Commons Sitting of 10 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Appointment of Overseers; Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
3o Poor Law Board Continuance (Ireland); Trustees Act Extension.

SUPPLY.
Resolutions brought up.
On the 1st Vote, 10,000 l. New Zealand,
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that he must again object that out of a sum of 10,000 l. granted for New Zealand, nearly 1,500 l. was appropriated to Church purposes.
MR. HUMEsaid, he considered that he had reason to complain that the sum voted for the Colonies had, within the last few years, increased from 2,000,000 l. to 4,000,000 l. and there seemed to be no limit to the expense. He thought some course should he adopted to prevent any further increase of the expenditure; and that the Government should state what they intended to do with regard to it. He was ready to afford the Colonists protection in time of war, because it was the duty of the Government to protect the people who had gone out of the country under the protection of its laws; but, looking to the increase of expense, and the preposterous establishments that exist in some instances, he trusted Government would lay down, before next Session, some rules by which that expenditure would be regulated. They should lay down a rule by which the colonists themselves would regulate their affairs, and not demand more of this country than they had a right fairly to expect. When the system of responsible government was adopted more generally in the Colonies, he trusted that having by that means given satisfaction to the Colonists in that particular, they would remove in a great degree from the mother country the burdens that hitherto had so heavily pressed upon it. If the money were properly applied, he would not have so much objection to its being voted, but it had been wasted without producing the desired effect of benefiting the Colonies; on the contrary, it had done great injury by creating discontent. He would also beg to call attention to another point, and to offer a suggestion respecting it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury had pledged themselves to a large expenditure for the building of a fit and proper edifice for a national museum. He was anxious to see the establishment placed on a fit and proper footing. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Member of the Committee by whom the subject was considered three years ago; and the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion were not very different from those entertained by him (Mr. Hume). They should have such an establishment as would he fit for this country and its civilisation; they should take the lead in the fine arts, instead of following merely the example of the Continent; they should he second to none of the European nations in that respect, and should
390
not think that any fair and proper expense that was incurred for the purpose was a burden upon them. The Committee had recommended the removal of the National Gallery from where it is to the neighbourhood of Kensington Gardens. He would venture to suggest whether Kensington Palace should not be entirely applied to the purpose, so as to form an establishment that would do credit to the country, as Hampton Court did; no establishment in the world could rival Hampton Court in the advantages it afforded to the community. The situation of Kensington Palace was good, and there was only one resident there, he believed, who had any claim on the Royal Family—the Duchess of Inverness. It might he converted into an establishment that would do credit to the country, as a place for the reception of national collections that would prove of advantage to every one. If such a building were provided, it would he an inducement to many persons to send there the collections they had made, and which in some instances could not be preserved by their families. Seeing the great interest that Her Majesty and Prince Albert had taken in every project that would promote the welfare of art in this country, he thought that if the subject were fairly brought under Her Majesty's consideration, She would willingly consent to the appropriation of the Palace to the purpose he had suggested.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman the willingness which exits on his part to support any well-matured scheme for at last preparing some receptacle for the works of art possessed by the country. Any suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman was entitled to respect, because he had always exhibited the greatest liberality where the interests of the arts were concerned. The question of providing a proper receptacle for the reception of works of art, was exciting increased interest in the public mind, and the contributions which had been made by that late eminent artist, Mr. Turner, and other individuals, should alone be sufficient to force the subject upon the attention of the Government, even if the Government were not inclined to give it the attention which it deserved. The House, he thought, would agree with him that it was of the most critical importance that they should make no mistake in the next effort they embarked in of this kind. From the dis-

391
position of the country generally, and from other circumstances, there were reasons that did encourage them to hope that they might at last accomplish something that would he worthy of the country. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the great interest which Her Majesty and Prince Albert took in the subject; and he confessed himself that it was mainly through the great interest that was taken on the subject in that august quarter they were likely to achieve success. If the same taste and judgment that were called forth last year by the remarkable events that had occurred, with respect to the Exhibition of the Arts and Industry of all Nations, could be enlisted on this subject—if they could enlist, as he was sure they would be able to enlist, the same judgment, energy, and resources that were then brought into play, mainly through the influence and personal exertions of His Royal Highness Prince Albert, he felt they would have an additional chance of success in this great undertaking. It very much occupied the attention of Government, and, he believed he might be permitted also to say, of His Royal Highness; and he trusted, when the proper opportunity arrived, they should be able to lay before the House a plan that would meet the approbation of the House, and to which all the sympathies of the country would respond.
MR. EWART,as a Member of the Commission appointed to inquire into the best site for the National Gallery, begged to state that the situation pointed out by the hon. Member (Mr. Hume)—the site of Kensington Palace—naturally first suggested itself to the Commission; but it was felt to be so peculiarly a subject for the Royal consideration that before any suggestion could be made with respect to it, the clear and unmistakeable feeling of Her Majesty upon it must be understood. Setting aside that, therefore, as a subject almost eliminated from their consideration, the Commission considered all the situations around, and it was their unanimous opinion that the best site would be to the north of Kensington Gardens, looking to the Uxbridge Road, and enclosing round the building such a portion of Kensington Gardens as might serve the purpose of an ornamental garden; because the Commissioners felt that the ground about a National Gallery should be of such a character as to be illustrative of the arts, and that there should be, as abroad, an ornamental garden with fountains and statues,
392
and so arranged as to be a sort of introduction to the Gallery, and prepare the visitor for the contemplation of the objects there collected. There could not be more competent judges found than were on that Commission — such men as Sir Charles Eastlake, Lord Colborne, Sir Richard Westmacott, Mr. Uwins, and others; and they were unanimous that, supposing Kensington Palace was not within their view or range, the next best place was the north of Kensington Gardens. He (Mr. Ewart) agreed that if a receptacle were provided, contributions like those of Mr. Vernon and Mr. Turner would flow in, and the best pictures would be obtained. He had no doubt the Government would come to a fair conclusion upon the matter.
On the Vote 14,083 l., Emigration.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must call attention to the fact that from all parts of the country they had applications from individuals who declared they were anxious to proceed to Australia, where labour is wanting, and to pay for their passage, if Government would make the necessary arrangements. Though no person could be more averse than he was to the application of public money to forward projects of this kind, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies whether, after the applications he had received, both from abroad and at home, this case might not be taken as an exception to what was the general rule in political economy. They had men among them who were anxious to be taken off the poor-rate, and who were desirous to maintain themselves and their families by their labour; they were deprived of the means of doing so by causes over which they had no control— the introduction of machinery had interfered with one class, and the introduction of produce from abroad had interfered with the employment of another class, and it was desirable that they should be enabled to emigrate. They might adopt with respect to them an arrangement similar to that which had been formerly adopted with reference to emigrants to North America: let the emigrants engage to refund at a subsequent period a portion of the expenses of their voyage, as had been done when the Government undertook to assist the emigrants to North America; and he might remark that such advances had been very seldom repudiated by the North American emigrants, or lost to the country. It was also a question whether the Government should not co-operate with the in-

393
habitants of the parishes where those persons were resident, and each pay a part of the expense.
MR. GROGANsaid, he wished to call attention to a letter which he had received on this subject from the Chairman of the Board of Guardians in Dublin, who had sent him a return of male and female paupers, all of whom were anxious to go to Australia. It appeared there were 200 young females, from fifteen to twenty-five years of age, who were described as being exceedingly well-conducted, and desirous to work if they had an opportunity of doing so.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he also begged leave to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies to the subject. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever referred to the return which had been moved for by the Secretary for Ireland in the year 1850, by which it appeared that there were then in the workhouses of Ireland 18,000 females between the ages of fifteen and forty that had been in the workhouse for more than a year, and who, therefore, might be considered to have made it their permanent home. They were persons who had taken up their lodging there, and had as little idea of leaving it as the right hon. Gentleman had of leaving his own house. The attention of the Government should therefore be directed to the subject, both for the sake of the individuals themselves and of the ratepayers. A statement had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the other day with respect to complaints that had been made respecting the conduct of some of the female emigrants; but he (Mr. Monsell) thought that the right hon. Gentleman would confirm the statement which he (Mr. Monsell) would now make in reference to the general conduct of those emigrants; and he might refer in support of his statement to the letter of the Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen's Land. It appeared that the best possible account had been received of those emigrants. He believed, however, that a large number of persons had been sent out from the Union of Belfast that should not have been sent out, and the character acquired by them had been attributed to the rest of those Irish emigrants. He should be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman to say he could confirm the statement he (Mr. Monsell) now made, that the female emigrants sent from the Irish workhouses generally had given satisfaction.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must express his regret that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was not in his place when this subject was under consideration in Committee of Supply, because he thought the House must feel that their object now should be to get, as speedily as they could, into Supply, and he trusted it was the desire of the House to do so. He did not mean to show any disrespect to the hon. Gentleman by not entering at any length into the question before the House. He had stated over and over again the importance of this subject, and he had given repeated assurances that it was engaging the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In reference to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, he would observe that he had given an answer on this subject not long ago, in which he stated that the Irish proportion of emigrants was largely in advance of the proportion from the other parts of the Kingdom, but that, notwithstanding such was the case, they were still continuing the emigration from that country, and sending out as many as they could. As to the suggestion that had been made by the hon. Member for Montrose, with respect to the Government paying the expense of passage, and recovering subsequently from the emigrant a portion thereof, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would not lose sight of the importance of that subject; but he would remind him that the cost of sending emigrants to Australia would be much greater than the cost that had been incurred for sending emigrants to North America.

TOE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he had been requested by a right rev. Prelate to make a statement that would prevent the possibility of any misapprehension taking place in the public mind with respect to what had passed on the preceding day. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (the Marquess of Blandford) having moved the second reading of the Episcopal and Capitular Revenues Bill, he (Sir. B. Hall), after making one or two suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, said—
"There was also another point to which he wished to direct attention, and that was with regard to the management and control of cathedral establishments. They were all governed by cer-

395
tain statutes, which were passed for their management at the time of their foundation; and in almost every one of them it was provided that the bishop should take an oath that he would preserve those foundation statutes inviolable. One of these statutes was, that the bishop should hold at least a triennial visitation of his cathedral. It would be very difficult to show an instance where that statute had been carried out, although the bishop was bound by a solemn oath to perform it. Take the case of a cathedral which had lately been brought before the notice of the public—he alluded to the Cathedral of Rochester. Now, the bishop was bound by the statute to make a visitation of that cathedral once every three years. He had been informed that the bishop had never per-performed that visitation."—[3 Hansard, cxxii. 337–8.1
In consequence of that statement the Bishop of Rochester had done him the honour to call upon him, and to direct his attention to the report. The right rev. Prelate had admitted that he was right in his statements as to the non-visitation of the cathedral, which he admitted should have been done if he had acted according to the statutes, hut he said it had been the custom not to do so, and that he had acted according to custom. There was reason to hope that the visitation of the cathedral would he made in future; hut up to the present time the fact was, that the right rev. Prelate had visited the diocese, but he (Sir B. Hall) was right in stating that he had not visited the cathedral, although he was under a solemn obligation to do so.

POST-HORSE DUTY.
Order for Committee of Supply read; Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would refer to two authorities in support of the Motion he now brought forward, namely, the Report of a Committee which sat in 1838, and a statement made in 1840 by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) when Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman then said'—
"He also proposed a very small relief to a class of persons who, from no fault of their own, but from circumstances by which every other class of persons was benefited, were placed in a situation of considerable difficulty and distress—he meant the postmasters. They had represented to him that they were obliged to keep postchaises and carriages, on which they paid a heavy tax, but from which they derived little remuneration, and suggested, that if they were at liberty to keep different classes of carriages at a reduced rate of duty, they might, by opening fresh lines of trade, receive some compensation for the injuries they had sustained. The tax now upon hack chaises
396
was 4l. 5s., upon pair-horse carriages, 5l. 5s. upon four-wheeled carriages, 4l. 10 s.; and upon two-wheeled carriages, 3l. 5s., all of which he proposed to reduce to 3l." —[3 Hansard, liv. 129.]
In consequence of some blunder in the Act of Parliament whereby this reduction was to take place, the tax, instead of being reduced, was positively aggravated; and the postmasters, instead of paying five guineas, as heretofore, or 3l., as proposed by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, paid at this moment 6l. 12 s. They thought the case a hard one, and asked the House to rectify the blunder committed in 1840. He had a letter from the postmaster who kept the Hen and Chickens, at Manchester, complaining that he had been greatly injured by the operation of the Act. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) had waited with a deputation on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had heard their statement very kindly. The Budget had since been brought forward, but no relief was proposed in it, and the postmasters asked whether a short Bill could not be introduced to give them relief. There was another thing of which the postmasters, who numbered at present about 14,000, complained, namely, the cost of the espionage on the part of the Excise. They proposed that an annual duty of 10 l. should be paid for annual licences to be granted them. The present amount of tax levied on them produced from 160,000 l. to 170,000 l.; while the duty of 10 l. would yield 140,000 l. or 150,000 l.; thus there would be a deficit of only about 20,000 l. That would be a concession and a compromise into which all parties might readily enter. He wished briefly to refer to the case of Mr. Shillibeer, who had been twice in conflict with the late Government in consequence of informations laid by the Excise. The hon. and learned Attorney General stated that the Crown never received or paid costs. On the first occasion Mr. Shillibeer defeated the prosecution. He paid his own costs, and the Crown paid theirs. On the second occasion twenty informations were laid against Mr. Shillibeer for certain omissions in his return, and for an alleged false return. The jury found for the Crown only on the last charge. The Crown sent in a Bill of costs amounting to 600 l., which were reduced by 165 l.; but it would give great satisfaction to Mr. Shillibeer to hear the statement of the Attorney General on the subject; and as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated

397
that the Crown neither received or paid costs, probably he would put Mr. Shillibeer in the way of obtaining repayment, though it was not very easy to make the Crown refund. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) would ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be advisable to adopt the proposition of a 10 l. duty, or at least to repair the blunder in the Act of his (Mr. T. Duncombe's) right hon. Friend? This was not a metropolitan question at all. It affected rural districts fully more; and about 300 petitions had been sent by postmasters and persons who let carnages for hire in favour of measures for their relief.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Post Horse Duty and Tax on Carriages let for hire, with a view to a modification of the same;' instead thereof."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was very true that he had the honour of receiving a deputation from the postmasters of the country in the presence of the hon. Member for Finsbury, who did full justice to the interests of his constituents. That was a deputation that did not merely profess to represent the postmasters of the metropolis, but professed to represent the general trade throughout the country. He must admit, that with very great ability they had brought forward the scheme of finance by which they sought to get relief; they declared that no material injury would thereby be done to the revenue; but his (the Chancellor's) opinion was, that in all schemes of that kind which were devised by a suffering interest, the relief was more certain than the security to the revenue. There was one point which the hon. Gentleman had forgotten—namely, the main ground on which those individuals had applied to him. The main ground on which the appeal for relief was founded, was the common opinion that was prevalent, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in possession of a very large surplus. There was supposed to be a surplus of more than 2,000,000 l., and the postmasters thought they were consequently entitled to get relief. Unfortunately it was not in his power, at the time they had waited upon him, to tell them the exact state of the case; but he had said nothing to induce them to believe he would give them relief; and being men of sense, and a class pecu-
398
liarly interested in maintaining the national credit, they must see, after the financial statement had been made, that they had no claim, so far as a great surplus was concerned, to the relief they sought. They might have a claim for that relief, of course, on abstract grounds. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward a scheme, which was, in fact, a financial proposition, that would no doubt affect their existing arrangements; and under these circumstances, and remembering the period of the year, and that the state of the finances were now known to the country, the hon. Gentleman could scarcely ask the House to come to a decision upon the subject, He would say to him now what he bad said to the deputation of postmasters— that he would examine their case, and if he thought there was any great inequality or injustice in the tax, he should see if it could be remedied. He was willing to admit there was one cause of complaint— namely, with respect to the tax upon carriages let out for hire. It appeared to him that was a case which, when opportunity offered, should be considered. At the present period it would be extremely inconvenient to pass any resolution of this kind; but if it were his fortune again to bring forward the financial statement of the country, he should give every claim that was brought forward impartial consideration.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he was fully aware of the hardship of the tax to which the postmasters were subjected, and his hope was, that the right hon. Gentleman would, in the next Parliament, be able to bring forward a proposition for their relief.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he was satisfied that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) did not wish anything but justice done. One fact was clear; the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) had intended to pass a measure for the relief of the postmasters; but that measure had unfortunately had just the reverse effect from that which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer attributed to such schemes as had been suggested by the postmasters. The relief to them had been by no means certain; the benefit to the revenue had been quite certain. If the intention of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth were carried out, the postmasters would, he thought, be satisfied. It was a strict question of justice.
LOUD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he hoped the postmasters would obtain that amount of relief which they were on all grounds of equity and justice fairly entitled to. He thought if the proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. T. Duncombe) was adopted, the loss to the revenue would be small, and the relief to the postmasters very great. There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. There was a Bill before the House called the Metropolis Burial Bill. One of the greatest difficulties experienced in introducing Burial Bills was to devise means whereby the poorer classes could have their relatives buried decently at a small expense. If anything could be done by legislation to facilitate that object, a great good would be done. A general desire existed to cheapen the cost of funerals, and that desire might be partly accomplished by taking off the duty on carriages employed at funerals.
MR. SLANEYhad been requested by his constituents in Shrewsbury to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury; and, after the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and the answer of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped the subject would be duly considered with a view to the redress of a grievance which he conceived to exist, and which might be removed without much difficulty.
MR. FREWENwould suggest that all carriages carrying mails should be free from the duty to which they were liable if they carried passengers. This, he believed, would confer an advantage on the public, without decreasing the revenue, for what the Government would lose in the way of duty, the Post Office would save in the expense of carrying the mails, which cost that establishment about 10 l. per mile per annum.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONbegged to call the attention of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect of the duty upon the carriages employed in funerals. It was desirable to take the dead from amongst the living, and the Government should encourage every facility that was offered for the purpose.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take a partial view of the subject, but would consider it upon the broad scale of taking off the duty altogether. Its pressure was severely felt in the city he represented.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he believed his right hon. Friend opposite sincere and honest in his intentions. He had not stated that he would bring forward a proposition on the subject in November, but that in some future Budget he hoped to be able to deal with it, so that the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat vague, and a vote on a question of this kind would go to strengthen his hands, and the hands of any other Chancellor of the Exchequer. It might be asked what the right hon. Member for Portsmouth had to state. The silence of his right hon. Friend gave consent to all he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had said.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that silence by no means gave consent. [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: Remember your speech.] Yes! he remembered the proposal made in 1840; but he never heard a complaint that the postmasters were in a worse position than before. But there was one thing he was ready to recommend to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that if the parties thought they were worse than before, they should be put back as they were before.
MR. J. WILLIAMSsaid, that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer must know there was no class so oppressed with taxes as the licensed victuallers and postmasters.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: —Ayes 94; Noes 43: Majority 51.
Question again proposed.

