Commons Sitting of 14 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Poor Relief Act Continuance; Sale of Beer (No. 2).
2° Copyhold and Inclosure Commisioners; Victoria Park; Constabulary Force (Ireland).

DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
On Question that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply,
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that as the forms of the House prevented more than one Motion being brought forward as an Amendment upon going into Committee of Supply, he would waive the series of Resolutions which stood in his name on the Notice Paper, and bring forward, with the concurrence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien), the Motion which stood in that hon. Member's name on the Paper with respect to the Dublin hospitals. He understood that the determination of the Government to reduce the grant formerly allowed, was founded on the report of a person who was formerly an officer in the Chief Secretary for Ireland's
650
office, had betrayed his trust and fled to America, and was now published in the Hue and Cry. Yet it was on the evidence of such a person alone that the charitable institutions of Dublin were to be destroyed by the withdrawal of the grants. The Irish Members were almost unanimous on this subject; and he himself that day had had the honour of attending as a member of a deputation which waited upon the Premier to represent the evil of withdrawing these grants; and an address to the same effect, signed by ninety-four Irish Members of Parliament, and by twelve English Members connected by property in Ireland, was presented by the deputation to the noble Lord. Yet not a particle of attention was paid to their remonstrance; but they were drily told by the Premier that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain in Committee of Supply what the Government intended to do. Not only the Irish Members, but all the public boards in Dublin, including the Dublin Corporation, had petitioned against the withdrawal of this grant. It was said it was to be withdrawn, because there were no such grants to hospitals in England. The hospitals in Dublin were differently situated from those in England, the latter having Royal grants and munificent endowments, which stood to them in the place of the Parliamentary grants which were hitherto enjoyed by the hospitals of Dublin. These hospitals were very useful to classes which received no relief under the Poor Law Act; and industrious artisans and labourers, reduced to destitution from temporary sickness, derived succour from them without undergoing the degradation of becoming inmates of the workhouse. But if the present grants were withdrawn, Dublin would not be able to bear the additional charge, being already too distressed by the withdrawal of the Irish nobility and gentry from that capital on account of the Act of Union; and therefore the hospitals would have to be closed. The Richmond and the Hardwicke Hospital, he understood, were to be spared, on the ground that they were important schools of surgery and medicine, and were, in fact, a kind of nursery for providing the Army and Navy with some of the best medical practitioners of whom the country boasts. But all the Dublin hospitals were valuable schools of medicine, and they were all, without exception, nurseries for supplying these services; and therefore they ought not to draw any distinction

651
between them. The Lying-in Hospital more than fifteen years ago derived 1,000 l. from a promenade on its grounds, used by the public on Sundays; but on a representation from the Government against what they viewed as a profanation of the Sabbath, the governors discontinued the promenade, almost on the pledge that the grant from Parliament would be continued. Their income had also been diminished 300 l. by discontinuing the use of their vaults for the storing of East India sugar, which was now sent to the Custom House. Looking at these things, he doubted whether Ireland, generally, had derived any benefit from the Act of Union; at all events, it had seriously injured Dublin, where the Irish Legislature held its sittings. Of this benefit it had been deprived, while increased numbers of poor sought relief in its hospitals. Not a year passed but the Government did something to impoverish Ireland; this, he conceived, was the last thing of which they could deprive that unhappy country. The Irish representatives were unanimous in favour of his Resolution; all but six, who were not in London, and four who held office, had signed the memorial he had referred to. But for the unfortunate Act of Union, that vote would have been granted by the Irish Legislature without a dissentient voice. But now, after all these diminutions, the Government must deal a finishing stroke at this excellent charity by bleeding it to death, at the rate of an annual reduction of ten per cent from the grant. A breach of faith had been committed; and if this reduction went on, it would require very few years to extinguish these charities altogether. He hoped the House, however, would pause in such an impolitic and inhuman career, and that it would agree to the Motion which he had to propose.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'considering the public importance of maintaining as National Institutions the very valuable Schools of Medicine in Ireland, which have derived their chief efficiency from the instruction afforded by the Dublin Hospitals, to the support of which for a long series of years Parliament has contributed, it is unjust and impolitic to reduce the amount of the annual Grant which was allowed in 1848 and the preceding years to those Hospitals,' instead thereof."
SIR LUCIUS O'BRIENseconded the Motion, having been made the organ of a great number of the Irish Members, who were unanimous in strongly deprecating
652
the abolition of these grants. At the Dublin hospitals no fewer than 250 students were educated at one time; and these students were sent out to the colonies, to the Army and Navy, and, in fact, to every part of the world; and not only did students come to Dublin from England and Scotland, but they came even from America and the Continental countries, so far and wide had the fame of Dublin as a school of medical science extended. It had also contributed 600 most valuable works to the medical literature of the empire; and not only were these hospitals invaluable as affording relief to the afflicted poor, but many of them had interesting museums and collections connected with them, forming a school of science and art in Dublin, which must inevitably fall into decay if their resources were abridged by Parliament. Upwards of 3,000 beds were provided in these hospitals open to the poor of all nations. The case of Dublin ought not altogether to be treated as that of an ordinary provincial town; because the former resident gentry of Ireland, who previously supported its charities, now took up their abode chiefly in London, and many of them subscribed liberally to the hospitals there; and therefore he thought it was no great claim to make upon the Parliament of this country to ask them to continue those grants which in the aggregate only amounted to 16,000 l. Why, they spent as much as that upon one of their parks, and double that amount was voted for the British Museum; and although it was alleged that the poor who were accustomed to be relieved by these charities would be assisted from the poor-rates, yet it was clear that that could not be the fact, because the patients at these hospitals were of an entirely distinct class from absolute paupers. In conclusion, he appealed to the House with confidence, whether it was Worth while for so small a sum as 16,000 l., to break up institutions of such inestimable advantage to the nation as he had stated.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had thought this question had been decided; but as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Reynolds) had thought proper to raise it again, he would state the grounds why he could not accede to the proposal. If there were any reasons for acceding to it, they were not those the hon. Gentleman had offered to the House. The inference from his speech and Resolution was, that large grants had been made by the Irish Parliament to these hopitals,

653
and that their withdrawal was an act of injustice. The case was not so. Of eighteen of these establishments now receiving Votes of money from the Imperial Parliament, five only received any Votes at all before the Union, for the other thirteen had been subsequently established. He had been reproached with want of readiness in attending to the wishes of Irish Members; but when he found them perfectly unanimous with regard to a Vote of money for Ireland, it did not necessarily follow that the grant should be made. The Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates had recommended, by a large majority, the discontinuance of these Votes. The Irishmen on that Committee were for retaining them; but every other Member of the Committee was in favour of their discontinuance, as no grounds were alleged in their favour which did not equally apply to the hospitals of Edinburgh, Liverpool, and other places, where a very large proportion of Irish patients would be found, far more than the number of English patients in the hospitals of Dublin. So early as 1817 a Committee had objected to the continuance of these grants. One ground adverted to by the hon. Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien) was of considerable weight, that it was desirable to maintain a school of medicine in Dublin. With a view to maintain that school, the grant to the two large hospitals which constituted it would not be diminished, nor had any diminution whatever taken place in the grants to the Richmond and the Hardwicke Hospitals. Since the Estimates had been prepared, circumstances had occurred which rendered it probable that the grant to another of these institutions might be favourably considered. As similar grants were not made to the hospitals in other towns, he had not the slightest reason for differing from the opinion of the Committee which recommended their total abolition; but in reference to those which were valuable as a school of medicine, that was a reason for abstaining from further reduction.
MR. ROCHEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given the strangest reason in the world for withdrawing these grants. First, he said he would not grant what Irishmen asked because they were united; and then he said that the majority of the grants had been made by the Imperial Parliament,
adding, however, a very good reason why it could not be otherwise, the hospitals did not exist before the Union. Of all times the present was the
654
most inopportune to withdraw the grants from these hospitals. Ruin was staring the people of Ireland on all sides, and, consequently, voluntary contributions were out of the question.
MR. GROGANsaid, it was true that grants were not made to similar institutions in this country, but he had ascertained that five of the great London hospitals had a revenue of 142,900 l, but of that sum they only received 31,000 l. in annual subscriptions, the remainder arising from the grants of the Crown in former times, and the gifts of private donors. If they refused the grant to the Dublin hospitals, they must either close them and shut up the medical schools, or support them by voluntary contribution amongst the citizens. The citizens of Dublin were already overburdened. Of 1,447 persons under medical treatment in the North Dublin Union, from the first of May to the first June, 688 were only connected with the county and city—the rest were strangers. He spoke upon public grounds, and for the purpose of maintaining the high character of the Dublin Medical School, and to prevent what he believed would be an unmitigated evil. Let there be an inquiry by a tribunal impartially selected, and he and the Irish Members would abide by the result of that inquiry, whatever it might be.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that, as he presided over the Committee to which reference had been made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should say that, in curtailing these Votes, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was only acting in accordance with the views and opinions of that Committee. The Committee was of opinion that, in proportion as the grants from Government were increased, so did the voluntary subscriptions decline. He (Mr. V. Smith) could see nothing in the condition of Dublin different from that of Liverpool, or many other places, to justify them in granting these Votes. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir L. O'Brien) would have the House believe that the withdrawal of these grants would be destructive to medical science; but it was an abuse of public money to vote it for the purpose of propping up any particular charity, the necessity of which, moreover, had not been proved.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTconcurred in the general principle that annual votes of money for the support of charitable institutions were indefensible; but he asked

