the matter. They were most valuable as a place of call for British ships.

MR. COBDEN

said, he understood, however, that British ships never did call there. He could not refrain from reading over the manner in which the money was expended in the government of those islands. There was a governor, 800l; magistrate, 400l.; chaplain, 400l.; surgeon, 300l.; first clerk, 200l.; second clerk, 150l.; schoolmaster, 20l.; surveyor's department, 1,230l.; public works, 1,050l.; Guachos, 300l.; purchase of stores, freight of vessels, and incidental expenses, 1,100l.; rations, 750l.—in all, 5,700l. Really, if this country had more money than it knew what to do with—if it were the most flourishing nation in the world, it would be impossible to throw away its money in a more wanton manner than they were doing.

Vote agreed to.

On the vote of 25,000l. for the British settlement of Hong-Kong,

MR. J. B. SMITH

objected to the payment of 710l. 17s. for the ecclesiastical establishment in that colony.

MR. HAWES

said, if we for commercial, and highly commercial considerations, took possession of Hong-Kong, and sent people out there, it was not unreasonable that we should provide for their moral and spiritual instruction.

MR. VERNON SMITH

observed that the Governor of Hong-Kong received 6,000l. a year, and the colonial secretary and auditor, 3,301l. 10s., whilst the same officers in New Zealand received only 2,500l. and 1,245l. Why should there be such a monstrous difference?

MR. HAWES

said, that some of the salaries had been reduced. It must be remembered, moreover, that the duties of the Governor of Hong-Kong were not merely confined to that settlement; but he was the superintendent of trade, and had to inspect the whole of the consular establishments of China, which rendered necessary the employment of a large and expensive staff; and, besides, he was our Plenipotentiary to the Chinese Government. It must be borne in mind also that the climate was an unhealthy one. In New Zealand the climate was singularly salubrious, but at Hong-Kong it was the reverse.

SIR W. JOLLIFFE

thought, if Hong Kong was so insalubrious as the hon. Gentleman had stated, it would be easy to find some other place better adapted as regarded health for a settlement. He should like to hear some explanation with regard to the duties of the surveyor general, whose salary was very high, amounting to 2,050l. There was also a very large sum—namely, 9,135l. for police and gaols, which appeared to require explanation.

MR. MITCHELL

suggested the reduction of the salaries to at least one half—of the governor, the colonial secretary and auditor, the treasurer, the surveyor general, and the harbour master, 1,100l.

MR. HAWES

asked the hon. Gentleman at all events to wait till next year.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

would like to know how our trade was benefited by the possession of Hong-Kong. He had heard it said that it was not of the slightest advantage to England, and he took it upon him to say that the United States would not have less trade with China for not having a Hong-Kong. The only benefit derived from it was obtained by those who got the places, and those who had the patronage at their disposal.

Vote agreed to.

On the vote of 9,827l. for the government of Labuan,

MR. COBDBN

said, that this appeared to be a very similar case to that of the Falkland Islands. We took possession of a barren rock; assumed that there would be a large trade there; the trade did not come, but we planted an establishment there large enough for a great community. Here were the expenses—governor and commmander-in-chief, 2,000l.; lieutenant governor and magistrate, 1,375l.,; master attendant and postmaster, 500l.; surveyor, 500l.; station surgeon, 416l. 13s. 4d.; governor's office, 487l. 10s.; lieutenant governor's office, 175l.; master attendant's department, 265l.; surveyor's department, 87l. 10s.; medical department, 100l.; police department, 420l. 16s. 8d.; public buildings and contingent charges, 3,500l.—in all, 9,827d. 10s. That was the charge last year, and it would be the same next year. Now, he would ask, what was Labuan for? Were the prospects such as to encourage a hope that there would be a large trade at Labuan? The fact was, that this was a most extraordinary case. It was to a piece of sentimentalism that we were indebted for Labuan. An adventurous gentleman sailed in his yacht in the Eastern Archipelago, and took a fancy to Sarawak. He got it ceded to him by the Sultan of Borneo, who was little better than a pirate, and he became the Rajah of Sarawak. By dint of puffing—sentimental puffing—he was said to go out to Christianise Borneo at Sarawak. He appointed himself first consul to himself; but that was not all. He took the little island of Labuan, which was 300 miles from Sarawak, and became appointed Governor of Labuan. As it was clear, however, that he could not possibly do both duties, a lieutenant governor was appointed to do his work for him at a salary of 1,375l. a year, and to govern an island where there was no population and no trade. He therefore asked whether Government intended to keep up the establishment at Labuan until it was ascertained whether there was any trade to that little island or not?

