Commons Sitting of 20 May 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Income Tax; Lunacy regulation; Lunatic Asylums; Lunatics Care and Treatment.

IMPROVEMENTS IN HYDE PARK.
MR. OLIVEIRAsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it was intended to remove the old dilapidated shops which deface Hyde-park from Albert-gate eastward; what the tenure of the present occupants of those shops might
430
be; and whether parties might not be found ready to undertake the removal of these objectionable buildings, and to improve the locality without entailing any expense on the Government; also, whether a carriage drive should not be constructed through Hyde-park from or near Victoria-gate to Rotten-row, near Princes-gate; and whether the removal of the cavalry barracks from Knightsbridge was under consideration, by which the public enjoyment of that portion of Hyde park would be much enhanced, and a great benefit conferred upon the residents in that locality?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH,in reply to the first question, said that the houses to which the hon. Member had called his attention, were held under lease of the Dean and Chaper of Westminster; that the lease would expire in about fifty-six years from this time; that the Dean and Chapter had refused to renew the lease; and that it was their intention if they could buy the property at a reasonable price, to make important improvements. To the second question he had given an answer last night, when he stated that he doubted whether it would be expedient to make a carriage drive, because, although such a drive might be advantageous to those who went in carriages, it would not be so advantageous to foot passengers. With regard to the third question respecting the cavalry barracks at Knightsbridge, he wished to inform the hon. Member that the subject was not under the consideration of the Government.

EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
On the Motion that the House at its rising should adjourn till Monday next,
CAPTAIN JONESsaid, he must express a hope that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would postpone the consideration in Committee of the Spirit Duties Bill until a later day than that which had been fixed upon. The distillers in Ireland would be most materially affected by the provisisns of that Bill, and it was but fair that they should have an opportunity of urging their views in connexion with that measure upon the attention of Government.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the parties who were likely to be affected by the provisions of the Spirit Duties Bill had had ample time since the Bill had been printed to consider those provisions. To his own knowledge persons who lived at a considerable dis-

431
tance from London were at present in town for the purpose of communicating with Government, and with the revenue department, with respect to the measure in question. He did not think that there was the slightest occasion to fear that any person would be taken by surprise; but he should, at the same time, state to the hon. and gallant Member the position in which the Government were placed with reference to the progress of public business. It was exceedingly important that there should be no needless delay in taking the opinion of the House upon the main question in connexion with the Spirit Duties Bill—merely the increase of the duty to a certain amount. What he should propose was to go into that point after the House should have disposed of the Customs Resolutions. Assuming that the Income Tax Bill was read a second time that evening, he proposed to go into Committee upon this Bill on Monday. The Customs Duty Resolutions would be taken afterwards, and then the House might go into Committee upon the Spirit Duties Bill.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman laboured under some misapprehension, in supposing that parties throughout the country who were interested in the measure would not be taken by surprise. He had travelled within the last few days with distillers from the south of Ireland, who were deeply interested in the passing of the Spirit Duties Bill, and who were anxious to communicate with Government before that Bill went into Committee. Prom his own experience he could say that those parties would not be prepared to visit London before the middle of next week.

ANNEXATION OF PEGU.
MR. COBDEN: Sir, I have given notice of a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, and I hope I shall be excused if I preface it by a few observations, because it has reference to a subject which I am anxious to bring before the House, and it is in consequence of the difficulty experienced by private Members in bringing subjects under discussion that I now ask permission to say a few words. We have been informed by the papers which have been laid on the table, that Pegu, a territory belonging to the Burmese empire, has been annexed to our Eastern territories. But in reading over those papers there is some difficulty in ascertaining by whose
432
authority that territory has been annexed to the British possessions in India. I observe that the Governor General of India, in his proclamation annexing the province of Pegu to India, mentions communications which he has had with the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, and says that he had their concurrence and approval in the step which he has taken; but it does not appear from those papers whether the Government of the country, through the medium of the Board of Control, has been an active and consenting party to that step. Now, I have no doubt I shall be told, that as this Secret Committee of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, has given its consent to this proceeding, that it has been done with the sanction and concurrence of the Board of Control, as representing the Government of this country. But in putting this question, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the anomalous position in which this country is placed in consequence of the present extraordinary state of the Government of India. Here is a territory—I cannot say how large, and I suppose nobody can tell me its extent, for the maps have not defined its boundary—possessing several millions of inhabitants in a very barbarous state, for we are told that, owing to the extreme oppression practised upon them, they are very inferior to the rest of the population of Burmah—here is a territory annexed to our possessions, and here are several millions of semi-barbarians admitted to the rights and privileges of Englishmen. They are now our fellow-subjects. We are responsible for their good government. They share our rights and privileges. We are bound to protect them under all circumstances; and if they wander as far as Shanghae or California, the British flag must follow them for their protection. This is a most serious responsibility. But this is not all. We are also responsible for the good government of that territory which we are incorporating with our own. What I wish to impress upon the House is, that before we undertake such a responsibility, we ought first to know by whose authority this territory has been annexed to our own territories. And I also maintain that the people of this country, through their representatives, ought to have the opportunity of expressing their opinion on so important and portentous a proceeding. I hope, and believe I am not singular in my opinion, that so far from regarding this acquisition

433
of territory by our Indian Government as a compensation for the war which has been carried on, or the injuries alleged to have been committed upon us—so far from considering the possession of this additional territory beneficial, I look upon it as a very serious evil to this country. It has been pronounced again and again, by many eminent men, a great evil to extend our territory to the East. It is a very anomalous state of things to have added to our possessions a territory of 20,000 or 30,000 square miles, and a population of 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 semi-barbarians, without a word having been uttered in this House on the subject. No one knows what steps have been taken, or who is responsible for these proceedings from the beginning to the end. What I wish to ask is—first, was the province of Pegu annexed to the British territory in India by the Governor General in Council without previous instruction from home; and, if so, by what law has he the power to extend our eastern possessions? And, secondly, I wish to know, if the Governor General has acted in compliance with orders from the Home Government; and, lastly, if there is any despatch in existence defining the boundaries of the newly-acquired territory?
SIR CHARLES WOOD: Sir, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I treat him with any disrespect when I say I do not think it a reasonable practice to introduce discussions of great importance, simply on the notice of a question to be put upon the Motion for adjournment. I, however, do not wish to complain of the course he has taken. About two hours ago I received notice of the questions which the hon. Member has put: those questions I am ready to answer, and to those questions I shall confine myself. I do not say that we ought not to have a discussion on the subject; but I think it not a convenient course to raise it on a simple notice of asking a question, and I had not the slightest notion that any discussion would now have been raised. My hon. Friend asks—"Was the province of Pegu annexed to the British territory in India by the Governor General in Council without previous instruction from home?" My answer is, Certainly not. If the hon. Member will refer to the papers on the table, entitled "Further Papers relating to Hostilities with Burmah," he will find, at page 46, that the Governor General says—
"This province of Pegu, extending somewhat above Prome, may be retained and permanently
434
occupied as British territory on the termination of the war"—
as the best means of indemnifying the Government for the expense of the war, and the losses to which it has been put in vindicating the rights of British subjects in India. He will also find at page 53 a despatch from the Secret Committee to the Governor General of India in Council, and he must have been long enough a Member of the Committee on Indian Affairs to know that a despatch framed in that way does convey the authority and sanction of the Government of this country. The approbation and authority of the British Government is conveyed in these words:—
"We are of opinion that the permanent annexation to the British dominions of the province of Pegu, including Prome within its northern limit, should be adopted as the measure of compensation and redress for the past, and of security for the future, which we ought to insist upon."
The Governor General subsequently states, that such is his view, subject to the approval of the Government; and that approval, in a despatch dated the 3rd December last, was conveyed to the Governor General. My answer to the first question, therefore, is, that undoubtedly the authority of the Government of this country was given to the Governor General for the annexation of Pegu. The second question of the hon. Member is—"If the Governor General has acted in compliance with orders from the Home Government, and is there any despatch in existence defining the boundaries of the newty-acquired territories?" There is no such despatch in existence. Pegu is a country totally distinct from Burmah. It was conquered by the Burmese, and is inhabited by a different race of people, who have uniformly received our troops in the most kind and cordial manner for delivering them from their former conquerors and oppressors. The precise boundaries are not properly known, but directions have been given by the Governor General to mark out the line of boundary, and to lay down a distinct line of demarcation between the territories of Burmah and the annexed province of Pegu.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him whether he has sufficiently informed himself on the question as to be able to hold out any hope that the new province will pay its own expenses? It is stated to have been taken as an indemnity for expenses which have been incurred. I wish to know whether he can give us any asurance that it will even pay its own expenses.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: I cannot give a positive answer, but so far as I am informed, I have every reason to believe that the province will pay its own expenses, besides placing in our hands a great check on the power of the Burmese from our being in possession of all the seaports, which give access to their country.
MR. BRIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have taken an opportunity of lecturing my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden). ["No, no!"] But he should recollect that there are unfortunately few opportunities for making statements, however important. In the other House of Parliament, on the presentation of petitions, questions can be discussed at full length. That formerly was the practice here. I certainly do not recommend any return to such a practice, because it would interrupt the business of the House. But still, when the Government have withdrawn a day from those who are called independent Members, and are attempting, Session after Session, to compress their opportunities into the smallest possible limits, I think they ought not to take it so unkindly if, now and then, they are called to order a little on matters of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman says, the province of Pegu will pay its own expenses. That is precisely the statement that has been made by every President of the Board of Control for the last fifty or seventy years; and there is no instance that I am aware of in which the statement has not been falsified by the result. And if we are to take the assertions of persons well informed with respect to Indian affairs, there never was, from the time of Lord Clive to that of the Marquess of Dalhousie, a smaller chance of any territory paying its own expenses than the territory of Pegu. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is able to give the House any probable information as to the present expenditure of that war. As we are now within a fortnight of the discussion of matters connected with India, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on this point. We generally find out the expense of such an affair four or five years after it has happened, and when we have no possible control over it. We sometimes catch a President of the Board of Control before a Parliamentary Committee, and then the eyes of the country are opened as to what is going on. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us anything about the probable expense, and also
436
whether any further despatch has gone out from the Government to authorise the seizure of any larger portion of territory than that included in the Governor's despatch; and whether the proposition of going to Ava has been sanctioned?
SIR CHARLES WOOD: I must positively deny giving a lecture to the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden). I merely pointed out the inconvenience of discussing important matters on such occasions as the present. With respect to the question put by the hon. Member for Manchester, I cannot at this moment state precisely the expenses of the Burmese war; but if he will repeat the question on Monday, I will endeavour to give him an answer. In the course of the last year it was within the ordinary revenue of the country, and I have every reason to believe that it still remains so; but I do not like to speak of figures without reference to paper. With respect to the second question, whether any order has been sent out to annex any further territory, I have to reply—Most decidedly not. My anxiety was, that the annexation should be confined within the narrowest possible limits, and that no other portion should be taken than the country within the valley of the river Irrawaddy, which is an exceedingly fertile country.

THE REBELLION IN CHINA.
VISCOUNT JOCELYNsaid, he wished to put to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) a question upon a subject of much importance to the people of this country. In the course of the last few weeks statements had appeared in the public prints to the effect that a rebel force, which had for some time been harassing the Chinese dominions, had met and defeated the armies of the Emperor. According to the latest news, that force was proceeding to attack the capital of China. It was stated likewise, that the Emperor had applied to the representative of Her Majesty's Government in China for aid in suppressing the insurrectionary movement. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government had received any papers upon that subject, which they would be prepared to lay before the House? Whether any such application as that to which he had referred had been made to the Governor of Hong Kong; and if it had been made, what was the course which Her Majesty's Government deemed it advisable to pursue in the matter?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would

437
state all he knew of those occurrences. It appeared that the force in rebellion against the Emperor of China had advanced a considerable distance; and, according to the last report, the city of Nankin had fallen into their hands. It was not certain that that was the case; but at all events that city was menaced, and the rebels were still advancing. Under these circumstances the Prefect of Shanghae, by order, as he said, of the Governor of the province of Nankin, had made an application for assistance to Sir George Bonham, Her Majesty's representative at Hong Kong. Sir George Bonham was about to proceed to Shanghae, with the view of protecting British interests in that place; and a confident expectation was entertained that the existing means would be sufficient to protect British persons and property at Shangahe. The orders which had been issued by the Government were, that sufficient precautions should be taken for the protection of the lives and of the property of British subjects, but that the forces of this country should not interfere in the civil war. He could not say that the Government were at present prepared to lay the papers connected with the subject before the House, and neither could he state the precise course which they might deem it advisable ultimately to adopt.