655
the House to consider whether this case might not form an exception to the general rule. Although the sums hitherto voted might have been extremely small, the evils that would result from the withdrawal of such Votes might be very great. They must remember that the circumstances of Ireland differed materially from those of England; for in the former country there was not the law of settlement or the power of removal which existed here. It must also be recollected that within the last few years they had applied to Ireland, for the first time, the principle of the Poor Law, and had imposed upon that country, at a period of great distress, a very heavy burden of local taxation. It might, therefore, be a question whether the present time was well chosen for the withdrawal of these grants. He hoped that, at least, it would remain open to the Government to consider whether, instead of entirely withdrawing these Votes, a certain sum might not be given to the same institutions, and vested in the hands of trustees, which might be funded, the income continuing for ever after a portion of the funds of those hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to make an exception in favour of hospitals serving as schools of surgery; and on the same ground he (Mr. S. Herbert) would recommend the maintenance of fever hospitals, which were especially necessary as schools of medicine in Ireland, fever being the national disease in that country. He was also strongly of opinion that it would be expedient to convert the annual grant into a permanent fund at ten or twelve years' purchase.
COLONEL DUNNEprotested against the withdrawal of the grants as an injustice to Ireland, and denied that the Committee which recommended it represented the sense of the Irish Members. The question was whether the Irish were to be allowed, out of the enormous sums that arose from the Irish woods and forests, and from the surplus revenue that was transmitted to England, to contribute a certain sum from what was therefore their own money, to maintain medical schools in Ireland. He thought that they were very unfairly treated in this matter; for while this small Vote was refused to the medical establishments in Ireland, he found that the Government were about to propose a vote of 10,000 l. for a medical museum in London. He hoped that his hon. Friend would bring this subject forward again as a specific question.
656
The Government might depend upon it that the matter would not be allowed to rest until Ireland had obtained that justice which she had a right to demand.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that he should not call upon the House to divide, but should reserve to himself the right to bring the whole question again under the notice of the House at the early part of next Session.
[Notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Mover of the Amendment, there were some "Noes" from the Opposition benches.]
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 43: Majority 63.
Question again proposed.

THE HORFIELD MANOR ESTATE.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must refer to the subject of the charges which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) against the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, with reference to the leasing of the Horfield Manor estate. The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth had, in support of his charges, quoted certain documents and papers which
were on the table of the House, but that nevertheless the subject had been taken from that House, and some explanations had been made in another place, and where those documents were not forthcoming. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. P. Miles) had written a letter to one of the newspapers on this subject; and he (Mr. Hume) thought it would be desirable, if he or any other hon. Member could give any explanation on this subject, that they should do so. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Bristol whether it was his intention to make any statement to the House in explanation of the charges which had been made against the right rev. Prelate?
MR. P. MILESsaid, that his object in writing the letter to which reference had been made, was to ask the House and the public to suspend their judgment until a reply to these charges should have been obtained from the right rev. Prelate. That reply had been obtained from him, and had been published in the newspapers. Hon. Gentlemen would form their own opinion as to whether that was or was not a sufficient reply to the charges which had been brought forward. He (Mr. Miles) had his own view of that question. He had stated to the hon.

657
Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman), that if he brought the subject before the House, as he stated that he would on Wednesday last, he should be prepared to reply to any charges he might bring forward; and whenever that hon. Member did so, he (Mr. Miles) should be prepared to reply. But if the House considered that, after what had passed upon the subject, any explanation was due from him, he was quite prepared to give it them.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that he had made a statement in that House as publicly as he could, of circumstances which were to be found detailed in evidence given before a Committee of that House, and which was in the possession of that House. He had made that statement in the presence of various members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. There had been, as far as he aware, no answer or explanation whatever given of those charges. That House knew nothing of any letter written by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, or of any other explanation which had been given elsewhere, on any part of the subject. When he saw the letter which was written by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. P. Miles), whose reasons for writing it in the absence of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and before any communication could be had with him, were to his (Mr. Horsman's) mind quite satisfactory, he immediately saw the hon. Gentleman, and stated to him that, with his views, he felt he was quite justified in the course that he was taking, and that he (Mr. Horsman) would give him every facility for that course. He also said that it was unnecessary for him (Mr. Horsman) to repeat the statement which he had made, but that he thought it would be satisfactory to him (Mr. P. Miles) if he pointed out the specific part of the evidence from which he had drawn his statement. It was unnecessary for him to repeat that statement, but he wished to give the hon. Member and that House the fullest knowledge of the source from whence he drew his inference. They agreed, if possible, to bring the question before the House on Monday before the public business; but it was found impossible to do so, as it was inconvenient to the Government in the first instance, and besides that, there were Members on each side of the House who had Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and who would have been obliged to postpone them
658
had this question been brought forward. It was found equally difficult to bring it on in Committee of Supply, as there were ten or a dozen Motions that had precedence before the Committee; and further than that, every notice day up to the 29th of July was filled up, so that it was impossible for him, however anxious he might be, to bring forward this question any more. He might, no doubt, on going into Committee of Supply, have made a statement, but that was already before the public. It had not been answered, and he should have put himself in a wrong position with the House if he had reiterated a statement of which no explanation and to which no answer had been attempted. The hon. Member for Bristol said that as soon as a letter had been received from the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, he felt that the responsibility was taken from his shoulders, and that unless he (Mr. Horsman) made a move on the subject, it was not his intention to bring the question forward. He must say, that he heard with surprise that when a statement was made in that House on evidence before the House, it was not considered expedient to give any answer to it there, but that a right rev. Prelate should be set up to give an explanation elsewhere to an assembly which had never heard the statement, and had not before them the evidence on which it was founded. It appeared to him that the friends of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had chosen the most unintelligible and inconsistent course which they could have pursued. If they had chosen, they might have said that the statement made by an hon. Member of that House was so improbable that it was not worth answering, or that an answer had been given by the letter of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol in the public newspapers, and that that settled the question. That would be intelligible; but the course which was not intelligible was, that they should say that further explanation was necessary, and that another answer was required; but that the explanation should be given and the answer should be afforded, not in the place where the statement was made, and where the evidence was in existence in order to substantiate that statement, but in another place, where any one who chose to make an answer to that statement could make it before an assembly who were necessarily ignorant of the circumstances, and where he might speak

659
with all the fearlessness of a man who knew that he could not be contradicted. As far as he was concerned, he thought the public would draw their own conclusions. He had expressed himself ready and anxious to substantiate the accuracy of the statement which he had made; and not only that, but in some points the circumstances turned out stronger than what he had stated. If, when he stated that publicly, and when he had no opportunity of going into that subject, no answer was to be given and no explanation was to be afforded, but the question and the discussion were removed to another assembly, which was necessarily ignorant of the circumstances, all he could say was, that the public might draw their own conclusions; but at any rate he (Mr. Horsman) was in this position, that he had brought before the House an abuse of a very serious character, and if the House did not think it necessary that any further explanation or answer should be given, he did not feel that he was called upon to endeavour to enforce it. The hon. Member for Bristol had told him very fairly, that his motive in writing his letter was to ask the public to suspend their judgment until some further answer was given; and also that he was not aware, and was not a party to any such proceeding as that of which he complained—the removal of the explanation from that to another House. He (Mr. Horsman) was sure that the hon. Member for Bristol was not a party to, and was not aware of that proceeding, but he must say, that a more evasive or unsatisfactory retiring from a charge, or a more full and complete acknowledgement of the correctness of that charge, it was difficult for him to conceive.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had intimated that the answer given, in the fullest manner, by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol to the charges made against him, and which had appeared in the public prints, was no answer to those charges. The hon. Gentleman had also expressed his great surprise that a further answer was attempted to be given, not in that House, but in some other place. Now, if the hon. Gentleman was so very strict in his observance of the rules of that House, he (Lord John Manners) thought he should in consistency decline to take notice of any debate that might be going on in another place. For his own part, he
660
(Lord J. Manners) regarded the answer which had appeared in the columns of the public papers as an answer to the charges made against the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol by the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth; and he thought the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. P. Miles) was fully justified in considering that the charges were satisfactorily disposed of by the right rev. Prelate himself. If the forms of the House had permitted it, no doubt it might have been convenient to the hon. Member for Cockermouth to have supported the charges which he had made, and to have afforded his (Lord J. Manners's) hon. Friend (Mr. P. Miles) to reply to the charges in detail; but he considered that, under the circumstances, the convenience of the House and of the public was best consulted by the course his hon. Friend proposed to take. He (Lord J. Manners) would only say further that he regretted the hon. Member for Cockermouth should have taken that opportunity of again repeating in very strong, emphatic, and elaborately prepared terms, the charges in which he had before indulged against the right rev. Prelate.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he thought it was not desirable that the House should enter on a question of this kind at that moment. In saying this he was not blaming the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsman), but was rather excusing himself for not entering upon it, upon this ground, that no notice having been given of the discussion, it would therefore be irregular and improper. Without meaning to go into the discussion, he must say that he thought the hon. Member was quite right in expressing his readiness to enter upon the further discussion of the question, because he was bound to say that his statements of facts had been most seriously impugned on most material points; and for his own sake therefore, as well as for that of other parties, he thought there should be some further discussion on this subject whenever a suitable occasion should arise. It was with great surprise and pain that he heard the detail of the circumstance that was given, he was sure without any intentional error, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, because he had a very strong recollection that, being much accustomed to hear of the dealings and transactions of different bishops in regard to charitable and eleemosynary objects, there was no man, so far as he was aware, on the episcopal bench who bore

