SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE. (Hansard, 7 June 1852)

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he was glad to observe that there was a reduction in this Vote as compared with previous years, and he hoped that they might look forward to a further and a considerable reduction next year. The charge of 600?. for the Bishop of New Zealand, and 590l. for chaplains and schools, he must, however, object to, on the ground that the people of this country ought not to be taxed for providing bisheps and clergy for New Zealand, or any other Colony, and added, that unless a pledge were given that these items should not appear again, he should divide the Committee against them.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he was decidedly averse to giving any distinct pledge; but, seeing the reduction already made in the Vote, and that next year it would be further reduced, it was hoped, to 5,000l., and that after that time probably no grant at all would be required on account of New Zealand, he would suggest that it would be hardly reasonable to divide against the amount now proposed.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that after the gratifying statement of the right hon. Gentleman, considering that the Vote was now reduced to 10,000l., and would be only 5,000l., after which no grant would be required, he would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he did not know how many of these islands there were, but seeing that the total number of inhabitants was about twenty-six, he thought the amount proposed was excessive. He admitted that the position of these islands would be an important one in the event of a war, and that it was necessary, therefore, to retain them; but he would suggest whether, by combining offices, it might not be done at less cost. He hoped to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary that some considerable reduction would be made in this Vote in future years.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
could not say that he was in a position to give any such assurance; but he would beg to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact, that more than half the amount now asked for was for a debt due to the Admiralty for provisions and supplies landed at the islands.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, that this Vote related to a subject which had not been for some time past very popular with the country; but for his own part he had always supported the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) in endeavouring to secure the efficiency of the squadron on the coast of Africa. That noble Lord having left office, it was desirable to know whether the same active system was to be kept up as in his time. The only fault he (Sir G. Pechell) had to find during that noble Lord's tenure of office was, that vessels were sent out which were inefficient and unable to cope with the slavers, and had not the slightest chance of coming up with one in a chace. He considered that more encouragement was due to those engaged in such a service, and that more efficient vessels should be placed on the station.

§ MR. STAFFORD
said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that the present Board of Admiralty paid the strictest attention to the subject of the description of vessels proper to be sent upon the service referred to. With regard to the encouragement of the officers engaged in this service, no one could be more alive than himself to their risk and danger; the, service in that quarter had unhappily been fatal to one who ought to be mentioned with special commendation—Commander Forbes. It was impossible to give any 108 distinct pledge as to personal promotion, but the subject was one which was never lost sight of on the arrival of despatches from that coast, or in any arrangements made with a view to the suppression of the slave trade. Any supposition among foreign Powers that the retirement of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) from the Foreign Office was meant on the part of England to denote that there was any hesitation, any indifference, as to the great question of the slave trade, was entirely unfounded. The Board of Admiralty still maintained their determination that the squadron should be kept in an efficient state, so as to repress the slave trade. All that had reached them since they came into office, had been on the whole of a satisfactory character; and he trusted that the Committee and the hon. and gallant Member would find that efficient vessels were employed; that due attention was paid to the promotion of officers in this service; and that the determination of the country to put down the nefarious traffic was supported as vigorously by this Board as by the former.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, he should be glad to know whether the same support was received from the United States and France as when the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) was in office? It was understood that America had withdrawn one vessel, and although we had received some very valuable assistance from America, it was well known nothing could be more unfortunate to an officer in that service than to bring a slave prize either into New York or Boston.

§ MR. STAFFORD
said, the reports, on the whole, from Commodore Bruce were satisfactory in that respect.

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, he must find fault with the scale of promotion of the officers engaged in the affair at Lagos, which he attributed to the accounts arriving just as the late Board were quitting office. He would refer more particularly to the large number of killed and wounded in proportion to the force engaged, to the gallant conduct displayed, and the sustained nature of the effort, and would suggest whether there might not be room here and there for further promotion.

§ ADMIRAL STEWART
said, the promotions underwent the most deliberate and the most liberal consideration. Whatever was the number of killed and wounded in comparison to the number engaged, he was 109 convinced in no naval action on record had a more liberal promotion been given than in the affair at Lagos.

§ MR. STAFFORD
said, the present Government had not found any marks of the haste which the hon. and gallant Member (Sir G. Pechell) alleged. There were marks of the greatest attention in every case which had occurred under the late Government, whether on the eve of their leaving office or previously.