NAVAL RESERVE.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wished to hear something from the Government respecting the sum that had been voted for the Naval Reserve. In the Estimates laid upon the table a sum was included for the purpose of forming a Naval Reserve. But two days ago, in answer to a question that had been put by a gallant Officer, they were told that the Admiralty had abandoned that scheme, and would not carry it into effect. There was a sum of 38,000 l. specially voted for the purpose of that Naval Reserve, and he would wish to know what course the Government intended to take with regard to that sum of 38,000 l. Was it intended to use that sum to keep up a larger force than had been voted? That was a question proper to be ascertained; for if the sum that had been voted was not

401
sufficient, the Government should apply to the House, and let the necessary sum be voted. Looking to the amount of the force now employed, he was very much afraid that it would exceed the Vote, and that the Estimates, as framed by himself, would not be sufficient for the public service if they went on to the extent they wore now going on. There had been an Estimate with respect to the amount of expenditure and the Vote of men, made up by the Accountant General, upon whose character every one who knew him would place the greatest reliance-—and there was found to be a considerable surplus of the amount voted, after expending the amount necessary for the Vote of men—but he was now surprised to find that there was no surplus at all, and he understood that the entire amount of the Vote was expended. If that expenditure were to go on, there must be a considerable deficiency at the end of the year, and he should be glad to have a statement from the Government on the subject, if such statement could be made without inconvenience to the public service.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there would be no inconvenience to the public service in replying to the right hon. Gentleman with as much frankness as he had used in putting the question. He perfectly agreed in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Accountant General, who was as highly appreciated by the present as by the late Government, and it was under his advice and guidance they had acted. There was no foundation whatever for the idea—as far as he had heard, and of course he would have heard it if there was —that the rate of expenditure had exceeded that which it ought to be, according to the Estimates which Her Majesty's Government had adopted. He had no reason for believing that the Estimates which they had adopted from their predecessors would be at all exceeded, so far as he could judge from the rate of expenditure now adopted. As to the question of the Naval Reserve, it was not proceeded with by the present Administration, for certain reasons which swayed them; but it was not desirable at present to enter into any debate on the question. The answer that they had not exceeded the Estimates was an answer also to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the transfer of the sum of 38,000 l. If the Government had even required assistance, they never could think of applying the sum voted for an-
402
other object when they did not think it necessary to accomplish the object for which it was voted; therefore the 38,000#. remained untouched. Although the Estimate framed by the late Administration, and adopted by the present, was an Estimate, in their opinion, framed upon a sound principle, and though the force supplied by that Estimate and by the Vote of the House was perfectly sufficient for all purposes of defence, yet there had been recently new demands rising up, in consequence of the extraordinary discoveries in a distant Colony, and it was very difficult, indeed, for the Admiralty to answer these demands. If, on further consideration, they should find it their duty to ask for some slight increase of the force, they would lay the circumstances before the House without the slightest reserve, and ask their opinion; and he was confident, when they heard the details, they would not, perhaps, differ from the opinion which the Government had adopted. This demand, however, had nothing to do with any general increase of expenditure, or any deficiency in the Estimate which the Government had adopted. It arose entirely from the urgent and earnest demand that had been made upon the Admiralty, in consequence of the transactions that had occurred in the Pacific, and especially connected with the gold discoveries in that quarter of the globe.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answerered the most particular part of his question, and probably the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty would answer it, namely, had the Vote for last year been exceeded?
MR. STAFFORD: No.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought he had distinctly stated that the rate of expenditure did not exceed the Estimate.
Question again proposed.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
(1.) Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 4,469 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1853, Miscellaneous Allowances, formerly defrayed from the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenue, &c., and for which no permanent provision has been made by Parliament."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he should move that the Vote be reduced to 2,669 l. by the omission of the following items: Poor French refugee clergy, 700 l.;

403
Poor French refugee laity, 300 l.; charitable and other allowances formerly paid from the Civil List, 175 l.; the Bishop of Sodor and Man, to be distributed among the incumbents and schoolmasters of the Isle of Man, 89 l. 9s.; the College of St. David's, Lampeter, in aid of the expenditure of the College, 400 l.; the Bishop of Chester, for stipends of two preachers in Lancashire, 92 l. 16 s.; minister of the Gaelic church at Cromarty, stipend, 100 l, He would now call attention to a paper moved for by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis), with reference to the Colonial Church, and which contained a reply of Earl Grey to a demand for a grant of money for a church at Hong-Kong, in which he stated that it was evident that such efforts for the establishment of church accommodation had not been made in that Colony by members of the Church of England as had been made by members of other denominations, and expressed a hope that the Government would apply the opinion inculcated in that despatch to the Vote now proposed. With regard to the Vote for St, David's College, Lampeter, he had been accused of having, on a former occasion, stated all kinds of things by persons who were advocates for voluntaryism in every thing except that which concerned the Principality to which they belonged. He had been blamed for having repeated a phrase which was used by the Archdeacon of Cardigan, in a letter to the Times, to the effect that St. David's College was "the slaughterhouse of the rising intellect of Wales." He would now state certain details relating to the condition of the College. Its income for the two years ending March, 1829, showed a surplus balance, including the Parliamentary grant, of 1,5912, From 1829 to 1833, there was a surplus of 994 l.; and from 1833 to 1839, a surplus of 8232.; making a total surplus in the ten years of 3,4082.: and yet in each year a grant of 4002. had been demanded from Parliament, and even, according to the statement of Dr. Ollivant, there had since been a great increase in the income. Then as regarded the state of education in the College, The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. J. Williams), on a former occasion, had excepted to his (Mr. C. Anstey's) statement, and said that the College had sent out some of the first clergymen in Wales. But that fact did not mitigate against his statement, for he maintained that the College generally, although
404
at times it had been in a better condition, was now on the decline. Although it was provided by the charter, and was a condition of the endowment of the College, that a professorship of Welsh should be maintained, yet it had not been done for years. There had not been for some years, however, a lecturer on the Welsh language. A few years ago a lecturer was appointed, who was afterwards dismissed for incompetency, and his duties were now performed by an officer called the assistant tutor, who was not provided for by the Charter. He had two livings some miles from the College, and in order to attend these he was obliged to discontinue the week-day services in his churches. That was not a fair compliance with the Charter, which set forth that the College was established for the maintenance of the current Welsh literature. Then as to the condition of the students. Dr. Ollivant, the Bishop of Llandaff, in his last charge to his clergy, stated that there were 256 churches in his diocese, but he could only get clergymen to read the service in Welsh in 100 of them. Dr. Ollivant, the Bishop of Llandaff, and Dr. Thirlwall, the Bishop of St, David's, had made a regulation that Dissenters who were willing to receive Orders in the Church of England, should, on the certificate of a bishop that they could speak Welsh, after a short probation, be ordained. The College could not supply clergymen who spoke the Welsh language. It appeared that the present Principal of the College (Dr. Llewellyn) was so little acquainted with Welsh that he made himself ridiculous in speaking it. That in a speech, intending to speak of himself as a child or son, he used a term which meant fat, chubby (or dumpy) boy; and not having at command the Welsh synonyms for "yield" and "disturbance,"' he had to use those English words. As to the Vice-Principal, he did not pretend to speak Welsh at all. The candidates for ordination of late years had been so deplorably ignorant of Welsh when they left the College, that in some cases they were refused ordination; and in all cases the exercises tendered to the Bishops of St. David's and Llandaff were returned to the College as specimens of the disgraceful state of education carried on within its walls. Many of those who obtained ordination had their exercises written by Dissenting ministers, and sermons written by Dissenting ministers had been preached by clergymen of the Church of England. Notwithstanding

405
all this, Dr. Ollivant and the College entertained feelings of great hostility to the Dissenters. Again, a return moved for by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. J. Williams) had been refused, because it was said that it was not practicable that the information he required could be given. The passages in the proposed return which had been struck out related to the intended arrangements—the income and expenditure of the College, the benefactions to it —the officers who had been appointed, and the periods of their residence, the value of the preferments held by them, and the distances which they were from the College, besides the names of the persons on whom scholarships, exhibitions, and prizes had been bestowed. The College authorities had declined to give any return on those points; and the Government, at the instance of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, had refused the return. All those were facts which showed a strong case of what some might call suspicion, but what he (Mr. C. Anstey) would call fraud on the part of some or other of those who asked for the continuance of this grant.
(1.) Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 2,660 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1863, Miscellaneous Allowances, formerly defrayed from the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenue, &c. and for which no permanent provision has been made by Parliament."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to offer a few explanations to the Committee on the different items to which the hon. and learned Member had objected in this Vote. If the hon. and learned Member were to refer to the appendix to the Report of the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure, over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) had so ably presided, he would find all the points to which he had alluded very fully explained there; and from that Report he (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) had derived any information he had to communicate to the Committee. With respect to the Vote to the French Protestant refugees, he found that he had fallen into a mistake in the statement he had made upon that subject on a former day. He had said that he had believed that Vote had taken its rise in the assistance given to the refugees from Franco at the time of the French revolution. But it appeared that the Vote had, in reality, had its origin at a much earlier period. The fact was, that the allowance had first been made to
406
the French refugees who had passed over to this country at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. And the Committee should recollect that it was to those refugees this country owed the establishment of the silk manufactory in Spitalfields. There were some places of worship in this country at present dependent on that Vote, and among them a place of worship for the French at Canterbury. In his opinion the withdrawal of such a Vote would be attended with much hardship and injustice. Then there was the grant to the Bishop of Sodor and Man. That was a grant which had originally been made by Charles II. on account of the poverty of the clergy of the Isle of Man; and the claim on the liberality of Parliament in that case was one which, in his opinion, ought not to be lightly disallowed. The third Vote to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, was that for the Lancashire preachers. That vote owed its origin to a grant made so far back as the reign of Elisabeth for four preachers, who had to be paid at that time out of the Crown Revenue. But the grant to two of those preachers had been discontinued, and the grant to the other two was to cease on the demise of the present recipients, in conformity with a suggestion of the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure. The next grant of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had complained, was that to Cromarty church. It appeared that a private individual had made over to the Crown the presentation to that church, on the condition of the Crown granting to the holder of the living a sum of 50 l. a year; and that allowance having been found inadequate, it had been increased in the year 1808 by George III., by a grant of meal and other provisions, which were paid for out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown; but since those revenues had been surrendered, a sum of 100 l. was voted out of the public funds as an equivalent for the allowance of provisions. With respect to the question relating to the College of St. David's, he had to observe, that that question bad been so fully discussed by Gentlemen well acquainted with the state of Wales, and with all the facts of the case, that he felt it would be unwise and unnecessary for him to attempt to offer any explanations upon the subject. He had only to say, that before the Vote had been demanded, certificates on which it was founded had been given by the Bishop of the diocese and by the heads of the Col-

407
lege; and these certificates afforded, as he (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) believed, sufficient evidence that there must be some mistake in the allegations of the hon. and learned Gentleman with reference to the amount of the revenues at present belonging to that establishment.
MR. BOOKERsaid, that he had heard with much surprise the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal with respect to the College of St. David's—a surprise, however, which would have been enhanced tenfold if he had not been acquainted with the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman had of late pursued on every question relating to the Established Church. The hon. and learned Member had opposed the grant to the College on the grounds that fraudulent returns had been made by the heads of the College, that the education given in the College was insufficient, and that the heads of the establishment were grossly neglectful, and unequal to their duty. Now, as a resident for thirty years in the Principality, he (Mr. Booker) could undertake to bear his unequivocal testimony in opposition to the charge of inefficiency and mismanagement which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward against the heads of the College. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the statement of the Archdeacon of Cardigan, that the College had been a blight and a curse on the spiritual and intellectual energies of the Principality, and a slaughterhouse of the rising talent of his country. But it should be remembered, that, after the publication of that statement, a meeting of residents in the Principality had been held, in which a resolution had been adopted to the effect that the statement was entirely groundless, and that the College had already conferred great benefits on the Church in South Wales. Then, again, the examiners of the College, who had been appointed by the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and who were among the most learned men in the University, had signed a document expressing their dissent from the opinion of the Archdeacon of Cardigan, and their belief in the useful and efficient manner in which the College was conducted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had attempted to show that the Principal of the College (the learned Dr. Llewellyn) was himself but imperfectly acquainted with the Welsh language. But he (Mr. Booker) had received a letter from the Vice-Principal of the College (the Rev.
408
R. Williams)—and a more talented, learned, and exemplary man the Established Church could not boast of—in which it was stated that Dr. Llewellyn was allowed by all competent judges to be a thorough master, not only of the Welsh language, but of its different dialects, and in which the learned writer complained of the disingenuous attempt made to prove Dr. Llewellyn's ignorance of that language, by translating literally into English a word which could not be so translated without a violation of the spirit of the Weish language. With regard to the College not producing eminent men, Dr. Ollivant, the present Bishop of Llandaff, who was one of his (Mr. Booker's) nearest neighbours, had recently held the office of Vice-Principal of the College, and, having been transferred from that office to the divinity chair in Cambridge, he had next been selected to preside over the See of Llandaff; and he (Mr. Booker) would undertake to say that a more learned, able, and zealous individual did not adorn the episcopal bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that a fraud must have been committed by the heads of the College in making returns of their revenues. But he (Mr. Booker) had reason to believe that that charge was utterly unfounded. There might be a difference of opinion as to whether the returns had been furnished in the best and most convenient form; but there was no reason whatever to suppose that they had been falsified. He had only to state, in conclusion, that after having resided so long in the Principality, and after having been a witness of the great good which that College effected, he felt that he should not have discharged his duty if he had not come forward to repel the allegations which had been so recklessly made by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he believed he was as well acquainted with the Principality as his hon. Friend who had just addressed the Committee; and having paid a great deal of attention to the subject of St. David's College, he should say he believed that the allegations made in that case by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) were substantially correct. The allegations were borne out also by statements made by the Archdeacon of Cardigan, one of the most distinguished literary men of the present day, who had been rector of the High School of Edinburgh. He (Sir B. Hall) believed that anything coming from such a