MR. HAWES

said, that he was sur- prised at the statement of the hon. Member for the West Riding, as a memorial had been presented from the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, and from Liverpool and Glasgow, urging on Government the settlement of Labuan. It was not from any feeling of sentimentality that Government had established the settlement. Mr. Brooke was a man singularly qualified from his influence in the island of Borneo to fill the station to which he had been appointed. When a distinguished man was sent to a miserable spot like that, was he to go without some compensation for the labour and duties imposed upon him? If a man of ability was appointed, it was of the utmost importance not to underpay him for the duties which he discharged. It had been found that when small salaries had been given to governors of colonies, those salaries had been materially increased by fees and other allowances. In the case of Ceylon, the Dutch governor had 13,000l. a year. As to the mercantile shipping, Labuan presented a harbour of refuge. Piracy existed in those seas to a great extent; and if any Gentleman looked into the papers they would see cases of piracy in which property had been sacrificed to a large amount. Papers relating to this settlement had been laid before the House this year. He did not think it right in the hon. Member for the West Riding to say that Government created patronage for no useful or beneficial purpose. He believed that the settlement would be of the greatest possible benefit to the mercantile and steam navy. It was deemed to be a commercial outport of great importance, and on the same principle that he defended Hong-Kong he would defend Labuan. The Labuan coal would be of great use to the steam navy.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, that the statement made by the hon. Member for the West Riding was perfectly correct—that this was a specimen of the manner in which colonies were founded, without any knowledge of future expenses. An entertaining book had been written by Mr. Brooke, which was published, and read in all circles in this country, and the consequence was, that the Colonial Office took the opportunity of working out the colony of Labuan. He did not say that they did it unjustly, because they were pressed to it by a petition; but he thought they had a duty of resistance as well as of compliance to perform, and he had not heard of any sufficient advantages possessed by this island of Labuan for the establishment of a colony. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned the supply of coal. That would come under discussion in the miscellaneous estimates. He should like to know more as to the supply of coal, and the use made of the coal by our commercial marine. The hon. Gentleman had touched that matter so very delicately that he (Mr. V. Smith) rather suspected that he had not much more to say on that part of the question. There was a postmaster at Labuan at 300l. per annum. The hon. Member for the West Riding had not gone to the extreme length of the danger. He (Mr. V. Smith) imagined that from the nucleus of Labuan they would extend their colonial empire to Borneo; and no man was more willing or more likely to do that than the gentleman who had been sent out as governor, for a man of his character was sure, from the tendency of his mind, to endeavour to extend his empire. Nor was the expense of governor the sole expense. There were troops in Labuan, and, therefore, we did not see the whole expense of retaining Labuan. The hon. Member for the West Riding had truly stated, that this was the manner in which colonies crept upon us. We had possession of this colony before Parliament knew anything of it, and the House had to vote money for expenses over which they had had no control. He thought that Labuan was as pretty a specimen of creating a colony as anything could well be.

SIR H. VERNEY

observed, that the objections made against Labuan might have been made against the foundation of Singapore, which had produced greater benefit to the commercial interests of this country than any establishment which had ever been founded. Singapore was founded on the recommendation of a man in whom this country could place confidence. He contended that they should not hastily give an opinion as to the establishment of this colony of Labuan. If it was worth while to extend our commercial relations in that quarter of the world, it was worth while to send out an eminent man; and to induce him to go, they must give him that sort of establishment which a governor ought to have.

MR. F. SCOTT

agreed that they ought not to come to a hasty conclusion; still he was inclined to think that the Committee had not received that information as to the coal to which they were entitled. He saw that they had on the present Committee a Gentleman more likely to give information on this subject than any other person. He thought they were entitled to ask the hon. Member for Glasgow for some account as to the value of coal in Labuan, as to the amount which he expected to be derived from it, the price at which it was sold, and the use to which it was applied by the steam vessels.

MR. HAWES

believed it to be a most valuable possession, and had reason to know that the party to whom the working of this coal had been leased for a time, had sent out a gentleman who would arrive at Labuan at the time he was speaking. From the calculations which he had seen, he had reason to believe that the Peninsular and Oriental Mail Company would obtain coal from one-fourth to one-half the cost at which they were now taken. From the same cause the public would receive considerable benefit, and he did not know whether it would not go to compensate the public for the expenses which had been incurred. He thought he was right in saying that the reduction of the price of coal would be very large, whenever the coal mines were brought into operation.