CAPTAIN SCOBBLL
begged to explain that he did not charge the late Board of Admiralty with haste in the general management of naval affairs, but merely used the word in connexion with the news arriving just as the Admiralty were leaving office. He disclaimed having been requested by any individual to mention the subject. Upon gathering the facts of the case from the despatches and other sources, it struck him that two or three cases had escaped that notice which in justice they ought to have received.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, it gave him great pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that it was their intention to keep up the slave squadron. If that squadron were kept up in the present state of efficiency, he had very little doubt that, in a few years, the slave trade would be entirely suppressed.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
thought very nearly the same amount of force would be demanded by the Liverpool merchants for the protection of trade on the coast of Africa if the attempts to suppress the slave trade were abandoned. The vessels engaged in the slave trade would become pirates, and our ships would be obliged to lie inside instead of outside the ports, which of itself would be a great disadvantage.

§ MR. HUTT
said, the expense was 750,000l. a year, exclusive of the expenses under the head of non-effective services of the country.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he objected to several of the items. They paid 750l, a year to the Consul at St. Petersburg, where they had an Ambassador and other highly-paid officials who could perform all the services that were required of a Consul. Then there was 1,000l. for the Consul at Warsaw, where he could have scarcely 110 anything to do. The Consul at Boulogne received 400?. a year, besides fees for the ganting of passports. The Consul General for Austria received 1,000l. per annum, which was much too high, considering the limited extent of their commercial relations with the Austrian Empire. He was glad to find that their trade with Turkey was increasing, but he considered that there was nothing to justify the keeping up of thirty-four Consular establishments, many of which were in the interior of the country. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) had last year abolished the office of Consul General at Tripoli, by which 1,600l. a year was saved to the country. He perceived that the Consul Generals in South America were more highly paid than others. The Consul at Lima had 2,000l. a year. He should like to hear why they were so much more highly paid than the European Consuls.

LORD STANLEY
said, that he was not in a position to answer all the questions which had been put to him by the hon. Gentleman. The reason why the South American Consul Generals wore more highly paid than those in Europe was that in the majority of the South American States there was no resident Minister, and consequently that various diplomatic duties devolved on the Consular Agent. It was especially desirable that, Government should have responsible persons who could keep them regularly informed of the course of public events in those remote countries, with which there was so little private communication. The salary to the Consul General at Tripoli had been taken into consideration, and reduced in amount no longer ago than last year. As to the Consul at Boulogne, since the reduction of the price of Foreign Office passports to 7s. 6d., he believed there had been a vast increase in the number issued, and in consequence a corresponding diminution in the number of consular passports, which would reduce the fees to a very small amount. With regard to the general expenditure under this head, it had only increased 2,000l. over last year, and for that increase the present Government were not responsible; but he could assure the Committee that the whole question of Consular Expenditure should be minutely inquired into.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, he considered that Government might make more use of these Consuls. When the difficult question arose with respect to the Channel fisheries, it was suggested that three Com- 111 missioners should be appointed by England to meet three Commissioners appointed by France, and they were told probably one would be a captain in the Navy, another an admiral, and the third a diplomatist; but the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton found an intelligent gentleman acting as our Consul at Brest, upon a salary of 300l. a year, to whom he entrusted the matter; in twelve months the treaty was concluded, and all the arrangements, except in one case, were highly satisfactory to all parties. That was a striking instance of the saving of expense by employing Consuls.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
would admit that the noble Lord's (Lord Stanley's) statement was satisfactory, though he could not see why the Consul General at Lima was to have more than any other Consul General in any other part in the world. He wished to know why the Consul at Warsaw had such an unusually large salary as 1,000l. a year, when we had, besides, a very expensive diplomatic establishment in Russia.