409
quarter with respect to the state of any College had very strong claims to public credit. For his part, he felt convinced that the College of St. David's was not by any means an efficient establishment—he would not say more, because he did not wish to raise an angry discussion upon the subject. With respect to the returns to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Booker) had referred, he (Sir B. Hall) should say that he defied the heads of the College to enter into full particulars in their returns, without showing that there had been great misconduct in the management of the establishment. The object for which the College had been founded had been that it should conduce to the efficient training and education of ministers to serve in the Established Church in Wales; but there was every reason to believe that that object had not been attained. He would state a fact bearing upon that point. In the month of October, 1850, a few students had been sent to the Bishop of Llandaff from the College, for ordination; and when they had been examined in the Welsh language, the exercises of some of them were so bad, and of so illiterate a character, that those exercises had been sent back as specimens to the Principal of the College; and he believed that a similar fact had occurred in the case of students sent for ordination to the Bishop of St. David's. Such facts showed that the management of the College was most unsatisfactory and imperfect. He would call the attention of the Committee to a circumstance which would show the proper mode of conducting such an establishment. The Roman Catholics —alive as they had always shown themselves to the spiritual wants of those whom they hoped in any way to influence—had established a Jesuit college in North Wales; and so careful were they in educating young men there for their ministry, that they would not allow any individual to leave the college to preach the Word of God in Welsh to the people, who was not perfectly conversant with the language of the Welsh people, among whom he was to become a spiritual teacher. His (Sir B. Hall's) desire was to make the College of St. David's a means of teaching the Welsh language truly and efficiently to young men who were to become ministers in Wales; and to that language he should observe that the Welsh people clung with passionate devotion. He (Sir B. Hall) was not as conversant with the Welsh language as, he admitted, he should be; but he under-
410
stood from several of the most excellent Welsh scholars the translation referred to was perfectly correct, and that, ridiculous as it was, it was a perfect and true translation of that speech. It was perfectly ridiculous to put a person at the head of such an establishment who could make use of such foolish language, bringing his offices into contempt, as a justice, a clergyman of the Church, and as head of a College. He said, after speaking of a public-house disturbance, "I will not yield a thing to them; yea, I will lose the last drop of my heart's blood before I yield to them. I never yielded to any one since I was a dumpy chap, and so sure as I am a living man I will not yield to them, if I lose my life." Was that, he asked, the sort of language that should be used by an individual in this gentleman's position? But to revert to the real question at issue. How had St. David's College been managed for the last twenty years; and what claim had the authorities to a continuation of the Government grant? It was useless for hon. Members to fancy that their assertions of good management, and proper and just appropriation, would suffice to satisfy the public mind, when the results were known to be so very unsatisfactory, and the objects for which that grant was bestowed had so entirely failed that the College was only half filled, and those educated there did not obtain instruction to fit them to become efficient Welsh ministers of the Established Church, which was only half served—as the bishops themselves admitted—because there was such a very small supply of clergymen properly qualified in the Welsh language. The only way to test this question was to insist on the returns moved for by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and which the authorities of the College had refused to give—which was certainly a very extraordinary circumstance if they could prove all that was asserted by the champions of the College. Let the returns be made in all their details, as demanded, and the question would be set at rest one way or the other.
LORD EMLYNsaid, he would admit that the Archdeacon of Cardigan was an excellent classical scholar, but there were circumstances which made his opinion respecting this College of less authority. He would suggest that the Government should pay due attention to this subject, and place the College on a better foundation; and he trusted that the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) would unite with

411
the friends of the establishment in an endeavour to render it more beneficial in the training of the clergy of the Principality.
MR. BOOKERbegged to say that he had had a communication with the Bishop of Llandaff on the subject of the ordinations to which the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had referred: and he could assure the hon. Baronet that that right rev. Prelate had told him that no candidates were presented to him that he might not with perfect fairness have passed, but it was because he had been Vice-Principal of the College that he was able to detect some little inaccuracies.
MR. LOVEDENsaid, he thought it was most extraordinary, if those abuses did exist in the College of St. David's, that they had never heard of them from any person educated there.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he was perfectly aware of the protest which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Booker). It contained the names of forty-two incumbents and two curates; most of these individuals had actually no knowledge whatever of the proceedings in the College, others were quite incompetent to judge on the subject, while some were especially interested in upholding the authorities; and it was handed about at the visitation of one of the bishops, when the clergy were informed "the bishop wished them to sign it."
MR. J. WILLIAMSsaid, that if the authorities of the College had only agreed to make the returns for which he had moved two years ago, this unfortunate discussion would have been prevented. After a trial of twenty-six years, and the expenditure of 6,000 l. in the erection of buildings, and of 10,000 l. towards the support of the College, they were certainly entitled to ask for the returns. St. David's College, Lampeter, was opened in 1827, avowedly for the purpose of clerical education, for the supply of clergymen well qualified for the ministry of the Established Church in Wales. The cost of the structure was defrayed partly by subscriptions collected during a course of twenty years, from the poor Welsh clergy and others, and partly by grants of public money, amounting to 6,000 l. The College possesses a Royal Charter, which appointed a Principal and certain Professors—among which a Welsh Professor was particularly specified—with power to add to their number. It was endowed by virtue of an Act of Parliament, by which His Majesty, George IV., was
412
enabled to transfer to the College the patronage of six benefices—three of them sinecures—to be annexed to the professorships, and held in trust by the Professors during their continuance in their official situations. And a sum of 400 l. a year was in 1826 granted out of the public funds for the support of the College until the above benefices became vacant, or until the means at the disposal of the College were above 550 l. per annum, which sum of 400 l. a year, there is reason to believe, has been regularly paid ever since, making a total of nearly 10,000 l. of public money paid to the College authorities up to the present time. It is well known that every institution receiving public money is responsible to the Commons House of Parliament for the use or abuse of such a grant. But, nevertheless, it is a fact that no return of the revenue of the College of St. David's has ever been published since its opening in 1827. And the constant complaint of the authorities of want of funds has been promulgated to such an extent, that they have managed to obtain very large sums of money by private subscriptions from parties apparently ignorant of the real available means of the establishment; and so bold did the authorities become by their success in asking charity, that even a very few months ago a letter appeared in the Times, signed "Ucalegon," which alluded to an advertisement in the same paper, in favour of the College, and was evidently written by authority, blaming the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for their wilful inattention to the grievous pecuniary wants of the College, and virtually charging them with a, breach of duty. About the same time a printed document was circulated by the post, entitled Suggestions, declaring that farther endowments were necessary to enable the College to carry out the objects for which it was originally founded, and saying that those assertions were promulgated under the approval of the College authorities. It was not his intention to take up the time of the House at the present moment with details respecting the management of the authorities of Lampeter College after a trial of twenty-four years, in effecting the purpose for which six good Welsh grammar schools, six benefices, 6,000 l. of public money, for its erection, and nearly 10,000 l. more of public money for its subsequent support have been sacrificed! and the failure of which he had it in his power to prove upon undeniable evidence; but he should con-

413
fine himself to the immediate object before the Committee, namely, to obtain an official return of all the receipts and expenditure of the College from its commencement to the present time. This return is imperatively needed, in proof of which he need only state that it is believed the whole of the following six benefices, namely, the sinecure rectories of—

Llanddewi Velfrey, nett annual value,

200 l.

Llangeler nett annual value,

244 l.

Nangle nett annual value,

157 1.

And the vicarages of—

Llangoedmoro nett annual value,

329 l.

Llanedy nett annual value,

258 1.

St. Peter's, Carmarthen value,

176 1.

Total,

1,364 l.

Have fallen in to the College, which ought to produce, after paying the curates' stipends, a permanent income of 900 l. per annum. Besides this, the contingent income derived from the students has amounted, on an average, to at least 1,600 l., at the very lowest computation; while at the same time a Treasury grant of 400 l. a year is continued on the supposition that the means at the disposal of the College have never exceeded 550 l. per annum. He believed that some years had elapsed since the last of these benefices fell in to the College, and if that institution had not benefited by the revenues of them all, the fault alone must belong to the College authorities, whose duty it was to hold those livings in trust for the benefit of the College, and who had no right to bestow or dispose of them in any other way, so as to keep up a semblance of poverty, and create a fallacious claim to the payment of 400 l. of the public money. It was well known that the living of Llanedy was in 1845 bestowed by the College authorities upon the Rev. Henry Williams, who was, and still is, totally unconnected with the College. And thus has been violated the special provision of an Act of Parliament. With regard to the scholarships, a return of which is included in the Motion before the House, in the year 1849 the College authorities advertised the number as amounting to twenty-four; but in their advertisement the following year, the scholarships had unaccountably diminished down to twenty-one. These scholarships have, for the most part, been founded by the benevolence of private individuals, for the assistance and encouragement of the students; and as many unpleasant rumours have long been afloat with respect to their
414
payment, it is only surprising that the authorities themselves should not, of their own accord, request the most minute investigation. He believed that two of these scholarships are now held by one of the College tutors. It was also said that there had been most culpable misrule and mal-appropriation in other affairs of the College. That two of the professorships are now only nominally filled, while the Welsh professorship is actually suppressed. The Welsh professor (Mr. Rees) died in 1839. The professorship was then given to the Rev. D. T. Jones, who had been a missionary to the Red Indians, and who, being quite unqualified for the office, conscientiously resigned it at the expiration of about two years. It was now about nine years since that period, during which time the Welsh professorship had mysteriously disappeared. He had now given a very brief outline of a few of the prominent facts connected with the proceedings of St. David's College, Lampeter, and which he conceived would be sufficient to show that a speedy and searching investigation was imperatively required, and any attempt to prevent or evade such inquiry could only be viewed in a very suspicious and unfavourable light.
MR. HUGHESsaid, he never before had heard that persons who had taken orders from the College of Lampeter, were deficient in the Welsh language. The complaint was made by the Rev. Archdeacon Williams, who had a rival establishment.
MR. HUMEsaid, he believed that St. David's College was in a very bad state, and he called on Her Majesty's Government to revise the Votes altogether, many of which were only originally acceded to conditionally.
MR. LOVEDENsaid, after the explanations that had been given, he felt bound to call on the hon. and learned Member for Youghal to withdraw his opposition.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he could not conscientiously do so, and that he felt bound to press his Amendment to a division.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes 26; Noes 113: Majority 87.
Original Question put, and agreed to; — Vote agreed to, as was also—
(2.) 1,691 l., Foundling Hospital,
(3.) 9,788?., House of Industry, Dublin.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYmoved the reduction of the Vote by 260 l., the amount

415
of the salaries of the Roman Catholic and Protestant chaplains. In a city like Dublin, where churches and clergymen of all denominations were so numerous, he did not see the necessity for these chaplains.
MR. COGANbegged to assure the Committee, that if these hospitals were in any way interfered with, the result would be most injurious to the medical scheols of Dublin.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained that, in the particular hospital now before the Committee, the inmates were very old and infirm, and consequently could not go abroad to Divine worship.
MR. HUMEsaid, that, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), he would support the Vote. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) would not persevere.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYwould not persevere in his objections to the Vote. But in a city like Dublin, it was disgraceful to the Churches of Rome and England that their clergy would not minister to their aged and infirm without receiving an emolument.
MR. GROGANbegged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the existence of the medical schools of Ireland was involved in the Vote before the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say that the views of the Government coincided with those of the late Government, and that no further diminution would be made in the grants for the medical schools of Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The subject of those medical schools I have already noticed in the course of the Session. We look with great interest to those establishments, and should be sorry to see any falling off in them. I think, at this hour, the best thing I can do is to move, Sir, that you do report progress.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report progress; to sit again This Day, at Six o'clock.

FROME VICARAGE—THE REV. MR. BENNETT.
SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, he would take the earliest opportunity of explaining, that in the remarks he had made relative to the institution of Mr.
416
Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, in the debate of Tuesday night, he had then understood that the Bishop of London had written a letter to explain the effect of the certificate he had granted. From the statement made by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) he understood that three clergymen had signed the certificate, that it was countersigned by the Bishop of London, who had then written a separate letter, which was read to the House, and which, it was stated, had been forwarded to the Bishop of Bath and Wells; and he took occasion to remark, that although he would be the last person to offer a word that might be considered disrespectful to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, yet he did think that it was a mode not to be approved of, the signing a testimonial, and then sending a private letter to explain it—that, in his judgment, the memorandum should have appeared at the foot of the certificate. He had received a letter from the right rev. Prelate, in which he informed him that it was at the foot of the document itself—a mode which he expected the right rev. Prelate would have adopted, as being more in accordance with his general habits for straightforward and upright conduct. The mistake arose from the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) having stated that a separate letter had been sent, and that the letter had not been read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. He was delighted to find that the memorandum was at the foot of the certificate itself. Of course, that did not alter the legal effect, but it was much more in accordance with what he would have expected from a prelate of the high character of the Bishop of London.

EXPENSES OF THE KAFIR WAR.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I promised that I would make a statement to the House this evening with reference to the Vote for the Kafir war. In consequence of the expense of the Kafir war having been much less consider able than we anticipated, and in consequence of the Treasury Minute that no expenditure should take place for extra ordinary military services until the Votes for ordinary military expenditure had been exhausted, I have the satisfaction to state to the House that I do not feel it necessary to call upon them for that Vote of 200,000 l. which I told them at the time of the financial statement I should probably be obliged to apply for.
MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR.
MR. BELLsaid, in reference to the hon. Member who had been the previous day taken into custody he begged to inform the House that he had obtained two certificates from medical men, which he had placed in the hands of the Serjeant at Arms. These certificates fully confirmed the opinion that the hon. Member for Nottingham required medical advice, and he had thought it his duty to take that step, because he considered that as the hon. Member had been placed in custody for an offence for which he was not responsible, and that the step had been taken in the belief that he was of unsound mind, it was only proper that the House should be in possession of the fact upon medical authority—more particularly as the House was aware that the medical and legal professions were at issue as to what was the precise line of demarcation between soundness and unsoundness of mind. In the present case the medical men had pronounced the hon. Member to be of unsound mind; and should any person think proper to sign an order to the keeper of a lunatic asylum, he would be admitted, but in that case the person signing the order would be responsible. He had not interfered in the matter as the friend of the hon. Member, but simply because he understood that he had no friends, and he was desirous that the facts of the case should be known, and justice done.

