§ MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, he wished to put a question to the Under Secretary to the Colonies. He perceived by the Gazette of Friday, that Hong-Kong had been instituted a bishopric, and it might be fairly said to he the foundation of a new see, for, by the terms of the constitution, it extended not only over that small island, but 100 miles at sea. He wished to ask his hon. Friend what was the amount of the salary that it was proposed to pay to the Bishop of Victoria, and from what fund it would be derived; secondly, whether the outfit, transport, and palace of the Bishop, or any part of those expenses, were to be defrayed from the public Exchequer of this country?
§ MR. HAWES, in answer to his hon. Friend, begged to state that Hong-Kong was erected into a bishopric, and that the bishop was paid from the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund—a fund entirely private, and raised out of private contributions. The salary of the bishop, therefore, could be a matter of no importance whatever to the House, as no part of it was to be paid out of the public funds. [Mr. OSBORNE: Nor his outfit?] The Colonial Office had nothing to do with the outfit, and he knew nothing of it. It had, however, been the custom hitherto to pay the passage out of colonial bishops; and he had no reason to suppose the practice would be departed from in the present instance. Beyond that, the public would be put to no expense.
§ Subject dropped.