KILMAINHAM HOSPITAL.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Secretary at War, how and in what manner the inquiry into the present state of Kilmainham Hospital, mentioned in Her Majesty's answer to the Address of this House, had been or would be instituted and carried on, the names of the persons conducting such inquiry, and any instructions given to them in relation to it; I also, whether the result of such inquiry would be communicated in a formal and official shape to this House; and also what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to carrying out the declared wish of this House for the maintenance of the hospital as a shelter for maimed and worn-out soldiers in Ireland?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he had placed himself in communication with Sir Edward Blakeney upon the subject, and he had forwarded to him a list of queries, the answers to which would place him in a condition to judge of the state of that hospital. He had also made inquiries with respect to the regulations under which
438
pensioners were admitted into Chelsea Hospital; and he had to state that it was the intention of the Government to issue orders under which the restrictions which applied to the admission of pensioners to Chelsea Hospital, should be extended to Kilmainham Hospital. The object which the Government sought to attain was, that when pensioners were admitted into the latter establishment, security should be given that none but really maimed and worn-out soldiers should avail themselves of the privilege; so that there might be no recurrence of the abuses which had prevailed at Kilmainham Hospital in former times.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) whether Her Majesty's Ministers would allow the Vote in reference to the repairs of Maynooth College to remain in its present state, or whether they would bring in a Supplementary Vote for the purpose of carrying on those repairs? He would take that opportunity of also asking the noble Lord when it was the intention of the Government to bring in their Bill for the settlement of the question of Ministers' Money in Ireland?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that if he rightly understood the hon. Gentleman, bis first question was, whether the Government intended to propose a Supplementary Vote for the repairs of the College of Maynooth. He had only to answer that question by saying that the Government having introduced into the regular estimates a Vote for the repairs of the College of Maynooth, and that House having in a Committee of Supply refused to grant the sum necessary for those repairs, it was not the intention of the Government to propose any such Supplementary Vote. In reply to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that the Government meant to introduce a Bill on the subject of Ministers' Money in Ireland; but he could not then say on what day they would be prepared to bring forward that measure.
Motion agreed to.
House at its rising to adjourn till Monday next.

INCOME TAX BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that in consider-

439
ation of the state of public business, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the Bill at that stage. Of course, however, in making that declaration, he wished it to be clearly understood, on the part of himself and of the Gentlemen with whom he acted, that they reserved to themselves the right of making in Committee any objections they might think fit to the clauses of the Bill, and that on the third reading it should not be assumed that they had assented to the principle of the measure. Their only object in then agreeing to the second reading was to facilitate the progress of public business.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as regarded the operation of that measure, he meant to apply the same principle to the property of the Royal burghs in Scotland, which he meant to apply to the property of corporate bodies in England?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it appeared to him that that was a question for the consideration of the Committee on the Bill. He had then only to say that he was not aware of any reason why the property of the Royal burghs in Scotland should be treated differently from the property of corporations in England.
Bill read 2°.

CUSTOMS RESOLUTIONS.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now state, for the convenience of the House what he proposed with regard to the Customs Resolutions. It was admitted on all hands to be of great importance that these Resolutions should be passed as soon as the House might find it convenient; and he believed that with respect to a very large number—nearly the whole in fact—of the proposals of the Government in reference to the Customs, there was no disposition either to oppose or to debate them. With regard, then, to those portions of the Resolutions, he should propose, on whatever evening they finished the Committee on the Income-tax Bill, and at whatever hour it might be, to pass all the remissions of customs duty with respect to which there was no disposition to raise any question, reserving for a future evening those portions of the Resolutions to which he understood objections were to be made.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would bring forward the Customs Resolu-
440
tions on Monday, and take the Committee on the Income-tax Bill on Friday.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was most important that they should take the Committee on the Income-tax Bill before the Customs Resolutions.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, considering the immense importance of the subject to all classes of the community, would consent to delay the Committee on the Income-tax Bill till Friday. From a circumstance, which was well known, a large number of the Irish Members were now absent, and they would probably not be in their places on Monday. It would be scarcely fair, therefore, towards those Members, and would certainly be attended with great disappointment and inconvenience, if the Committee on the Income-tax Bill—a measure in which they felt particularly interested—should be proceeded with on that day. Consider in get that no opposition had been made to the second reading of the Bill, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and take the Customs Resolutions on Monday, reserving the Committee on the Income-tax Bill till Friday.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be extremely agreeable to his Colleagues and himself if they could meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but he was very sorry to say that public duty obliged them to adhere to the order of business which they had announced to-night only in conformity with former intimations. The success of the Income-tax Bill depended mainly upon its next stage, and, as that measure was regarded by the Government as the basis of the whole of their financial propositions, they felt it necessary to withhold all remissions of duties until the House had given its assent to the Income-tax Bill. He might remind the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) of the announcement made before the recess—that in the event of the House agreeing to read the Bill a second time to-night, it should be considered in Committee on Monday next. He could not but think that the Irish Members would be found, as they certainly ought to be, in their places on Monday, and that, too, after having enjoyed quite as long a Whitsuntide vacation as was usually allowed.
Subject dropped.

EXPENSE OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would take that occasion to point out the injustice of paying the expense of prosecutions at assizes and quarter-sessions in England out of the national funds, and allowing the same item to fall as a burden upon the county rates in Ireland. In 1846, when the corn laws were repealed, the late Sir Robert Peel promised that the expense of such prosecutions should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund both in England and Ireland. So far as England was concerned, the spirit of that promise had been carried out; but the expense of prosecutions at assizes and quarter-sessions was still left as a local burden in Ireland, and he desired to know, therefore, whether it was the intention of the Government to propose a Supplementary Vote for the relief of Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not aware of any promise having been given by Sir Robert Peel such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman; but viewing the question raised in the light of policy or expediency, he thought it was one which the hon. Gentleman was fairly entitled to urge upon the attention of the Government, and it was clearly the duty of the Government to give it a full and fair consideration. His Colleagues and himself would do so, but, in the meantime, they were not prepared to propose a Supplementary Vote.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the debates in Hansard on this subject.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had no faith whatever in promises of the kind alluded to by the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney); but he based the present question upon the ground of policy, and believed that if a Committee were to be appointed to investigate this subject, Ireland would easily prove its claim to be exempted from the payment of those charges.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the whole subject of local burdens in Ireland was well worth consideration, and the Government would give its attention to the point mooted by the hon. Member for Antrim. He was prepared to go into a full inquiry as to the way in which the local burdens in Ireland were assessed; but that was a totally different question from proposing to place a portion of them upon the Consolidated Fund.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bouverie in the Chair.

(1.) 4,049 l, Bermudas.

(2.) 7,647 l., Clergy in North America.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he trusted that the object of Ministers and of that House was to deal out evenhanded justice to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. They had, on the previous evening, rejected a vote which deeply interested 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects—he meant that for the repairs of Maynooth; and seeing that the present Vote referred to parties who had the clergy reserves to fall back on, he thought it only fair to the hon. Members near him (the Irish Members) to move that this Vote be disallowed.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the question raised by the Vote was not the policy of supporting a Church Establishment in the British North American Colonies. That policy had formerly been pursued by this country; and when it had been pursued, a number of clergymen had been induced to proceed to the British. North American Colonies on the distinct understanding that as long as they might continue to officiate there they should receive a certain allowance. If the Committee should refuse to pass the present Vote, a direct breach of faith would be practised on those parties. There was no intention on the part of the Government of making any further provision for clergymen in North America; no new appointments were to be paid; and no vacancies among the recipients of that Vote were to be filled up. The amount of the Vote was thus becoming gradually diminished, and in the course of time it would necessarily cease altogether.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he wished to know if it was to be distinctly understood that there were to be no fresh sums voted under that head?
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied in the affirmative.
MR. JOHN M'GREGORsaid, he should support the Vote solely for the purpose of maintaining the faith of Parliament.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would not oppose the Vote after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 12,151 l., Indian Department—Canada.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected

443
to this vote because he considered that these Indian tribes were quite able to take care of themselves; and, consequently, the grant was unnecessary. He should be satisfied if he had an assurance that as the present recipients died off the charge would cease.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the Government were not going to wait until the parties died off, but intended to proceed at once to abolish the charge. So far as the principal item, the presents to the Indians, was concerned, 7,700 l., they had divided it into four parts, one of which would cease every year; so that the whole would expire at the end of four years.
MR. JOHN M'GREGORsaid, he must condemn the practice of giving presents to the Indians; but, at the same time, he begged to express his satisfaction at the explanation of the hon. Under Secretary.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he believed that the continuance of these presents was one of the conditions on which the Indians had sold their land to us, and had also assisted us in time of war. He should be glad to be informed of the reason why these poor people were about to be deprived of this boon.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he apprehended that no inconvenience would follow from discontinuing the presents. He felt quite certain that England had derived no benefit in return for them.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he believed that the Indians in Canada were materially benefited by these presents, and still considered that they were originally made for military services and for the cession of land to the British Government. He must confess that he saw with feelings of discontent a proceeding which amounted to repudiation.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, he had proposed to do away with this grant; but he had been induced to postpone his intention. He had, however, never heard it argued at that time that the Indians had a claim upon us for those presents in return for surrendering their lands to us.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had the authority of a Canadian gentleman for stating that these presents were most pernicious in their result upon the Indians themselves, especially in the mode in which they were given. He had been lately informed by a gentleman who had seen them distributed, that the blankets and money which were
444
given, were, on the same day, spent in the purchase of spirits, in which the recipients indulged to excess, and the whole district was in consequence the scene of the most frightful and appalling debauchery generally for some days after. He was glad, therefore, to hear that Government had decided upon withdrawing the grant; but he hoped they would not find, after paying thirty-five per cent for distributing the presents, that the salaries of the persons who had that duty were distributed over the other votes. He was of opinion that for a long time past the practice of giving those presents had been continued rather for the sake of the commission than for the benefit of the Indians.
MR. JOHN M'GREGORsaid, he must deny that the grant had been ever given in consequence of any concession of lands by the Indians.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he only required that any conditions which might have been entered into with the Indians should be kept.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he believed that we were not bound by any agreements to give presents to the Indians. He should, however, inquire into the matter.
Vote agreed to.
On (4.) 19,428 l. Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and others in the West India Colonies and Prince Edward's Island,
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know why Demerara, Honduras, and other islands, which were self-supporting, were not mentioned in the estimates?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, all the colonies whose salaries were paid out of a Parliamentary grant were included in these estimates; but the rest, whose emoluments were paid out of the colonial resources, were put into the colonial estimates.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to ask whether the salary of the Chief Justice of Anguilla, which was put down at 100 l. a year, was the whole that person received?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that this was a sum paid to the Chief Justice of the Leeward Islands in addition to his salary, in return for his discharge of the functions of Chief Justice of Anguilla.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the Colonies ought to maintain their own governors, and he particularly objected to so large a sum as 4,000 l. a year being paid to the Governor in Chief of the Windward Islands.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that with regard to the large salary to the Governor of the Windward Islands, his impression was, that when the arrangement was originally made, the Governor in Chief was in command of that station. Latterly, however, that office had not been held in conjunction with the office of civil governor. It must be borne in mind that Barbadoes was a great naval station, and the head quarters of the Windward Islands; and the Governor in Chief was called upon to exercise more hospitality than the Governor in Chief of the Leeward Islands.
MR. JOHN M'GREGORsaid, he was of opinion that they would never be able to govern the colonies unless this country paid the salaries of the Governors and Chief Justices, in the same way as they paid the salaries of Ambassadors at foreign Courts.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwas not surprised at his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Macgregor) differing from him in opinion in this matter; for since his hon. Friend had been a Member of that House, he had never known him to stand forward to promote economy; but, on the contrary, was always for spending the public money, and throwing the weight of his influence, as the representative of a large constituency, on the side of any Government that was inclined to be extravagant. Barbadoes was in a most prosperous condition, and there was no reason why this country should be called upon to pay this large salary of 4,000 l. a year to the Governor of that island.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 30,262 l. Justice in the West India Colonies and the Mauritius.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that the continuance of such a charge upon the public funds of this country for the purpose of providing magistrates for the West India Colonies was most unjustifiable. He should not, however, oppose the Vote, as an intimation was given in the estimate that the demand was to be gradually reduced as vacancies occurred until the whole should cease.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 16,844 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there were some of the items in this Vote of which he must complain.
MR. LUCASsaid, he expected the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams} was about, when he rose, to complain of the item 400 l., in this vote, for the salary of the chaplain at the Gambia, for seeing how strongly that hon. Gentleman and others on the same side, had opposed the principle of religious endowment by the State in the case of Maynooth, he thought in consistency they must oppose that principle when applied to the other colonies.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that it was absolutely necessary to have some religious instructor at Gambia; and he could assure the hon. Member that if the majority of the population there were Roman Catholics, he should vote for the money being paid to a Roman Catholic priest quite as willingly as he now did for a Protestant clergyman.
MR. LUCASsaid, he believed that the chaplain was not for the inhabitants of Gambia, but for the Governor and police magistrates, and other officials. He thought, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were sincerely opposed to religious endowments of all kinds, ought to refuse to sanction this one, and ought to tell these officials that they must pay for a chaplain out of their own salaries; Take another instance of a different kind. There was a Catholic Ambassador at Athens, Mr. Wyse, and he (Mr. Lucas) believed that there was a chaplain to that embassy—
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The hon. Member is misinformed. There are no chaplains except those attached to embassies. Greece is a mission.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he was of opinion that religion ought to support itself. It did so in England; and he believed it could do so equally well in the colonies. He knew missionary institutions at home that were perfectly willing to send out, without any expense to the country, men fully qualified to discharge the religious duties at our missions and embassies. He should therefore move that the present vote be reduced by the sum of 400 l.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not object to this small item. There was a chaplain at Sierra Leone; but as the revenue of that colony was sufficient to bear the charge itself, it was not necessary to include it in this estimate. He hoped that Gambia, in the course of another year or so, would be equally able to bear a similar charge.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that, according to the statement of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), there were no chaplains except at embassies. He (Mr. Bright) knew of no distinction as to the soul's health between embassies and missions. He supposed, however, that the chaplains at embassies were kept as a matter of decoration and ornament. Now, as the noble Lord had dispensed with the charge of maintaining chaplains at missions, perhaps he would also save money by equally dispensing with them at embassies. The Committee on Public Salaries recommended that embassies should be abolished, and missions substituted. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was on that Committee, and appeared to agree in most things recommended by the Committee; but not with regard to the abolition of embassies. With reference to the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt), he (Mr. Bright) would suggest, that as a change in this item would possibly he made next year, it would be better not to press the Amendment on this occasion. It would be quite scandalous for Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House to take every opportunity of picking a quarrel with grants to Roman Catholics, on the ground that those Members objected to all grants on account of religion; and yet, when similar grants were proposed to Protestants, that those same Members should acquiesce in them. He would rather go out of Parliament, and have nothing to do with politics, if he could not carry on his senatorial duties with more even handed justice than some persons appeared disposed to observe.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he certainly objected to the recommendation of the Committee referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) with regard to the embassies. He considered it to be a matter of very great importance; and on coming down to the Committee, after the decision had been come to, he protested against that decision. He might have agreed to one or two minor points adopted by the Committee; but, finding that on almost all the more important questions he was left in a small minority, he did not feel himself justified in continually dividing the Committee, and that might have made it appear that he acquiesced in their decisions.
MR. LUCASsaid, that in the 18th Vote of these Estimates would be found a charge of 100 l. for the chaplaincy at Athens.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the Government only allowed a chaplain at Courts where there were British consuls and British residents; and then the practice was, that whatever sum those British residents subscribed towards the support of a chaplain, a sum of equal amount was allowed by the Government for the same purpose.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had dealt fairly with those Gentlemen who voted against Maynooth last night. He (Sir J. Shelley) gave his vote on that occasion without any feeling of bigotry, and he wished the hon. Gentleman would wait and see how he (Sir J. Shelley) should vote when the Regium Donum. was proposed.
MR. LUCASsaid, he had nothing to do with the hon. Member's motives; he had only expressed a hope that the hon. Member, and those who had voted along with him the night before, would act consistently when the next Vote for a religious endowment came before them.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he thought that it would be absurd to vote for this item of 400 l. in the Estimate, and to refuse to vote for the Regium Donum, to which the Presbyterians had been entitled for a long time. If they only selected for their hostility grants for Irish or for Roman Catholic purposes, he could not see how they vindicated their principle of religious equality.
MR. MIALLsaid, he wished to see the whole of these ecclesiastical items expunged from the Estimates. He understood a hope had been held out that these votes for chaplaincies would be done away with altogether.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he had voted for the grant for repairs to Maynooth College last night; and therefore, in voting for the present grant, as he intended to do, he was not liable to the charge of inconsistency.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that he would not press his Amendment to a division, understanding from the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies that the item for the chaplaincy would disappear from the Votes in a year, or two years at most.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that he had given no such pledge as the hon. Gentleman supposed. What he said was, that he hoped the vote would in a short

449
time be diminished, and part of it be borne by the local revenue.
Motion made—
"That a sum, not exceeding 16,444 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March, 1854,"
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The three following Votes were then agreed to:—

(7.) 10,945 l., St. Helena.

(8.) 5,000 l., Western Australia.

(9.) 5,090 l., New Zealand.

(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding 976 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Heligoland, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
MR. MIALLsaid, he would move a reduction of 100 l. in the Vote, with the view of disallowing two payments to clergymen of 50 l. each.
MR. FREDERICK PEELhoped that the reduction would not be pressed, as the people in Heligoland were too poor to be able to provide spiritual instruction for themselves.
Motion made—
"That a sum, not exceeding 876 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Heligoland, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 4,750 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of the Falkland Islands, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
MR. LUCASsaid, he must complain of the conduct of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Shelley) and his friends, which he thought was scarcely consistent. When Votes were proposed for Roman Catholic purposes, or for Ireland, they took an objection to them, and pressed their objections to a division; but when the Votes happened to be for Colonial and Protestant purposes, they raised objections to them, indeed, but they did not assert their principles by going to a division. In the Vote now before the Committee there was an item of 400 l. for a chaplain, and he begged to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to it, as it would test the sincerity of their principle of religious equality.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that he was perfectly ready to move that this Vote be
450
reduced by the sum of 400 l.; and he would have done so before, had the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) given him time to catch the Chairman's eye. He now moved that the salary of the chaplain in this case, amounting to 400 l., be disallowed. With regard to the Vote last agreed to by the Committee, the poverty of the people of Heligolnnd had been assigned by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) as the reason why spiritual instruction should be provided for them.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYbegged to inquire the amount of the population of the Falkland Islands, for whose benefit so large a sum as 4,750 l. was now demanded? Were there any troops at these islands?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that there were no troops there. Doubtless this Vote was a large one, looking only to the population of the Falkland Islands, which was very small; but then it should be remembered that these islands, from their geographical position, would be of the utmost importance to this country in time of war. Again, these islands possessed large and commodious harbours, which were becoming increasingly resorted to by shipping engaged in the Australian and other trades, in preference to South American ports, for the purpose of obtaining fresh supplies of provisions. The amount of tonnage entering the ports of these islands had been rapidly augmenting for some years past. In 1851 it amounted to 17,538 tons, and in 1852 it was no less than 22,024 tons. Under these circumstances, the floating population of the islands was considerable.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not deny the national importance of maintaining these islands, but he considered the Vote excessive. It might be reduced one-half, if no more than the proper number of officers were kept. The present staff was enormous, considering that the resident population of the islands, as he understood, only numbered twenty-seven persons.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he thought the maritime and naval importance of these islands should be considered. They possessed the most magnificent harbours, which ought to be carefully surveyed.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, that the merits of the Falkland Islands as a naval station might be as great as the hon. and gallant Member (Sir G. Pechell) represented; but that circumstance had nothing whatever to do with this Vote, which was most anomalous and extravagant, considering the extreme paucity of population.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwould again remind the Committee that it was not from the extent of their present resident population that the Falkland Islands derived their importance. They constituted a most valuable maritime station, at which shipping frequently touched to take refuge, or to obtain supplies. At the same time, if any reductions could consistently be effected in this estimate, the Government would be ready to make them,
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that, as it was proposed to send out medical missionaries to heathen countries, he thought it would be better if the chaplain and the surgeon were rolled into one. If the Falkland Islands belonged to the United States Government, the cost of maintaining them would be reduced at least by one half. When that House voted millions so rapidly as they did, it was scarcely worth while to say anything about a small matter of this kind. At the same time, when they did not object to items like these, there never was any economy effected.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he could assure the Committee that care would be taken to have this expenditure investigated, with the view of ascertaining whether it might not be reduced.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would remind hon. Members opposite that the explanations which had been given did not affect the principle that no religious denomination should be supported from the public funds.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 4,350 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of the Falkland Islands, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 86: Majority 53.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(12.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 9,200 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charge of Hong Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to what he considered the excessive saleries of the Government officers, and he objected particularly to that of the Governor, 3,000 l., with 3,000 l. more as chief superintendent of trades. Then, also, there was the Treasurer and Registrar General, 900 l. a year, to manage a revenue of only 22,000 l.; the Chief Justice, 3,000 l., the Attorney General, 1,500 l., and 700 l. a year to the colonial chaplain. He would move that the Vote should be reduced one half.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that large reductions had of late years been made in the cost of this establishment. In 184 l, 45,000 l. was voted by Parliament under this head, while only 9,200 l. was now asked for; and he thought that a progressive reduction might be anticipated. The salaries given might appear large, but it must be recollected how trying to English constitutions was the climate of Hong Kong, and officers, therefore, required a higher rate of remuneration for going there.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would not trouble the Committee by dividing, if the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies would give an assurance that the diminution of the cost of this colonial establishment should be carried still further.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to call attention to the salary of the colonial chaplain, 700 l., with a further charge of 95 l. for contingencies. This, with 400 l. for the chaplain at the Falkland Islands, included in the last Vote, amounted to within a trifle of the amount of the Maynooth Vote, which was refused on the previous evening. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, who professed to object to all grants of public money for religious purposes, were sincere, they would object to such grants for Protestant purposes in the Colonies as well as for Catholic purposes in Ireland.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that after the decision come to on the last Vote, it would be unnecessarily delaying the business of the Committee to take another upon a point involving precisely the same principle.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he could give an assurance that, with an increasing revenue and a diminishing expenditure, this charge upon the revenues of the country would finally disappear?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he could not give a positive assurance; he only drew the inference, from seeing that a great reduction had taken place, that a further one might be expected.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he objected to the salary of the Governor as excessive and out of all proportion to the salary of any other Government officer charged with similar responsibility.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the Governor of a colony was not entitled to a pension, and his salary, therefore, always at first sight appeared disproportionate in amount to those of officers who were entitled to retiring pensions.
MR. MAGUIREbegged to ask whether any provision was made for the spiritual necessities of such Catholics as might be in the island, whether civilians or soldiers?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLanswered in the negative.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that as no doubt there must be Roman Catholics there, because wherever there was any part of the British Army there were persons of that denomination, he thought it unfair that no provision should be made for their spiritual necessities, while 700 l. was asked for the salary of the Protestant chaplain; and he should therefore move, and should divide the Committee upon the question, that the Vote should be reduced by the 700 l. proposed as the salary of the colonial chaplain.
MR. LUCASsaid, he wished to know whether it was the fact that there were Catholic soldiers at Hong Kong? If there were not, he should not object to the Vote; but if there were, as he believed was the case, he should certainly vote for striking out this 700 l. as he thought it unjust that a provision should be made to those of one, and refused to those of another, denomination.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that no doubt there were Catholic soldiers at Hong Kong, because it was an Irish regiment which was at present stationed there. He believed, however, that the chaplain, whose salary was included in the present Vote, had nothing to do with the garrison, but that his services were entirely confined to the consular establishment. If there was a Catholic chaplain for soldiers of that religion, as was the case at Corfu, his salary would not appear here but in the Army Estimates.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he must reiterate his objections to the salary received by the Governor of Hong Kong—3,000 l. as governor, and 3,000 l. as superintendent of trade—and he would move the reduction of his salary as Governor to 1,500 l.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that he could not consider that 3,000 l. was too high a salary for the Governor of Hong Kong; whether he should be permitted to hold the office of chief superintendent of trade in addition to that of Governor, he did not say.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that if the Governor received a salary of 3,000 l., he thought the country had a right to the whole of his time for that amount. If he could discharge the duties of both offices, he thought that 3,000 l. was a sufficient salary for both.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that he would not press his present Motion, but would at a subsequent part of the estimate move the reduction of his salary as chief superintendent of trade to 1,500 l.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that he should include in his Motion the 95 l. for contingencies, as well as the 700 l. for the chaplain's salary.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that supposing the principle advocated by the hon. Member who had proposed the Amendment were correct, and were to be carried out, it would be necessary to have a chaplain of each sect which might have members at Hong Kong. Did he not feel that it was quite impossible to do this? He believed that so long as the Church was connected with the State, the Government could not appoint any other ecclesiastical persons but such as were connected with the Church of England without incurring a great difficulty.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that he understood that this was merely a chaplain to the colonial establishment; and he thought that it would be most inconsistent and anomalous if the Committee, immediately after agreeing to vote the salary of such an officer at the Falkland Islands, were now, without the slightest distinction being shown between the two cases, to refuse it at Hong Kong.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) to withdraw the Amendment, as he thought it had been understood that the division on the last Vote should be decisive with respect to all the colonial chaplaincies.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that no such understanding could affect him, for he was not then in the House. Thirty-three Members voted against the Government on the last division, and as the amount of the present item was twice as large as that then in question, there should be double the number against it.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 8,405 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of Hong Kong, to the 31st day of March 1854."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 76: Majority 44.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following four Votes were then agreed to:—