MR. COBDEN

said, that the hon. Gentleman had stated that a memorial had been sent up from the north of England in favour of occupying this island. He believed that, as far as regarded several places in the north, the Glasgow and Manchester Chambers of Commerce had memoralised Government in favour of this island, which was seven miles long; but the gentlemen of the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester and Glasgow were too much men of business to send establishments until they ascertained whether the island was of any use. He did not believe that ten white people were living on the island. He must tell the hon. Gentleman that there was not so much disinterestedness about the origin of the settlement as he would lead the House to suppose. He knew the whole history of the origin of this settlement; he was not going to state all he knew, but this he did know, that there was not so much disinterestedness as the hon. Gentleman supposed. There was an emissary from London, who went through the north of England to excite the memorialists. Nothing was so easy, if a gentleman had a motive, than for him to go through the north of England to raise expectations—to hold out promises—of some new market in Borneo or Japan, or pro- bably any other almost unknown country. Active commercial communities would be found anxious to avail themselves of these promised markets, and sometimes they did not judge for themselves as to the prospects. These stimulants were responded to by some memorial courteously worded, in favour of occupying Labuan. He must tell the Secretary for the Colonies that there was some apprehension that we were going to occupy Sarawak. That was the first thing talked of, that being part of the great island of Borneo; and Labuan being known to be detached from Borneo, and only seven miles in extent, it was cautiously expressed that this island should be occupied, and he had reason to know it was done not to encourage the attempt to settle at Sarawak. He wanted to know why Rajah Brooke was consul at Sarawak, and governor at Labuan, 300 miles from Sarawak? Was not that very much like a job? A gentleman was appointed consul to himself at Sarawak, where he was the rajah, and were an oriental dress; and he was given the appointment of Governor of Labuan, which was 300 miles off. How could be discharge the duties of the two offices?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

remarked, that Governor Brooke did not seek for this office. He was named consul to Borneo.

MR. COBDEN

It is stated in the estimate that he is to reside at Sarawak.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Yes, consul residing at Sarawak. He is, however, not consul to himself, but to the Sultan of Borneo, to whom he is accredited.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE

could not help thanking the hon. Member for the West Riding for having been to a certain degree just to the agricultural interest. The whole of the country paid the charge for the extension of commerce, and there was a vast expenditure for this purpose. Of late years, if a bale of cotton was not protected in any part of the world, an outcry would be raised. He believed there was no part of the world in which the trade was less secure than on the coast of Borneo. A certain extent of security had been ensured by Governor Brooke, and the Government had properly bestowed honours on him. The charge, however, of this colony appeared to be excessive. The number of officers also appeared to be very great. There was a governor and commander-in-chief. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton said that there were troops there; but he (Sir W. Jolllife) believed there was only a detachment of marines; and surely the latter officer was unnecessary, as the force there could be adequately commanded by the officers of the ship to which they belonged.

MR. LABOUCHERE

expressed his surprise at the manner in which the hon. Member for the West Riding had treated the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and called the attention of the Committee to the memorial presented by that body to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, then First Minister of the Crown, with the view of showing that they took a much more serious view of the appropriation of Labuan than the hon. Member for the West Riding would lead hon. Members to suppose. That chamber was hardly, he should think, composed of gentlemen who would be likely to be induced merely by a person going about among them, as the hon. Member had represented, to address the First Minister in such terms as they then used. Nothing could be more precise or less vague than the statement they then made, which was couched in the language of men who had looked well into the subject. The right hon. Gentleman here quoted passages from the memorial, which were to the general effect—that the memorialists had heard with great satisfaction that an opportunity of obtaining a station off the coast of Borneo had presented itself to the British Government, and that they implored the head of the Government not to suffer any delay to take place in securing a port of such importance, and one in every way so desirable—that the station in question was most conveniently situated for the China trade—that it would be a refuge for our shipping in distress, a bulwark in war, and a central depot for trade—that the possession of Labuan would confer peculiar advantages on British interests; and the memorialists prayed that the settlement might be completed with the utmost possible despatch. Those were the sentiments expressed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; and with them he (Mr. Labouchere) entirely agreed. He was, also, of opinion, that it was the duty of the Government then in power not to forego the opportunity, the importance of which was thus pressed upon them, not by Manchester alone, but by Glasgow, and Liverpool, and London, and all the principal commercial towns in the kingdom. It was but right to make this settlement. Into the particulars of that settlement he would not now enter: but, so far as making the settlement itself was concerned, he maintained that it was the duty of the then Government, urged as it was by the principal mercantile bodies of the country, to act as they had done. But, above all, he must express his surprise that this reproach, even if reproach were deserved, should have proceeded from so distinguished a member of the mercantile community as the hon. Member for the West Riding.