THE TAX UPON CARRIAGES.
Order for Committee of Supply read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR DE LACY EVANSmoved, as an Amendment, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Carriage Duties for the purpose of affording some amelioration of them.
MR. ALCOCKseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will resolve itself into a Committee on the Carriage Duties, with a view to a modification thereof.'"
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had received a deputation on the subject from the coachbuilders of the metropolis, but that he felt it impossible to give any promise to enter into the subject in detail at the present moment. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would avail
418
himself of some other opportunity, when the Government might have it in their power to consider the whole subject of taxation.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he had voted in the morning against the abolition of the duty on post-horses, because he did not think that when they were about to consider the great question of direct and indirect taxation, this was a fitting moment to deal with any particular branch. If, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman persisted in dividing upon the modification of the tax, he would vote with him, but he could not consent to vote for the total repeal of the tax.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided;—Ayes 57; Noes 17: Majority 40.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
(4.) 600 l., Female Orphan House, Dublin. Vote agreed to.
(5.) 1,500 l., Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin,
MR. GROGANwished to call the attention of the Committee to the state of this hospital; in his opinion it was a charity having very strong claims upon the Government. He objected to any diminution of the annual grant by Parliament.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected to voting any public money to the charities of Dublin. Parliament was called upon annually to vote sums of money for the maintenance of eight hospitals in Dublin, while no institutions of a similar kind in England or Scotland were thus assisted;
MR. GROGANsaid, that the English hospitals were largely endowed by Royal grants made many years ago, and that but for this circumstance they also would be dependent upon the liberality of Parliament.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to know if the question of the grants to the Irish hospitals had been formally considered and agreed to by the present Government? The late Government had considered the question, and he wished now to ascertain if the reduction in the grants was to be progressive or suspended?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the grants to all the Irish hospitals were under the considera-

419
tion of Government, but that he could not say anything further at present.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHthought it extremely satisfactory that Her Majesty's present Government had undertaken to consider the decision of their predecessors on this subject; and in common with the other Irish Members who had opposed the course taken by the late Government, he felt thankful to their successors, and if they were prepared not only to suspend that decision, but to alter it, he would support them.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(6.) 600 l., Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
(7.) 1,050 l., Doctor Stevens's Hospital, Dublin.
(8.) 2,660 l., House of Recovery and Fever Hospital, Dublin.
(9.) 350 l., Hospital for Incurables, Dublin.
(10.) Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 38,560 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1853."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that he had an Amendment to propose on this Vote. He objected to this celebrated or rather infamous Regium Donum on the ground that it was a Vote to bribe the loyalty of the people of Ireland. The objection to the Vote was universal; an argument in its favour was nowhere to be met with. No petitions were presented in favour of it; hundreds of petitions were annually presented against it; and the very congregations whose ministers this money was intended for, were conscientiously hostile to the continuance of such a grant. The late Government, through the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord John Russell), had given in the last Session a species of pledge that this Vote would be withdrawn; and as the present Government had asked for consideration, inasmuch as they were not responsible for these Estimates, he (Mr. C. Anstey) called upon them to fulfil that pledge. At least let some justification be offered for the proposition of this Vote. A late Secretary to the Treasury had distinguished himself by defending the Vote on the ground that it was the cheapest method by which the House of Commons could secure the loyalty of the north of Ireland. Let it then be fairly stated that the object was to secure the allegiance of
420
the lower classes through the corruption of their ministers. The Committee had no right, though they might have the power, to misappropriate the public funds for the support of those who desiderated the discontinuance of this grant. It was believed that this money, which was voted for Calvinistic purposes, was given to those who were not really Calvinistic ministers. That had been reported, but he would not enter into that question. His objection was more deeply rooted, for he was opposed to any permanent grants for religious purposes, and he was determined to divide the Committee on the present occasion.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had spoken of the Government bribing the Presbyterians of Ireland by this grant; but he must know very little indeed of that body, if he supposed that they would suffer themselves to be bribed by any Government. The ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland could not be bribed by any thing which that House could offer to them.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY: I never said that they could be. What I said was, that the Secretary of the Treasury, in support of this Vote last year, made such a defence of it that I was justified in putting upon it the interpretation that the Government wished to bribe the Presbyterian ministers by offering to them this grant. But, I added, that I did not think they could be bribed.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he had only to remark that, if this Vote could not be sustained upon grounds of policy and justice, he felt sure that the independent character of the Presbyterians of Ireland was such that they would reject the grant. No doubt there was no explanation of this Vote upon the Estimates; but there lay upon the table a lengthy statement, which would give the hon. and learned Gentleman all the particulars that he might desire respecting it. That document would inform him that, in the time of James I., several Presbyterians left Scotland for Ireland with the view of planting Ulster, on condition that Parliament should give stipends to their ministers. That express stipulation had been since solemnly ratified by Acts of Parliament. The Dissenters of England, therefore, in this respect, stood upon a ground totally different from that occupied by the Presbyterians of Ireland; and he felt confident that the Committee would not refuse to agree to this Vote.
CAPTAIN JONESsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) was not justified in representing the late Secretary of the Treasury to have said that this Vote was granted as a bribe to the Presbyterian ministers in Ireland. Had the Secretary of the Treasury made use of such language in that House, he (Captain Jones) should at once have protested against it. No man in that House, at all acquainted with the Presbyterians of Ireland, could assert that their loyalty and good conduct were dependent upon Parliamentary grants. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had asked what good resulted from this Parliamentary support to the Irish Presbyterian ministers? The favourable contrast which the Presbyterian presented to the Roman Catholic counties of Ireland, ought to be a sufficient answer. Let the hon. and learned Member compare the constabulary expenditure in the latter with that in the former counties, and he would see what good had resulted from this grant.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, with the view of inducing the Committee to discontinue this grant, had criticised rather severely the character of some of the recipients of it. Why, would not anybody take money if it was offered to him? It was quite true that the money was first granted in the time of James I.; but since that time what important changes in our policy had there been. The time had come in which the Presbyterians of Ireland were as capable as any other religious body of supporting their own ministers. Why should not the Dissenters of Ireland, as well as those of England and Scotland, support their own pastors? What justice or consistency could there be in endowing the ministers of the minority in Ireland, and giving nothing whatever towards the support of the Roman Catholic priests, who were the clergymen of the great majority of the people of that country? Every man should in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion par for his own clergyman, just as he did for his own doctor. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had referred to the endowment of Maynooth as a thing to be done away with as well as this grant; but he (Mr. Hume) did not think that a Vote for education, and the Vote now under the consideration of the Committee should be placed in the same category. The north of Ireland contained a rich population, and he did not think it
422
was seemly to give Parliamentary support to them whilst the poor of the rest of Ireland were made to support their clergymen without any aid from Parliament. This was a Vote which would tend to keep up disquiet and discontent in Ireland, and it was wrong, both in point of policy and of justice.
MR. STANFORDsaid, that as an independent though humble Member of that House, he was constantly placed in a most embarrassing position, in consequence of the extraordinary anomaly which existed in the British Constitution with regard to our ecclesiastical system. He had but one clear and intelligible course to pursue. It was, that being a member of the Established Church, and of opinion that the connexion of the Church with the State most conduced to the peace and hapiness of the community, he must throughout maintain that principle. When, therefore, he was called upon to vote money for Nonconformist or for Roman Catholic ministers, he asked himself, as he now asked hon. Members, how are we to maintain our established system, and yet, at the same time, grant money for the maintenance of doctrines entirely opposed to it? They must, in consistency, either declare themselves ready to maintain the principle of an Established Church, or to resort to the voluntary system. Being opposed to the voluntary system, he felt himself entitled to vote with the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, should he press for a division.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, that two aguments had been urged in favour of the Vote—-one being the antiquity of the grant, and the other that there was no feeling in Ireland against it. Now, with regard to the first of these, it was a fact that before the Union the grant had amounted not to 38,000 l., but only to the odd 8,000 l.; and, as to there being no feeling against it, he knew an instance in which one rev. gentleman had resigned his charge in consequence of receiving a share of the grant. The money was given to support ministers some of whom were orthodox (in a Calvinistic sense) and others heretical—some Trinitarians, and others Unitarians. They maintained hot controversies with each other. They fired away against each other their theological anathemas, while we paid for the powder and shot on both sides. One great objection to the grant was, that it went, not to certain members of the Presbyterian body, nor to certain ministers,

423
but that it was measured by congregations, the consequence of which was a continual temptation to multiply the number of congregations. If we looked back to the amount of population connected with Presbyterian churches in Ireland, and to the number of congregations, we should find that the population was often stationary, but that the number of congregations meanwhile continually increased; and thus a larger amount of public money was secured. Another mischievous result of the grant was, that it really tended to repress the proper zeal of the Presbyterian body (who were a wealthy class of people) in support of their ministers. Although there would perhaps be some hardship in an immediate revocation of the grant, he should certainly be in favour of reducing it by 25 per cent until it was totally abolished.
MR. WEGG-PROSSERsaid, he thought that these endowments were in the end prejudicial. To be giving them first to one religion, and then to another, was certainly prejudicial to the character of the State which imposed upon itself a semi-infidel character when it began to support simultaneously half-a-dozen religions. It would be worth while for the Committee to consider whether they proceeded on any established system with respect to the Established Church. In England the Established Church was the Church of the majority of the nation, and might, he presumed, be considered by the State and the Parliament as teaching religious truth. There was here then no anomaly, speaking legislatively even. The moment, however, they passed the Tweed, they found a Church teaching totally different and partly antagonistic doctrines— [An Hon. MEMBER: And in a minority]—and, as the hon. Member said, though of that he was not himself aware, not in a majority. Here was an anomaly. In Ireland they had the same Church as in England, but, as every body knew, it was there in a minority. They had then no clear principle, for neither truth nor majority could, in these cases, be assigned. He spoke legislatively, not theologically, and he was not speaking of any particular mode of dealing with the Established Church in Ireland. But he said this: Until you are prepared to deal with it on a large and grand scale, it is absurd to withdraw particular grants from either this sect or that. He thought the times were now so much altered from what they were a few centuries ago, that, supposing a fresh state of things starting up, no states-
424
man would think of supporting the Church in it at all. But the case was different where the Churches were already in existence. He only said, then, that finding themselves in the position they were in at present, they must not hastily revolutionise our ecclesiastical system before they were prepared to act in the matter on some clear, large, and statesmanlike principle. He could not support the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey), though he (Mr. W. Prosser) was generally opposed to endowments of this nature.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that last year the Vote of 1,696 l. was withdrawn from the poor dissenting clergy of England and Wales; and if the Committee was justified in doing that, they were not justified in voting the large sum of 38,000 l. for the Presbyterian body in Ireland, which was but a branch of a Church, established too in the richest part of Ireland. The greatest part of the dissenting clergy of England and Wales did not, on the average, get 92 l. a year; yet they were called on to support the Presbyterian clergy in Ireland, a great many of whom received a large amount from this grant.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he should oppose the grant as a foolish and mischievous mode of keeping the people quiet, if that was the object with which the grant was made. If the object was the support of truth, all experience told them that truth was not to be supported by a grant of public money. He objected, then, on every ground, to the grant, and would support the Amendment. He considered any attempt as to keeping the people of the north of Ireland quiet by bribing their ministers, was perfectly ridiculous; and a Government could not fail to be despised which attempted to do so.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYobserved, that he should not have risen upon that occasion, but for the insinuations thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Derry (Capt. Jones), to the effect that the Presbyterians of Ulster were more loyal subjects than the Catholic inhabitants of other parts of Ireland. He, for one, would never sit silent under that or any similar imputations which some hon. Gentlemen were so much in the habit of casting upon the Roman Catholic people. The hon. Member had intimated that he could scarce restrain himself from expressing more plainly his real sentiments; but he (Mr. Scully) thought it was always better to be outspoken in such matters, for the mischief

425
done was equally great, whether the false imputation was made in a direct and frank form, or by way of intelligible insinuations. He did not mean any personal discourtesy when he asserted that any statement was wholly unfounded, and utterly false, which should represent the Catholic counties as at all inferior, in genuine loyalty, to the Presbyterian counties of Ireland. It was altogether untrue as to the great Catholic county which he had the honour to represent. He did not wish to offend any hon. Members by arrogating for the Roman Catholics of Ireland any superior loyalty over the Protestant or Presbyterian bodies; but those who so flippantly imputed a want of loyalty to the Catholics of Ireland, appeared not to know the meaning of the term, which, according to Dr. Johnson, signified "a firm and faithful adherence to the Prince;" and they seemed also to forget the former history of Ireland, or they would know that the Catholics there had been to the very last the most firm and faithful adherents of Kings Charles I, and James II. No—the Catholics of Ireland were never liable to the imputation of being more disloyal, though they might, perhaps, be more discontented, on account of being always worse treated and more oppressed, than their more favoured Protestant and Presbyterian countrymen. But let not disloyalty be confounded with discontent, as was constantly done by those who desired to divert attention from the real grievances of the suffering party. Did they not all know very well that the just discontent of the whole people of Ireland was mainly attributable to the unsatisfactory state of the land question? So long as that question should remain in an unsettled state, they might expect to find discontent among the Roman Catholic as well as the Protestant and Presbyterian populations. It was idle to attribute the present condition of Ireland to its prevailing religion or race. That was not the proper occasion to discuss the land question, or the other causes of the unhappy state of Ireland; and he should abstain from now making any statements of his own, but would take the liberty of referring to two English writers, who had recently expressed their views upon the subject. The greatest of Protectionist writers (Mr. Serjeant Byles), speaking in the year 1850, states—
"What is the condition of Ireland? No description can describe it. No parallel exists or has ever existed to illustrate it. No province of the Roman Empire ever presented half the wretch-
426
edness of Ireland. At this day the mutilated Fellah of Egypt, the savage Hottentot; the New Hollander, the Negro Slave, the live chattel of Carolina or Cuba, enjoy a paradise in comparison with the condition of the Irish peasant—that is to say, with the bulk of the Irish nation. Who is responsible? Common sense says, and all Europe and America repeat it — Those who have governed Ireland are responsible. The misery of Ireland is not from the human nature that grows there. It is from England's perverse legislation, past and present. The truth is, that except in the imperfect way that the peace has been kept, Ireland has not been governed at all."
Those were the matured opinions of a distinguished Englishman in regard to the true causes of discontent in Ireland. To the same effect are the views lately expressed by Mr. Joseph Kay, another English author of great research, and who, as a Travelling Bachelor of Cambridge University, had occupied a period of eight years in examining the comparative conditions of the United Kingdom, and of the several countries in Europe. That eminent writer states—
"The Irish people, physically and intellectually considered, are one of the most active and restless people in the world. In every colony in our empire, and among the motley multitudes of the United States, the Irish are distinguished by their energy, their industry, and their success. They are industrious and successful everywhere but in Ireland. Hut at this moment there is a state of war in Ireland. Do not let us disguise it from ourselves. There is a war between landlord and tenant—a war as fierce, as relentless as though it were carried on by force of arms. Such is the frightful, the appalling result of our long government of Ireland. We have made it—I speak it deliberately—we have made it the most degraded and the most miserable country in the world, and we wonder that the Irish should rebel against such a system of misgovernment! All the world cries shame upon us; but we are equally callous to our ignominy, and to the results of our misgovernment."
He could accumulate testimonies to the same effect made by enlightened English authors, from the earliest times up to the present day, truly ascribing the present discontent and misery of Ireland to the past misgovernment of that country, especially in connexion with its land system. But he would pass to matter more germane to the proposed vote for maintaining the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland. Now, he would object to discuss separately, and in an isolated form, either the withdrawal of this grant for maintaining the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland, or the withdrawal of the small grant for educating the Roman Catholic clergy at Maynooth. If the withdrawal of either of those Government grants were to be discussed at all, they should be con-

427
sidered together, and also in connexion with the State endowments—for they were State endowments—of the Irish Established Church. He had mentioned, in a recent debate, that spiritual food for the poor Catholics of Ireland was provided by Government at. the annual rate of one penny per head, whilst each rich Protestant cost about two hundred shillings, and a Presbyterian two shillings a year. He believed that if these three endowments were to be, as the lawyers say, all brought into "hotch-potch," it would turn out that the Presbyterian body were entitled to more than two shillings per head out of the common fund, and therefore he would not be a party to depriving them of the present grant, unless all the other State endowments were, at the same time, withdrawn. He thought it, however, rather strange that some Protestants of the Established Church—such as the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton)—should argue so strenuously in support of this Presbyterian endowment, and at the same time oppose most vigorously the grant to Maynooth. Upon referring to the speech made by the hon. Member in 1845, when he had denounced the Maynooth grant, he had added that "his observations applied only to the encouragement of religions by the State which differed from each other in essential truths." Was the hon. Member aware that a portion of this very grant to the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland was given to those Unitarians who repudiated the Atonement, denied the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, disbelieved in the Trinity, and rejected altogether the Athanasian Creed? That creed was common both to Catholics and to Protestants of the Established Church. The hon. Member would find it in his standard religious work, the Book of Common Prayer, and he would also learn from it that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential truth of his Protestant creed, "which, except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." Now, he would recommend the hon. Member to consider whether these Unitarians, who denied the Trinity, did not differ more materially in essential truths than a Roman Catholic from the Protestant of the Established Church. For his own part, he conceived that the temporal endowments of every church were totally distinct from its spiritual character; and, for the reasons he had already stated, he should not at present oppose the continuance of this
428
grant to the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland.
MR. S. CARTERsaid, that the English Dissenters were opposed to the grant, and he contended that, as it came annually under discussion, there would be no hardship in withdrawing it. He would vote for its withdrawal, and in doing so he would express a hope that the Government would withdraw other objectionable grants to ecclesiastical establishments.
MR. KERSHAWwished the country could get rid of this scrambling for public money by different religious bodies. The English Dissenters had protested against the annual grant of 1,695 l. to a portion of their body until the late Government agreed to withdraw it. It appeared to him there was no utility in continuing the grant, inasmuch as it only increased the indifference of the Irish Presbyterians to support their own ministers.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he should have thought after what he had said, no hon. Gentleman could have stated that he (Mr. C. Anstey) charged the Presbyterians of Ireland with disloyalty. He said the grant was given to them as a bribe, but he had never said they received it as such.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 57; Noes 34: Majority 23.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(11.) 6,5522., Concordatum Fund (Ireland).
(12.) 10,745 l., General Board of Health.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must complain that places were put under the supervision of the Board without sufficient grounds. He contended that no application should be made to the Board by any district, before the sense of the ratepayers had been taken on the question. If he had known this Vote had been coming on, he should have made quotations from a collection of cases which had been sent to him, which would have astonished the Committee, and he hoped an early opportunity would be taken to amend the present Act by requiring a greater number of inhabitants than one-tenth to concur before a town was subjected to the expense of a preliminary investigation under the direction of the Board of Health. It frequently happened that the inhabitants of a town were surprised by the appearance of a surveyor among them, and, in a few weeks after, they found themselves placed under the supervision of the Board, contrary to their wishes, and without being able to see the names of the