LORD STANLEY
could not explain why the Consul at Warsaw received that sum, but the Committee would remember that the remuneration of these officials must depend a great deal upon a variety of circumstances—on the nature of the localities where they were sent to reside, on the expense of living there, as compared with other places, the quantity of business done, the amount of fees, if any, appertaining to the office, and the degree of responsibility attendant upon the duties which had to be performed. The only rule that could be laid down was, that the sum fixed should be the lowest for which the services of a well-qualified person could. be procured; and that was a rule which, in each instance, could only be tested by experience. It was, therefore, very difficult to say, offhand, why one Consul received more than another. The general duties, too, of British Consuls were well known to the Committee. He believed they were invaluable in affording information to the Government; they often performed diplomatic services; they attended to the claims of commercial men, and not only protected the property, but, as in a very recent instance, were often called upon to protect the lives of British subjects abroad.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, that there was included in this Vote a sum of 6,000l., being a moiety of expenditure on account of chapels, chaplains, and burial- 112 grounds. He wished to hear from the noble Lord an explanation of this item.

LORD STANLEY
said, the practice of Government in this matter had been to help those who helped themselves. Where-ever there was a small English community resident in any place to which a Consul was appointed, and who were willing to pay half the expenses of supporting a chaplain, it had been the general practice of the Government to pay the other half, subject to certain regulations which had been laid down.

MR. BINGHAM BARING
said, if the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) who had spoken with regard to the consular establishment at Warsaw had ever visited that city, he would know that it was one of the most expensive capitals in Europe. He would also have learnt that this country had no better agent in the world than Colonel Duplat, and that the diplomatic business which that gentleman had to transact was of the greatest importance.

§ MR. HINDLEY
wished to know whether, in the event of any new appointments, the former salaries would be given as a matter of course, or whether the Government would pay regard to the nature of the duties to be performed?

LORD STANLEY
said, he was not aware of any rule binding the Government to continue the old salary when they filled up a vacancy. The matter was, he believed, invariably left to their discretion. All he could say for the present Government was, that in any such case of a vacancy being filled up, they would consider whether a diminution of expenditure was possible, and make all such reductions as could be effected consistently with a due regard to the efficient performance of a very important part of the public service.

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, he considered that he had reason to complain that the salary of the Consul at Buenos Ayres was proposed to be raised from 800l. to 1,500l., the title being changed from "Consul" to "Consul General."

LORD STANLEY
said, that in the altertion, instead of an increase, there had on the whole been a considerable reduction of expense. It was true that the increase of salary referred to had taken place, but that was in consequence of the diplomatic agent formerly resident at Buenos Ayres having been withdrawn, by which a saving had been effected which more than counterbalanced the augmented salary of the Consul General.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
objected to the expense of the establishment at Hong-Kong. The same individual received 3,000l. a year as Governor, and 3,000l. a year as Superintendent of trade. The secretary and registrar had 1,500l. a year, the assistant keeper of records 470l. a year; and there were three other assistants, the fourth receiving 270l. a year. The trade of Hong-Kong was contemptibly small in comparison with that of Canton, and yet, as Superintendent of it, the Governor received 3,000l. a year, while our Consul at Canton had only 1,800l. The whole charge for Hong-Kong was 7,399l., for Canton 4,629l. Such a state of things was monstrous.

LORD STANLEY
said, the apparent increase in the cost of the establishment at Hong-Kong was nominal, and not real, 3,000l. having been transferred from the Colonial to the Foreign department. There was, in fact, a reduction of about 400l. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the establishment at Canton was subordinate to that at Hong-Kong; and though he agreed with him that the trade of Hong-Kong was not comparable to that of Canton, yet he must observe that the Governor of the former had supervision of the whole, and that it was not fair to compare his salary with that of an officer who was actually serving under him.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, what he complained of was, that the Governor of Hong-Kong received 3,000l. as Superintendent of Trade, in addition to 3,000l. paid to him as Governor, while the Consul at Canton received only 1,800l.

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, he thought this Vote should be postponed until after the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) with regard to the Consular establishments generally. The Committee would remember that a division took place on this very item last year. A promise was then given that the matter should be reconsidered this year; and he hoped the present Government would consider whether it was really necessary that the Governor of Hong-Kong should have 6,000l. a year for performing the duties of his two offices.

§ MR. G. W. HAMILTON
said, if the hon. Member for Montrose had requested the postponement of the Vote, the Government would most probably have conceded his wish. The question, however, of the emoluments of the Consul at Hong-Kong was not raised by this Vote, which had 114 reference only to the Superintendence of Trade.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
would suggest that the Vote should be allowed to pass, with the understanding that the whole amount of salary to be paid to the Governor should be debated when the question of the cost of Consular Establishments generally came under consideration.