MR. COBDEN

said, that what he quarrelled with was, that this was a most extravagant and profligate establishment. His objections had not at all been answered. The Chamber of Commerce would echo his objections against this establishment. They had people paid ten times as much as the merchants of Manchester would pay. They had set an example of profligate extravagance. He hoped that every commercial community in England would take warning by this, and would bear in mind, if they encouraged settlements, that it was merely to find places, and jobs, and pensions for those who were the friends of Government.

MR. HENLEY

said, that, at all events, they were getting some information. This island appeared to be prolific in establishments, if in nothing else. The hon. Under Secretary talked about prospective and future advantages, but not a word about present benefits; and he had not even said a word of the actual advantages now derived from the coal, notwithstanding the appeal that had been made to him. The hon. Member for Glasgow should tell the Committee what the real value of the coal was. It seemed very odd, that in this colony, with nobody living there, it would be necessary to have, not only a governor, but a vice-governor as well. Notwithstanding the explanation of the noble Foreign Secretary concerning the consulship, it appeared, at least, that the governor held another office elsewhere, so that he was obliged to have a lieutenant governor to do his work for him.

COLONEL THOMPSON

said, that there was one reason for the facility of stirring up the north of England, which had not been given by the hon. Member for the West Riding, and that was, that mercantile men had great facility in making experiments when other people were to pay for them. Let the Chamber of Commerce be tried with a subscription to pay the expenses, and then we should see what was their opinion on the subject. The opinion in the country was not favourable. There was rather a wild story of the origin of this colony. An enterprising yachter went and played the "illustrious stranger" in a foreign country, under circumstances of very doubtful morality, and the result was that this awful expenditure was laid upon the country. It reminded him of an oriental story:—Once a sultan gave a man a dog—the man said that the dog must have a servant, the servant must have a house, the house must have a wife, and he must have a pension to support himself and wife. The same would be the end with the Rajah of Sarawak.

MR. F. SCOTT

said, he considered the House were very much indebted to the hon. Member for the West Riding for having brought this matter before them.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

, in reply to a question from Mr. Newdegate, said, that those seas undoubtedly swarmed with pirates, and accounts had been recently received that a large force of them had been ravaging the shores of the rivers. Of course, it was a part of the duty of Sir J. Brooke to take such measures as were necessary for the repression of these outrages and for the prosperity of commerce. Not only our cruisers had been employed in that service, but the Spanish governor of the Philippine Islands had sent a large expedition to root out these pirates. There could be no doubt that, with the view not only of protecting our own commerce, but those who were our customers, it was necessary that this wholesale piracy should be put a stop to; and one of the functions of Sir J. Brooke was to put an end to these outrages.

MR. COBDEN

said, that the pirates never attacked square-rigged vsssels; all they did was to prey upon the savage inhabitants of the quasi continent of Borneo, much in the same way that the ancient Scandinavians did the inhabitants of the Baltic shores; and was it the business of Great Britain to send out men of war, in order to compel these savages to live like civilised people? He doubted the policy of such a proceeding; and it was most certain that the expenditure would never be reduced whilst such a system lasted.

MR. MANGLES

said, that the danger from these pirates ought not to be made light of, for it was real, and much alarm existed. The commerce from Singapore came into those seas in the small vessels which were made the prey of these pirates, and the mouth of the harbour was infested by them. It was a mistake to suppose that the trade in this Archipelago did not require protection.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that according to the last accounts from China, two Europeans had lately been destroyed by pirates when passing from one port to another in a small craft.

MR. COBDEN

, with reference to the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford, begged to say that his (Mr. Cobden's) remark applied to the state of matters at present, and not to the state of matters some years ago. Besides, it appeared that the parties were not attacked on that occasion, but merely frightened.

MR. MANGLES

said, that the hon. Member was quite mistaken in supposing that British commerce did not require the protection of the Navy even at present in that quarter of the world.

MR. COBDEN

said, that the question was not whether it was necessary to protect commerce, but whether it was necessary to send more ships to Rajah Brooke for that purpose.

Vote agreed to.