429
tenth of their number, on whose requisition it was assumed the proceedings wore founded. This had been the source of many jobs.
MR. ELLIShoped that the Government would look very closely into the working of the Board of Health, as much dissatisfaction had been occasioned by their proceedings.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONbegged to remind the hon. Member for Montrose, that the Act by which the Board of Health had been established would come under the revision of Parliament in the course of the next two years, and if there was any necessity for making a change in the number of inhabitants permitted to memorialise the Board of Health, then would be the proper time to discuss the question. In the absence of the noble Lord who was at the head of the Woods and Works, he was, of course, not prepared to enter into any details with respect to the charge of mismanagement. He could state, however, that the Act had been applied to no less than 130 towns, and that there had been 231 petitions received from towns to be included under it.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that some of the complaints which had been made were owing to a decision of the House, that in these cases the majority only was not to be represented, but that a very small minority of the inhabitants should be entitled, on application, to command an investigation by the Board of Health. As the inhabitants, however, were only exposed to the expense of a preliminary inquiry, the expense could not be very great. The average cost of these inquiries was 120 l. a piece, and 330 l. was the utmost cost of a contested inquiry. He could only contrast that with the expense of a contested improvement Bill, which, in some cases, had cost tens of thousands of pounds. With regard to all other towns but Yarmouth, everything was going on very smoothly and harmoniously.
MR. HUMEsaid, he did not want to abolish the Board of Health, which he thought was capable of doing a great deal of good, but he wished to put the Board in such a position that they should not be enabled to act upon the representations of one-tenth of the inhabitants of a town.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwished to call the attention of the Government to the Metropolitan Interments Act, which had become a nullity, and which was to be superseded by a Bill now before the House. The only thing done under the Act was
430
the appointment of a Commission, of which Br. Southwood Smith was the head. He thought that as the Act was inoperative, the salaries paid to these gentlemen, amounting to 2,400 l., might be saved to the country till some opportunity arose for making their services available.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) 11,730 l. Incumbered Estates Commission (Ireland).
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he did not wish to oppose the payment of the salaries of the Commissioners, but he must say that as the Government when in Opposition had opposed the Commission, their decision, as regarded the continuance of the Bill, was sudden, and astonished the greater part of their own supporters from Ireland. One of the ablest pamphlets against the measure, in fact, was, he understood, written by a legal Member of the Government.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this resolution was not a sudden one, as stated by the hon. Gentleman. It was announced by the Government three months ago, and under existing circumstances they felt that it was impossible for them to adopt any other course. The proposition was only to continue the Commission for one year.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must ask what became of the Courts of Law in Ireland, now that there was this Commission, which had in a great measure superseded the jurisdiction exercised by them? The experiment of the Incumbered Estates Court had been tried, and he was told that it had been very successful. Were the Courts of Law in Ireland incompetent to deal with this description of business— and was it proposed to make any reduction with respect to them?
MR. NAPIERsaid, that this Court had been established to enable incumbrancers to obtain their money in an expeditious way. This mass of business the Court of Chancery could not get through, although there could not be a more enlightened and able Judge than the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In the Incumbered Estates Court, incumbrances to the amount of 28,000,000 l. had been brought forward, only 8,000,000 l. of which had been disposed of. He would merely add that, in moving the second reading of the Continuance Bill, he intended to make a statement, and to go into ail the facts he was in possession of on this subject.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(14.) 7,760 l., Lighthouses abroad.
(15.) 40,200 l., Census of the Population.
(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 4,332 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March 1853, the Expense of re-building the Chapel, &c. to the British Embassy at Constantinople."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he objected to the Vote. It contained a sum of 3,500 l. for the building of a chapel at Constantinople, and he thought that the Ambassador should provide a room in his own house for his private devotions, as there were very few British subjects resident at Constantinople.
MR. HUMEthought a detailed estimate of the expense should be laid before the House.
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, he had looked into the amounts expended for erecting a residence for our Ambassadors at Constantinople, and he found that, since 1843. it had amounted to no less than 83,765?. It was too bad, therefore, to come forward now and ask that House to erect a room for the Ambassador's private devotions; and he would divide the Committee against it.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONwould say nothing on the subject of past Votes, but he had to remind the Committee that the chapel at Constantinople was destroyed by fire two years ago, and it could hardly be denied that it was their duty to rebuild it. The chapel was for the Ambassador, the Consul General, and other British inhabitants of Constantinople.
MR. HUMEsaid, that as the name of the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works was at the foot of the Estimate, perhaps more information could be obtained from him on the subject. The Committee ought also to be informed how many English residents there were in Constantinople.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must object to the Government being made responsible for the expenditure of past years. When he was in Constantinople some years ago nearly 300 persons attended divine worship in the English chapel. The chapel was built for the use of the English residents and visitors in that city; but as the Committee wished for information on the subject, he would willingly consent to the postponement of the Vote.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that
432
he had been induced the other night to allow some Votes to be taken without a division in consequence of the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), that where-ever the English population abroad was able to do so, they would be required to furnish a certain amount before the Government would assent to the appropriation of the public money for building places of worship. If the English population at Pera were so numerous and respectable, they ought to put their hands into their own pockets, and not come to the English public for money. He objected to the postponement of the Vote.
MR. KEOGHagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, that the Vote ought not to be postponed. Besides the large sum which had been voted for the residence, the Ambassador at Constantinople received more than 12,000?. a year, besides other allowances. If the merchants at Pera, which was on the other side of the Straits, were so numerous, they ought to provide a place of public worship for themselves.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted exceedingly that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not happier in his geography. Pera was that quarter of Constantinople in which the British Ambassador resided. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not stated that 300 merchants but that 300 persons attended divine worship when he was there, which was now a good many years ago. Perhaps there were not more than thirty English merchants in Pera. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed that the Vote should be postponed, in order that his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners), who was unavoidably absent, might give to the Committee the information for which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had expressed a desire.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to the postponement of the Vote.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as the hour (nine o'clock) had arrived at which the Committee of Supply was to cease, he thought better to keep to the proposed plan, and begin with this Vote on the next Supply day. He should therefore move that the Chairman report progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 92; Noes 12: Majority 80.
The House resumed. Committee report progress.

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 74.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he understood that it was intended on the part of the Government to move certain Amendments in this clause; if that were so, it seemed a matter of some consideration how his hon. Friend behind him (Sir W. Molesworth) should make his Amendments. He would submit whether it would be more convenient to the Committee for the Government to make their Amendments in the first instance, and for his hon. Friend to be heard afterwards; or whether it would be more convenient to hear the statement of his hon. Friend first, before the Amendments of the Government were proposed. As he understood it, the Bill proposed one plan, the Government another plan, his hon. Friend another plan, and the New Zealand Company a fourth plan. In the general hustling and jostling of so many plans, the question which should have precedence ought to be determined.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the most convenient course would be, to follow out one of the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman on the question, that the 74th Clause stand part of the Bill, for his (Mr. Gladstone's) hon. Friend (Sir W. Molesworth) to state his plan to the Committee.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH: The reason why I propose the Amendment of which I have given notice is this. It is proposed by this clause that a change should be made in the legal charge which the Company has upon the waste lands of New Zealand under the Act of 1847. I propose that no such change should be made, and that in transferring the management of the waste lands from the Colonial Office to the General Assembly of New Zealand, the strict legal rights of the Company, and no more, should be reserved. Now, what are those legal rights? By the Act of 1847 a sum of 268,000 l., with interest, is charged upon and to be paid to the New Zealand Company out of the proceeds of the sales of waste lands "after deducting the outlay for surveys, and the proportion of such proceeds, which is appropriated to the purposes of emigration." Therefore the New Zealand Company is legally entitled to the residue of the pro-
434
ceeds of the sales of waste lands, after deducting the expense of surveys and of emigration. Now, I will not attempt to determine the legal question whether the Crown is entitled, if it think fit, to exhaust all the proceeds of the sales of waste lands in surveys and emigration, or whether there is some minimum portion of the proceeds of those sales which the Company could always recover by means of legal proceedings. I may assume, in argument, that there is some such minimum provided. I leave it indeterminate. By the clause which I propose, the legal rights of the Company to that minimum, whatever it may be, would he reserved in the transfer of the management of the waste lands of New Zealand from the Colonial Office to the General Assembly. What more, then, do the Company require? The Company assert that they have a moral claim to a larger portion of the proceeds of the land sales than the legal minimum; that the Colonial office has recognised that moral claim, and will satisfy that claim as long as it retains the management of the waste lands; but if that management be transferred to the General Assembly, the General Assembly will not recognise the moral claim of the Company, and will give to the Company as little as possible. Therefore the Company assert that in transferring the management of the waste lands from the Colonial Office to the General Assembly, the moral claims of the Company should be converted into legal charges upon waste lands. For instance, I will suppose, for the sake of illustration only, that the legal minimum to which the Company is now entitled is one-tenth of the proceeds of the sales of waste lands, but that the Company asserts a moral claim to one fourth. Then, say the Company, as long as the Colonial Office manages the lands, we can, by our influence in this House and elsewhere, induce the House to give us a fourth. But if the General Assembly have the management of the waste lands, they will laugh at our moral claim, and give us as little as they legally can; and therefore the Company say, that in transferring the management of the waste lands to the General Assembly, Parliament ought to convert the moral claim of the Company into a legal right, by giving to the Company one-fourth of the proceeds of the land sales. I admit that these arguments are irrefutable if the Company can establish a moral claim to more than the legal minimum. Now, I

435
deny that the Company have any moral claim to more than the legal minimum, or to any favour from Parliament. I do so for two reasons: first, because they obtained the Act of 1847 by concealing the truth from the Colonial Office, the Treasury, and Parliament; secondly, because simultaneously they induced their settlers at Nelson to agree to arrangements beneficial to the Company by concealing the truth and insinuating what was incorrect.
I am sorry that the papers which I moved for three weeks ago have not as yet been presented to Parliament. I have, however, what I believe to be authentic copies of the documents to which I am about to refer. I shall confine myself strictly to the proceedings of the New Zealand Company in 1846 and 1847. By an Act which received the Royal Assent on the 3rd of August, 1846, the Company obtained a loan from the Consolidated Fund of 100,000 l., which sum was to be repaid within seven years, with interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. The 100,000 l. were to be applied by the Company chiefly to purposes of alleged public utility. It was especially provided that no portion of this money was to be applied to the payment of any part of the debenture debt of the Company. That debt amounted to 75,000 l., with interest at 4l. 2s. per cent per annum, secured upon a subscribed but unpaid-up capital of 100,000 l. This proviso was very distasteful to the Company, for it would have obliged them to make calls upon their shareholders, and to embark more private money in a hopeless speculation. Therefore, as soon as the Company had got the consent of Parliament to a loan, they applied again to Parliament in the same Session for a second Act to set aside the proviso. The second Act received the Royal Assent twenty-three days after the first Act (August 26). It empowered the Company to pay off half of their debenture debt, with a portion of the loan from the Consolidated Fund. The money so applied was to be repaid within three years. Not content with those concessions, the Company longed for more public money; and, about two months afterwards, the Company again applied to the Colonial Office. Negotiations commenced which ended in the Act of 1847. By that Act the Company were relieved from the payment of interest on their first loan of 100,000 l., and obtained a second loan of 136,000 l., without interest; and it was
436
provided that in the event of the Company giving notice within three months after the 5th of April, 1850, that they intended to surrender their Charter, then their debt of 236,000 l. was to be remitted, and a sum of 268,000 l., with interest at the rate of 3½ per cent, was
—"to he charged upon and paid to them out of the proceeds of all sales of land in New Zealand, after deducting the outlay for surveys, and the proportion of such proceeds which is appropriated to the purposes of emigration;"
At the same time the lands of the Company were to revert to the Crown
—"upon condition of the Crown satisfying any liabilities, to which the Company may then be liable, under their existing engagements, with reference to the settlement at Nelson."
The Company gave notice on the 5th of July of their intention to surrender their Charter, and, consequently, by the Act of 1847, the Crown is now liable for all engagements between the Company and their settlers at Nelson, which existed in 1847, and have not since been cancelled. It was, therefore, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as special guardian of the public purse, to ascertain the liabilities of the Company towards their Nelson settlers before he assented to the Act of 1847; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did his duty to the best of his power; for, about November, 1846, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to the New Zealand Company a paper of inquiry; and among the topics upon which he required information were—
"Claims of Settlers on the Company, which they (the Company) conceive to be good against Government in the event of the Company breaking up? With the grounds of both these claims and their amount. Nature of settlers' claims."
Now, before the Company replied to these questions, they had submitted a case for the advice of their standing counsel, touching their liabilities with reference to their settlement at Nelson, and had received the opinion of their counsel to the effect that they were under immense liabilities, that the Company had failed to perform their contract with reference to that settlement, were liable for its non-performance, might be called upon to refund the moneys which they had received from purchasers of allotments, with interest and damages. If this opinion were correct, the legal claims of the purchasers of allotments at Nelson upon the Company, which would have been good against the Government, in the event of the Company breaking up, would have amounted perhaps to a couple of hundred

437
thousand pounds, or even more. Now, the Company, with this legal opinion in their possession, and without having obtained any contradictory opinion, did not hesitate, in their answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated the 23rd and 24th of December, 1846, and the 9th of January, 1847, to omit all mention of these legal claims of the settlers of Nelson; and the Company did, by the dexterous wording of their answer, produce in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the belief that the claims of the settlers were merely moral ones, and, to use his own expression, "amounted to nothing more than what any settlers claim, that is, the protection of good government." I put the question to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood): was he aware in December, 1846, or in January, 1847, or at any other period before the passing of the Act of 1847, of the legal opinion to which I have referred? Was he aware that the purchasers of allotments at Nelson had any legal claims on the Company, except with reference to that fund, which amounted to about 25,000 l., and is quite a distinct matter? Now, about a week after the last answer of the Company to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they received a letter from Mr. Hawes (dated January 16, 1847), enclosing a copy of a petition from Nelson Parliament. This petition was presented by Mr. Hawes on the 8th of February, 1847. It stated that—
"The site chosen for Nelson had been found wholly inadequate to the fulfilment of the Company's liabilities;" that there was a "general impression that it was not the intention of the Company to fulfil its contracts, or to make any compensation to the purchasers."
The petitioners prayed that the House would take measures to enable them to obtain legal redress.
Before the Company replied to the letter containing this petition, they submitted a second case touching their liabilities, with reference to Nelson, to a second counsel, whose name I will not mention; for though he is of undoubted legal attainments, the Company's first counsel would not have met him in consultation, and he is not permitted to practise in a Court of Law. The Company received the opinion of their second counsel on the 21st of January, 1847; it was very different from that of their first counsel, and then they answered (on the 26th of January, 1847) Mr. Hawes's letter; in their reply they omitted all men-
438
tion of the opinion of their first counsel, and assured Mr. Hawes that—
"Their own personal conviction had been distinctly confirmed by counsel of eminence to the effect that they had not failed in the performance of any contract with their Nelson settlers which they could be legally called upon to fulfil."
Again, on the 23rd of April, 1847, the Company addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonics a formal statement, which was presented to the House, and formed the Parliamentary basis of the Act of 1847. In that statement they should have inserted all claims of their settlers upon them; but they omitted all mention of the legal claims of the Nelson settlers for nonperformance of contract, and only mentioned their liabilities to those settlers on account of the trust fund, as amounting to between 25,000 l. and 31,000 l. The statement was sent to the Treasury with a letter from the Colonial Office, dated May 6, 1847, in which Mr. Stephen described the liabilities of the Company to the Nelson settlers over and above the 25,000 l. of the trust fund, as the small balance of a disputed account, not worth mentioning. Accompanying this letter was the draught of Lord Grey's reply to the Now Zealand Company, which was sent for the sanction of the Treasury prior to an application to Parliament for the Act of 1847. In that draught Lord Grey stated that he is assured that the liabilities of the Company to the Nelson settlers (over and above the 25,000 l. of trust money) "can only be some small amount of debt which may possibly be found due to those settlers on a settlement of some accounts of which the balance cannot be exactly ascertained."
In consequence of these statements and assurances of the Lords of the Treasury signified (May 10, 1847) that they would concur in an application to Parliament for the Act of 1847, these letters were presented to Parliament in June, 1847. They prove that the Act of 1847 was obtained in complete ignorance on the part of Parliament, of the Colonial Office, and of the Treasury—first, that there was a legal opinion to the effect that the Company was under immense liabilities to their settlers at Nelson; and, secondly, that the Crown would have to satisfy those liabilities in the event of the Company breaking up. The papers for which I have moved will also show that the legal opinion to which I have referred was concealed from the Colonial Office, and from the Treasury,