(13.) 2,300 l., Labuan.

(14.) 17,396 l., Emigration.

455

(15.) 20,000 l., Captured Negroes' Support, & c.

(16.) 11,250 l., Slave Trade Commissions.

(17.) Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding 148,033 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March 1854."
CAPTAIN SCOBELL CAPTAIN SCOBELL moved, that the salary of the General Superintendent of Trade be reduced from 3,000 l. to 1,500 l. As the same individual was Governor of Hong Kong, at a salary of 3,000 l., the effect of the Amendment if carried would be to reduce his salary to 4,500 l. a year altogether. The Governor of Bermuda had 1,500 l. a year, the Governor of West Australia 1,300 l., and the Governor of New Zealand, which was quite as important as Hong Kong, 2,500 l. This functionary's calling himself Governor of Hong Kong was a mere fiction. As governor, he had a secretary with 1,800 l. a year independently of the colonial secretary, who had 1,500 l. a year more. As chief superintendent of trade he had a secretary and registrar at 700 l. a year, and he had got a first, second, third, and fourth assistant, receiving together about 1,300 l. a year, and he had got a Chinese secretary at 1,000 l., and an assistant Chinese secretary at 400 l. a year. Dr. Bowring, who was Consul at Canton, had 1,800 l. a year; no more (and he was certain that the Governor had not more to do), and was a more able man.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Scobell) was quite mistaken with regard to the duties of the Governor of Hong Kong as superintendent of trade, which were very considerable. When the trade of China was thrown open to all persons in this country, an arrangement was made by which it was settled that there should be three superintendents of trade—one at a salary of 6,000 l., another at a salary of 4,000 l., and another at a salary of 2,000 l. That was considered by the East India Company as a proper establishment for the management of the trade with China. On the arrangement being made with the Government of China whereby possession was obtained of Hong Kong, it was necessary to make some provision for its government; and the Government of the day thought they made an economical arrangement by
456
abolishing two of the superintendents, giving to the one that remained only one-half the salary that was proposed to be given to the first superintendent, and combining the situation with the office of Governor of Hong Kong. It should be recollected that, as chief superintendent of trade, his duties were of an arduous and multifarious character; he was in communication with all the consuls of the different ports; he was charged with the general conduct of all matters connected with their intercourse with China; he was, in fact, a plenipotentiary as well as a superintendent of trade; and whatever communications took place between them and the Government of China were carried on by some high authority commissioned by the Government of Pekin and the Governor of Hong Kong, as chief superintendent of trade. When they considered the extent of his duties, the unhealthiness of the climate of China, and the dearness of everything there, he did not think they were placing the total emoluments higher than should be fairly assigned to an officer of that description. The effect of the climate of China on the British constitution was exceedingly injurious. During the period he had the honour of conducting the foreign affairs of the country, he had to lament the loss of several of the most promising and deserving officers, who fell victims to the climate of China, and of many others who were compelled by illness to return to this country. The climate of Hong Kong might have been rendered more endurable by the distribution of the stations there; but he could assure the Committee that in general the China station was exceedingly trying to the British constitution. As to the range of salaries paid to inferior officers, he had made it his duty to inquire about them when that business was under his care. He had made inquiry as to what was the general range of salaries given by commercial establishments to their officers in China, and he found, on comparing their range of salaries with the range of salaries given in the consular establishments, that generally speaking the Government salaries were under the amount given by the mercantile establishments.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must remind the Committee that the statements of the noble Lord applied in precisely the same degree to the other consular establishments in China, where the salaries were much smaller. He did not think the Governor of Hong Kong was superior in

457
ability to Dr. Bowring, whose salary was 1,800 l. a year at Canton. He begged to call the attention of the Committee to another point, namely, that they had a consul at Frankfort, an inland town, although they had a Minister there, and two or three attachés. They had also consuls in Paris and Madrid, although they had large diplomatic establishments in both those cities.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to direct attention to the fact, that the Chinese officials were paid smaller salaries than the English officers, and he would suggest as the means of effecting a reduction of expense that a smaller number of English, and a larger number of Chinese servants should be employed.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he must beg to call attention to the proceedings in connexion with the slave trade that were carried on on the coast of Africa. It was understood that there was now another system in operation, and that vessels went to the coast of Africa—whether around the Cape of Good Hope he did not know—which it was supposed would not be suspected, being three masted vessels, and not rigged like slavers. There was a case where the crew of one of these vessels had landed and invited the unfortunate blacks to a banquet on board, and managed to kidnap a great number of them. It was said that the British Consul at Havana had been the instrument to bring the matter to light, and a sort of compromise had taken place by giving up 200 or 300 of them, whereby the Captain General could excuse himself. They all knew that for a series of years the Captain Generals had been sent out to make their fortunes, and had connived in almost every instance in allowing the slaves to be landed. The way in which the slaves were now introduced into the island of Cuba was a new feature in the case; he hoped the attention of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London was called to it, and that he would demand the utmost vigilance on the part of the British cruisers to put an end to the system. It appeared that the vessel was called the Lady Suffolk, and they knew of the manner those vessels were fitted out that sailed from ports of the United States ostensibly bound for Cuba; but though they went on direct under American colours, they very soon found themselves under Spanish colours, and introduced the slaves into Havana as had been stated.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the attention of the Government was constantly directed to the matter that had been re-
458
ferred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton. The British Consul at Havana had been exceedingly active; an additional force was sent out to cruise in the neighbourhood of Cuba; and means were taken, by making representations, and by sending out an additional force to Cuba, to check that system.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to call attention to a sum of 500 l. that was put down for the salary of Sir James Brooke, as Commissioner and Consul General at Borneo, although he was living 300 miles distant, at Sarawak, and although there was no trade or commerce at Borneo to render the appointment of a Commissioner or Consul General necessary. This must be looked upon simply as a pension to Sir James Brooke, because it had no reference to any service performed by him; and to give him this salary for filling an office at Borneo while he was 300 miles distant attending to his own affairs, appeared to be a discreditable expenditure of public money. He hoped that was the last time this vote would appear on the estimates, and he would divide the Committee unless he got a satisfactory explanation.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he believed the only question before the Committee was, whether the salary of the chief superintendent of Hong Kong should be reduced from 3,000 l. to 1,500 l. a year. After the statement of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), he could not vote for the Amendment; but he thought that the way in which the vote was inserted in the estimates was calculated to mislead, and that no one would have supposed that the same individual had 3,000 l. a year, as Governor of Hone; Kong.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that there was a similar discussion last year, and the vote appeared in the estimates in the same manner then.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the question of the 500 l. for the Commissionership at Borneo was a point that the noble Lord ought to clear up.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that was a subject which the Government considered some time ago, and he thought it had been announced in that House that there was to be an inquiry. It was stated that the Governor General of India would appoint a Commission for that purpose, but there was some difficulty in point of form; but it was intended that there should be an inquiry, in order to see in what manner the interests of British commerce could best be promoted in that quarter. Until they got

459
the result of that inquiry, he did not think they should make any alteration. He must say that some time ago there was a general impression that Sir James Brooke had rendered great service by his enterprising conduct. He was not convinced that Sir James Brooke had lost his title to that reputation, and he was not prepared to say that there ought to be anything done without further inquiry.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he was not speaking with reference to Sir James Brooke. He should say the same thing if it were another person. They paid 500 l. to a consul general who lived 300 miles off, and for a place where there was no trade. If Sir James Brooke had performed services for which they wanted to reward him, it was a different thing.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the Committee to the question upon which they were about to divide. It was quite evident that they must either cut down the salary of this Governor, or increase the salaries of all other Governors. Otherwise, they would be doing great injustice to the latter. As for the unhealthiness of the climate, the service was a voluntary one, and he did not suppose the extra salary was to pay for physic.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 146,533 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 70: Majority 24.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) 18,500 l. Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that there was a charge of 563L. for postages and journeys on the public service for our Minister at Wurtemburg. He considered it necessary that there should be some explanation of this item, which appeared to him to be a great waste of public money, as was indeed the whole establishment of Ministers at the petty Courts of Germany, such as Wurtemburg,. Bavaria, Saxony, & c. Hanover might, perhaps, be excepted, on account of its connexion with the Crown of this country; but with this exception, he thought that Ministers at Frankfort and at the Courts of Austria and Prussia would be ample diplomatic arrangements for the whole of Germany.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the charge for postages was on account of
460
despatches sent to this country, which if forwarded must of course be paid for; but an account was rendered of every item, and nothing was charged but what was absolutely duo. It should be remembered that the Minister at Wurtemburg was also accredited to the Court of Baden, and the charge for the journeys would be incurred in discharge of his duties at that Court. With regard to the question of diplomatic relations with the smaller Courts of Germany, he knew that there were many persons who were disposed to underrate its importance. But having had several years' experience of these matters he could assure the Committee of the value and importance of this means of diplomatic intercourse with the members of the German States, and that those means could not be supplied by our Minister at Frankfort, because he was accredited to the Diet there, and the representatives of those several Courts had no authority to deal with the general policy of their respective Courts, but were only charged with relation to the aggregate functions of the Germanic body. Besides, it was to be remembered that the smaller States often acted an important part in the affairs of Europe, and it often happened that they got important information through diplomatic intercourse with those States with regard to the proceedings of the more important States. It was true that the Government of Wurtemburg had in the year 1848 or 1849 withdrawn their Minister from this country through motives of economy; but that was no reason for making it of less importance to this country to have a diplomatic agent at the Court of Wurtemburg. When he was at the Foreign Office he considered this point fully, and he was of opinion that it would be a sacrifice of the public interests if our Minister at that Court were withdrawn.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that last year considerable discussion took place with regard to the Ambassador's chapel at Constantinople, which ended in the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day withdrawing the Vote. He now found in the present Estimates the sum of 327 l. 18s. 9d. for chaplain and chapel at Constantinople. He wished for an explanation of the appearance of this Vote.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that with regard to maintaining a chaplain at Constantinople, considering the large amount of British shipping and the great number of British sailors constantly at the port of Constantinople, he thought it was of