§ MR. HINDLEY
said, it might in that ease be said that, having refused to give the party concerned 3,000l. as Superintendent of Trade, they could not refuse to give him the same amount as Governor.

§ MR. G. W. HAMILTON
would consent that the Vote should be passed on the understanding stated, and that no such argument as that just mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashton should be used on behalf of the Government.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he still must contend that all the duties ought to be performed for 3,000l. a year.

§ ADMIRAL STEWART
said, he thought that the exceptions taken by Gentlemen 'sitting at home at ease "to the salary of this or that Consul would come with much better effect and with a much better grace from merchants who had establishments on the spot. They might depend upon it that if a Consul did not do his duty, they would soon have plenty of complaints against him. They would never get good and efficient men to represent them abroad unless they paid them fairly. It was all very well to talk of the expense of Hong-Kong; but the climate of Hong-Kong was the most deadly one in the world to European constitutions, not excepting the coast of Africa, and it was besides a very expensive place to live at. The Chinese, too, were a most difficult people to deal with, and they could not have an efficient man to live there unless they paid him as they ought to do. As a sailor who had been in different parts of the world, he maintained that no money was better laid out than that which was paid to secure efficient, able, and honest Consuls. Why, at that moment, there were three revolutions in Central America; and without proper Consuls, how could the liberties and lives of British subjects be otherwise than in danger?

§ CAPTAIN SCOBELL
said, however deadly the climate of Hong-Kong might he, it was clear that 6,000l. a year would not keep the Governor alive. As he observed last year, sailors and soldiers were obliged to serve in this deadly climate, and, he 115 might add, that the subordinates of the establishment were as much exposed to it as the Governor, without being nearly so well paid.

LORD STANLEY
said, it was impossible to obtain the services of persons so readily, or so cheaply, for an unhealthy climate as for a healthy one. As regarded the case of soldiers, the Committee were aware that soldiers in India received a much higher pay than soldiers at home.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, he was glad to hear such sound principles laid down by Members of Her Majesty's Government. He recollected a period when they joined hon. Members behind him in an attack on salaries and emoluments—and the effect of such conduct was, he believed, to injure very much the public service.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, he would agree to the Vote on the understanding that the total amount of Consular salaries was to form the subject of discussion thereafter.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, some of the items appeared to him to require explanation. He found that out of about thirty Embassies there were but just six which enjoyed the luxury of an allowance for chaplains and chapels; and it was some of the richest Embassies that were thus privileged. There was 300l. for Constantinople, and there were various amounts for Madrid, Oporto, Denmark, Sardinia, and Greece; and what was most remarkable was, that it appeared not to have been considered whether a particular country were Protestant or Roman Catholic. He should move to reduce the vote by 1,000l., the amount proposed to be granted for chaplains, &c.

LORD STANLEY
said, that he had already stated that the rule was to pay one-half the salary of a chaplain where the British residents paid the other half; or in some exceptional cases, such as Constantinople, where the British population were few in number, to appoint a chaplain to the Embassy.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, that the explanation given by the noble Lord was not satisfactory, because in some Roman Catholic cities, like Lisbon, where there was a very large and wealthy English population, the expense of a chaplain was paid out of the public funds.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
believed, that but for the chapel attached to the Embassy at Constantinople, English Protestants in that city would have no place for public worship.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, that neither in Vienna nor in Turin were the English residents numerous, and yet no chaplain was provided for the Embassies at those places.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, he wished to call the attention of the Government to the subject of our mission to Tuscany. He was not going to enter into Mr. Mather's question, but he wished to state that he had been informed by a gentleman of the highest respectability who was in Florence at the time of the assault on Mr. Mather, that great dissatisfaction was felt by the residents at Florence with regard to the mode in which the business of the mission at that place was conducted. This gentleman stated that our Charge d' Affaires at Florence had no place of business to which British subjects might resort, and that if he desired to see either the chief of the mission (Mr. Scarlett), or any one connected with it, it was necessary for him to go to Mr. Scarlett's country residence, which was at so great a distance from Florence as to render a vehicle necessary, and involve much expense and the loss of at least half a day.