661
a more distinguished character for liberality than the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. He (Mr. Gladstone) had no friendship or acquaintance with him, but he must confess that, under these circumstances, it came upon him with great surprise that he should be considered to have been implicated in misconduct of so grave a kind. He would state fairly his own opinion of the vindication of the right reverend Prelate, which, in his opinion, was complete—in some points indeed more than complete, because it established not only innocence, but liberality and high merit on his part. At the same time he admitted the fairness of the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman in challenging further discussion; for he thought it would be for the advantage of all parties that that should take place.
Subject dropped.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
(1.) 4,049 l., Bermudas; Vote agreed to.
(2.) 1,500 l., Prince Edward's Island.
MR. HUMEsaid, that this was a small island with a responsible government for the management of their own affairs; he did not object to the amount of the Vote, but he wished to know what course the Government intended to pursue with respect to the payment of the salaries of the Colonial Governors.
MR. HAWESsaid, that the Government had not yet fully decided upon the course which it might be desirable eventually to take upon this point; but that in his opinion under present circumstances it was inexpedient to reduce or discontinue the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, that there must be some link of communication between the mother country and the colonies, and he did not know how this could be better maintained than by our paying the salary of the Governor. At the same time he thought that that salary should be in some degree commensurate to the other appointments left at the disposal of the local Government, so that the Governor should not, by his possession of a very large salary, he removed from associating with those who were employed in the government of the colony. He should not press a Motion on this subject until the Government should have decided what course they should pursue on this point.
Vote agreed to; as were the following;.—
(3.) 7,677 l., Clergy, North America.
(4.) 13,660 l., Indian Department, Canada.
(5.) 70 l., Bahama Islands.
(6.) 18,028 l., Governors and others, West Indies.
(7.) 36,075 l., Justices in West Indies and Mauritius.
(8.) 13,780 l., Western Coast of Africa.
(9.) 10,875 l., St. Helena.
(10.) 6,359 l., Western Australia.
(11.) 1,103 l., Port Essington.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 20,000 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. VERNON SMITHwould take that opportunity of asking an explanation with respect to the position in which they stood with reference to the New Zealand Company. By the Act passed three years ago, the company were empowered, on giving three months' notice, to throw up the whole of the concern to the Government, if they found it was less profitable than they bad anticipated. After that notice the Government were bound to take upon themselves all the liabilities of the New Zealand Company. Since that time they had heard nothing of the transaction, except that it was publicly known that the New Zealand Company had given that notice. A Commissioner had been appointed to investigate the transaction; but in that House they were ignorant of what had been done. Before Parliament separated, he should be glad to know what was the state of the transactions between the Government and the Company. It was known that the Company were liable to serious liabilities—there were serious disputes respecting those liabilities; the Government might have involved themselves to a greater extent than was known, and might hereafter have to come to Parliament for a Vote for the purpose. He begged, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, was it likely that he would call upon Parliament for any further sum than was specified by the Act to meet the liabilities of the New Zealand Company? He would also ask him to lay upon the table the correspondence between the Government and the Company under that Act, to which he (Mr. V. Smith) had objected at the time of its being passed.
MR. HAWESsaid, the Company had given the necessary notice on the 5th of July; but the Government did not then as-

663
sume all the liabilities—they merely assumed all the legal liabilities with the sanction of Commissioners appointed under the Act of Parliament. That would be rather an inconvenient time to go into a lengthened explanation of the arrangements; but it was his intention in the course of a few days to lay upon the table papers connected with the subject.
MR. COBDENcould not understand why the people of England should be called upon year after year to defray these charges for the benefit of people at the Antipodes, who were far better able to pay them than we were. This Vote was but a specimen of our colonial system; it afforded an illustration of the folly this country was perpetrating in all parts of the globe. Here was a charge of 2,500 l. for the salary of a governor, 800 l. for a lieutenant-governor, and, not content with that, we must support their chief justice, at an expense of 1,000 l. a year; and this, be it remembered, for a population of some 20,000 or 30,000 emigrants. Then there were charges of 535 l. for law-officers and clerks, 600 l. for the salary of a bishop, 590 l. for chaplains and schools. Here we had to pay for the Army, the Church, the Judicial establishments, and the Governor's salary; and it would appear we had to pay for their Naval establishments also, for he found in the Vote an item of 1,500 l. for building a vessel for this colony. Then, again, there was a charge for public works and roads, employment of natives, and miscellaneous expenditure, 1,235 l. Why did not these people pay for these things themselves? Why were we always to be called upon to pay for their roads and public works, and for the employment of the natives for their benefit? To call upon the public here to pay these charges was indefensible and unjust. What return were the people of this country ever likely to get for this money? Was it in contemplation to bring New Zealand within the range of their taxing power? Did they ever expect to get one farthing from New Zealand? He could understand the course taken in the case of a territory where they were going to plant their custom-houses and tax gatherers. But he could not imagine that of New Zealand. They could not possibly have any return, even of the exclusive trade by which they used to pretend they were compensated. He predicted that the people of this country, when they had some voice in the representation of that House, or Members of that House
664
when they did their duty, would have these items struck out. He protested against the payment of the money.
MR. PLUMPTREthought there was no colony more deserving of support from the mother country than New Zealand. There was no more beautiful instance of the influence of the Christian religion than in the change which had taken place in New Zealand, which, but a few years ago, was inhabited by cannibals. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) had referred to the charge of 600 l. for the bishop. That was wholly insufficient as the allowance for a bishop whose responsibilities were so great and duties so extensive, and he was allowed another 600 l. from a religious society. He firmly believed the people of England did not object to this charge.
MR. W. WILLIAMSconsidered it would be well if the religious society referred to paid the whole of the salary of the bishop; if not, some deduction should be made for its payment from the enormous salaries of the bishops of this country. He believed the Bishop of New Zealand was a very distinguished person, and he was glad to find that he had a larger amount of salary than was stated in the Vote. He did not think, however, that the people of this country should pay for the maintenance of the bishop, and therefore proposed that the amount of his salary (600 l.) should be deducted from the amount of the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, there was great complaints made in the public journals and otherwise of excessive taxation in New Zealand. Instead of increasing, the population were flying from the colony. [An Hon. MEMBER: To California.] Yes, to California. In Wellington the expense of public buildings amounted to 14,000 l., but there were no persons to occupy them. He proposed to reduce the public works, which were stated in letters and in the newspapers to be preposterous and uncalled for. He thought the inhabitants ought to have a voice in the elections; but though they had passed a Bill giving them a constitution, they afterwards superseded it, and they could not know what their condition is now, except that the Governor expended what sum he liked, and he got whatever he asked. He proposed to take the sense of the Committee as to granting any more money for public works in that colony; and in making that proposition, he would remind the Committee, that the local revenue amounted to

665
52,969 l. He proposed to reduce the amount of the Vote by deducting a sum of 10,935 l.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 9,065 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. M'GREGORobjected to this country being still called upon to pay these charges for New Zealand. He thought the colony should pay all the costs of Government except the Governor's salary and the military establishment.
MR. HAWESsaid, the very last account that had been received from the colony showed that, whilst the expenditure of the local government there had been very largely reduced, the revenue of the colony had not suffered any diminution. But the exports and imports had increased, the former especially. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) apparently had not talc en into account the native population, which now amounted to between 150,000 and 200,000; and though that was a large number as compared with the European settlers, yet in the government of the colony no distinction could be made between those two classes. The Government must extend over all alike. The colony undoubtedly was now advancing at a very rapid rate, and a recent report of the Governor spoke of its being in a state of uninterrupted repose.
Mr. COBDENsaid, he must complain that hon. Members were taking up a new position with regard to our colonies. If they were honest, consistent, and logical, with respect to free trade, they should adhere to their original position, and not abandon the notion under which they had taken possession of them. Something had been said with reference to our trade with the colonies; but if anybody would serve them at a cheaper rate than we did, he would obtain their custom; and how was it possible that we could serve them cheaply if we were burdened with excessive taxation for the support of their government? The hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Plumptre) had set up a claim in favour of New Zealand, upon the ground that we ought to continue to maintain ecclesiastical establishments, abroad; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman to consult his constituents and inquire if the people of Kent were in a position to pay, not only for their ecclesiastical establishment in the city of
666
Canterbury, but for an ecclesiastical establishment in New Zealand? He objected to the principle of coming to that House and asking for money under the pretence of sending missionaries abroad. He honoured the men who subscribed voluntarily in order to propagate our Christian faith in other lands; but he objected to the principle of coming to that House for Votes of money under any such pretence, for it too often happened that we covered our misdeeds—bloody misdeeds in many cases—by saying that we had established a church or a chapel in such and such a place. The Spaniards and the Portuguese had planted their cross in South America and elsewhere, and their spiritual devotions had in some respects been carried on amid the screams of those they had massacred. He objected to any imitation upon our part of their conduct, and to the introduction into that House of any question touching the spread of the doctrines of the Christian faith abroad. Let our missionary labours be voluntary labours. It was not the province of that House to promote Christianity either by the force of our arms or by the appointment of bishops to New Zealand. The fact was that, taking all our disbursements into consideration, we were expending far more than 100,000 l. annually in New Zealand. It was stated the year before last in the Committee, by the late Lord Auckland, that three ships of war would be required on that station. We had a large military establishment there which must be fed and clothed. There had been upwards of 2,000,000 l. spent there by England since the bequest of a portion of the territory had been made. He did not think the island would ever pay 5 per cent upon what we had laid out on it, for we could never have a large commerce with it. It was not a tropical country; on the contrary, its climate was very similar to our own, and therefore it was not in the nature of things that we could have an extensive interchange of commodities with it. Then, had we not been expending too much upon it? Let the Committee look at the question in a rational point of view. Individual merchants might profit by carrying on trade there; but he wanted the people of England to see how this matter should really be regarded. We ought not to be expending money unless there was some prospect of our obtaining a return; and therefore he protested against the present Vote.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must