461
great importance that a chapel and a chaplain should be maintained there. The chapel had been burnt in one of those fires which were so common in that wooden-built metropolis, and though he did not at that moment recollect what the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did, yet if it had been him he would have said it was not proper to withdraw the Vote, because he thought it was becoming the character and honour of the country—to refer to no higher motives—that the British population of Constantinople should have some decent place of religious worship.
MR. ARTHUR KINNAIRDsaid, he observed in the Votes a charge for extra services on the part of our Consul at Charleston, in the United States. He wished to take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord the state of the negotiations which were entered into some time ago with regard to British coloured subjects, who, on their arrival at Charleston, were taken out of their ships and lodged in gaol, and then charged a considerable sum for their stay in that comfortable place so long as the ship to which they belonged remained in Charleston. He was aware that the subject had some time ago attracted the attention of the Government, but he had not heard the result. He was anxious, however, that the question should not be allowed to drop; and though the Federal Government had, in the first instance, evaded the question, yet he believed if this country were to take it up in earnest, the Federal Government would not shrink from their duty in protecting British subjects. He should be glad if the noble Lord could tell him the present state of these negotiations.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he regretted that he could not give his hon. Friend the information he required. The question, as the Committee was aware, was one of great interest and of considerable difficulty. The slave States in the south of the Union had passed laws which he forbore to characterise; but the effect of them was, that a man of colour belonging to a crew of a vessel, on her arrival at one of these ports, was arrested, and kept in prison as long as the vessel remained there. The British Government had represented to the Government of the United States that such treatment was a violation of the treaty between the two countries. This assertion was not denied by the Federal Government; but the constitution of the United States was such that the action of the Federal Government on the separate
462
States was next to nothing; and it was fairly stated to the British Government, that if we insisted upon the repeal of those laws, it would raise up questions between the Federal Government and the separate States, which would be exceedingly inconvenient, if not destructive, to the North American Union. The Consul at Charleston had, by instructions from the British Government, entered into communication with the local Government for the modification of those obnoxious laws; but up to the time that he (Lord Palmerston) left the Foreign Office these negotiations had not led to any satisfactory result, and he feared, though he had no precise information on the subject, that they had ended in no satisfactory arrangement. But he could assure his hon. Friend that the attention of the Government would continue to be directed to the question, and that no efforts would be omitted which could lead to a more satisfactory state of things.
MR. WISEsaid, that of twenty-three missions the miscellaneous expenses amounted to 1,700 l., of which Spain cost the larger proportion. He wished an explanation of this anomaly.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that these contingent expenses did not depend on mere caprice, but were governed by strict regulations at the Foreign Office. The expense would in great part be caused by messengers and despatches from Madrid.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that the salary of Consul General in Turkey was 1,500 l., while in the United States it was only 500 l.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that Turkey was in a very different condition from the United States. Justice was well administered in the latter country, property and life were secure, and consuls were required only at the seaports. But in Turkey consuls had important and multifarious duties to perform; they were, in fact, the pioneers of civilisation and progress; and as this country pushed forward its consular agents, so it was found that the security of life and property was extended, and commercial transactions speedily followed. When he was at the Foreign Office he had more applications for the appointment of consuls than he thought it was proper to comply with; but wherever they were appointed, there commerce was extended and life was secured, the pachas were put on their good behaviour, and the tranquillity of the country, on which commerce mainly depended, was increased.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he would now call attention to the fact that there was a charge of 4,000 l. for dragomans and interpreters to the embassy at Constantinople, while at Persia the secretary was able to speak the Persian language, and that expense was wholly saved.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that our intercourse with Turkey was much more considerable and multifarious than with Persia; and it must not be forgotten that there was attached to the Persian embassy a secretary acquainted with the language, whose services were indispensable. The habits of the Turkish Government had long been to require, not only from England, but from all European countries, that much of the intercourse should be carried on by means of dragomans, though there was more of personal intercourse when we had an ambassador there. He believed, however, that it was becoming more and more the practice of the Turkish Ministers to learn to speak French, as both Reschid Pacha and Ali Pacha could speak French fluently, and in that way personal intercourse could be obtained. Still there were many details, particularly with regard to commercial affairs, where dragomans were necessary, and especially when the consuls sat as judges in courts of appeal for the protection of European residents. It had been felt, however, to be desirable that these dragomans should be British subjects, and, without casting any reflection upon those valuable servants, the dragomans, who were not British subjects, he had some time since established a system of sending three or four young men from this country to learn the Turkish language, that they might act as interpreters. He believed that this system would succeed perfectly, as he understood that these young men were bestowing great care and attention in acquiring the language. But it was impossible that the duties could be performed without the intervention of interpreters.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that the noble Lord had said the necessity for interpreters was greater when the Ambassador was absent. Now, it had happened that during the last year this country had been deprived of the advantage of having an Ambassador residing at Constantinople—the late Government having thought proper to allow Lord Stratford to leave his post. When the present Government was formed, however, that nobleman was sent back to Constantinople; and if that had been done sooner, he {Lord D. Stuart)
464
thought it would have been of advantage to the public service; for he believed, that if that able diplomatist had been there at the time the attack upon the independence of Turkey was made by Austria, the question of Montenegro would have been decided in a manner much more favourable to the interests of the Turkish Empire. Probably the increased expense for dragomans had been caused by the absence of Lord Stratford. He would not recommend any innovation to be forced on the Turkish Government in an unbecoming and insulting manner, as had been lately done by Prince Menschik off on his arrival in Constantinople, by refusing to wait first on the Minister; but surely this Government might have recourse to argument and persuasion, and thus secure the advantage of that direct communication which the noble Lord thought desirable, and reduce the expense of dragomans and interpreters. He would object to no expenditure which tended to make the Turkish mission effective, and he hoped that the steps lately taken would have that effect, and that Turkey would receive from this country support against any Power that sought to assail her independence. There was one item he did not understand—"Establishment of dragomans at Constantinople for three-quarters of a year, 2,175 l. extraordinary expenditure." He wished to know why the estimate was only for three-quarters of a year?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the word "extraordinary"' in this case was a technical term, implying those items which did not consist of fixed salaries or regulated sums.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that the sum set down for the mission in Spain, 2,457 l., was the largest on the list, with the exception of Turkey; he wished to have some explanation of that circumstance. He also saw an item of 300 l. for a chapel and chaplain in Austria; he wished to know in what city in Austria that chapel was situated? He also wished to call the attention of the Committee to the inconvenience to which English travellers were occasionally subjected in the Austrian dominions.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought he had answered the question put by the hon. Member in regard to the contingent expenses of the Spanish mission. There were two kinds of expenses connected with that mission; one consisted of the fixed salaries of the Minister and the persons attached to the mission; and the other of what were called "extraordinaries" or incidental expenses, such as postages, mes-

465
sengers, and things of that sort, which varied from time to time according to circumstances. With regard to Austria, there was a chapel attached to the embassy, and that chapel must be at Vienna, and no other place. With respect to the inconvenience experienced by travellers in that country, there had been much communication between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Austria. The Government of Austria had assured this Government that those molestations arose from no unfriendly feeling towards England, but simply from the necessity of carrying out strict general regulations; but he thought the representations made by Her Majesty's Government had led to the cessation, in a great degree, of those molestations which were so justly the subject of complaint.
Vote agreed to; as were the four following Votes:—

(19.) 132,980 l., Superannuation and Retired Allowances.

(20.) 2,967 l., Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, and American Loyalists.

(21.) 2,000 l., National Vaccine Establishment.

(22.) 325 l., Refuge for the Destitute.

On (23.) 4,280 l., Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards,

MR. REPTONsaid, that unless he received an assurance from the Government of the rapid diminution of this grant, he would take the sense of the Committee upon it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was a diminution in the grant to what it had been, and he believed that there would be a further diminution in it.
MR. REPTONsaid, he should move that the grant be reduced to 2,000 l.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that an arrangement had been come to in respect to this vote that no addition was to be made to the number of Polish refugees that received benefit from it. It should be recollected that those persons came to this country in a state of great distress, and many of them were very deserving men, who were totally dependent upon the very small amount that was doled out of this sum. He knew, too, that a former Government of which he was a member, made this arrangement with the Polish refugees—namely, that those who received this pittance should continue to reside in this country; but if they went away they would lose their allowance, and would not receive it upon their return; and, further, that no new persons should be placed on the list.
466
The vote, therefore, was in course of gradual diminution.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, the grant had been originally made, on his Motion, in 1836. It was for men who had fought in the cause of their country, in support of a state of things which this country had sought to uphold, and who, by the vicissitudes of fortune, had been driven here for a shelter. Afterwards, the grant was raised from 10,000 l. to 15,000 l. It was subsequently diminished by the deaths of the parties receiving the allowance. In 1847, objection was taken to the grant by the hon. Member for Middlesex, now Secretary to the Admiralty. A debate of some length ensued; and it was said by one hon. Member that there was nothing to prevent the refugees going back to their own country. This was not so. The Poles might go back to the Prussian or Austrian territory, but not to the Russian territory; and the whole of the recipients of the grant belonged to the Russian territory of Poland. The Government at that time agreed to an inquiry into the grant, and two gentlemen were appointed who instituted a very searching inquiry. They recommended the removal from the list of all who were not incapacitated from supporting themselves; and the result was a great reduction in the amount of the grant. It was now only 3,000 l.—not a very large amount. No new pensioner had been added since 1848; and the deaths tended continually to diminish the grant. It would be a very cruel thing for the Committee now to withdraw it altogether; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his objection. There had never been any division on this grant.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he thought that this grant was altogether unjustifiable. It was no recommendation to him that those men had fought for their country, for he was opposed to all kinds of fighting. He did not think that they had anything to do with the civil disputes of any part of the world.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he thought, on the other hand, if the working classes were polled, a vast majority of them would be found to be in favour of continuing this relief to a meritorious but unfortunate class of individuals, for their sufferings in a cause which must be dear to every Englishman.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEhoped that, ere long, they should hear no more of grants like this. He trusted that England would always offer an asylum to political