LORD STANLEY
could not at that moment give any opinion as to the statement of the noble Lord. All he could say was, that the matter would be inquired into. It was of the utmost importance that British subjects resident in any city abroad should have constant and immediate access to their Ministers.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, that he could, from his own experience, concur in the remarks of his noble Friend. He had himself been put to considerable inconvenience at Turin by having to wait several days before he could obtain a renewal of his passport, from the want of some better system than that which existed at our Embassy there. He believed that a notice had been given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that would prevent the recurrence of such complaints as those referred to.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that a circular had recently been issued by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, which would render it impossible for Her Majesty's subjects in future to suffer any inconvenience on the 117 subject of passports. That circular required that somebody should always be in attendance at every mission, to provide for the passport service. With regard to the statement made by the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart), he would remind the Committee that one of the most distinguished members of the diplomacy of this country had very recently arrived at Florence, as Minister from this country.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, he wished to call attention to the return which had been laid on the table on this subject, from which it appeared that the whole amount for compensation and retired allowances in all the public offices on the 31st December, 1851, was 687,581l. It appeared to him that that was an enormous sum to pay for superannuations and allowances, and the more so as he understood that the half pay in the Military and Naval Establishments were not included in that amount. There were also certain discrepancies between the Votes and the Estimates, which he supposed had arisen from these allowances being stopped on their way to the Treasury. There had been, too, of late, a great increase of retiring allowances in the department of Woods and Forests, some of which required looking into. He would mention an instance in which two brothers, one forty-five and the other forty-three years of age, had large retiring allowances, after being in the public service respectively twenty-seven and twenty-seven and a half years; and thus, as in a vast number of other cases, it was shown that they had entered the public service at a very early age, and left it as superannuated when in the very prime of life. He observed also with regret that the sums payable for those superannuations were increasing from year to year, and he looked upon that as a serious public grievance.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he was aware that there was no branch of the public service which more required watching than this; and he could state that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury would give the utmost attention to it. There was an increase in the Vote, chiefly owing to the transfer of items formerly paid from the the Woods and Forests revenue, and the payment of compensation allowances on the abolition of offices at the Mint; but there was also the ordinary and legitimate 118 increase by the addition of gentlemen who had earned their superannuation.

§ SIR B. HALL
said, he was glad to perceive that the ages of the parties receiving these allowances were at present usually given in the public returns. But he regretted that that practice was not universally observed, and that the ages of the retiring clerks in the Mint were not published. Now, he happened himself to know that some of those gentlemen were still in the prime of life. It appeared, too, that some of the retiring clerks in the Woods and Forests, who were to receive large pensions, were persons between forty and fifty years of age, while they were succeeded by young nephews or other near relatives. He looked upon that as a very gross abuse.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
observed that the present Government had not admitted these, nor indeed more than one retirement, at the Woods and Forests.

§ SIR B. HALL
thought that where offices were abolished, as at the Mint, the gentlemen should be employed in other departments.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, that when he had been connected with the Government the practice had been adopted of making as much use as possible of the old clerks before younger men were appointed in their places. He should say that the appearance of the present list was anything but satisfactory.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that he saw in daily and nightly attendance in that House hon. Members who were much more advanced in years than nineteen out of twenty of the persons who were stated to have retired from our public offices from infirmity and old age. These allowances were full of abuses. There was one case, for instance, of a messenger to the First Lord of the Treasury retiring on account of ill health, on 360l. a year, who had received that sum for sixteen years. He did not complain of the payment of liberal salaries to the clerks in those offices, but he complained that many of them were very highly paid for doing little or nothing.

CAPTAIN SCOBBLL
said, he must enter his earnest protest against the practice of granting retiring allowances to men in the very prime of life. He believed there was no portion of the public service in which so many reductions of expenditure might be advantageously and properly effected as in the Votes then under their consideration.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, that a difficulty 119 existed in dealing with the clerkships in the Office of the Woods and Forests. According to the practice which prevailed in that office, young men who entered it as copying clerks were entitled to he afterwards promoted by seniority. Now, under that arrangement, persons were raised from the subordinate offices for which they had first been engaged, to positions in which a superior order of talent, was required, and for which they were not always found competent. The result was, that it became necessary that they should be superseded in order that they might make way for more efficient substitutes. In his opinion, it was desirable that copying clerks should not hare a right to be promoted by seniority to higher offices, and if that right did not exist, a considerable sum might be saved in retiring allowances.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
wished to know whether this grant was made for ecclesiastical purposes? If it was, he would oppose it.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that the clergy in receipt of these pensions were refugees, and it was only in that character they received assistance.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he objected to an item; "The Bishop of Chester, for tipends to two preachers in Lancashire, 92l. 16s." He did not understand the richest county in England coming before the public for such a miserable sum. He was quite sure it was high time it was done away with, and unless he had a very satisfactory assurance that it would not appear again in the Estimates, he should certainly divide the Committee upon it.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, the item was one of an important list of items the omission of which he intended to press. But he wished to know whether the sum of 700l. to the poor French Refugee Clergy was paid to them as refugees or as Roman Catholic priests?