On the vote of 13,654l. for Emigration being proposed,

MR. HAWES

, in explanation, said, it was not in contemplation to reduce the establishment of the Emigration Commissioners. Although the business had increased, the establishment remained upon the scale of the last two or three years, and there was no present prospect of a reduction.

MR. GROGAN

asked if it were intended to supply the same number of free passages to emigrants from Ireland this year as had been granted last year?

Mr. HAWES

replied, that the number of free passages depended upon the state of the colonial funds, which, in turn, depended upon the sales of land, or upon the amounts raised upon the security of land. If anything, the facilities for emigration would be increased this year. The hon. Gentleman, however, must bear in mind that the great bulk of emigration was not to our own colonies, but to the United States, for the reason that it cost at least 14l. to proceed to the Australian colonies, whilst, by the last accounts from Liverpool, he found a passage could be procured to the United States for 2l. 16s.

MR. F. SCOTT

hoped, if the Colonial Office had adopted the system of assisting to free passages, it was not the intention of the Government to make the colonies pay the amount they had hitherto paid, in order to relieve England, Scotland, and Ireland, from the burden of maintaining their poor. He suggested that the grant of free passages should be limited as much as possible.

MR. HAWES

did not think it expedient to enter into a discussion upon the question of assistance to free emigration. Assisted or free emigration was governed according to colonial rules.

MR. SCOTT

Colonial Office rules?

MR. HAWES

No, the rules and regulations of the colonies themselves.

MR. HINDLEY

thought Her Majesty's Government ought to give some assurance to the House of their intention to take up the question of emigration in a large and comprehensive manner. Nothing was of more importance to the industrious population of this country. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies should encourage the establishment of emigration clubs; and he (Mr. Hindley) suggested that the expense of sending honest labourers out should be defrayed, in the proportion of one-fourth each, by the emigration club of which the party was a member, the parish or union to which he belonged, the Government, and the colony. By such an arrangement all parties would be benefited, both at home, and in the colonies. Let the House not be frightened at any proposal to grant one or two millions for this purpose. He was satisfied that if the eight millions given to Ireland had been thus expended, that country would have been really benefited, whilst the interests of the people themselves would have been materially promoted.

Vote agreed to.

On the vote for 30,000l, to defray the expenses incurred for the maintenance of captured and liberated Africans being proposed.

SIR W. JOLLIFFE

said, this was the first of a class of votes to which he, for one, should give his decided opposition. The system we had pursued for the suppression of the slave trade had added to the cruelty of the traffic, whilst it had entirely failed in accomplishing the object in view. It cost this country at least a million a year, besides the wear and tear of ships, and the loss of life. So strongly did he feel upon it, that if any hon. Gentleman would move that this and the following vote be omitted, or that our squa- dron upon the coast of Africa be with drawn, he would cordially support the Motion. If the sum proposed to he voted for this purpose were spent in emigration, or in some mode by which the West India colonies could be benefited, much more good would be done by it.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that these courts had been established by treaty, but in consequence of the recent line taken by Government with respect to the slave trade, they had nothing to do. The greatest portion of that trade was carried on under the Brazilian flag; and as we had recently decided that all ships found slave-trading under that flag were amenable to British jurisdiction, the courts of mixed commission had become useless. He should be glad to hear from his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office whether any cases had recently been tried before the mixed commission courts.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, it was quite true that a great portion of the slave trade was carried on under the Brazilian flag. But unfortunately it was also carried on to some extent under the Spanish and other flags; and if these courts were to cease, there would be no tribunal for adjudication. No doubt they were a source of expense to this country; but, acting upon a suggestion thrown out in that House last year, he had left vacant several appointments, which had caused a reduction in this year's estimates of 6,000. He was also in communication with the Government of Portugal, with a view to the reduction of the courts in Jamaica and the Cape do Verde Islands. His right hon. Friend and the House might be assured that whenever he found it possible to effect reductions in expenditure, consistently with maintaining the objects for which the courts had been established, he should not fail to avail himself of such opportunities.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

asked, whether the return of vessels adjudicated upon by the mixed commission was, as the law required, regularly laid before Parliament?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that from time to time returns had been made to Parliament of all the ships captured from the period when the Act came into operation.

Vote agreed to, as was the following:—

16,850l. to pay the salaries and contingent expenses of the mixed commission for the suppression of the slave trade.