667
say he did not think the hon. Member for the West Riding had made out a case which would induce the Committee to consent to the Vote being reduced. He (Lord John Russell) owned it did appear to him that this was a subject on which hon. Members might speak without reference to the immediate profit or loss of the transactions of the mother country with New Zealand. What was the general state of New Zealand when we first began to govern it? It was inhabited by a large
body of natives, overrun in many parts with a convict population of a most desperate character, who had gone thither from New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. Many bloody conflicts took place from time to time between the native tribes, which were encouraged by those convict settlers. It became a question with the people of this country whether they should attempt to colonise New Zealand, with a view to the comfort and civilisation of its people; and they were encouraged in the enterprise by missionaries who had been engaged in making voluntary efforts to instruct the inhabitants. But in the attempt to colonise it, the parties engaged in that enterprise proposed to do that which was against the law of the land—they proposed, without the authority of the Crown in this country to establish law in the colony, and to inflict punishment for criminal offences. He (Lord John Russell) was then in the Colonial Office, and he informed those parties that they could not act in that manner without infringing the law of the mother country; and the present Lord Chancellor, then Sir Thomas Wilde, who was consulted upon the point, confirmed his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion. It then became a question whether the Government should not aid that body of colonists, and whether they should not establish the authority of the Crown of this country in New Zealand? He believed that though we were incurring expense for some years in the colony, we were doing, at the same time, one of those noble and heroic works which became such a nation as this—that we were founding a colony which hereafter, when representative institutions should be given to it, would become a prosperous and civilised State; and that it was not unworthy of the people of England to relieve New Zealand from that state of barbarism on the one hand, and from convict incursions on the other, and to bring it into the condition of a civilised nation. It was with that view that the Government began, and I had since continued, to grant sums of mo-
668
ney from time to time in aid of that colony. He did not doubt that the colonists, when they obtained a Government of their own, and when their exports increased, would be able to defray the whole expense of the colony; and he thought it would not be matter of regret that we had been enabled to establish that colony. He was not ashamed to own that in the beginning of the colony he was a party to recommending the Crown to appoint the present Bishop of New Zealand; and he thought 600 l. was no extravagant stipend for a bishop. He (Lord John Russell) was not frightened by the name of a bishop—and if a man who was called a bishop would contribute to the civilisation of the country, and labour to unite the people in bonds of harmony and brotherly love, whatever might be the name by which he was called, he (Lord John Russell) thought it was desirable that such a man should be allowed to proceed in that course in the colony. With respect to the question of trade, those advantages were not given which were admitted in former years. But, according to the principles of free trade, that question had two sides; because, in former times, when this country had a colony, they gave it the advantage of their markets, paying a higher price for the productions of the colony. There was an end now to that; no produce of New Zealand had an advantage. It seemed to him that they should go on paying that sum to the colonists of New Zealand, and that the people of this country had reason to congratulate themselves that they had founded a flourishing State in that part of the world.
MR. HUMEsaid, this was the first time he had ever heard it stated by the Government that this country should be saddled with the expense of additional colonial bishops. Hitherto the Government had always evaded offering a justification. The question which he put to the Committee was this—whether, by agreeing to a vote of that kind, they were not spoiling the colony, and creating extravagance among the public officers there? The only complaint which he made was that echoed by the newspapers in the colony, namely, that the expenses of the Governor and the various establishments were quite disproportionate to the duties to be performed and the extent of the population. With a population of only 10,000 Europeans, they had here between 79,000 l. and 80,000 l. expended; and this was exclusive of the expenses for the Army and Navy and Ordnance.

669
He entirely disapproved of officers receiving overgrown and extravagant salaries, which had the effect of destroying rather than improving the general welfare of the colony. That was the ground, therefore, on which he wished the Vote to be reduced.
MR. PLUMPTREdefended the course the Government had taken in appointing a bishop to New Zealand, and bore testimony to the great and successful exertions which the Church Missionary Society had made in diffusing a knowledge of the truth of Christianity among the natives in the colony.
MR. EVELYN DENISONhad understood this Vote was to be defended on the ground that the colony was passing out of the hands of the New Zealand Company into those of the inhabitants themselves. He agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that the public works and roads of New Zealand were not items which ought to be defrayed out of the public funds of this country. He was not prepared to withhold his support to the Vote which was asked, under the peculiar circumstances of the colony; but, looking to the future, he thought it would not be improper in the Committee to express an opinion that such charges as public works and roads in New Zealand were not those that ought to be defrayed out of the public funds of this country.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 50: Majority 27.
Original Question put, and agreed to; as was also
(13.) 986 l. Heligoland.
(14.) 5,000 l. Falkland Islands.
MR. COBDENwished to know what was the actual population of those islands at the present moment, for the government of which the Committee wore asked to vote 5,000 l.
MR. HAWESsaid, the actual population was very small; from 100 to 200—probably 120.
MR. COBDENsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had rather exceeded the number, for he believed the population was about 100, so that the Committee were voting 5,000 l. for the government of 100 persons, which was 50 l. a head. Those who remembered Dr. Johnson's eloquent description of those islands at a time when we were threatened with a war respecting them, might be disposed to agree with him (Mr. Cobden) when he suggested that it would be as well to deal with the Falkland
670
Islands as the House had done with Port Essington.
MR. HUMEdid not think the population was so extensive as to justify their keeping a surveyor constantly employed, at a high salary. There was a reason for everything. He found among the officials enumerated in the list, a governor, a magistrate with a clerk, a chaplain, a surgeon, and a surveyor. He was sorry to do anything unpleasant or unsatisfactory, but they really ought not to go on voting in this manner.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know what were the duties of the first and second clerk to the acting secretary? Here 5,000 l. was taken annually out of the pockets of the people of this country; while 750 l. only was collected among the inhabitants of the island. He hoped they did not complain of being overtaxed.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYasked whether there were any troops there, and whether, in the 120 inhabitants, the governor, chaplain, and surveyor, wore included?
MR. HAWESsaid, hat this Vote was not for a colony in the true sense of the word. The Falkland Islands were, in point of fact, a naval station of great benefit and advantage to the power and general trade of this empire; and when we possessed a station of that sort, of course it was necessary we should have some kind of government, and proper officers to carry it into effect. It was always considered of great importance that England should possess this naval station; and he would undertake to say that if we gave it up, there would be twenty others ready to take it. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) would recollect that in the Committee on the Naval Estimates it was stated that it was a matter of dispute at one time between European nations as to who should possess the islands. An anxious desire had been manifested by the Colonial Office to reduce the expenditure, and during the last five or sis years it had been reduced considerably. In 1845 the vote for the Falkland Islands was 9,800 l.; next year, 7,400 l.; and now it was 5,000 l. The station was a very convenient one for ships coming round by Cape Horn; and in consequence of increased accommodation being provided in the port, it was now much more resorted to by them than formerly.
MR. SPOONER: There is a surveyor, costing 1,200 l. What are his duties?
MR. HAWES: A surveyor is necessary in every colony where the land is let out to immigrating settlers.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY: The hon. Gentleman has as yet avoided answering my question. What is the number of troops in the colony?
MR. HAWES: There are no troops whatever.
MR. EVELYN DENISON: I find the sum of 250 l. set down for "emigration." Of course, the population of 100 find it extremely dull, and must be in want of a little change of company. Are we to understand that the Colonial Office gives a bonus to the new comers?
MR. HAWES: The 250 l., I believe, is spent in paying the expenses of pensioners going out from this country.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I find that the local revenue in the islands is decreasing. Does this arise from a reduction in taxation, or from the impoverishment of the people?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid the falling off arises from reduction of taxation.
MR. COBDEN: The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies has used an argument in support of this Vote which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. He has stated that these islands are an important station for the resort of merchant vessels. Now I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how many merchant vessels touched at these islands in the course of last year. I have not seen the last report of the Governor, but I saw a report of his one or two years ago, in which he states that, although the people had imported cattle, and brought over from the main land herdsmen to take care of these cattle, and had prepared in vast quantities fresh meat for the merchant vessels which were expected, no merchant vessels whatever had put in at these islands. What we want to know distinctly from the hon. Gentleman is this—do vessels coming round the Horn ever touch at these islands? I have my own opinion, and my opinion is that merchant vessels do not.
MR. HAWESsaid, he found that in 1849 the number of English vessels that touched at these islands was twelve, and in 1850 they amounted to twenty-three, while the tonnage had increased from 9,200 to 13,672.
MR. HUME: I will not maintain that this station ought to be given up; but I do put it to the Government whether the station might not be kept up at a considerably less expense than at present. In my opinion, everything necessary could be effected for one-fourth of the present expense. Spain and Holland always make their colonies pay their expenses, and we ought to do the same.
MR. HAWES: I do not altogether oppose the general Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the expenditure in this colony is, indeed, rather large; and I may further state that the subject is at present under the consideration of my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies.
COLONEL SALWEY: I want to know what is the religious persuasion of the majority of the 100? I ask the question, because I find that 400 l. is given to a chaplain. I should think that there cannot be more than ten families in the island, and this is rather dear pay for the chaplain.
MR. HAWES: I can only again say, in reply to these comments, that the matter is under the consideration of the Colonial Office.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 15,500 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong-Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he must oppose this Vote. Hong-Kong was the dearest piece of ground in Her Majesty's possession. Hong-Kong was a place of an extent of only twenty miles, with not more than twenty acres cultivated. Its population did not exceed 33,000. Fifteen-sixteenths of this population were Chinese, only 450 being Europeans and Americans. And this 15,500 l. was not the only expense. In Hong-Kong there was paid besides 24,000 l. raised by the taxation of the people there; and thus altogether the place cost 39,000 l. There was no Chinese of character or education in Hong-Kong. Respectable Chinese altogether shunned the place, and while we were professing to suppress piracy in the Indian Archipelago, we were at Hong-Kong nurturing a population ready at any moment to man piratical vessels in the Chinese seas. A good criterion of the condition of the colony was to be found in the number of persons qualified to serve on juries. In 1848 the number of Europeans qualified to act as