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
replied that the allowances to the French refugees were 120 made many years ago, some as far back as the time of the first French Revolution; and he believed they were made to them, not as clergy, but as French refugees.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, it did not appear from the Estimates who these clergymen were, or why they received these allowances. He could not understand why, now that order was restored in France, and the blessings of a despotic Government, they should persist in living in a heretic and infidel country like England. If the item was in the slightest degree of an ecclesiastical character, it came within the range of his objections to all such Votes. There was another item of 89l. 9s., "The Bishop of Sodor and Man—to be distributed among the incumbents and schoolmasters of the Isle of Man," which he wished to hear explained. Upon the item of 92l. 16s. for two preachers in Lancashire, he could give the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) some information. That sum was placed at the disposal of the Bishop of Chester, to pay two preachers against Popish recusants, at a time when the Crown took a great deal of trouble about Popish recusancy. It had now become a sinecure, as there were no Popish recusants to preach against; but whether it was the sinecure of the Bishop of Chester or not, he could not say. He should certainly object to the Vote, and divide the Committee upon it; but he should be very glad to hear—for the credit of the Bishop of Chester, for the credit of Parliament, and for the credit of the Crown—that some other duties had been found to which the sum had been applied. He should also object to another item in this Estimate, of 400l. To "the College of St. David's, Lampeter, in aid of the expenditure of the College, the net income of the livings annexed to the College, for the maintenance thereof, not at present exceeding 400l. in the year, and the expenditure considerably exceeding 950?." It was a remarkable fact, that the same statement had been made ever since the year 1828, when the grant was first voted. The expenditure was the same, the deficiency was the same, the assets were the same, and the sum required was the same. The history of the case was not only the history of a disgraceful job, but of a fraud—a fraud of which it was impossible to acquit the gentlemen who came before the public in connexion with it. Formerly, in Wales, there were a number of grammar 121 schools, at which the young men who afterwards became clergymen of the Established Church received their education, and, for various reasons, it was thought desirable to supersede those grammar schools by a College. Great efforts were made in the collection of funds for the purpose, throughout the whole of the Principality; and in 1827 the College was built and endowed, it might be truly said, out of the widow's mite. It was opened in 1828, and, by an Act of Parliament, George IV. placed at the disposal of the College the advowsons of six livings. In 1828, the authorities of the College came to Parliament for a grant of 400l.; for, although the six livings would have been ample to maintain the College, they were then occupied, and the revenue was insufficient for the purpose. Accordingly, Parliament granted the 400l., with the express stipulation that that sum should be reduced as the livings fell in, and entirely cease when the income of the College equalled the expenditure. Every one of the livings had fallen in; but whilst all livings throughout England and Wales had vastly increased since the Tithe Commutation Act, these six livings had diminished in point of revenue. It was admitted that four of the livings produced respectively 170l., 140l., 110l., and 130l., or 550l. in all; and then with the bare statement—for accounts were refused—that the expenditure was more than 950l., the authorities of the College came to Parliament, like fraudulent beggars, for the 400l. He was not using the words by way of invective; it was a fraud if the real amount of income was concealed, in order to obtain the annual sum of 400l. from Parliament. One of the largest of the two remaining livings was bestowed on the Rev. Henry Williams, who never held any official position in the College; and the other living, that of St. Peter's, Carmarthen, was given to Archdeacon Bevan, a non-resident member of the Board. When the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. J. Williams) moved for a return on this subject, it was consented to provisionally by Ministers, who sent down to the heads of the College to know whether they would make out the return. They expressed their readiness to make the return in a form which was perfectly useless. As the leading Members of that House were averse to inquiry, and the Session was drawing to a close, his hon. Friend was obliged to forego any further explanation. Formerly the memorials for 122 the grant sent to the Treasury were drawn in the name of the Principal of the College; but the responsibility of the statement, or misstatement, was now divided between the Principal, the Vice-Principal, the Tutor, and the Visitor. These annual memorials certified that the revenues of the benefices annexed to the College did not exceed 550l., and that the expenditure greatly exceeded that sum, and requested the usual grant. Upon that the item was set down in the Estimates without a syllable of explanation. He (Mr. C. Anstey) hoped Her Majesty's Ministers would not suppose he was reproaching them. He knew they occupied the post of a provisional Government, and this was one of the unpleasant inheritances from their predecessors. In the year 1828 the bishop certified that one of the livings had fallen in, so as to become a source of income to the College, and he estimated it at 370l. In the following year the second living fell in, which the same bishop estimated at 300l. a year; but when he came to state them together, he made the aggregate amount of the two, 400l. Two years afterwards lie reduced the aggregate amount of the two livings from 400l. a year to 370l. In 183l another living fell in, and three benefices, worth by the Calendar at least 800l. a year, were set down at 450l. In March, 1843, the present bishop countersigned the certificate that all the livings were under 500l. a year; and again the expenditure exceeded the amount by 450l, In the face of every other living throughout England and Wales being increased in value, these livings had unfortunately become depreciated in value at least cent per cent as fast as they fell in, and further diminished since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act—a case which did not occur in any other living throughout England. He did not believe one syllable of these statements. He believed that it would be found on inquiry that the endowments of the College had been added to largely by private bounty, and that the receipts of the property, if duly administered, counted by thousands and not by hundreds. But the accounts which would show it were not presented; they were to this day refused; and the question was, whether they ought not to refuse a farthing more until they knew the truth. He should be sorry to do anything to check education in Wales—it was his wish to promote education; but he believed they would promote it by stopping this grant, which had a most mischievous 123 effect, begetting a spirit of idleness, un-thrift, and dishonesty in the management of the College. So far from the Welsh language being taught there, he understood the students lost the use of that portion of the Welsh language which they possessed previous to their entering the College. Many of the themes in the Welsh language sent to the bishop by the candidates for ordination were returned as most wretched performances; and in many cases the compositions which were approved were contributed by dissenting ministers, who were paid by the candidates of the Church of England to qualify them, in that way, to teach and instruct the people of Wales in their own language. He was also informed that the sermons which were preached by the clergy in the Welsh language, were composed by dissenting ministers, because the clergy were incompetent to do so themselves. Such being the effect of the system pursued in St. David's College, Lampeter, he felt the Committee ought to renounce being parties to profligate expenditure and wasteful management, and he should move that the Vote be reduced by 1,800l.

