HC Deb 20 May 1853 vol 127 cc442-85

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bouverie in the Chair.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

said, 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 PEEL

said, 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 WALMSLEY

said, 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 PEEL

replied in the affirmative.

MR. JOHN M'GREGOR

said, he should support the Vote solely for the purpose of maintaining the faith of Parliament.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would not oppose the Vote after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) 12,151l., Indian Department—Canada.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he objected 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 PEEL

said, 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, 7,700l., 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'GREGOR

said, 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. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 PEEL

said, 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. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 RUSSELL

said, 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. BRIGHT

said, 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 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'GREGOR

said, he must deny that the grant had been ever given in consequence of any concession of lands by the Indians.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he only required that any conditions which might have been entered into with the Indians should be kept.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, 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.) 19,428l. Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and others in the West India Colonies and Prince Edward's Island,

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he wished to know why Demerara, Honduras, and other islands, which were self-supporting, were not mentioned in the estimates?

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, 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 SMITH

said, he wished to ask whether the salary of the Chief Justice of Anguilla, which was put down at 100l. a year, was the whole that person received?

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, 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. WILLIAMS

said, he thought the Colonies ought to maintain their own governors, and he particularly objected to so large a sum as 4,000l. a year being paid to the Governor in Chief of the Windward Islands.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, 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'GREGOR

said, 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. WILLIAMS

was 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 4,000l. a year to the Governor of that island.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) 30,262l. Justice in the West India Colonies and the Mauritius.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, 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 16,844l., 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. WILLIAMS

said, there were some of the items in this Vote of which he must complain.

MR. LUCAS

said, he expected the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams} was about, when he rose, to complain of the item 400l., 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. WILLIAMS

said, 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. LUCAS

said, 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 PELLATT

said, 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 400l.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, 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. BRIGHT

said, 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 RUSSELL

said, 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. LUCAS

said, that in the 18th Vote of these Estimates would be found a charge of 100l. for the chaplaincy at Athens.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, 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 SHELLEY

said, 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. LUCAS

said, 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'MAHON

said, he thought that it would be absurd to vote for this item of 400l. 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. MIALL

said, 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. ATHERTON

said, 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 PELLATT

said, 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 PEEL

said, 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 time be diminished, and part of it be borne by the local revenue.

Motion made— That a sum, not exceeding 16,444l., 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:—

That a sum, not exceeding 976l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Heligoland, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

MR. MIALL

said, he would move a reduction of 100l. in the Vote, with the view of disallowing two payments to clergymen of 50l. each.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

hoped 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 876l., 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 4,750l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of the Falkland Islands, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

MR. LUCAS

said, 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 400l. 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 SHELLEY

said, that he was perfectly ready to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of 400l.; 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 400l., 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 WALMSLEY

begged to inquire the amount of the population of the Falkland Islands, for whose benefit so large a sum as 4,750l. was now demanded? Were there any troops at these islands?

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, 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. WILLIAMS

said, 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 PECHELL

said, 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. ATHERTON

said, 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 RUSSELL

would 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. BRIGHT

said, 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 PEEL

said, 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'MAHON

said, 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 4,350l., 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 9,200l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charge of Hong Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1854.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, 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, 3,000l., with 3,000l. more as chief superintendent of trades. Then, also, there was the Treasurer and Registrar General, 900l. a year, to manage a revenue of only 22,000l.; the Chief Justice, 3,000l., the Attorney General, 1,500l., and 700l. a year to the colonial chaplain. He would move that the Vote should be reduced one half.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, that large reductions had of late years been made in the cost of this establishment. In 184l, 45,000l. was voted by Parliament under this head, while only 9,200l. 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. WILLIAMS

said, 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'MAHON

said, he wished to call attention to the salary of the colonial chaplain, 700l., with a further charge of 95l. for contingencies. This, with 400l. 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 SHELLEY

said, 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. BRIGHT

said, 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 PEEL

said, 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 SCOBELL

said, 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 PEEL

said, 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. MAGUIRE

begged 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 RUSSELL

answered in the negative.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, 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 700l. 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 700l. proposed as the salary of the colonial chaplain.