439
and a second and different opinion was brought prominently under the notice of the Colonial Office. It must he admitted that these proceedings of the Company were very questionable ones. At the same time, I am bound to state, that Lord Grey, in a letter to the New Zealand Company dated November, 1848, stated that—
"He had much satisfaction on coming to the conclusion that the directors of the New Zealand Company must he entirely acquitted of having concealed in their negotiations with the Government any claim which they believed to have any foundation."
The terms of this acqnittal show that there was concealment, though in Lord Grey's opinion it was not improper; and, in fact, in the same letter Lord Grey stated—
"That he never had any expectation at the time of the negotiations with the Company in the early part of 1847, that claims could be advanced by the Nelson settlers with any reasonable prospect of success, of the indefinite character and to the vast amount described by the Commissioner for the affairs of New Zealand."
I must observe that the Commissioner, in his report of the 24th of November, 1847, made Lord Grey acquainted with the fact, previously unknown to his Lordship, that there were two adverse opinions with regard to the Company's liabilities to their Nelson settlers, and recommended Lord Grey to have an amended case submitted for the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown. This recommendation Lord Grey disregarded. I must also observe, that Lord Grey acceeded to the request of the Company in their letter of the 28th of March, 1848, that the opinion of their first counsel, which was favourable to the Nelson settlers, and unfavourable to the Company, should continue to be concealed from those settlers. And I must add, that one of those settlers had brought an action against the Company, and the Company had compromised it by paying the settler the sum to which he would have been legally entitled if the opinion of the first counsel had been correct.
I now come to the proceedings of the Company towards their purchasers of allotments at Nelson, which seem to me to he far more questionable than those which I have just mentioned. In order to understand those proceedings, I must observe that on the 15th of February, 1841, the New Zealand Company issued a prospectus for the formation of a second settlement, to be called Nelson; and they offered for sale allotments of land in that settlement, which allotments were to fulfil certain con-
440
ditions. In the first instance, about 315 persons bought 442 allotments of 201 acres each, at 300 l. per allotment, for which they must have paid about 132,600 l. About eighty of these purchasers emigrated to Nelson. On arriving there they found that the Company could not fulfil the conditions upon which the allotments had been purchased. The settlers complained of a breach of contract, and demanded compensation. The Company then proposed a method of arranging the differences between them and their settlers, to which the settlers refused their assent; whereupon the Company submitted (as I have already said) a case for the advice of their standing counsel touching their liabilities to their Nelson settlers. Before they received the opinion of their standing counsel, the Company wrote a letter (November 26, 1846) to their agents, Colonel Wakefield and Mr. Fox, in New Zealand, to the effect that the "one great object of the Company was to act for the benefit" of Nelson, therefore they had caused a case to he submitted for the advice of counsel, that they would be guided by that advice. They invited, also, the "freest communication of sentiment on the part of the settlers, and of opinion and advice on the part of their agents;" and they concluded with pledging themselves "to adopt the course best calculated to identify the Company with the Colonists, and to promote permanently the united interests of both." Now, it appears from papers in the possession of the House, that this letter, on its arrival at Nelson, was circulated amongst the settlers, and produced in the minds of the settlers the belief that further information had been promised them. It excited an impression favourable to the Company, and, in fact, humbugged the settlers; for I am sorry to say the Company played identically the same trick to the settlers as they were simultaneously playing to the Colonial Office and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with this difference, that they concealed the truth from the Government and Parliament, while to their settlers they not only concealed the truth, but insinuated what was positively incorrect; for a few days after they had written that letter they received (December 4, 1846), the opinion of the counsel referred to in it. Now, I must observe that this counsel was one of the largest shareholders in the Company, and that his pecuniary interests were identical with those of the Company. Yet, as I have already observed, his opinion

441
was to the effect that the Company had failed to perform their contract with the purchasers of allotments at Nelson, were liable for the non-performance of that contract, might be called upon to refund the purchase-money, and to pay interest and damages in addition. The Company did not send this opinion to New Zealand, but carefully concealed it from their settlers and their agents, as they had concealed it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Office; but they procured, as I have already said, a second opinion from a second counsel, which was very different from the opinion of their first counsel. This second opinion the Company forwarded, on the 28th of January, 1847, to their agents in New Zealand, as if it were the opinion referred to in their letter of the 26th of November, 1846, and which opinion their agents and settlers had been expecting. Along with this second opinion they enclosed their reply to Mr. Hawes with regard to the petition against them from Nelson, and they called the especial attention of their agents to that portion of their reply to Mr. Hawes, in which they asserted that—
"Counsel of eminence had confirmed the personal conviction of the Company that they had not failed in performing any contract with their settlers at Nelson, which they could be legally called upon to fulfil."
When this second opinion, with its corroborating documents, reached New Zealand, it was extensively circulated among the settlers at Nelson. It passed for unquestionable law, for there was, probably, no one in the Colony who knew anything about the second counsel. This opinion was used with the utmost success by the agents of the Company to induce the settlers to agree to certain arrangements beneficial to the Company.
Colonel Wakefield, in a letter dated 23d of August, 1847, wrote to the Company that the opinion (of the second counsel)—
"has been sufficiently promulgated by me to dispel a notion on the part of some of the purchasers that it would not be unwise for them to seek compensation by legal proceedings; "and he added," the case of repurchase by the Company of land-orders in this settlement had given hopes to many who would now prefer to have their money again; that the directors had found the Company responsible on the point—the partial disclosure of the legal opinion, with an assurance that it had been only taken with a view of deciding on the above named point"—
(I have shown that it was only taken with a view of obtaining an opinion favourable to the Company)
442
—"has had the effect on some of inducing them to accept the proposed terms."
It is a duty which I owe to the memory of Colonel Wakefield to state my belief that, in using the opinion of the second counsel in the manner which he did, neither he nor Mr. Fox were aware of the opinion of the first counsel, or that such an opinion existed. Mr. Fox is at present in England; he assures me that both he and Colonel Wakefield believed that the opinion of the second counsel was the one which was referred to in the Company's letter of the 26th of November, 1846, and which both they and the settlers had been expecting; that if he and Colonel Wakefield had known the contrary, they would never have consented to make the use which they did of that opinion; that he had never heard of the existence of the opinion of the first counsel till he returned to this country last year; and that he believed that up to the present moment the Nelson settlers were ignorant of that fact. Thus the Company, who had assured the settlers of Nelson that "their one great object was to act for the benefit" of Nelson, concealed from those settlers the opinion favourable to the interest of settlers, and, instead of that opinion which the Company had promised to send, they palmed off upon their settlers another opinion adverse to the interest of the settlers, favourable to the interest of the Company; and thus they tricked their settlers into an arrangement to which they would never have agreed had they suspected the good faith of the Company. Would such an arrangement be held valid by a Court of Equity? As far as the morality of the proceedings of the Company were concerned, it matters little whether the opinion of the first counsel, or that of the second counsel, was the correct one. For nothing can justify the concealment of the first opinion, and the substitution of the second opinion for it. The Company has, however, asserted that their personal conviction was, that the first opinion was wrong, that the second opinion was right, and that they had concealed the first opinion out of regard for the settlers, lest it should mislead them and prevent an "equitable adjustment of disputes" between them and the Company.
Now, I will state some facts which induce me to believe that finally, at least, the Company arrived at the conviction that the opinion of the first counsel was the sounder one of the two, and that they were

443
really under heavy liabilities to their settlers at Nelson; for an action was brought against them by one of their Nelson settlers, and the Company did refund the purchase money which they had received from that settler, and paid him damages in addition. This settler was named Beit. In 1842 he had purchased from the Company four allotments at Nelson, for which he had paid the sum of 1,500 l. He emigrated to Nelson with his wife and family; he remained there five years in a condition similar to that of almost all the settlers at Nelson, namely, without having been able to obtain from the Company the fulfilment of their engagements towards him as a purchaser of allotments at Nelson. He then returned to this country, and applied to the Colonial Office for redress, stating his intention to petition Parliament against the Company. The Colonial Office recommended Mr. Beit not to do so, and referred him to the Commissioner, who was to be appointed under the Act of 1847 to superintend the affairs of the Company. The Commissioner was directed to report upon Mr. Beit's case and that of the Nelson settlers generally. The Report was dated the 24th of November, 1847. In that Report the Commissioner brought under the cognisance of the Colonial Office for the first time the fact that the Company had taken two opinions on the subject of their legal liabilities to their settlers at Nelson, that those opinions were different, and he recommended "that an amended case should be prepared, and a third opinion taken." This recommendation was disregarded by the Colonial Office. A copy of the Commissioner's Report was transmitted to the Company by the Colonial Office, but refused to Mr. Beit. The Company complained very much of the Report, and requested the Colonial Office to allow Governor Grey to become arbitrator between them and their settlers. The Colonial Office complied with this request, and Mr. Beit was recommended to return to New Zealand, and to submit to the arbitration of Governor Grey. Mr. Beit refused, preferred an English Court of Justice, and commenced an action against the Company. Mr. Beit's action was for breach of contract and damages, in respect of his having purchased from the Company five allotments at Nelson. The Company immediately moved for a Commission to proceed to New Zealand to take evidence, and that proceedings should be stayed until the Commission should report. But Mr. Beit's
444
counsel at once offered to admit all the facts upon which the Company had grounded its application to the Court, and the Commission was refused. It was then agreed that the case should be referred to arbitration, and an arbitrator was appointed by the Court. Then the Company appointed their second counsel, who had given so strong an opinion in their favour to defend them and his own opinion. Mr. Beit's counsel refused to meet the Company's second counsel, and appealed to the arbitrator, the Hon. G. Denman. The arbitrator took time to consider, and to ask superior advice; and finally refused to hear the Company's second counsel. The Company had to appoint another counsel. After two or three hearings they negotiated a compromise with Mr. Beit, by which they consented to repurchase from Mr. Beit for about 3,000 l. the property which had been sold him for 1,500 l. It is impossible to believe that the Company would ever have consented to this compromise if they had really believed in the soundness of the opinion given by their second counsel, that they were under no legal liabilities to their settlers at Nelson. If that opinion were incorrect, and the opinion of the first counsel correct, then in 1846, at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer inquired what were the claims of the Nelson settlers upon the Company, their liabilities to those settlers may have been immense; for, up to 1846, the Company had sold allotments at Nelson, for which they had received 162,240 l. It is said that the case of each of the purchasers of these allotments was the same as that of Mr. Beit. If this were so, and each of them had agreed to the same compromise with the Company as Mr. Beit did, the liabilities of the Company in 1846 to purchasers of allotments at Nelson would have amounted to 320,000 l. This, however, is a mere guess. It is certain, however, that whatever now remains of those liabilities has been transferred to the Government by the Act of 1847.
MR. GLADSTONEhere called the hon. Baronet's attention to a passage in a volume which he placed before him.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH: My right hon. Friend has pointed out to me some circumstances which he thinks makes the case worse against the Company; but I leave him to settle that. What I mean to say is, that the Government will have to satisfy all liabilities of the Company which existed in 1846 to purchasers of allotments at Nelson, which have not since been can-

445
celled by valid arrangements. Now, the question arises whether a Court of Equity would hold arrangements to be valid which had been obtained in the manner which I have mentioned—namely, by concealing the opinion of the Company's first counsel, and substituting the opinion of the second counsel. In a court of morality it would be pronounced that such arrangements had been obtained by fraud. Whether they would be set aside on such grounds in a Court of Equity I cannot pretend to say; but if any of them could be so set aside, then in each case the liabilities of the Company would be revived and transferred to the Government by the Act of 1847. Now, I have proved, first, that in obtaining the Act of 1847, the Company concealed from the Colonial Office, the Treasury, and Parliament, the opinion of their standing counsel, to the effect that they were under heavy liabilities to their purchasers of allotments at Nelson, which the Crown would have to satisfy in the event of the Company's breaking up; and, secondly, I have proved that the Company concealed from their settlers and agents at Nelson the opinion of their first counsel, which they declared they were taking for the mutual benefit of themselves and their settlers; and, by substituting the opinion of a second counsel of more than questionable character, they deceived their agents, and deceived their settlers into arrangements beneficial to the Company, and to which the settlers would never have consented had they been aware of the opinion of the first counsel. And I must repeat that the opinion of the first counsel has been confirmed by the compromise entered into between the Company and one of their settlers, who compelled them to repurchase his allotments at twice the sum which he had paid the Company for them. I come, therefore, to the conclusion that the Company is entitled to no favour from Parliament; that it has no moral claims to anything more than its strictest legal rights; and therefore, in transferring the management of the waste lands of New Zealand from the Colonial Office to the General Assembly, nothing more than the strict legal rights of the Company should be reserved. That is, I propose that they should remain entitled to the residue of the produce of the land sales in New Zealand after deducting surveys and emigration to precisely the same extent to which they are now legally entitled under 10 and 11 Vict., c. 112. I beg to move, therefore—
446
"That in Clause 74, all the words be omitted after, 'And,' to 'Provided,' and the following inserted, 'Nothing in this Act, or in any Act, Law, or Ordinance, to be made by the said General Assembly, or by any Provincial Assembly, shall affect or interfere with so much of an Act of the Session holden in the 10th and 11th year of Her Majesty, cap. 112, 'to promote colonisation to New Zealand, and to authorise a loan to the New Zealand Company,' as relates to a, certain sum, with interest, to be charged upon and paid to the New Zealand Company, out of the proceeds of all future sales of demesne lands of the Crown in New Zealand, after deducting the outlay for surveys and the proportion of such proceeds which is appropriated to the purposes of emigration.'"
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he did not know whether it would be convenient for the Committee that he should reply at that moment. He was sorry to say that he could not do so very shortly, unless the Committee should agree, as he hoped they would, that it was utterly impossible that they could be a proper tribunal to inquire into and decide upon the question, involving, as it did, not only very important interests as regarded the Crown, the country, and the settlers, and still more as regarded the character of gentlemen as high in station, as independent in principle, and as high in honour as the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the question. Being connected with the Company whoso character and honour had been assailed in the speech just delivered, he felt compelled to follow the hon. Baronet, who, he must say, had not treated the Company fairly in bringing forward his charges upon the authority of Mr. Cowell, an individual who bad been relieved from the duties of his office by Lord Grey, on ground that did not redound to his credit, for it was discovered that he had been in the habit of taking private notes of confidential conversations among gentlemen without their knowledge, with the intention of using them against the Company. The difference between the settlers at Nelson and the Company was referred by the directors to the decision of Mr. Cowell and Mr. Godley, a gentleman of the very highest character, and now connected with the Canterbury Association. When it was discovered that a cabal was being got up against the Company in order to make an attack upon them in the House of Commons, Mr. Godley was asked if he had taken the notes of the confidential conversation; and that gentleman replied, "Certainly not," and that he would as soon have thought of taking notes of what was said by his wife, Mr. Cowell thereupon brought out of his pocket writ-