§ MR. MORRIS
said, he thought the hon. and learned Member opposed this small sum to the College of St. David's with a bad grace, when thousands upon thousands had been granted for the education of the priests of his (Mr. C. Anstey's) peculiar faith. The College was established to enable persons of the middle classes in Wales to receive a sound classical education. The Principal was a gentleman who had taken the highest classical honours at Oxford. The Vice-Principal was a gentleman of high literary attainments. The Bishop of St. David's was the Visitor; and those three persons must combine to carry on this fraud. Of course he (Mr. Morris) was not prepared to meet the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he submitted to the Committee it was most improbable a man in so dignified a station as the Bishop of St. David's would lend himself to so atrocious a misrepresentation.

§ MR. DAVIES
said, some of clergy who were educated at this College were ornaments to the Welsh Church, and most popular with the people, and better preachers could not be heard. He was astonished at the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which he begged to deny, that they were a set of idle, ignorant men, paying for sermons composed by other 124 people. Instead of a vague and general charge, he should have given a particular instance, and then it could easily have been met. It was most inconvenient that charges should be brought forward without notice. [Mr. ANSTEY: I have given notice.] He (Mr. Davies) denied, in toto, that the authorities of the College had refused to make returns. The return asked for was of such a character it was impossible to give it; but the authorities had always expressed their readiness to make any reasonable return if they had the power of doing it. With regard to the statement that the accounts were "cooked," he was unable to make any answer; but they had a sufficient guarantee in the character of those who presided over the College. The College had done a great deal of good in improving the character of the clergy; and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. J. Williams) was so convinced of its advantages, that his only objection upon a previous occasion was as to the smallness of the sum proposed to be voted.