467
refugees, but that that House would cease to subsidise them.
MR. REPTONsaid, on the understanding that there would be no further increase in the Vote, he would not press his Amendment.
Vote agreed to.
(24). 4,469 l. Miscellaneous Charges formerly defrayed from the Civil List.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he must ask for some explanation as to the charge of 400 l. for the college of St. David's, Lampeter; and the annuity of 500 l. granted by King Charles II. to the ancestor of the late Sir Thomas Clarges, in fee, and charged upon the coal dues.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the item of 400 l. for St. David's College came under the head of charges removed from the Civil List of 1831. With respect to the annuity granted by Charles II. to the ancestor of the late Sir Thomas Clarges, the same observation was applicable. The coal duties had been relieved of it, and it was now placed under the head of Miscellaneous charges.
MR. MIALLsaid, he must refer to the items of 89 l. paid to the Bishop of Sodor and Man, to be distributed among the incumbents and schoolmasters of the Isle of Man, and 92 l. to the Bishop of Chester, for stipends of two preachers in Lancashire. He wished to ask whether these charges were to continue beyond the lifetime of the present recipients. There was another item to which he objected—579 l. to the college of St. David's, Lampeter. He wished to know whether they were to go on paying these charges from generation to generation, or whether there was any hope of their being wiped out?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, these were charges which had been upon the Votes for a considerable number of years, and at a previous period detailed explanations of them had been printed with the Votes, as the hon. Member might have seen on a reference to these Votes.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he would suggest that it would be desirable that the Committee should have the names of the "poor French refugee clergy," to whom 700 l. of this vote was allotted.
MR. BRIGHTthought the proposition to furnish the names of the gentlemen in question a reasonable one.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to produce their names, if the hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) would make a Motion with that view.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that was precisely the answer the Committee had a right to expect, for the items appeared to be very much the same every year. These poor refugee clergy were no doubt very aged, but they had been aged for a great number of years; and he was quite certain, if the Committee did not look sharp into the matter they would live on for fifty years to come. The Government ought from year to year to look over all these small items, and gradually get rid of those which a want of wisdom in our forefathers had created.
MR. HUTCHINSsaid, he must maintain that the vote for St. David's College, Lampeter, stood upon very much the same footing as the one which was rejected on the previous night; and if the grant to Maynooth ought to be rejected, he could not see how this one could be supported upon principle.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he conceived that there was a wide difference between the two oases.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider his determination to print the names of the recipients of the Poor Clergy Charity. It was only 1,000 l. a year, while it was the duty of the Treasury to examine into all the claims, and to see that no fraud was committed upon the public exchequer. Of what use then would this printing of names be? None whatever. It would only diminish the value of the charity by holding up these unfortunate clergymen to the derision of that House, and he must certainly protest against the step that was about to be taken.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he coincided with the feeling of his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) on this point, and ventured to hope that the hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) would abstain from moving for the production of the names in question, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) promising to satisfy himself that there was no fraud committed on the Government in this matter.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, no consideration of delicacy for the persons who were the recipients of the charity ought to deter them from doing their duty to the public, and he should be sorry if this suggestion was not carried out. He was quite sure that, so far from the parties being derided, they would become objects of veneration, from their extreme age.
Vote agreed to.
(25.) 1,460 l. Foundling Hospital of Dublin.
MR. VANCEsaid, he must complain that the Government had been pleased to deduct ten per cent from the former Votes made for the Dublin hospitals, although it was understood at the time of the Act of Union that those institutions should be supported out of the public purse, in the same way as the Irish Parliament had granted an annual sum for their maintenance. His hon. Colleague (Mr. Grogan) intended moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the hospitals of Dublin, and he trusted that until such a Committee had been appointed and had completed its inquiries, the Committee would consent to the suspension of the Vote.
MR, W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that Irish Members ought to be content with the Votes as they stood—there being no less than eight for various public hospitals in Dublin. Not one of the hospitals of London, or of any other part of England, was supported by a grant of public money; and, for his part, he thought the hospitals of Ireland should be placed upon the same footing.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was not disposed to take the advice of the hon. Member for Lambeth. The hon. Member did not seem to know the difference between the two countries. Before the Union these institutions were maintained out of the public revenue of Ireland. But by the Act of Union the revenue of Ireland was taken from her, her debt doubled, and her taxation increased. Yet, notwithstanding all this, they wanted to deprive her of the small benefit she enjoyed from these Votes. "You," exclaimed the hon. and gallant Member, "have taxed Ireland. It is out-own money, and we have a right to spend it as we like."
Vote agreed to; as were also the following seven Votes:—

(26.) 10,290 l., House of Industry, Dublin.

(27.) 600 l., Female Orphan House, Dublin.

(28.) 1,350 l., Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin.

(29.) 600 l., Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.

(30.) 945 l., Dr. Steeven's Hospital, Dublin.

(31.) 2,280 l., Fever Hospital, Cork Street, Dublin.

(32.) 300 l., Hospital for Incurables, Dublin.

(33.) Motion made, and Question put—

470
"That a sum, not exceeding 38,492 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 1854."
The Committee divided;—Ayes 181; Noes 46; Majority 135.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Vote:—
(34.) 6,537 l., Concordatum Fund, and other Charities and Allowances, Ireland.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that, having already expressed his opinion on the subject of these grants, he would content himself on the present occasion by simply moving that this Vote be expunged.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that having been in the north of Ireland some time since, he had an opportunity of making inquiries as to the working of these grants, and he found that it was in many respects unsatisfactory. He would not enter into the general objection to these grants, nor into the objection to the present grant as regarded Ireland particularly further than to say, that the Presbyterians were more numerous in the north of Ireland than the members of the Established Church, and were in a more comfortable condition than the average population of Ireland, so that no ground existed for this grant, which did not apply with tenfold more force with respect to the Roman Catholic population. The plan pursued in the north of Ireland in reference to these grants of money—and he had the statement from a gentleman of strict veracity—was this: If twelve heads of families seceded from any existing denomination, and formed themselves into a separate congregation, they, on certifying that they had subscribed between them 35 l. for the payment of a minister, applied to Government for a sum out of the Regium Donum, which sum varied between 70 l. and 90 l. Such a plan was liable to great objections, for it invited, in many cases, to an unnecessary splitting up of existing congregations. He knew of one case where the sum subscribed was only 25 l., but the necessary amount was made up by putting down 10 l. a year for the pew of the minister's wife. He did not know much about pews, but he did not believe it was very usual to charge for the pew in which the minister's wife sat in in church. This entitled the parties to the 70 l. from the Regium Donum. It very frequently happened also, that though the 35 l. Was subscribed in the first instance, it was not kept up afterwards, so that, as far as he was able to learn, the sum subscribed by

471
the congregations was less in a great many cases than was required by the terms on which the additional grant was to be made. Nothing could be more calculated than such a system to lower the tone both of public and private morality. But the fact fact was, the grant was made to muzzle the Presbyterians of Ireland, in order that they might not raise a bark or a howl in harmony with their fellow-citizens, the Roman Catholics, against the Established Church; and it was most discreditable to them to consent to receive this large sum of money annually, which could be considered in no other light than as a bribe to prevent them from remonstrating against the existence of the Established Church in that country. If he were a Presbyterian, he would use much stronger language than he did in reference to this grant. He thought it of the greatest importance that complete religious justice should be established between sects in Ireland. But if the Government were not prepared to abolish this grant now, he hoped they would say that it would not be made larger in future, because if the 38,000 l. became 50,000 l. or more, there would be greater difficulty in dealing with the question at a future time. This would give considerable satisfaction, because it would show that it was the object of the Government to establish religious equality in Ireland.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he was surprised that an hon. Member, always professing such a high regard for peace, should come forward and make such charges as he had done upon a respectable and numerous body, imputing to them, in fact, the deliberate practice of a system of swindling and robbery, by giving a fictitious and false appearance to the local subscriptions necessary to secure a portion of the grant. He hardly liked to trust himself to describe the charge made, and would, therefore, confine himself to the actual words used by the hon. Member. He accused the respectable Presbyterian clergy of the North of Ireland with concocting certificates, and making sham subscription lists to obtain the stipend; and he further said, that when the stipend was thus obtained, such subscriptions as were real were often withheld; and he described this conduct as sapping the foundations of public and private morality. He should have thought the hon. Member would have had the decency, or at least the propriety, of adducing the evidence of some witnesses in support of the charge he had made, in order that there might be an opportunity
472
of testing the amount of value to be attached to the testimony adduced, and of meeting it with statements more deserving of credit. Representing, as he (Lord C. Hamilton) did, a large constituency) mainly consisting of Presbyterians, he never expected that it would become his duty to defend them from such a charge—a charge which ill became one who were the garb of peace, and should, therefore, avoid all offensive and irritating language. The hon. Member had, however, described a large number of highly-educated ministers of the Gospel as muzzled Presbyterians. He (Lord C. Hamilton) was addressing a civilised and enlightened assembly; and he was sure he should have their independent feelings with him in protesting against the tone of one among them who were the garb of peace and professed to speak its language. But he called on the hon. Gentleman, if he had anything more than hear say and gossip to rely upon, to come forward and prove the charge he had made. The Presbyterians, according to the hon. Gentleman, had been bought over. But did he really imagine that the loyal and ancient Presbyterian body of Ireland could be bought for the paltry sum of 38,000 l.? Did he mean to say they regulated their public conduct by the stipends they received? Did he think the doctrine they preached was influenced by their payment? Did he believe they were not sincere in the tenets they professed, and only simulated them for the Government reward? What, then, did he mean by the assertion that they had been bought over? These were terms which should not be used lightly of any class of men, still less of a body of clergymen who stood so high in the esteem and affection of their countrymen, as the Presbyterian ministers of the North of Ireland. He did not know what company the hon. Gentleman kept when he paid his short visits to Ireland; but if he were to frequent the society of these gentlemen—if he could obtain access to such respectable society—he would find the Presbyterian body an educated class, and not the unworthy body he had talked of, muzzled upon the one hand, and bought upon the other. They were not men born in high positions, but men who had attained their position by their talents and character, and by the confidence and respect of their fellow countrymen. This charge was the more extraordinary from one who advocated the voluntary system, for these reverend gentlemen were not appointed to their congregations by the Crown or by family in-

473
fluence, but having distinguished themselves in the rugged school of competition above their fellows, by their intellectual abilities and religious attainments, are selected by their fellow countrymen to hold the honourable office of ministers of the Gospel. This is the class selected for insult and degrading accusation. But he could say, that the only degradation was that incurred by him who could lightly make such charges, without any semblance of foundation. With reference to the Vote itself, he claimed the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite in its favour—in a merely secular and economical point of view. He claimed it on account of the effects of their ministrations. Exactly as Presbyterian congregations had become more numerous, so had there been an absence of military and police, which were paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. The country, therefore, gained enormously, in a pecuniary point of view, from the ministration of those gentlemen, for no money ever voted in the estimates had produced so much good as that granted for this most unjustly maligned body.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, that after the Vote of last night, when the Committee refused to vote the sum necessary for the repairs of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, he had no alternative but to vote against this grant. The Roman Catholics were the poorest and largest portion of the population of Ireland, yet they received less assistance from the State in proportion to their numbers than any other denomination. There was no argument for this Vote which did not exist, even in a stronger degree, in favour of the Vote which they rejected last night. He looked upon that Vote, therefore, as one of infinite importance, and one which would form an era in their future discussions. It was regretted by the majority of the Committee, on the express ground of conscientious objection to assist in the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion. That was the reason alleged by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis), whose authority was so high on these subjects, who stated as the ground of his vote that he should not consent to give any sum of money from the public revenue for the promotion of religious doctrines of which he disapproved. If that argument was good as regards Maynooth, it was equally good against all ecclesiastical establishments, otherwise it resolved itself into the right of the strongest, and he did not know
474
any form of oppression, whether civil or religious, to which it would not lead. Under these circumstances he could arrive at no other determination than to vote against this and all other proposals for the grant of any sum for the maintenance of any peculiar form of religion out of the public taxes.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had laid too much stress upon the Vote of last night. He (Sir J. Young) was then in the minority, but he did not look upon the result as a precedent which he was bound to follow; on the contrary, he regarded it as an evil omen, which he thought the country would look upon as a warning. Some Gentlemen had opposed the Maynooth Vote, as they had the present, on the ground that grants of public money should not be made for ecclesiastical purposes. But he (Sir J. Young) did not think that opinion was shared by the Committee. The grant to these Presbyterians was one of very old standing; and they themselves laid the grounds for it in this, that when they first went to Ireland they were induced to do so by the hope not only that their religion should be respected, but that they should participate in the endowments of the State. It would, therefore, be very hard upon that body if the Legislature was now to withdraw it. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had stated one case, and one case only, in which he thought an endowment had been surreptitiously obtained by a false certificate, and no doubt the hon. Member was convinced that the case was such as had been stated to him; but he (Sir J. Young) begged to remark that the Legislature could adopt no more dangerous course than that of legislating upon single and isolated cases. However well-founded the single case might be, it was evidently unfair to put that forward as characteristic of the whole body of Presbyterians in Ireland. He denied that there was any ground for saying, as the hon. Gentleman had done, that the Presbyterians of Ireland had been demoralised by the operation of this grant. On the contrary, he maintained that they were among the most industrious, loyal, and best-behaved people in that country. Placed in the most barren part of Ireland, they had cultivated the ground; and he besought the Committee to recollect what followed. Their commerce extended in their ports, and at this moment, taking the numbers into account—and they reached to about 1,000,000—there were fewer Presbyterians in the poor-