673
common jurors was 186; in 1851 it was only 69; and the number of special jurors had diminished to an equal extent. There was no doubt that the place was fatally unhealthy; and that this would for ever prevent any progress in its population. The Governor and his aide-de-camp received 6,527 l. 10 s.; the Colonial Secretary and the Treasury Office received 5,955 l.; and the surveying department, for surveying about twenty acres of tillage, received 1,231 l. The trade had fallen off to such an extent that there were only ten English houses, one American, one German, and one Dutch house connected with trade in the island. The harbour-master received 1,116 l a year, and his duties were performed by a Lascar for 300 l. a year. The Governor stated in one of the papers laid before that House that this Vote had been greatly diminished. But there had been no diminution whatever in salaries. The decrease was owing entirely to the cessation of those public works, the prosecution of which might have been of some public advantage. He (Mr. Scott) had moved as an Amendment on this Vote last year, that it be reduced by 5,000 l., and he thought it his duty to urge the same Amendment this year.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 10,500 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. HAWESsaw in the speech and Motion of the hon. Gentleman but little encouragement to persevere in a rigid system of gradual economy. He (Mr. Hawes) had believed that the papers which had accompanied this Estimate would have satisfied every Member of the House that a safe gradual reduction was being yearly made in this Vote. It was quite true that last year the hon. Gentleman had proposed a reduction of 5,000 l. in that year's Estimate. But what was the Estimate now? It was 4,500 l. less than the Vote of last year, yet still the hon. Gentleman asked for a reduction of 5,000 l. Between the years 1845 and 1851 the salaries of the colonial establishment had been reduced by no less a sum than 6,700 l. It was not the fact that public works of any importance had been stopped; but of course the expenditure on that head was much less now than in former years. In 1845 the sum expended on account of Hong Kong was 49,000 l.; in 1846 it was 36,000 l.; in 1837 it was 31,000 l.; in 1848 it was 30,000 l.; in 1849 it was
674
25,000 l.; in 1850 it was 20,000 l., and this year (1851) it was 15,500 l. Of course, when the colony was first taken possession of, many public buildings were required, which had long since been completed; and, since 1845, there had been a natural decrease under the head of Public Works. He admitted that when we first occupied Hong Kong, we carried on the government of the colony in the most extravagant manner; but he denied altogether that there had not been economy since 1845, and that great economy was not practised at the present moment. In justification of the present expenditure, there had been a considerable increase in the trade of the colony. Comparing 1848 and 1851, the increase had been enormous. With the increase in the trade, the population had increased, since 1848, by at least 8,000; and, putting these facts together, and taking into consideration also that the expenditure had been considerably diminished, he thought the Committee would admit that there were no grounds whatever for pressing this Amendment. Beyond what he had suggested, it ought further to be remenbered that Hong Kong was of importance to us, affording securities to the English trade in the Chinese seas.
MR. HUMEdid not consider that the speech of the hon. Gentleman was consistent with the facts of the case. Facts which had come to his (Mr. Hume's) knowledge did not bear out the assertion as to the improvement in the position of the colony. He was altogether misinformed if the colony had not completely failed as respected the purpose for which it had been established. When Hong Kong was taken by us, it was with a view of making it a resort for Chinese merchants, and of removing the British trade from Canton. Nothing of the kind had been accomplished. No Chinese of any position or respectability had as yet settled at Hong Kong. Nothing, therefore, could be more preposterous than to continue this expensive establishment. The Governor, he understood, was coming home soon, and he hoped that the opportunity would be taken by the Government to consider carefully the actual circumstances and chances of this colony. An English Governor at Hong Kong had no more influence with the Chinese authorities than a Governor of the Philippine Islands. In Canton, where some influence for British interests might be obtained, we had no representative in the position to

675
command Chinese respect. Dr. Bowring, our Consul at Canton, was possessed of no influence whatever, and had never yet been so recognised as to procure au interview with the Chinese Governor of Canton. When communications had to be made between the English and Chinese Governments, they had to go from Canton to Hong Kong, and back to Canton; and, of course, in such a case, the Governor at Hong Kong exercised no influence. It was, at any rate, impossible to defend the salaries given at Hong Kong. In a place of twenty miles extent, a surveyor got 1,200 l. a year. Why, the whole island could be surveyed in a year. For the collection of a revenue of 23,000 l. a treasurer got 1,300 l. Why, many an English exciseman collected ten times the sum for a fifth of the salary. Such a colony as Hong Kong ought to be made self-sustaining, and being anxious for a reduction in the Vote, he would willing go into the lobby with the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) that Hong Kong has failed in a commercial point of view; and I think the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies must show that, taking it simply as a commercial depot, it has answered to a great extent, not perhaps to the extent of which expectations had been entertained; still, even in a commercial point of view, there is a great deal of trade in Hong Kong. It is a place of resort for our merchant vessels frequenting the ports of China. There is, for instance, a very considerable trade between many parts of China and Hong Kong in sugar for exportation to this country. But you must not consider Hong Kong simply as a commercial station. You must consider it also in its political bearings with reference to your intercourse with China. I own I feel it my duty to take the opinion of persons conversant with the trade of China upon the subject, and I may state that there was no one point more pressed by them upon the Government than this, that we ought to obtain some British footing upon the coast of China—some spot, of whatever size it might be, in which British authority, British merchants, British vessels, and British goods might be secured from the capricious and arbitrary treatment which our fellow-subjects and their property have sustained at Canton. The first opinion was, that we ought to have taken possession of
676
Chusan, an island much larger, and, to some extent, better placed with regard to our intercourse with China, but to which there were several objections. The opinion of persons here in England and also in China determined—and Sir Henry Pottinger, in his communication, agreed with that opinion—that Hong Kong was the preferable point of retention. It is, I conceive, of immense importance with reference to our commercial intercourse with China, that there should be close upon the coast of China some place to which our merchants can resort in security without fearing any repetition of those barbarous proceedings that led to the rupture and war between this country and China a few years since. Now, what my hon. Friend has just stated with regard to the manner in which the Chinese authorities behave towards our Consul, is exactly an illustration of what might happen if we should cease to maintain any British authority in China. If our Consul at Canton were to be subject to the caprice and ill-usage of the individual who might happen to be the Chinese Governor in Canton, it is plain that our transactions, whether commercial or political, would be at the mercy, as they were before, of what we, in return for the compliment paid to us by the Chinese, may term the barbarians of Canton. I am not so well informed as the hon. Member for Montrose on many points that take place in China; but it is well known to individuals who have any transactions with China, that of late, and especially since the present Emperor came to the throne, there has been a reaction in Chinese policy against the intercourse with European countries; and that attempts, indeed, have been made to infringe some points in the treaty agreed to at Nankin, against which we have protested, but which we still hope may not be persevered in to the extent to require that any thing more than a remonstrance shall be addressed to a Chinese Government. But if our Consul at Canton has not been hitherto enabled to get over a question of etiquette which has prevented him from having intercourse with the Chinese authorities—and I hold him to be perfectly right in refusing to communicate with persons of an inferior position, and with whom the Chinese Government wished him to communicate—if all these difficulties and obstructions have been thrown in our way at Canton, I do say that it is of immense importance that we should have an official—free from all these inter-