§ MR. J. WILLIAMS
said, the College was founded in 1827, for the avowed purpose of qualifying young men for the office of clergymen of the Established Church in Wales. It was built by private subscriptions, and by a grant from Parliament of 6,000?. A Royal Charter was given, and by Act of Parliament of George IV. six livings were appointed for its maintenance. From the year 1826, 400l. a year had been given by Parliament, making up a sum of upwards of 10,000l. for its support, exclusive of 6,000l. for the building. No return had ever been made from that time to this. There were constant complaints of want of money, and large sums had been given by benevolent individuals, who were ignorant of the means at the disposal of the College. He did not object to the grant if accounts were rendered; he should wish to make it 1,000l. instead of 400l., and in no country would it be of more use for the purposes of education than in Wales. He could contradict the statement of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Anstey), that the young men were unable to preach in their own language. Some of the most eminent clergymen in Wales were educated at this College. He knew six or seven young men who had studied there, and they would reflect credit on any other College in the Kingdom. The last living fell in in 1842, and was given to the Rev. Henry Williams, who never had been and was not now connected with the College. 125 The other five livings were respectively valued at 200l., 244l., 257l., 329l., 258l., and 176l., making a total of 1,364l. a year. He hoped, nevertheless, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal would not divide the Committee; but if the Amendment were pressed, he (Mr. J. Williams) should vote with him.

§ MR. LOVEDEN
said, as Member for Cardigan he thought it very singular that he had never heard of these abuses, which if they existed, must have reached his ears.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, perhaps the Committee were not aware that in the time of Henry VIII. all the rectorial tithes, especially of South Wales, were taken away from the Church, and given to laymen, to a College at Oxford, and in other ways diverted from the Church. The consequence was that the livings of the Church in Wales were always known as the poorest in the Kingdom, not on account of the country being poor, because if the Church in Wales had her due she would be as rich as any other part of the Church of England, and perfectly able to maintain herself. The greatest benefit had been conferred on the Church in Wales by the establishment of this College, and by the superior system of education pursued, which had elevated the character of the Welsh clergy. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey) had denounced the heads of the College as fraudulent beggars. He (Mr. W. Williams) was not surprised as such an observation. The hon. and lerned Gentleman had denounced almost everything in any way connected with Protestantism. But, knowing the present Bishop of St. David's, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of the College, he would undertake to say more upright and more honest men were not to be found; and he would challenge the character of those gentlemen with the character of any persons connected with the hon. and learned Member's Church, beginning with the Pope, and concluding with the hon. and learned Member himself. The hon. and learned Member last year did not say a word against a vote of 600l. for the repairs of the College of Maynooth, nor did he urge any objection to a vote of 4,000l. or 5,000l. to the University of London, when he heard that Roman Catholics received the advantage of it. He wished to see this grant altogether abandoned, that the College of St. David's might be under no obligations to any one; but he trusted the Committee, 126 after voting sums for Oxford and Cambridge, and for the Scotch and Irish Universities, would not on this occasion refuse this sum of 400l.

§ SIR GEORGE TYLER
said, that the advantages diffused by means of those educated at St. David's were such that he only wished the grant were not so small.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
hoped the hon. and learned Member would not insist on dividing; if he did, he should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, he had on former occasions expressed his opinion unfavourably to voting money for Roman Catholic purposes, and if the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) was present when the 600l. for the repairs of Maynooth was discussed, he must have voted upon his (Mr. C. Anstey's) Motion to disallow it. He objected to all grants; and when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. J. Williams) talked of the good and sound education at this College, let him remember what his namesake the Archdeacon of Cardigan said—namely, that he conscientiously believed the institution at Lampeter had been a blight and a curse upon the Principality; that it was not deficient, but corrupt, in its educational operation. He (Mr. C. Anstey) would insist on dividing the Committee on the Question,

§ MR. J. WILLIAMS
explained that he had not defended the system of education, but merely said the young men could preach in the Welsh language.