475
houses and gaols of the country than had ever been the case before. There was, therefore, no ground for saying they were demoralised. There was one most important qualification for obtaining this grant which the hon. Member had omitted. Besides the building of a chapel and the production of a certificate that a certain amount of money had been subscribed, it was necessary that the parties claiming the grant should also show that there had been religions service in the chapel for three years, and that the money had been paid for three years. Now, he contended that the qualification of time was an exceedingly important one. Besides, he assured the Committee that all the circumstances of each case were narrowly looked into every year, and every precaution taken against the perpetration of fraud. The hon. Member for Manchester had asked some pledge from the Government that the grant should at least not be increased; but he (Sir J. Young) did not think that it would be wise in any Government to give such a pledge. Circumstances might arise to justify an increase, and he did not think it desirable to say that that increase should not take place provided a proper case were made out for it. He (Sir J. Young's) whole argument proceeded in direct opposition to that of those gentlemen who were against all religious endowments. He believed that if to-morrow they were to abolish all religious endowments—that if they were to get rid, in the first place, of the grant to Maynooth, then of the Regium Donum, and, lastly, of all the Church establishments—instead of these changes tending to secure the good of society, to raise the moral and social condition of the people, and to promote the spread of religion, they would in the highest degree tend to injure the moral and social condition of the people, and that many years would not elapse before the very name of religion would die out of the land, He denied that any example, either in ancient or modern times, could be cited in which religion had extensively flourished without the support of the State. If he had had fuller notice of the present discussion, he would have undertaken to show that the case of America, which was so much relied upon, was not one on which any reliance could be placed. It was said that the effect of religious endowment was to bring the bodies so endowed into closer relation with the State; that they were thereby induced to view the proceedings and opinions of the State with more favour than they would
476
be disposed to do if there was no such alliance; and that this was one of the main reasons why statesmen generally upheld religious endowments. Now he (Sir J. Young) was not prepared to say that that was not a very good reason. It was said also that this grant should be withheld, because the Presbyterians were better off than the most part of the people of Ireland. He admitted that they were so—and why? Because they were the most industrious and frugal portion of the population. He believed that it would not be a great privation to the Presbyterians individually if this grant were taken away. It would not, perhaps, entail upon them an extra charge of more than a shilling a head; but, although it might not be of much importance in a pecuniary point of view, its withdrawal would be sure to excite dissatisfaction among them, and that was a thing which wise statesmen would not forget to look to. If, then, he had succeeded in showing that the effect of this grant was not to demoralise the people—if its effect, on the contrary, was to promote their morality, industry, and loyalty, and if at the same time it drew them into closer relations with the State—he believed he had said all that could be said in favour of its continuance.
MR. COBDENsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton), on rising to reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), was in that state of excitement in which he often found himself when addressing the House, an excitement which often led people into the use of words of indiscretion for which they should not always be held responsible. Otherwise he (Mr. Cobden) should have said there was something rather unparliamentary in the words in which the noble Lord had called his hon. Friend to task for having referred to an anonymous authority in that House. His hon. Friend did what every man in that House was in the habit of doing; he made a statement on his own authority; and he (Mr. Cobden) had yet to learn, that any hon. Member who made a statement of facts which came within his own knowledge was liable to the charge of making anonymous or slanderous imputations upon anybody. He ventured to tell the noble Lord that he would find his hon. Friend perfectly ready to be responsible in that House for whatever he stated there on his own authority. His hon. Friend, when quoting an example, did not say that the whole body of the Presbyterian clergy in

477
Ireland were addicted to tricks of the same kind; and he must say, it appeared to him rather suspicious that the noble Lord should come forward as the champion of a great body of Dissenters in Ireland, for there did not appear to him to be any natural affinity between that noble Lord and any body of Dissenters. The noble Lord advised political economists and financial reformers to consider how immensely the country gained by means of the grant to Presbyterians; for, he said, in proportion as that grant was bestowed, order and morality would be found to prevail. If the noble Lord had been accustomed to consider the logical tendency of an argument, he must have observed that that reasoning applied to other bodies besides Presbyterians. If the endowment of religion had such a salutary effect in Ulster, why should it not be tried in Connaught? The noble Lord dealt with Catholics in one way, and with Presbyterians in another. Now he (Mr. Cobden) maintained that they could not go on legislating in one spirit for 1,000,000 of the people of Ireland, and in an opposite spirit for 4,000,000 or 5,000,000. He thought it impossible that any one could have sat in that House and considered the tendency of recent debates on religious questions without seeing that they were approaching, or at least making progress, towards a state of things in which, not merely Dissenters or Roman Catholics, but all men would be obliged to bring their minds to the consideration of this question—what policy should they pursue in order to do equal justice to all religions? Now, he must confess for himself that, although he generally acted with Gentlemen who were either themselves voluntaries or represented voluntary constituencies, he must confess that he had never—probably it was owing to the training which he received—had any very strong feeling against Church endowments: he would be a hypocrite if he said the contrary. But he had a very strong conviction that they must do justice in that House to all parts of the community. Now, there were two ways of doing justice to the people of Ireland—two ways, he meant, of doing political justice. Though they might object to legislate on religious matters, if they were in favour of endowments at all, he thought they must make up their minds to endow all. That had been very much the case. A few crumbs from the table of the great Establishment had been allowed to fall to the lot of the Presbyterians, the Roman Catholics, and others. But now it seemed
478
that they were to maintain the privileges of the Established Church, and that Roman Catholics were not to be allowed to participate in endowments. After certain recent Votes in that House—after the Vote of the previous night on the May-nooth question, from which he exceedingly regretted his casual absence—after the exhibition of tendencies which would lead rapidly to the repeal of the Emancipation Act if some hon. Gentlemen could have their way—after all this, he said, it behaved not merely Dissenters and Roman Catholics, but Churchmen who were disposed to see justice done to all parts of the country—since the majority of that House appeared determined that Roman Catholics should not have the smallest modicum of endowment by an Act of the Legislature, every liberal and right-minded Churchman, every man who went to church, but was nevertheless disposed to do justice to those who attended other places of worship, must make up his mind to co-operate with those who were disposed to abolish all State endowments whatever. Now let hon. Members observe what they were bringing on themselves—he referred to those who had voted with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). They had a body of Roman Catholics there who, by their organ—by the mouth of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had declared that in the abstract they had no objection to endowments, but that they wanted equality in the eye of the law; and if that House would not do political justice to those men and their co-religionists, they would join the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall) and other hon. Gentlemen who came there representing a principle—and he would observe that for the first time there were in that House a number of Gentlemen representing voluntaryism—they would, he said, force Roman Catholics to unite with these Gentlemen in seeking to abolish all endowments, including the doing away with the Church Establishment. And he confessed that he would be a traitor to his own conscientious convictions of what was just and right towards the people of this kingdom, and especially towards the people of Ireland, if he did not say that he heartily went with them himself. Late proceedings in that House—the tone and temper which he had observed going on around him—were such that he could not resist the conviction, that in order to prevent that House from being for all time an arena of religious discord, he, for one,

479
must adopt the principle of abolishing all endowments for religious purposes, and leaving all religions to maintain themselves. Now those were the broad principles on which he had been brought to act—not, he repeated, from any predilection in favour of voluntaryism—he had always gone to church himself, his mother took him there, and, as a rule, they all went where their mothers took them; but seeing a determination to persecute some 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of his fellow-subjects by denying them equal justice, he would join with those who were for doing justice to all. He would on that occasion vote with his hon. Friend (Sir J. Shelley) against this grant for the Presbyterians of Ireland; and, seeing that the Committee would not allow any grant to the Roman Catholics of that country, he would join on every occasion in anything which could tend to bring all to a perfect footing of equality in such matters.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I think, Mr. Bouverie, the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) stated last night, with regard to one of the divisions, he did not well know what he was voting for. I am afraid that description is not only applicable to the first division, in which he might be mistaken, but with regard to the second division also, because I cannot believe his deliberate purpose was to refuse a sum for the repairs of Maynooth College. I am very much afraid the hon. Member was not aware of the tendency of the vote he was about to give. He may, perhaps, after hearing the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay), and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, the Member for the West Riding, have now, or begun to have, some notion of the tendency of that Vote. I must say I think those hon. Gentlemen have exaggerated the effect of that Vote. The Vote must be read, not by the light of last night, but by the Vote given a considerable time ago on the question of Maynooth itself, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire proposed to abolish altogether the grant to the College of Maynooth, and to repeal the Act which established that grant. It will be recollected that the Committee refused to concur with the hon. Gentleman, and maintained the Act of Parliament by which Maynooth was established. The effect of that decision is, that Maynooth remains; that the teaching of Maynooth is conducted on the same principles; that the same
480
doctrines taught last year, or two years ago, are still taught; that the number of professors is unaltered; and that the salaries of the principals and professors remain exactly as they were. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's Vote last night is a very grave one, because the college remaining the same, and the endowment by Act of Parliament remaining the same, the hon. Gentleman says—"The theological errors of these persons are so great, the doctrines they teach are so dangerous, that they shall not he allowed to have their windows repaired. If the roof is uncovered it must not be mended; the rain and the snow must be allowed to come in upon their bodies, and until they adopt better opinions we cannot allow them to live comfortably." It was certainly a very odd Vote for this House to come to; but, be it observed, it in no way destroys or impairs that Act by which the grant to Maynooth was established. It was, perhaps, an error, but certainly an error which could not have well been foreseen at the time, that a question of really repairing a public building should be made the occasion of entering upon the whole question of religious teaching within its walls. But the effect of the Vote of last night has certainly been to induce many persons, who would not have otherwise ventured on that course of policy and that line of argument, to say if such be the way in which the people of Ireland are to be treated, it is better to get rid of religious endowments altogether. I must say I think myself that is a very precipitate conclusion. It is one to which certainly I am not only not prepared to come, but a conclusion which I shall do my best to prevent. I believe, although it would be unwise to propose, even if the forms of this House allowed it, another Vote for providing for the repairs of Maynooth, it will be the duty of the Government to consider in what way that building can be kept in repair, so long as it pleases Parliament to maintain the Act establishing the College of Maynooth. That Act of Parliament is, I conceive, the settled policy of the country. It is the policy settled by the consent of all the estates of the realm, and the policy which this House has deliberately refused to interfere with or overthrow. At the same time it is impossible not to see that the tendency of such votes as were given last night is not, as may be supposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir

481
Robert H. Inglis), of disapproving Roman Catholic doctrines, and declaring that a majority of this House ought to refuse any grant for the support of any doctrines in which they do not concur, but, on the contrary, the tendency of it is to shake the general belief that religious endowments ought to be supported. Now, as I believe with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland (Sir J. Young) that religious endowments are of very great use for a nation, as I should be quite willing to vote, if there was occasion for it, for grants to Roman Catholics, not only with respect to May-nooth, but with respect to other subjects, I cannot certainly draw from these votes the conclusion the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) has drawn. With respect to the particular Vote before the Committee, it is a Vote which has been sanctioned for a great number of years—sanctioned in principle long before the Union. It is a grant which tends to maintain feelings of regard for the general government of the country, feelings of respect for law and order; and I say, therefore, both upon every temporal ground, and every secular ground, that Parliament ought to come to a different conclusion, and certainly I shall give my vote most cordially for this proposition. I hope, instead of going on in the course sanctioned by the votes of a majority last night, that because a majority voted for the claims of the Roman Catholics being rejected, we ought to vote for the claims of the Presbyterians being rejected, and so leading to the abolition of all Church establishments—I do trust a majority of this House will rather reconsider that course, and I am sure if they wish to maintain the principle of Church establishments, they ought to act with regard and fairness to all denominations of religion in this realm.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he was not at all convinced by the remarks of the noble Lord that the course he had taken last night was not a proper one. He should not have altered that course, whatever might have been the consequences with regard to the Presbyterian Vote. The noble Lord was convinced that it was the incumbent duty of every one to maintain the endowments of the Established Church of this country. Strongly as that conviction was also impressed on his own mind, he could not, let the consequences he what they might, give his sanction to support a religion which he believed to be contrary to the word of God, and com-
482
pletely subversive of good government, as well as contrary to the oath taken by the Sovereign. These were the grounds upon which he had opposed the grant to Maynooth, and upon which it was his intention to continue opposition to it. He should certainly vote to-night with the noble Lord for the grant under consideration. He had voted the other night according to his honest conviction; and while he had a seat in that House he should never be deterred doing so by any supposed consequences.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, it was not his intention to say that it was technically irregular to oppose this Vote, not on the ground that it was either extravagant or unwise, but upon the ground that all religious endowments ought to be abolished; but he did say it would be equally regular and much more fair, if it were wished to argue that great question, to put it before the Committee in a more distinct form, and to give hon. Members an opportunity of recording their votes upon it. He would not now enter upon that discussion; but there was one observation worthy of attention. Without going into the accurate history of this grant, there had been such a grant going on ever since the reign of James I. In one shape or another, the Presbyterians in Ireland had been receiving aid from the State since the reign of that Sovereign. Congregations had been formed, ministers ordained, young men trained for the ministry, chapels built, and property purchased, on the faith that the Presbyterians were to have that status in the eyes of the country and of Parliament. The grant was continued by the Irish Parliament, and adopted when Ireland was united to England; and he would ask the Committee if it would be fair, on a proposition of this kind, without notice, and in the absence of a large number of Irish Members, to stop by a sudden Vote a grant of this description? If there were any objections to the grant because of defects in the system, let them be met; but he observed the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) expressly avoided giving his own personal weight and responsibility to the misappliances of the funds which he had instanced. They were only presented to the Committee as the gossip collected in he hoped an agreeable trip through Ireland. He protested against the statement of the hon. Member for Manchester, that the Presbyterians in Ireland were muzzled with the grant, and bought to acquiesce in certain views which

483
they would not otherwise entertain. He had no means of knowing with whom the hon. Member had been associating in his travels in Ireland; but if the hon. Member had associated with better specimens of the Presbyterian body, he would have found that to muzzle them, or to buy them into saying what they did not believe, or not saying what they did believe, was a problem which would defy the logical and political ingenuity even of any hon. Member for Manchester.
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, that an appeal had been made ad misericordiam, as well as to a feeling of loyalty in support of this grant. On the part of a large body of Presbyterians, he declined to accept the grant on any such grounds. They would be loyal whether the Vote was agreed to or not. He believed that there was no difference among Roman Catholics as to this Vote, and he saw no analogy between it and the Vote for the repairs to Maynooth, which they had decided last night.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, if the Vote had been proposed now for the first time, he should have opposed it; but, looking to the length of time it had been granted, and to the social, moral, and political benefits it had produced, he would support it. He could not shut his eyes to the fact, that in those parts of Ireland in which Presbyterianism existed, order, industry, and prosperity predominated, while the other parts were disgraced by lawless confusion and murder.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he considered that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had most grievously insulted a large portion of the people of Ireland. The hon. Member (Mr. Hastie) spoke in a manner worthy of his name—very precipitately, when he alluded to the outrages and murders in the south of Ireland. What was the fact? Why, the last Committee which had sat to inquire into disturbances in Ireland directed its attention solely to the north of Ireland, where the Presbyterian religion was predominant. As a Roman Catholic, he would not assert that religion was the cause of those outrages; it lay far deeper. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Young) the Secretary for Ireland had slandered all the religions in Ireland when he stated that these money grants rendered them moral, peaceful, orderly, and industrious. If the Regium Donum were to cease, would the Presbyterians of Ireland, for instance, be less moral, less orderly, and less industrious
484
than they were at the present moment? The Quakers and Independents were not endowed, yet was there immorality, confusion, or strife among them? He believed the Protestant Church would be purer if no connexion of this kind existed. The Catholic religion had done immense good to the people in a variety of ways without receiving any provision from the State, and in spite of its repression. The noble Lord had taunted the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) with having raised the flame of religious discord; but the noble Lord had done more than any other man he knew to produce such a result, and had perilled his reputation as the champion of religious liberty by his celebrated Durham letter. He wished that all religions were free, and that the Catholic would fling down the miserable 38,000 l. a year which was annually doled out to them with insult, contumely, and outrage; but so long as they were made to pay for the support of the Protestant Establishment he thought they had a reasonable claim for assistance. Because the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) had last night succeeded in inducing the Committee to reject a small Vote for Maynooth, he should not vote against this grant to the Presbyterians.
MR. M. O'CONNELLsaid, he should vote against the grant. He had never voted for the Maynooth grant, except once, and that was on the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) He believed that his own Church could find funds now, as she had found them under the penal laws, and that State connexion was ruin to a Church, and damage to a State. He was for "cutting the painter," and thought that every man should pay his priest as he paid his doctor, when he wanted him—and their religion would be better looked after. He objected to mixing religion up with politics at all; but he was aware that until they got rid of endowments altogether that was impossible; but, that once effected, the business of the country would be better looked after by Parliament.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must deprecate the impression which the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) was calculated to convey with respect to the Vote which the Committee had arrived at on Thursday evening, upon the question of the grant of Maynooth. Nobody could suspect the hon. Member of being very friendly to the Established Church; and, therefore, when he had stated

485
that he was struck by the injustice of the Vote at which the Committee bad arrived on the previous night, the hon. Member had been merely persevering in the expression of opinions which he had always advocated. He (Mr. Newdegate) wished to offer one observation with reference to the hon. Member's notion of political justice. His notion of political justice was nothing more than the desire to witness the existence of a blind political equality. If religious questions were to be looked upon through the medium of political justice, it was quite clear that that religion which conduced most to the maintenance of the peace, the order, and the prosperity of the country should be most readily assisted by the State. It was because he (Mr. Newdegate) was of opinion that the grant to Maynooth had not conduced to the maintenance of the peace and well-being of Ireland, that he had opposed the continuance of that grant; and it was because he believed that the Presbyterian religion tended to promote the prosperity of that country that, in accordance with the Vote now before the Committee, he was willing to grant the assistance which it was proposed to afford the members of that persuasion,
MR. M'MAHONsaid, as hon. Members who were opposed to religious grants had not divided on previous Votes of a similar description which had been passed during the evening, it seemed as if they were inclined to illustrate their principle only in the case of Ireland.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 38,492 l., he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1854."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 46: Majority 135.
Vote agreed to; as was also the following Vote:—
(34.) 6,537 l. Concordatum Fund, and other Charities and Allowances (Ireland).
The House resumed. Committee report progress.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he must complain that the Bill gave new and extensive powers to the Commissioners of Police. It authorised them to decide whether a man should have a licence or not,
486
and when he had obtained a licence it empowered them to suspend it at pleasure, their decisions to be without appeal. Now he admitted that hackney carriages required to be inspected, because he believed they were not now in a satisfactory condition; but he contended that the inspection proposed under the Bill would not be in proper hands for the purpose. He entertained the highest respect for the eminent gentleman who was now the First Commissioner of Police; but he strongly objected to the custom of granting more and more power to the police, and considered it to be an innovation of the worst and most alarming kind. When the Commissioners of Police were first appointed, it was understood that their duties were to be wholly ministerial, and in no respect judicial; but a different system began to be introduced, when the office of Registrar of metropolitan hackney carriages was abolished, and the duty of issuing licences was transferred to the Commissioners of Police. He objected to that altogether; but if they would give such a power to the Commissioners of Police, he trusted they would not confer it without the right of appeal. In all cases of licences hitherto, it had been the practice to grant the right of appeal from the judgment of those who had to decide in the first instance. It was so in the case of public-houses; and the evidence given before a Select Committee of that House by Mr. John Wood, chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, clearly showed that the system had been productive of beneficial results. He held it was tyrannical to place such an extensive power in the hands of one man, Commissioner of Police or not, because little confidence could be felt in the decision of a single individual where so much property was at stake. In a recent case one of the Judges of the land sentenced an unfortunate woman to three years' additional punishment for merely having called a policeman a pig; and if such a mistake had been committed by an occupant of the judicial bench, what might they not expect from a Commissioner of the Police? But, after all, the Bill afforded no security that they should have the benefit of the decision of the Commissioners of Police. It was more than probable that the inspection of public vehicles would be left to some subordinate officer; but at all events it was most unjust not to grant the right of appeal. He had intended to propose that an appeal should lie to the quarter-sessions; but he had been met by the ob-

487
jection that that would occasion great delay. He should therefore move, when they came to the next clause, that there should be an appeal to the County Court.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he wished to move the insertion after the words "for public use," of the words "either for first or second class carriages, as shall hereafter be provided." He was anxious to provide that the middle classes should be able to hire a carriage with a fair chance of riding in it with comfort. The other day there was a letter in the Times from a person who stated that the rain had come through the roof of a cab he had hired, and had spoiled his wife's dress. Now, they ought to provide for such cases as these, and to render the condition of cabs such that no injury should result to the garments or to the health of those who used them. He wished to see a first and second class of cabs. If a cab proprietor wanted a first-class licence, let him be subject to the by-laws of the Commissioners; but if he wished for a licence for a common class cab, let him be content to receive 6d. a mile.
MR. FITZROYsaid, he wished the hon. Member to defer his Motion until the Report was brought up.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he would be glad to see some competition in cabs, and saw no reason why cabs should not ply at various prices—say 6d, 8d, 10d, or 1s. a mile. Many persons would like to hire a superior cab at the larger price; and he was afraid, if the uniform rate of 6d. a mile were imposed, that all the cabs would be such as merely to pass muster. He did not expect to see the public supplied with good cabs at that price.
MR. BONHAM CARTERsaid, he thought the suggestion a good one, and that upon each cab there should be affixed the price per mile. Many people would be willing to pay 9d., instead of 6d., for a good cab.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy) would endeavour to pass the Bill as it then stood. He felt persuaded that the best principle to adopt in that matter would be to establish one uniform tariff. He had been informed that there were at the present moment companies without end ready to start cabs of the best description and with the best horses at the proposed fare of 6d. per mile. It was true that that fare had already been tried, and had not been found successful; but the failure
488
of the experiment was owing solely to a combination among the existing cab-owners.
Clause agreed to. On Clause 2,
LORD DUDLEY STUART LORD DUDLEY STUART moved the addition of a proviso, that in case of the suspension of a licence, there should be a power of appeal from the Commissioner of Police to the Judge of the County Court.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Clause, to add the words, 'Provided however that in case of the refusal or suspension of any such licence as aforesaid, it shall he lawful for the proprietor of any such stage or hackney carriage, or other persons applying for such licence, or subjected to such suspension, to appeal from the decision of the Commissioners of Police to the Judge of the County Court of the district in which the person so applying for a licence, or whose licence shall have been so suspended, shall reside, and it shall be lawful for the said Judge to quash such suspension, or to grant such certificate refused by the said Commissioners of Police, as aforesaid."'
MR. FITZROYsaid, he thought the County Court Judge was not a proper functionary. He should have no objection that in every case the Commissioner of Police should report to the Secretary of State the cause of suspension, and if the Secretary of State thought the cause insufficient, he should restore the licence.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he objected to both the Motion and Amendment. It was quite as reasonable to give an appeal to the Lord Chancellor as to the County Court Judge; and to report the cause of suspension to a Secretary of State was still more absurd. It was imposing an unnecessary trouble to report the cause of suspension, and it could not be expected that a Secretary of State could attend to such a matter.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 66: Majority 60.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
The House resumed. Bill reported.
The House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.