677
ruptions and obstructions—who should be in a position to communicate safely with the Government at home, and with British residents in different parts of China. Now, Sir, the Governor of Hong Kong also possesses a criminal and eivil jurisdiction. It was also felt to be impossible that our subjects in China should be liable to Chinese jurisdiction. For a great length of time considerable difficulties arose as to what manner any jurisdiction could be established. An Act of Parliament was passed by which our authorities there were invested with criminal and civil jurisdiction, and by which a considerable portion of the duties were assigned to the Governor of Hong Kong. I really hope, therefore, that the Committee will see that this possession of Hong Kong is of very great importance, and it is not only as a commercial situation, but as a political centre for our relations with China; and I am sure I cannot think that the expense of it is greater than the various considerations, political and commercial, fully justify.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must object to the Vote. What a monstrous thing it was to propose a salary of 6,000 l. to the Governor of an insignificant colony like that of Hong Kong, whilst the Premier of this country had only 5,000 l. Dr. Bowring, the Consul at Canton, who was infinitely superior in point of talent to the Governor, only received 1,800 l. a year.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he must protest against the comparison of colonial salaries with those of the Secretary of State. For his own part, he considered that his right hon. Friend the Governor of Hong Kong was very much underpaid. They ought to remember that foreign climates were often very unhealthy, that governors were put to great expenses, that they held their offices for a limited period, that they were banished from their homes, and were separated from all their connexions. The China station was extremely unwholesome, and many deserving men had either fallen victims to the climate, or had been obliged to return home. Comparing the salaries paid to the public servants of this country with those paid by private mercantile firms to their agents in China, he did not think they would consider the former too high.
MR. CLAYsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Viscount, that it was unfair to compare the salaries of one office with those of another. He knew many gentlemen who would gladly accept the office of
678
a County Court Judge at a thousand a year, who would decline that of Lord Chief Justice at 3,000 l.
MR. HUMEconsidered, that to pay 3,000 l. a year for receiving and auditing 23,000 l., or to pay 1,200 l, to the Surveyor General of a rock only twenty miles in extent, was a most reckless expenditure.
MR. HAWESthought, that considering the climate, the salaries were not too large. Besides, they had already been much reduced.
MR. F. SCOTTcontended that the statements they had heard with respect to the trade with Hong Kong were fallacious. They might as well say that all the ships which called at Cowes traded with the Isle of Wight, as that all the ships which touched at Hong Kong carried on commerce with that port. The fact was, the real commerce with Hong Kong was exceedingly small; and 39,000 l. was therefore a much larger sum than ought to be spent upon it. As for the unhealthiness of the climate, the Governor of Sierra Leone only received 2,000 l.; and with respect to distance from home, the Governor of New Zealand, who was admitted to be extravagantly paid, had not more than a third of the sum allowed to the Governor of Hong Kong. The Governor of Western Australia had not more than one-tenth, Considering, then, that the colony of Hong Kong had a revenue of 24,000 l., this country ought not to be saddled with 15,000 l. in addition.
MR. MACGREGORthought the sum voted for the colony of Hong Kong was too large, but looking at what had been done in the way of reduction of colonial expenditure by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, he felt great confidence that he would go further and extend the principles of economy into all those departments where they were still needed. Viewed with respect to their intrinsic value, the Isle of Wight was worth ten times as much as Hong Kong; but considering the increased confidence with which our ships now went to China, compared with what used to be the case, he thought that hon. Gentlemen had treated the colony too lightly. He was sorry, therefore, that he could not vote with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scott) who had proposed this reduction. The Governor of Hong Kong had long been his (Mr. Mac Gregor's) friend, and he felt persuaded that no better appointment could possibly have been made.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the large

679
sums voted as salary had been defended on the ground of the unhealthiness of the climate; but they did not pay their troops more for serving there than at ordinary stations, and yet it was notorious that they had suffered severely. He was deeply impressed with the extravagance of the salary of the Governor, and if they agreed to pay it they would be spending public money to great disadvantage.
MR. HAWESexplained that the salary of 6,000 l. was paid not merely for services as Governor, but for duties as superintendent of the China trade, in which capacity the Governor was thrown into collision with the Chinese authorities, and with those merchants and other persons who resorted to Hong Kong.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 65; Majority 26.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(16.) 5,500 l., Labuan.
MR. HUMEwould be glad to know who the Governor of Labuan was? He understood the Governor and Deputy Governor were both in England.
MR. HAWESsaid, the Governor for the time being was a Mr. Scott, who was appointed Lieutenant Governor during the compulsory absence of the Governor, in consequence of ill health. The Vote on account of Labuan was decreasing every year. In 1849 it was 8,800 l.; in 1850, 6,900 l.; and in 1851, only 5,500 l. He might mention incidentally that a gentleman who was instrumental in urging the formation of the colony had calculated the expenditure of the establishment at 5,500 l., the precise sum which the Government now asked. Mr. Scott had been surveyor general.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that Sir James Brooke was described as Governor and Commander-in-Chief. What were his duties in the latter capacity?
MR. HAWESsaid, that Sir James Brooke was described as Governor and Commander-in-Chief in his patent; but, except in case of war, when he might share some of the responsibility, he had no military duties whatever to perform.
MR. URQUHARTsaid, that the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had been guilty of an inconsistency in having stated that the Governor was Mr. Scott, and in saying immediately afterwards that it was Sir James Brooke. Certainly if the Government could be carried on without the Governor, he did not see that it was much use to be at the expense of having a Go-
680
vernor. But his principal object in rising was to protest against this office and the consulate of Sarawak being held by one individual.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, if the duties were performed by the gentleman who received 800 l. a year, it was a waste of money to give Sir James Brooke 1,500 l. while he held other offices, and was now at a great distance from the colony.
MR. HAWESsaid, it was not fair argument to contend that because the duties were discharged by another gentleman in Sir James Brooke's absence, the office was therefore unnecessary. It should be remembered that out of the 1,500 l. Sir James Brooke paid one-half to the lieutenant-governor.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he had a strong objection to every item in the account. He regretted that the settlement at Labuan had ever been formed. More would have been done to promote commerce by the establishment of free ports. He wished to know whether it was a fact that Sir James Brooke had ever visited Labuan since his appointment as Governor, and how long he had stayed there? He suspected this money was voted him to eke out his salary as consul general at the court of Borneo.
MR. HAWESsaid, he could only repeat that Sir James Brooke, when absent, only drew half his salary, as was customary with Governors of colonies. He had been at Labuan frequently and for long periods, and had conducted the government in person. One long absence had been occasioned by his having an important mission to conduct at Siam.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) 25,331 l., Emigration.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, that looking at the actual number sent out under the auspices of the Colonial Land and Emigration Board, the subject seemed to be well worthy of the attention of Parliament. Of 280,000 emigrants last year, 223,000 went to the United States of America, 32,000 to British North America, and 16,600 to Australia. This board had been established, ton or twelve years ago, with a view to the colonisation of South Australia; the vote, at first 5,500 l., had been gradually increased to its present amount; and the expenses had risen from 1,000 l. to nearly 8,000 l. Just in proportion as this expense had increased, the percentage of persons emigrating to foreign countries had increased, and the number to our own

681
colonies had decreased. In 1838, the number who emigrated to the United States was 14,000, and to Australia 14,000. Last year the numbers had been, to the United States, 223,000; to Australia, 16,000; or only about 8 per cent of the whole. There were now four Commissioners, while at first there was but one; other salaries had been increased; and the expenses 'of the board had increased to about 50 per cent. It was most essential that a Committee should be appointed next year to inquire into the management of this board. The remittances from emigrants, who went out independently of the board, to their friends at home, resident principally in Ireland, were, last year, 957,000 l., whilst the remittances of those sent out by the board were less than 1,200 l. It was to be regretted that the Commissioners did not give greater publicity to their operations: they were buried in a cul-de-sac called Park-street, where few emigrants could find them out; were it otherwise, no doubt the emigration to our colonies would be largely increased. It might also be promoted by making communications to the municipalities of the different towns in the kingdom. The mode of collecting the emigrants, and maintaining them until their embarkation, was also very defective; and the contract, which was ostensibly put up for tender, was given so as practically to exclude competition. The moment he heard that it was put up to tender, he was certain as to who would receive the contract, although the party's charges were from 20 to 30 per cent higher than those of other competitors. It had been given to Mr. Cooper, who was to lay out 500 l. on improving the accommodation at the depôt at Deptford, although his contract was only for one year. He thought Mr. Cooper ought not to be allowed to lay out so large a sum for so short a contract, because that expenditure would be considered to give that gentleman an inchoate right to have the contract for another year. He hoped the Government would seriously consider whether the Emigration Board might not be made much more efficient for its object.
MR. HAWESsaid, that the hon. Member was under an erroneous impression in supposing that the increasing establishment at the Emigration Board was accompanied by a correspondent decrease in the emigration to our own colonies. The very reverse was the fact. If the hon. Member had taken the trouble to examine the
682
statistical reports on this question, he would have perceived that the emigration to the Australian colonies, during the last few years, had been steadily augmenting. He could assure the Committee with the most perfect sincerity, that there was not the least disposition, on the part of the Emigration Commission, to withhold from Parliament the fullest information that it was in their power to supply with respect to the proceedings of their department. The only funds at the disposal of the Commissioners were derived from the land sales in the colonies. They expended in emigration the whole amount supplied for that purpose from the colony, and, if that sum fell short, or increased from time to time, the Commissioners were not responsible for it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scott) said they might easily increase the tide of emigration; but he forgot that the present extent of emigration already absorbed all their funds, and that the result of the indiscriminate emigration which would ensue from' the communication with all the parishes and Boards of Guardians throughout the country, which the hon. Gentleman recommended, would create discontent, instead of satisfaction, in the colonies. What the colonies wanted was agricultural labourers in the prime of life; and a few years ago, when it was attempted to relieve Ireland of some portion of pauperism by Government emigration, the experiment was obliged to be abandoned. The reason why the accounts of the Commissioners did not come under the notice of that House, was because the funds were not voted by that House, but by the colonies, where the accounts were very jealously scrutinised. The Commissioners had to administer the funds supplied from the colonies, and generally to superintend the working of the Passengers' Act; and for the great amount of emigration to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, and which went to the United States of America, they were not at all responsible, because that was an entirely voluntary emigration. The hon. Gentleman also said the establishment of the Commissioners had largely increased; but there had been an enormous amount of emigration, and additional offices at different ports had been required to be opened. He believed no deduction could judiciously be made from the Vote. A proposal had been made to the Commissioners by the South Western Railway Company, for collecting the emigrants at the port of Southampton, instead of at the