447
ten notes of the conversation. Mr. Godley denied the accuracy of the notes, and Mr. Cowell acknowledged that they were written from his recollection two or three days after; upon which Mr. Godley answered that his own recollection was as good as Mr. Cowell's. This fact, he thought, ought to he a caution to the Committee against relying too readily upon statements based upon the authority of the hon. Baronet's informant. The hon. Baronet accused the Company of concealing the facts in their reply to the official queries of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of having obtained an Act of Parliament founded upon that concealment. He was sure that the hon. Baronet, when he came to think of the matter calmly, and apart from Mr. Cowell, would regret that he had brought such charges forward against the New Zealand Company without communicating to them beforehand the nature of the charges he intended to bring against them; for, if he had done so, he (Mr. Aglionby) would have been prepared with a written document in reply to every one of them. As it was, he could only give a general denial to the hon. Gentleman's charges. But it was impossible for the Committee to deal with this question. He would never rest satisfied until he had the impartial tribunal of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, before which every document and paper should be produced, and the fullest explanations given. The hon. Baronet might pride himself on raking up, on the information of Mr. Cowell, disputes that would lead to endless litigation and dissatisfaction, but which were settled long ago, and with which Lerd Grey declared himself satisfied. The Nelson settlement was originally founded upon the recommendation of a director who had since left the Board. It was believed at the time to have been based on sound principles of colonisation; and every director of the Company thought so well of it that he as well as all the other directors became purchasers and holders of land according to the terms of the prospectus. Their original object was to obtain land in a certain part of the island under the sanction of Government; but at that time the Colonial Office was not favourable to them, and the Governor of New Zealand was in deadly hostility against them. They sent out Captain Wakefield, in whom they had perfect confidence, to select a settlement; and, had he been allowed to follow his own judgment, he would probably have selected
448
either the place which was now the site of the Canterbury settlement, or that which was the site of the Otago settlement; but he did the best he could in the circumstances in which he was placed, and fixed upon Nelson. The Company had not proceeded far with the settlement of Nelson when disputes of the bitterest kind broke out between the settlers and the Company. He would, however, give the hon. Baronet the benefit of the admission that the settlement at Nelson did not fulfil the strict letter of the law. The Company's agent did his best, but the land was mountainous, the harbour was not so good as was expected, those who bought suburban sections were driven over the mountains away from the towns, and others complained of better unsold allotments not being given to them. Altogether, he was inclined to admit that the scheme was not well advised, and that it had not answered the expectations either of the Company or of the settlers; but he received a letter only that day from a young man who had been ten years in the colony, and he gave a good account of the settlement. Again, those who bought land knew perfectly well the certainty that existed about the selection of their allotments, although they demanded many things which he thought unreasonable, but which it was perhaps natural they should desire. He now came to the most important point of the hon. Baronet's charge against the Company, he meant the opinions of counsel with re-regard to the claims of the settlers — and here he begged to say that if there was anything unjustifiable in that, he took the blame upon himself. He acquitted his brother directors of any participation in it beyond the fact of acting upon his advice. When he saw the opinion of the first connsel, he at once declared that it was wholly untenable in law. The Board, however, took Mr. Buckle's opinion, and that gentleman thought the settlers had some claim—he did not say what. He (Mr. Aglionby) disagreed with that opinion, and expressed his reasons for so doing. He was not satisfied, and he directed the solicitor to take a second counsel's opinion. The solicitor went to one of the ablest men at the Bar; and here he must say he lamented that the hon. Baronet should have raked up and dragged before the House of Commons a painful transaction in which that gentleman was engaged twenty years ago, as if such a circumstance could render his opin-

449
ion on a point of law less valuable. He deeply regretted that a feeling of that sort had been imported into the debate. Let the hon. Baronet say anything he pleased about him (Mr. Aglionby), he was ready to meet him in any Court of Law; but to attack a gentleman for something that passed twenty years ago, as if it affected his legal opinion—bah! That gentleman's opinion was in opposition to Mr. Buekle's; he (Mr. Aglionby) believed it was a good opinion, and he abided by it, as he would be ready to do now in any Court of Law in the kingdom. With regard to the hon. Baronet's accusation about an expression in the secretary's letter seeming, as he alleged, to refer to one legal opinion, when in fact it meant another, he would pass that by. The gravamen of the charge was, that, having two legal opinions before him—the one adverse and the other favourable to the interests of the Company —he (Mr. Aglionby) sent out to the party making the claim the opinion favourable to the Company, Now, he acknowledged that he had done so, and he would do it again. Lord Grey, whose high feeling no man would impugn, was made cognisant of the two opinions, and he gave his sanction to the course the Company had adopted in sending out the opinion they thought the right one. He had Lord Grey's letter in his possession, and he would preserve it till his dying day. He would take Lord Grey's acquittal as soon as any man's. But, better still, he had his own acquittal, and in matters of honour he thought a man could sleep best when supported by his own sense of rectitude; and that fully acquitted him also. But what effect could all that have had on the Company's Act of Parliament? He should like to see Lord Grey's opinion on that point. Lord Grey was not supposed to be too favourable to the Company, and he would appeal to him now if he were in that House. But if he gave the Company that Act of Parliament upon any misrepresentation with regard to that legal opinion, there was an end of that question. Even if a Court of Equity were to decide against them on this matter, it could only affect the Nelson liabilities. Now what was the fact regarding these liabilities? He held in his hand a letter written by the late Mr. Charles Buller, apparently in answer to some one who had asked him whether any ground existed for saying that the claims of the Nelson settlers had been intentionally understated. He would not read the letter, which was
450
long, though any gentleman was welcome to see it; but Mr. Charles Buller stated in effect that he had not been misled, that he always knew and always stated that the New Zealand Company would certainly have to pay 25,000 l., and that they could not have to pay more than 60,000 l. As to the case of Mr. Beit, who was an extremely clever and unscrupulous German, he had not brought his action for claims on the Nelson settlement, but for arrears and interest of salary, the value of a pier and land; and the matter was referred to arbitration. On the settlement of that, as of every other charge against the Company, he was perfectly satisfied. Every document and paper in their office had been laid before the Commissioners, and were at the service of any Member of the House; and let Mr. Cowell and the hon. Baronet do their worst, he did not believe the Government would have to pay more than the 25,000 l. they had spent. The Company had spent more than 100,000 l. in Nelson on emigration, surveys, &c, more than they were obliged to do by the terms of their prospectus; but they might not be able to claim it in consequence of their not having observed the proper ratio of its distribution. He believed the Company was in safe hands with the right hon. Baronet opposite the Colonial Secretary; and he hoped he should not be considered pertinacious if, after what had passed, he claimed for himself and the Company an inquiry into all the circumstances by two or three persons accustomed to equity proceedings, who might be named by the Government, being perfectly conscious he and his Colleagues would, by their decision, be acquitted of all intentional wrong-doing or discreditable conduct.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I have listened to the two speeches that have been addressed to the Committee by the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby, with a deep feeling of pain, as regards this subject, in which I think the Committee also must have participated. Having heard the speech of the hon. Baronet, I felt that the better course to take was to remain silent until I should have heard a reply to that speech from some hon. Gentlemen connnected with the New Zealand Company. Having heard the accusations of the hon. Baronet, and the reply of the hon. Member for Cockermoth, I think I shall be able to show the Committee that

451
there can be no occasion for continuing this discussion; that the question at issue can have no bearing whatever on the proposition which I have made to the Committee, and therefore I hope the Committee will not be led away from the consideration of the Bill now before it. Whatever differences may exist between the hon. Gentlemen, may be made matter of inquiry. Hon. Gentlemen charged with fraudulent practices are naturally anxious to demand inquiry, but then that is not the question before us at present. The only matter of accusation advanced by the hon. Baronet to which I shall address myself is this, that I have given the Company better terms by this Bill than they merited, or are entitled to, inasmuch as that by the Act of 1847 terms were obtained of a favourable nature from the then Government, owing to the concealment by the Company of their liabilities from Government. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark supports that accusation by saying that the Company first obtained the opinion of an eminent counsel, which being adverse to them, they proceeded to take the opinion of another learned counsel, whose character was under some suspicion, and whose opinion being favourable, the Company palmed it off, suppressing the unfavourable opinion; and that in this manner the Company obtained better terms than they otherwise would obtain. The hon. Baronet, having made that accusation, infers that consequently the New Zealand Company is now only entitled to the bare terms of the Act of 1847. That I understand to be the position of the hon. Baronet. This accusation the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth (Mr. Aglionby) indignantly repudiates, with all the feeling natural to any Gentleman charged with being a party, however indirectly to such a transaction, as well in his own behalf as in the name of the New Zealand Company. The hon. Gentleman also stated that, whatever the shade on the character of the learned counsel, he was a man of great eminence as a lawyer, and entitled to the deepest respect. Under these circumstances I ask the Committee if it can be possibly considered that I can come forward and act judicially just now, years after the transaction; and when urging a Bill for a different purpose, to ask this House, when deciding on this Bill, to act judicially in these proceedings, and thus by our vote condemn one party or the other? Now I consider I am bound by honour and justice to abide by the construc-
452
tion which my predecessor (Earl Grey) put upon this transaction. Whatever may have been the impositions, as regards the arrangement of 1847, surely this House will admit that nothing is so inconsistent as that an individual in the position of Earl Grey—possessing his ability and experience, with ample opportunity of arriving at facts—nothing, I repeat, can be more inconsistent than to suppose that he was not only deceived in 1847, but that he continued to be imposed upon for three years longer, and that after the Company had surrendered their Charter he proceeded in 1850 to put this construction upon the terms of the Act of 1847 with regard to the claims of the New Zealand Company under that Act. Can, I then, as promoter of this Bill, act judicially between the parties? It seems to me perfectly clear that it is the duty of this House to look to the Act of 1847, and to the transactions that afterwards took place—to the surrender of the Charter by the Company in three years after, and to the purchase of the rights of the Company by the Crown for 268,000 l. I must confess that, after hearing the various discussions that took place in this House, and weighing the subject maturely and impartially, I feel it my imperative duty to take care that, in justice, the New Zealand Company shall not be sufferers by the Act of 1847. I must first look to the Act of 1847, and next impartially examine what is the fair and true construction of that Act. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark says—"Leave the New Zealand Company to the Act of 1847." Now, though that looks very well, yet every person who has studied the Act is aware that there is a particular clause so defective, owing to the manner in which it is drawn, that it really cannot be carried into effect. That clause lays down that every pound realised by the. sale of land shall he divided into three parts—one for emigration, one for survey, and the remaining balance handed to the Company. But the Company very naturally say, "If you hand us over to the mercy of the new Legislature, we know not how they may treat us—they may leave us no balance at all to divide, having previously spent the receipts on emigration and surveying." As regards the construction put by Earl Grey upon this Act, it is not for me to say that that noble Lord overstrained his duty in giving that construction. I believe he took a fair and conscientious view of the matter; and to that opinion I shall adhere.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, his opinion from the first had been, that it would be preferable not to proceed with this Bill without some inquiry; and certainly, if they were to go into the consideration of the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, the proper course would have been, before coming to any resolution upon it, to have submitted it to a Committee of the House. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary had given any sufficient reason for a departure from the Act of 1847. He said himself that the clause which he introduced he had found in an Act intended for a totally different purpose. Why then introduce it here? The right hon. Baronet said, that he was bound to do so, because he was creating a new Legislature in New Zealand; but that was no reason, unless he were creating a Legislature which he entirely distrusted. The simple question for them to decide was, whether they should put the New Zealand Company in a better position than they were in 1847, because the right hon. Baronet could not deny that the clause which he now proposed did place that Company in a better position. By the Act of 1847 their claim was indefinite; it was merely a claim after the expense of surveys and emigration, and it might be large or small; but the claim which the right hon. Baronet now gave them was fixed and definite, from which there was no departure. That Company, he contended, without meaning, of course, to impute any bad motives, had been throughout merely a trading Company, and he argued that they had no claim whatever upon this country. Could they show that they had made any sacrifice for the public good? They had sacrificed their money in a bad speculation, he admitted, and that had been strongly represented by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1847, when he described them as an insolvent Company, and spoke of them as "destitute shareholders." If that were the case in 1847, he was afraid that their position was not much improved in 1852, for he found that their scrip was at a discount of something like seventy-five per cent. The Company then had no claim beyond that of strict justice. Strict justice had been done them, as they themselves considered, in 1847; and he saw no reason for departing from that Act, unless the Government had the most utter distrust of the integrity of the new Legislature, which, by the present Bill, they were
454
creating. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Southwark divided, he must divide with him.
MR. P. PEELsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had complained that no reason had been given why, in the present Bill, there was a departure from the arrangement made in the Act of 1847; and as the arrangement included in the present Bill was made under the auspices of Earl Grey, when he (Mr. Peel) held a subordinate appointment in the Colonial Office, he might be allowed to state briefly why he considered that that arrangement deserved the support of the Committee. There was no doubt of the existence of a debt due to the New Zealand Company. He thought the hon. Member for Southwark had shown no ground why they should in any way repudiate that debt, and it seemed to him the question for them to consider was, how they could discharge it with the least burthen to the colony of New Zealand. There could be no doubt that the Imperial Treasury should incur no liability with respect to it. It was equally clear that it could not be charged upon the general revenue of the colony of New Zealand. The debt had been charged upon the land of New Zealand, and he presumed that by the land it ought to be discharged. The Committee had two courses before it—the plan of the Government, and the plan of the hon. Member for Southwark. The hon. Member for Southwark appeared to think that the plan of the Government was all in favour of the Company, and all to the detriment of the colony. To him (Mr. Peel) it appeared on the other hand to be not unattended with considerable sacrifices on the part of the Company, while it was of obvious benefit and advantage to the colony. He set aside altogether Canterbury and Otago as special cases, and dealt with specially by this Bill. With those exceptions, the land of the colony was situated either within or without the settlements of the Company. As to the land within those settlements, the Company were entitled to receive 5s. for every acre of land which was sold; and that right had been guaranteed to them by an Act of Parliament so late as last year. According to the plan of the Government, they consented to abandon that right, and agreed to accept one-fourth only of the price of the land. The General Assembly might, and no doubt would, reduce the price of the land, and the consequence would be that the Company would receive less than both

455
in law and equity they were at present entitled to receive. That, he conceived, was a sacrifice on the part of the Company which entitled them to some consideration. With regard to the land which was without the Company's settlements, the Act of 1847 stipulated that the proceeds of the land sales, after deducting the outlay on surveys and emigration, should he applied to the discharge of the debt due to the Company. Under the new arrangement comprehended in this Bill, the Company would receive a fixed share of one-fourth part of the proceeds; but if this was advantageous to the Company, it was not less so to the colony. By the course which the Government had taken, they had opened the way for expending a portion of the proceeds of the land sales on other purposes than surveys and emigration. At present they could not expend money in any other purposes; but by this arrangement they had opened up other ways, and, no doubt, the General Assembly would expend it in the improvement of the agricultural districts, in the construction of roads, the erection of public works, and other useful purposes. Upon these grounds, he thought that the late Government were justified in making the arrangement at which they had arrived.
MR. MANGLESsaid, after Earl Grey had given the New Zealand Company a deliberate acquittal on the charges brought against them, every man of honour must protest against being again arraigned on such charges. He was as anxious as any one that the Colonists should have the full and speedy benefit of the Bill, and would not willingly take any step calculated to postpone its passing. With respect to the arrangement of 1847 and the Act of 1847, the negotiation of the Government was conducted by the late Mr. Charles Buller, the then Judge Advocate, who was entirely cognisant of the affairs of the Company, none of which could have been concealed from the Government. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), in throwing dirt upon the Company, was throwing far more on a gentleman who was his personal friend; and if he felt thus disposed to treat his deceased friend, how would he be likely to treat his living enemies? The hon. Baronet had been, as he (Mr. Mangles) was, a director of the New Zealand Company, but when they were in difficulties in 1843, the hon. Baronet found it inconvenient to remain with them, and left them in the lurch. He (Mr. Mangles) would not leave those gentlemen,
456
with whom he had been associated for many years, in their difficulties, hut would stand by them to the best of his humble ability. And now he turned from personal matters to the claim before the Committee. The hon. Baronet had stated that the Company considered they had not only a legal claim but a moral one upon the proceeds of the waste lands. The Company had never asserted such a claim. They had asserted a legal claim under the Act of 1847; they had a legal claim under it when it was equitably read. If they were left in the same position, they would be content without this Clause, but they were not to he so left. At the present time the New Zealand Company had money owing to them from the Colony, which they had continually asked for, hut could not obtain; and if, now that they looked to the Colonial Office for payment of their mortgage money, they could not get it, because the Colony had not remitted it, was it reasonable to expect that when the matter was left entirely in the hands of the Colony, they would be able to obtain their money? All that the Company asked for was some better security that they might obtain all they were entitled to.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not wonder at all that the Committee and the Members of the Government should be desirous to arrive at a decision on this question; hut while I am aware that it is one of the most unpalatable subjects of discussion to which a Committee has ever been doomed to listen, I must also say that it is one of extreme difficulty and delicacy, and that the Committee would not he justified in letting the matter pass without taking every pains in its power to arrive at a just decision. Now, there are, as I stated at the commencement of the evening, four modes of proceeding before the House. The first is that which is embodied in the Bill, according to which it is proposed to give to the Legislature of New Zealand the control over the waste lands in the islands, subject to the obligation to pay 5s. an acre to the extent of 268,000 l to the New Zealand Company. The second plan is to transfer the waste lands, and still to leave them subject to the obligation to the Company; but to alter that obligation from an absolute payment of 5s. per acre to a proportional payment of one quarter of the gross proceeds, whatever they may be. The third plan is that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Moles-worth) who proposes to carry over to the