On a vote being proposed for 98,690l., to defray the charges of consular establishments abroad,

MR. HENLEY

said, it appeared they had not yet quite done with Hong-Kong, for in this vote was included a sort of supplementary estimate for 4,316l. He should like to know what the consular establishment of Hong-Kong really cost. The salary of the chief superintendent, 1,500l., was said to be included in that of the governor; but Hong-Kong was a British settlement, and he thought it was not common to keep consuls in our own settlements. Hong-Kong cost 25,000l. for government, and 4,316l. for consular, services, making a total of 29,316l. He wished for some explanation with regard to the consular charge.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

replied, that the same individual performed the functions of governor of Hong-Kong and chief superintendent of the consular establishments in China, but he had no separate salary as superintendent of trade. He communicated diplomatically with the Chinese Government, discharged all the duties of governor, superintended trade, and held communications with all the consuls at the five ports. Canton, Amoy, Foo-chow-foo, Ningpo, and Shangai. These duties were extremely arduous, and he required the assistance of an establishment to enable him to perform them.

MR. F. SCOTT

thought it was useless to pay an interpreter at the consulate of Canton 750l. a year, when so distinguished a linguist as Dr. Bowring was appointed there at a salary of 1,800l. per annum. The learned Doctor was competent to perform that duty himself.

MR. MITCHELL

objected to two secretaries being maintained at Hong-Kong; the first having 1,500l., and the other 1,200l. per annum.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

explained, that the first was employed in the business of registrar, which was extremely voluminous; and the other, in Chinese duties; and, under the circumstances, he did not see how any reduction could be made.

MR. HINDLEY

pointed out the inequalities in the salaries of different consuls at different places, and asked upon what principle they were fixed?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the salary depended upon a variety of considerations, such as the importance of the duties to be performed, the rank of the officer to he employed, the expense of the place, the nature of the climate, and so on. In all cases he had endeavoured to appropriate the salary as carefully as was consistent with the nature of the service.

MR. GROGAN

said, he perceived that there was a very large sum charged for the consular establishment at Canton. He wished to know if any addition had been made to the expense of this establishment since the appointment of Dr. Bowring?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, there had not been any addition made. It was quite true that these Chinese salaries had been originally arranged on a very high scale; but if the hon. Gentleman would compare the estimates for this year with those of former years, he would see that a gradual reduction had been going on. The high salaries had been fixed by the East India Company, and had been, he might say, inherited by the Government; but they were doing their utmost to reduce them.

MR. HENLEY

said, that in addition to the large salary of the chief superintendent, he perceived that 1000l. was put down for his outfit. He did not think it was customary to allow outfits to consular officers, and the item was the more objectionable as he perceived that the expenses of these Chinese consuls amounted to a larger sum than the whole of the consuls in the United States.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the outfit allowed to the chief superintendent was according to the established regulation. Before drawing the comparison which the hon. Gentleman had made, he should have been prepared to show that a residence in China was as healthy and desirable as in the United States, and that the people of the United States spoke a language for which interpreters were as necessary as for the Chinese, and that they were as likely to give as much trouble in their mercantile dealings as the people of China.

MR. HENLEY

repeated, that he thought a charge for an outfit to a consular officer likely to be converted into a very bad precedent.

MR. C. ANSTEY

said, that these Chinese consuls, as they were called, were, in point of fact, diplomatic agents, and also judges, having both criminal and civil jurisdiction. Among a people who were so sensitive of affronts as the Chinese, the manner in which these functions were carried into operation was calculated to lead to incessant dissatisfaction and annoyance; and he hoped the noble Lord would take it into his consideration whether it would not be more expedient to get rid of this system of jurisprudence altogether, and to confine those gentlemen in future to their commercial functions alone.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he believed that there was nothing more calculated to preserve peace between the two nations than this system of jurisprudence, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had called it. Any one who remembered the period prior to the Treaty of Nankin could not fail to recollect the constant disputes that arose in consequence of the impossibility of delivering up British offenders to he dealt with by the Chinese law, as they were sure to be subjected to a barbarous death. The system of giving judicial functions to the consuls in China, was a reason why their salaries should be larger than otherwise. He had only to add, that, so far from considering that an alteration ought to be made with regard to this arrangement, every year's experience tended to impress him more strongly with the wisdom and utility of the system.

MR. HINDLEY

inquired whether the noble Lord had received any intelligence of the arrival of Dr. Bowring at Canton, or of his reception there?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that intelligence had been received of the Doctor's arrival at Hong-Kong; and no doubt when he reached Canton his reception would be such as his merits demanded.

Vote agreed to; as was also a vote for 20,000l. for the expense of missions abroad.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.