683
port of London; but the Commissioners considered that that arrangement would have been attended with additional expense, and they felt hound in justice to the colonies to economise the funds. If, however, the hon. Gentleman was able to show that, by collecting the emigrants at Southampton instead of in London, the expense would he reduced, the Commissioners would be glad to adopt the proposal.
MR. F. SCOTTbegged to explain. He was not now going into details, because he would not make a second speech. But he was prepared to say that the emigrants could be collected, not only as cheaply, but more cheaply, at Southampton than at Deptford; and it was only by a fallacious estimate, excluding certain of the items, that a decision had been come to in favour of Deptford, and against Southampton.
MR. GOOLDrecommended Southampton in preference to Deptford as the port for the embarkation of the emigrants. The depot at Deptford was inconveniently situated as regarded both the railway station and the river; and on the other hand, Southampton would obviate the dangers of rounding the Forelands and passing the Goodwin Sands.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) 60,000 l., Captured Negroes, &c.
MR. HUMEsaid, he should be glad of some information from the Government in connexion with this Vote.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, it will he in the recollection of the Committee that last year promises were held out, on the part of the Government, that increased efforts would be made, in addition to those already in force, for the suppression of the slave trade, and in consequence thereof greater stringency has been employed, both on the coast of Africa and on the coast of Brazil. Those efforts have been attended with very great success, which has been even more rapid than could have been anticipated. On the coast of Africa the slave trade may be said to be almost extinguished, for the moment, north of the line, with the exception of Lagos and one or two other places, and there the people, who have hitherto devoted themselves entirely to the slave trade, have commenced to engage themselves in occupations of more lawful traffic, such as the collection of ivory and other products of their country, that European traders will purchase from them. Persons say, in fact, that the propensity to the slave trade exists only in the
684
minds of the chiefs, who get profit by the sale of the slaves; but that the bulk of the people, who are commercial in their turn of mind, are anxious for European commodities, and are willing to obtain them by whatever the European trader will take in exchange. For a long time they thought that nothing but slaves would do; but when they found that they could carry on a trade with Europeans by means of the produce of their country, they were even more willing than we are to do away with the trade in slaves, and endeavours are making to extend and organise a system for the interchange of commercial commodities. Specimens of cotton grown by them have been brought over and submitted for the inspection of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, which are reported to be of an extremely valuable kind, and to be likely to produce a good sale in the English market, and be of very great use to the Manchester manufacturers; therefore, as far as the line, the slave trade for the present has been almost extinguished. In the Portuguese settlements it has been very much diminished. The Portuguse Governors have very warmly, and I believe with great sincerity, supported the British admiral and the consular officers. There are at the same time amongst the inferior officers those who still lean to the temptation afforded them by the trader; but we are told that at Benguela and Loanda, and on the Portuguese coast generally, the slave trade is paralysed, and many who were engaged in it have stopped their transactions in the traffic, and are turning to trades of a different and more legitimate nature. On the eastern coast of Africa, the Imaum of Muscat has given facilities which he had not before granted, and the result has been that at the southern extremity of his dominions, where there is a great trade carried on to supply the Portuguese settlements, baracoons have been destroyed capable of holding several thousand slaves. A great blow has also been struck at the slave trade at Zanzibar. On the coast of Africa, therefore, by the great vigilance and activity of our cruisers, by the treaties we have formed with the native chiefs, which I am thankful to say have been observed in many cases with the greatest fidelity and exactitude, by the progress that has been made by Liberia, which has always occupied a considerable extent of coast, and by the co-operation of the authorities in the Portuguese settlements, great progress has been made with the

685
chiefs at Gallinas towards the suppression of the slave trade. I am happy, moreover, to be able to state that perfect and cordial co-operation prevails between the British cruisers and those of Prance and America. Our Commodore has expressed himself in the strongest terms with regard to the zealous and active support which he has received from the French and American officers employed on the service. Therefore, upon the coast of Africa, a very great impression has been made upon the slave trade. Now, the great place to which the trade was directed was the coast of Brazil, and the inquiries which were made before the Committee which sat upon that subject showed what an enormous amount of slaves were landed upon that coast. In the early part of last year the British cruisers that had for a long time been detained in the La Plata, in consequence of the unfortunate differences that existed-between the two Governments, were concentrated on the coast of Brazil, and there operations became more active. Communications took place between the Government of Brazil and the English authorities, and the result was that the Brazilian Government in September last passed an additional law preventing and punishing those engaged in the slave trade, declaring them guilty of piracy, and promulgated fresh regulations for the condemnation of ships employed in that traffic. They had at last exerted that vigilance and put forth that power which was all that was needed upon their part for the suppression of the trade, and the result has been that in the course of eight months, during which they have so acted, they have almost extinguished the slave trade of Brazil. The number of slaves brought into Brazil in 1850 was, I believe, not above one-half the number introduced in former years; of these the greater number were introduced in the early part of the year. But in the first quarter of the present year I believe that very few slaves indeed were brought into Brazil. The number has been estimated at only 200; and I can state that the Government of Brazil is now co-operating most sincerely and effectually with England in fulfilling the obligations of the treaty, and carrying into effect the laws. We have long laboured under a mistake in this country with regard to Brazil. We have imagined that the Brazilian nation was a nation which clung to the slave trade. The fact was, that there were a certain number of Portuguese factors who, by means of their
686
capital, kept up great influence over the minds of persons having authority in the country. But it was a factious opinion, not that of the Brazilians themselves. There has grown up within the last two years a very active anti-slave trade party in Brazil—a party freely expressing its opinion, reading the newspapers devoted to the cause, and pronouncing their sympathies in their Parliament. I believe you may now say that the large majority of the Brazilians are against the slave trade, and the party in favour of it form a very small minority of persons. The result has been that the Brazilian Government has employed several cruisers, co-operating with the British cruisers in seizing slave-trading vessels; they have destroyed their unoccupied baracoons along the whole extent of coast; they have brought to trial persons accused of the trade; they have seized the slaves that have been landed, and even those dispersed in the plantations, and have exercised, in one or two cases, the power of banishing foreigners nefariously engaged in that trade, but whom they were not able to bring within the jurisdiction of their courts. I have heard that a great number of Portuguese traders have quitted Brazil, and returned to Portugal. In the inquiries which I made upon the subject, I was informed by our consuls at Lisbon and Oporto that 140 traders who had been settled in Brazil had fled over to Portugal, and had invested their gains in lands and houses. I was also informed the other day by one of our naval officers, who had recently come from the coast of Brazil, that one man had lost eighty-five vessels, which were captured, and he was informed that they were reckoned at the value of 2,500 l. a piece. The Committee may therefore judge what has been the effect of the operations of our squadron, when one capitalist alone has lost upwards of 200,000 l. Another proof that Brazil has given up, to a great extent, the trade in slaves, is, that a large floating capital of 1,200,000 l. has recently been withdrawn from these pursuits, and has been invested in setting up a bank of discount at Lisbon. The other day, in the Brazilian Parliament, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other persons of note expressed themselves in the strongest terms, stating that they considered the slave trade to be for ever condemned and put an end to by the unanimous voice of all nations, and they declaimed on the demoralising effect which that trade had upon their own