457
Legislature of New Zealand the control over the waste lands, leaving the command of the proceeds of their sale and the claims upon them precisely as at present. Then there is a fourth plan, which has not been mentioned in this debate, though I understand it has found favour in several quarters—to postpone the consideration of the land question to another year. Now, I have the greatest difficulty in making a choice amongst these four plans. I frankly own that, while I am most anxious, and I trust I have shown that anxiety, to promote the passing of the present Bill, yet, differing from several Gentlemen here who are connected with the New Zealand Company, and differing likewise from the Government, I am deliberately of opinion that both the plans proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies—that is, both the absolute payment of 5s. an acre, and likewise the rated payment of one-fourth of the proceeds— are more than the New Zealand Company is justly entitled to under the Act of 1847. I entirely accede to the principle that we are not, by any proceeding that we now take, to damage the position of the Company; but on the other hand I must entirely protest against bettering the position of the Company at the expense of the Colony. Now the present position of the Company is, that they have a claim upon the proceeds of the land sales, after discharging out of them, first, the cost of surveys, and, secondly, the cost of emigration. Then it is alleged that there is a letter of Earl Grey's, in which he values the claim of the Company at 5s. an acre. Now I object to that valuation, and it is quoted against me as an authority. I object to the authority of Earl Grey to fix it. I say that the Statute gave him no such power, and it is in vain that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State tells me that we are bound by good faith, because Earl Grey has entered into this engagement. That may, indeed, be an engagement affecting Earl Grey, and affecting Earl Grey's Administration while he is in power. [Mr. MANGLES: Hear, hear!] Well, Sir, the hon. Member utters a derisive cheer at that, but does he mean to tell me seriously that a Minister has power to promise away the public money without the authority of an Act of Parliament? [Mr. MANGLES: Hear, hear!] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get to the end of my sentence, I will tell him why Earl Grey has made no compact, and has not bound the
458
public faith; it is because the Act of Parliament gave him no such power. The Act of 1847 did not say that the Secretary of State should have the power to fix at a given rate the claims of the Company, but that the cost of the surveys and the cost of emigration should be defrayed; and the Law Officers of the Crown have told you that Government were authorised by the Act, and were therefore bound, to fix the cost of emigration from time to time according to the exigency of the Act of Parliament. That is the meaning of the Act of Parliament for which I contend; and if I am right in my construction of it, it is perfectly obvious that when Parliament thought proper to fix upon this fund charges which must necessarily vary from time to time, and must be satisfied to the full extent of the public service, the Secretary of State went beyond his power in changing that undetermined charge upon the fund to a determined one. And therefore, whatever responsibility he may have incurred to the New Zealand Company, the doctrine that the public faith is implicated is totally without foundation. I do not wish to damage the Now Zealand Company—I wish to appreciate their claim in what is, in my view, a most liberal proposal; and I think that we should do so by combining the two propositions, and providing that they shall have a one-fourth of the gross proceeds subject to this condition that that shall never exceed 5s. an acre. I think that if their position under that arrangement be compared with what it is under the present one, it would be found to be improved rather than deteriorated by the change. Without the limitation to which I have referred, it is impossible for mo to accede to the proposition in the Bill as it now stands. But then comes the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), who says that the New Zealand Company have a legal but no moral claim, and that their legal rights and no more should be secured to them; and he contends that he does this by handing over the management of the lands to the Legislature of New Zealand, at the same time leaving the claims on the proceeds as at present. Now, the weak point in his argument seems to me to be this—he admits that they have a moral claim, which should be satisfied if it were not for the fraudulent suppressions by which he considers that they obtained the Act of 1847. The difficulty I feel is this. My hon. Friend is

459
certainly not responsible for our want of information now, nor are Her Majesty's Government, for it was not possible to produce the papers necessary to enter on this discussion. But when he proposes thus to cut off the moral claim of the New Zealand Company—which he grants they would have if it was not for these proceedings—he virtually asks the Committee to spring to a decision upon these charges against them. I must say that he has made very serious charges against them, but I cannot join in any censure upon him for taking that course. If it is true that he was a director of the Company when these proceedings took place, that might be a matter between him and the Company, but it would not derogate from the credit due to him for his conduct in this House. If he chooses to vindicate the public interest against himself, that is the worst construction that can be put upon his conduct; and, so far from censure, I think that he is entitled to credit for what he has done. Still, that is no reason for coming to a sudden and precipitate decision upon the question. We are, however, involved in this serious difficulty, that the compact, upon the basis of which we stand, and the terms of which it is proposed we should construe afresh, is declared by him in his place to have been acquired by fraudulent representations. I think that if he makes good his allegations, they would leave the compact itself in a very questionable position, and that it would be very hard for the Company, as a public body, to claim that the terms of the compact should be adhered to, if it could be shown that it had been obtained by a fraudulent suppression of the truth. But whatever I do, and however I feel the difficulty of the case, I cannot—in the endeavour to choose the least amongst many difficulties —consent to what I think so decided a violation of principle, as to proceed on a statement from him which we have not had the means of checking, and to which those whom it affects have been necessarily without the means of making a good answer, as if it definitely concluded the whole case. Whatever I do, I will not be guilty of an injustice like that. I say that to hand over the management of the Legislature of New Zealand, without altering in any respect the present claims upon the land fund, would decidedly be to punish the New Zealand Company, and that too before trial. Now, to postpone the whole matter to another year, would be just as
460
regards the Government; it would be a great relief to the Committee, and we should get out of a difficulty for the present, and have a future opportunity of weighing these charges and coming to a deliberate opinion upon them; but then, again, it is certainly most desirable that the lands should be handed over to the Colony. If it were the judgment of this House that the subject should be postponed, I might be induced to acquiesce in that judgment; if on the other hand the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State were disposed to make, and the New Zealand Company to accept, such an arrangement as that the Company should have a claim upon this land to the extent of one-fourth, subject to a maximum of 5s., to that I would accede. But I must say I cannot accede to any plan but one of these two. I cannot accede to a plan which should simply hand over these lands to the Legislature of New Zealand, retaining the Act of 1847 in other respects, because I think it would be unjust to the Company; and I cannot accede to the absolute proposal to give the Company a quarter of the proceeds of the land sales, because I think it would be unjust to the Colony—unjust partly because it gives them a great deal more than in any market their present claim would be valued at, and partly on account of the extreme inequality with which it would fall upon the different districts—levying upon Otago 10 s. an acre, and on Canterbury not less than 15 s., for the benefit of the Company; payments which I think altogether disproportionate to their fair claims.
MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, that the Bill would not have this effect, as it would leave untouched the existing arrangements with respect to these two settlements.
MR. GLADSTONE: Still there are many lots of land to be sold where the price would run above 1l. an acre, and where the payment to the Company would therefore be above 5s. I think that is more than upon an equitable construction of the claim the Company is entitled to receive, and therefore I cannot be a party to that.
MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he must express his regret at the manner in which the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark had brought forward these charges against his former Colleagues, and his surprise that he should have done so without any previous communication with those whose characters they were calculated so seriously to

461
damage, and without seeking in the quarters where it would have been most readily afforded to him, the most complete and minute explanations in answer to any inquiries which he might have thought fit to make. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact he had previously spoken about, that the arrangements between the Company and the settlements of Canterbury and Otago remained untouched, either by the Act of 1847 or the present Bill; and that the arrangement with regard to the proportion of the proceeds of the land sales, which was to be paid to the Company only referred to districts in which the arrangements between the Company and the settlers had expired. The inequality referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) would not therefore arise. He hoped the Committee would listen with indulgence to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this question should be postponed to another year. As far as his own personal feelings went, he was prepared to resist to the utmost of his power any settlement which left these charges upon his character as one of the directors of the New Zealand Company unexplained and unrefuted; nor could he consent that the land should be handed over to a new body until the claims of the Company had been arranged.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he could not consent to separate the land clauses, neither could he give his assent to the proposal for handing over the land without providing for the satisfaction of the claims of the New Zealand Company; and still further, he could not consent to strike out the whole of the land clauses. With these opinions he felt it his duty to press the clauses as they stood in the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that not one of the charges which he had brought forward against the directors had been met. He denied that he had brought the subject forward without due notice, and he should be fully prepared to support them upon any other occasion. It was not his intention to divide the Committee on his Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONproposed to substitute for the words "sums after the rate of 5s. for each acre of land so sold or alienated," the words "one-fourth part of the sum paid by the purchaser in respect of every such sale or alienation."
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, in his opinion "one-tenth" ought to be substituted for "one-fourth" in the Motion of the right hon. Gentlemen (Sir J. Pakington), on the ground that if the colonisation speculation of the New Zealand Company had succeeded, their beneficial interest in the proceeds of the land sales would have been equal to one-tenth instead of one-fourth.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the circumstances under which the Company might have been at one time entitled to claim one-tenth of the proceeds wore totally different now.
MR. AGLIONBYbelieved that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) intended to do justice towards the Company, but in that particular he gave them a very short measure of it.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he now proposed to add words subjecting that payment of one-fourth to the limit of a maximum. He thought, when they had the case of a body who had a large indeterminate claim, with imperfect remedies, the best mode of dealing with that claim was to get rid of the matter so indeterminate, and to give the New Zealand Company a perfect command and certainty as to what they were to have, but at the same to bring the burden within reasonable limits. He was not at all sure that the Legislature of New Zealand would consider themselves strictly bound in honour by our Legislature. He thought the Now Zealand Company was entitled to expect that we should give them provision that their claim should be in no way liable to evasion, especially that we should give them that which we intended to secure to them. He must, however, confess he thought the amount which the clause, as it at present stood, proposed to give them, was too large. He proposed, therefore, to insert words to the above effect following those to which the Committee had just assented on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington).
Amendment proposed, in p. 21, 1. 24, after the word "alienation" inserted, to insert the words "but so that the said payment shall in no case exceed five shillings per acre so sold or alienated."
MR. MANGLESsaid, he was satisfied that if the New Zealand Company brought their case, under the Act of 1847, before a Court of Equity, they would obtain a

463
much larger measure of justice than the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary was disposed to mete to them. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was unjust, because it fixed a maximum, while it did not fix a minimum. Sooner than agree to this Amendment, he (Mr. Mangles) would ask the Committee to restore the New Zealand Company to its original position, and give them back the land of which they were formerly in possession.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he felt the extreme injustice of fixing so low a maximum as 5s.
MR. J. A. SMITHwould suggest that the sum to be paid to the New Zealand Company for all lands, both town and suburban, should be fixed at 5s. That arrangement would, he believed, be acceptable to the Company.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he believed that the proposition which had been just made would be favourably received by the inhabitants of the Canterbury settlement.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to know whether the New Zealand Company were protesting parties against the Bill as proposed by Government, or merely against his Amendment. If they protested against the whole Bill so far as it related to them, he, for one, was not prepared to legislate compulsorily for them, and in that case he would withdraw his proposal.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he must decline to say whether or not the Company were protesting parties against the Bill. They found themselves in such a position, that they thought it best to take whatever they could get.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he never understood the New Zealand Company to be protesting parties against the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEwanted to know, were the Company, or were they not, consenting parties to the arrangement proposed by the Government? Unless he was informed on that point, he was not prepared to legislate.
MR. AGLIONBYwould not say whether the Company were consenting parties or not, to the arrangement proposed by the Government, hut he would be quite willing to take everything that he was forced to take.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) pressed a little too
464
hard on the Company in asking them to state whether they protested against the proposal of the Government.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that under those circumstances he should press his Motion.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 51; Noes 120: Majority 69.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

FROME VICARAGE.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he would now beg to nominate the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage. ["Oh, oh!"] He hoped the House would allow the Motion to proceed, as, unless the Committee were nominated to-night, it would probably be delayed till Monday, and it was most desirable to avoid anything that might give rise to an impression out of doors that the House wished to shirk the inquiry. He had endeavoured to make the Committee as fair a representation of both sides of the question as possible. He was sorry to find, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood), the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Loftus Wigram), and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Paeke), declined to act; but he was quite ready to substitute such other names in lieu as might be suggested. The names proposed by the hon. Member were—Mr. Horsman, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Sir David Dundas, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Strutt, Sir William Page Wood, Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Loftus Wigram, Mr. Evans, Mr. Packe, Mr. Langston, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. Shafto Adair.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that without intending to thwart the decision at which the House had arrived on this question, he could not, on the part of the Government, assent to a Committee the composition of which was unknown to the House. Not only had the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood), and the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Loftus Wigram) voted in the minority, but the other hon. Member (Mr. Packe) had done so; and for these Gentlemen the hon. Gentleman bad named no substitutes. Now, he

465
did not wish to make any stronger observations than the case deserved; and, therefore, he would confine himself to saying that when the Government saw two such men as the hon. Members for the City of Oxford and the University of Cambridge excluded from the Committee, they could not consent to the Motion, unless two names equal in weight were substituted. The hon. Gentleman had remarked that the Government should use their influence to induce those hon. Gentlemen to serve on the Committee. He begged to say, he had done so, and he had failed. In conclusion, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion for the appointment of a Committee that night.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that his name appeared on the list of the Committee, but nothing, save the express order of that House, would, induce him to serve on it, and for this reason, that that House had not been led to act on a constitutional principle. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hors-man) had brought certain charges against the Bishop of Bath and Wells—a high officer of the State, and acting judicially— for a breach of the law and corruption in the exercise of his office. If those charges were proved, they carried with them an impeachment. And with regard to the impeachment and matters of a minor character, it was the uniform and recognised practice that when that House proceeded to entertain such charges, they should be brought forward in a definite and tangible form. It was the uniform practice that the man who was charged in that House by a Member of the House, in reference to the exercise of his judicial office, founded on perverse motives or deliberate purpose, should know whether he was or was not acquitted of the charge brought against him. No such security was afforded by the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Before he could vote for the proposition he required a security that they should know whether the Bishop of Bath and Wells did that of which he stood charged. Under any circumstances he must have served on the Committee with the greatest pain and reluctance; but he totally protested, unless on the order of the House, to proceed with the grave charges made against a great officer of the State acting judicially, unless those charges were defined. And therefore, acting on precedents and on the principles of uniform practice, it was his intention, at the proper time, to move that the
466
hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Hors-man) should reduce into heads, or articles, the charges made against Richard, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and that he should present the same to the House. It was his object to defend the Bishop of Bath and Wells from the charges made against him, and therefore he would, in the event of his Motion being carried, move that the heads of the charges should be laid on the table of the House, and then be referred to the Committee, who should be instructed to report their opinion to the House. This would, in effect, in no way limit the views of the Committee on any subject now included in the charges, but it would ensure their examination into those charges in a judicial form, and would guarantee to the Bishop of Bath and Wells the privilege which every British subject enjoyed—that of knowing whether the charges inside against him had been proved or disproved.
MR. E. ELLICEwould suggest, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), his hon. Friend should not proceed with the nomination of the Committee, the composition of which was unknown to the Government. His solo object in supporting his hon. Friend's Motion was to remedy a great grievance, but not to found an impeachment against the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had forgotten the circumstances of the Vote of the other night. There was a distinct proposal to examine into the state of the law, which the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsrman) refused, and which at his instance the House negatived, and the hon. Gentleman stated that there were charges brought against an individual which that proposal was meant to get rid of. He (Mr. S. Herbert) said, in common justice to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had been charged with malversation—in common justice to the culprit—let them have the charges stated in writing, that they might know what they were, and whether he was guilty or not.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he did not wish to shuffle out of the charges that had been made. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had made certain charges, which he believed to be correct, and it was only fair he should be allowed an opportunity to prove them. In justice, therefore, to all the parties concerned, it was right

467
that a Committee of men of the highest character and standing in that House should report upon the charges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had called the inquiry an impeachment of one of the highest dignitaries in the Church. If this were really the case, it would be better that the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth should, in the course of to-morrow, see the Government, and endeavour to get such a Committee appointed as would give satisfaction to the country. He believed that suggestion, if carried out, would be more satisfactory to all parties concerned.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, in explanation, that he had not intended to charge the hon. Member for Cockermouth with a desire to shuffle out of the charges; what he had intended to convey was, that the House ought not to put itself in a false position with reference to the matter.
SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, that he had not been applied to serve on the Committee, and was not aware that his name had been put on the list; but when he heard that he had been named he declined to serve.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government did not at all complain that the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had not sufficiently consulted them on the subject. His own opinion was, that the resolution to which the House had come, was an unfortunate one; but, having adopted it, the Government desired that the inquiry should be full and impartial. What, under the circumstances, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Cockermouth was, that he should ask the permission of the House so to alter the terms of his Motion, as that inquiry should be made into the grievances of the existing law, and not into the conduct of an individual, whom all now seemed to be anxious to hold free from attack. By adopting this suggestion, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the House would disengage itself from a very embarrassing situation, and place itself on a better footing with respect to the inquiry.
MR. HORSMANthought it would be more desirable they should come to some understanding as to the nomination of this Committee before the House adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Horsman be one of the Members of the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.