687
country. They have had, indeed, a pretty good lesson upon that point; for everybody knows the degree to which that terrible pestilence which was imported two years ago from Africa swept along the coast of Brazil, carrying off persons of great weight and influence, and destroying vast numbers of the population; it is, therefore, extremely gratifying to me to be able to state to the Committee that both on the coast of Africa and Brazil—the origin of the traffic and its destination—we are enabled to say that there has been a most happy change, and that a greater result has been accomplished within the last eight months than could have been within the bounds of any one to anticipate. That this will be permanent, provided the pressure, watchfulness, and force of opinion is kept up for a time, I confidently anticipate. Because, on the one hand, those native chiefs will betake themselves to trade, finding it more profitable than slave traffic; and in the meantime civilisation will do its work. The influence of missionaries will unquestionably diffuse the light of Christianity to a much greater degree along the African coast. Other nations will discover what these nations are now discovering, that the slave trade and slave labour have been the ruin and destruction of any country that depends upon it. The Brazilians state, in their discussions in Parliament, that the production of slaves has been the ruin of agriculture in Brazil. The Brazilian Government has been in the habit of using slaves on the public works of the country. Well, what happened a month ago? A gunpowder mill blew up. I will not say whether it was because slaves were employed in it—but the Government came to the conviction that it was better to employ freemen than slaves in making their gunpowder. In the same way they found in the arsenals, fortresses, and docks, that the expense of employing slaves was infinitely greater than that of freemen; for not only a larger number of labourers was required to do the same work which could be performed by a less number of voluntary workmen, but, in addition to the keep of the slaves, they were obliged to employ watchers to keep the whip going and make the slaves exert themselves. It is really lamentable to read the annual reports laid upon the table of the Brazilian House of of Parliament respecting the state of that country. Neither law nor justice exists in any great degree amongst them; no education, indifferent roads, in fact, none of the
688
attributes of civilisation, and they themselves attribute it to the presence of the slave trade; therefore I say that there seems to have taken place a change of opinion which is most encouraging. I am convinced that, if the present system is carried on for some time longer, there will grow up in the minds of the Brazilians an aversion to the trade which will put it out of the power of the Government to relax in their efforts; and I believe 'it will appear that we have at last succeeded, if not in extinguishing the slave trade, at least in reducing it within the narrowest limits.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not feel so sanguine as the noble Lord seemed to be, that the slave trade would be permanently diminished so long as we continued to give it encouragement by admitting slave-labour produce into this country. The Queen's Speech, at the beginning of the Session, contained an announcement that the Brazilian Government had been taking important measures for the repression of the slave trade; the noble Lord had just given the first explanation they had heard of that passage in Her Majesty's Speech. He apprehended this was not the first time the Brazilian Government had declared the slave trade to be piracy, and without the declaration having produced the smallest effect. He thought after that declaration the House ought to be put in possession of all the papers relating to the subject. He would also observe that there was a strong impression that the slave trade with Cuba had increased.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am collecting papers on the subject, which shall be laid upon the table of the House; they will contain all the information the hon. Gentleman desires. I may add that, in 1826, the Brazilian Government concluded a treaty with Great Britain, by which they stipulated that the Brazilian slave trade should be piracy, and their subjects who engaged in it should be deemed and treated as pirates. It was upon that treaty the Act of Parliament was founded which was passed in 1845; but the Brazilian Legislature had never passed any law imposing the penalties of piracy upon the trade. The slave trade of Cuba has been reduced for many years to a very low amount as compared with Brazil. I believe, certainly, that in consequence of the great mortality in slaves by cholera, there have been symptoms of giving it a greater degree of activity. But the Spanish Go-

689
vernment have given an assurance that they will exert their influence to prevent it; and I have no reason to think that there has been a great increase of slaves in Cuba. It is pretty well known that it is from the coast of Africa, north of the line, that Cuba has been chiefly supplied, and it is exactly that quarter where our operations have been most successful.
MR. EVELYN DENISONexpressed the satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, that renewed and more stringent efforts for the suppression of the slave trade had been made both on the coast of Brazil and the coast of Africa. It was matter of gratification-to know that a change of opinion and conduct on this important question had taken place in Brazil.
MR. HUMEwas happy to hear from the noble Lord that the result of the exertions made was so favourable; but he thought the change in the sentiments of Brazil would have taken place long ago if our squadron had not been kept up in such strength. He hoped, therefore, that its speedy discontinuance would be the consequence, believing that this would do much towards the cessation of the slave trade.
MR. FORSTERwas glad to hear that legitimate commerce had taken the place of the slave trade on the coast of Africa. He had never known an instance where that had taken place of the slave trade growing up again. He thought that much of this good result was owing to the Brazilian Government.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he thought that, to whatever causes hon. Members might attribute the results that had been referred to, they all might be allowed to say—and to thank God for it—that a great change in the facts, and a great change in the judgment of that House on the facts, connected with this subject, had taken place since the discussion upon it last year. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his very interesting statement, had congratulated the House and the country upon the results to which he had adverted in the course of it; and he was sure that no one in that House or in the country would refuse to reciprocate those congratulations with the noble Lord. Those results would never have occurred, however, unless the course that had been pursued, and which
690
it was their duty to continue, had been supported by the naval force of England.
SIR EDWARD BUXTONcould not deny himself the pleasure of joining in the congratulations which had been given that evening to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, not only for his very interesting statement, but equally for his persevering endeavours to reduce, and, he trusted, eventually to put an end to, the horrible abomination of the slave trade. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had told them that all that had taken place might have happened long ago if the squadron had been removed from the coast of Africa; but it was very remarkable that the change in the feeling of Brazil on the subject had occurred when our cruisers were stimulated to renewed exertions. For his own part, he thought there was every reason to believe that that change had been produced principally, among other causes, by the conviction on the part of the Brazilians that the noble Lord at the head of the Government last year was determined that his Government should stand or fall by this question; and because his noble Friend and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had told to Brazil and to the world that the best endeavours of this great country should be used to put down this horrible traffic.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwished to say one word in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who advised the House to consent to the withdrawal of the African squadron, and thought that thereby the slave trade would be more surely suppressed. He must ask the Committee to believe that if that step were taken, the efforts which had been hitherto so successful would probably fail of ultimate and complete success; and we should then behold the horrors of the slave trade spreading again. In saying this, he was giving not merely his own opinion, but that of the gallant Admiral (Admiral Fanshawe) lately returned from the African coast, whose opinion was, that if we continued that squadron a few years more, it might be greatly diminished, and the cost thereby reduced, but that it would not be safe to make any reduction at present. It was true, as was observed by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that the slave trade to Cuba was showing systems of activity; but he thought that

691
the Committee which had given its support to the efforts made by the Government for its suppression on the Brazilian and African coast, would continue that support, with a view to its suppression on that of Cuba. That being the only considerable branch of it remaining, it afforded the greatest encouragement to persevere, in the hope of putting an end entirely to that accursed traffic.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLwas of opinion that, if the African squadron was not kept up in an efficient manner, we should not succeed in convincing France we were in earnest in our attempt to suppress the slave trade. It was owing to the power to take slave vessels from under the forts that we had brought the slave trade to its present mitigated form. If an efficient force were kept up, he was satisfied we should soon see the total annihilation of the slave trade. He thanked the noble Lord at the head of the Government for the constant support he had given to this question.
LORD HARRY VANEattributed, in a great degree, the suppression of the slave trade to the co-operation of the Brazils, rather than to the effects of the squadron. If we cultivated a good understanding with Brazil, we should be able to attain our object much earlier than by the adoption of the proposition for constructing new vessels. He was gratified at the good that had already been done; but he did not place entire reliance in the expectations entertained of suppressing the slave trade altogether, though certainly such a consummation would be most agreeable to him.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(19.) 14,650 l. Mixed Commissions.
On the Vote of 148,490 l. for the Consular Establishments abroad,
MR. URQUHARTmoved that the Chairman report progress.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhoped that the hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to proceed with the Votes.
MR. URQUHARTbelieved there was an old established rule that no estimates should be taken after twelve o'clock, and he should object to any further grants of money that night, not only for the purpose of maintaining that rule, but also because a few nights ago, just as the House was about to divide on a Motion of his, the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brothcrton) moved the adjournment of the House.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, the matter to which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) alluded, had been explained twice if not thrice by the right hon. Home Secretary to the apparent satisfaction of the House.
MR. URQUHARTsaid, the explanation had not satisfied him. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), backed by the Treasury benches, in a most unfair way defeated his (Mr. Urquhart's) Motion.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, the House, on the day in question, had sat twelve hours when he rose to move the adjournment, and they were to meet the following day at twelve o'clock. Mr. Speaker was not well; and as a relief to him and to the House, he thought he was justified in moving the adjournment of the House.
MR. HUMEsupported the Motion for reporting progress, because he thought that it was not right to vote away the public money after twelve o'clock at night, when many of the Members had retired from the House.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion for adjournment. At the rate at which they were proceeding with the Estimates, they would not be able to finish their Parliamentary labour till the middle of August, whereas it had been intended that the Session should be brought to an end at the beginning of the second week in August at the farthest.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would not oppose adjournment if the House had been in Committee for several hours, but inasmuch as two or three hours had been taken up in the debate on going into Supply, he would oppose the Motion for reporting progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 107: Majority 81.
The CHAIRMANthen put the question that the Vote be agreed to, when
MR. HUMEagain moved that the Chairman report progress, and obtain leave to sit again. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of the advanced period of the Session; but surely if the Government insisted on bringing in measures which a portion of the House opposed, and thus protracted the Session, that was no reason

693
why he should neglect his duty when the time arrived.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLreluctantly yielded to the wish of the minority, but stated that the Session would be considerably delayed if the Committee were not allowed to sit after twelve o'clock.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that in future so much time would not he occupied in preliminary Motions.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the time allotted to independent Members was now very limited, and that, as only one Motion could be disposed of before going into Committee of Supply, some delay must necessarily take place before gettiug the Votes passed.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that the discussion on his Motion might have been prevented if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a reasonable answer to a reasonable request. He (Mr. Reynolds) would take the opportunity of saying that neither he nor the parties with whom he acted had desired to divide the House on his Motion; at a meeting held in the morning they had resolved not to divide, and he had expressed his desire to withdraw his Motion. The division was called by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). If they had determined to divide, the minority would have been double forty-three; indeed, the Government would have been closely pinched.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not alluded to the debate on the Dublin charities. That was a pertinent Motion, but there were several Motions on the paper which were not.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsaid, he could confirm the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Reynolds), for he (Mr. O'Flaherty) had left the House early in the evening, not expecting a division on the Dublin charities; and nothing had surprised the Irish Members more than to find that in their absence an English Member had taken upon himself to divide the House.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONhad certainly thought it unadvisable to take a division on the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), as it omitted an important point.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.