MR. LUCAS

said, 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 700l. as he thought it unjust that a provision should be made to those of one, and refused to those of another, denomination.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, 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 SCOBELL

said, he must reiterate his objections to the salary received by the Governor of Hong Kong—3,000l. as governor, and 3,000l. as superintendent of trade—and he would move the reduction of his salary as Governor to 1,500l.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, that he could not consider that 3,000l. 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. BRIGHT

said, that if the Governor received a salary of 3,000l., 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 3,000l. was a sufficient salary for both.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, 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 1,500l.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, that he should include in his Motion the 95l. for contingencies, as well as the 700l. for the chaplain's salary.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, 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. AGLIONBY

said, 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 PECHELL

said, 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. MAGUIRE

said, 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 8,405l., 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:—

That a sum, not exceeding 148,033l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March 1854.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL moved, that the salary of the General Superintendent of Trade be reduced from 3,000l. to 1,500l. As the same individual was Governor of Hong Kong, at a salary of 3,000l., the effect of the Amendment if carried would be to reduce his salary to 4,500l. a year altogether. The Governor of Bermuda had 1,500l. a year, the Governor of West Australia 1,300l., and the Governor of New Zealand, which was quite as important as Hong Kong, 2,500l. This functionary's calling himself Governor of Hong Kong was a mere fiction. As governor, he had a secretary with 1,800l. a year independently of the colonial secretary, who had 1,500l. a year more. As chief superintendent of trade he had a secretary and registrar at 700l. a year, and he had got a first, second, third, and fourth assistant, receiving together about 1,300l. a year, and he had got a Chinese secretary at 1,000l., and an assistant Chinese secretary at 400l. a year. Dr. Bowring, who was Consul at Canton, had 1,800l. a year; no more (and he was certain that the Governor had not more to do), and was a more able man.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, 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 6,000l., another at a salary of 4,000l., and another at a salary of 2,000l. 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 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. WILLIAMS

said, 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 ability to Dr. Bowring, whose salary was 1,800l. 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 PELLATT

said, 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 PECHELL

said, 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 RUSSELL

said, the attention of the Government was constantly directed to the matter that had been re- 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. BRIGHT

said, he wished to call attention to a sum of 500l. 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. AGLIONBY

said, he believed the only question before the Committee was, whether the salary of the chief superintendent of Hong Kong should be reduced from 3,000l. to 1,500l. 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 3,000l. a year, as Governor of Hone; Kong.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, that there was a similar discussion last year, and the vote appeared in the estimates in the same manner then.

MR. BRIGHT

said, the question of the 500l. for the Commissionership at Borneo was a point that the noble Lord ought to clear up.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, 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 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. BRIGHT

said, he was not speaking with reference to Sir James Brooke. He should say the same thing if it were another person. They paid 500l. 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 SCOBELL

said, 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 146,533l., 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.) 18,500l. Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, 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 PALMERSTON

said, that the charge for postages was on account of 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 SCOBELL

said, 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 327l. 18s. 9d. for chaplain and chapel at Constantinople. He wished for an explanation of the appearance of this Vote.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, 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 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 KINNAIRD

said, 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 PALMERSTON

said, 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 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. WISE

said, that of twenty-three missions the miscellaneous expenses amounted to 1,700l., of which Spain cost the larger proportion. He wished an explanation of this anomaly.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, 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. HINDLEY

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the salary of Consul General in Turkey was 1,500l., while in the United States it was only 500l.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, 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. ALCOCK

said, he would now call attention to the fact that there was a charge of 4,000l. 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 PALMERSTON

said, 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 STUART

said, 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) 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, 2,175l. extraordinary expenditure." He wished to know why the estimate was only for three-quarters of a year?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, 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 PELLATT

said, that the sum set down for the mission in Spain, 2,457l., 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 300l. 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 PALMERSTON

said, 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- 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:—

MR. REPTON

said, 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 EXCHEQUER

said, 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. REPTON

said, he should move that the grant be reduced to 2,000l.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, 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. The vote, therefore, was in course of gradual diminution.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, 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 10,000l. to 15,000l. 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 3,000l.—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. HINDLEY

said, 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. BLACKETT

said, 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 JOLLIFFE

hoped that, ere long, they should hear no more of grants like this. He trusted that England would always offer an asylum to political refugees, but that that House would cease to subsidise them.

MR. REPTON

said, on the understanding that there would be no further increase in the Vote, he would not press his Amendment.

Vote agreed to.

(24). 4,469l. Miscellaneous Charges formerly defrayed from the Civil List.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he must ask for some explanation as to the charge of 400l. for the college of St. David's, Lampeter; and the annuity of 500l. 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 EXCHEQUER

said, the item of 400l. 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. MIALL

said, he must refer to the items of 89l. paid to the Bishop of Sodor and Man, to be distributed among the incumbents and schoolmasters of the Isle of Man, and 92l. 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—579l. 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 EXCHEQUER

said, 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. HINDLEY

said, he would suggest that it would be desirable that the Committee should have the names of the "poor French refugee clergy," to whom 700l. of this vote was allotted.

MR. BRIGHT

thought the proposition to furnish the names of the gentlemen in question a reasonable one.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had no objection to produce their names, if the hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) would make a Motion with that view.

MR. BRIGHT

said, 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. HUTCHINS

said, 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 EXCHEQUER

said, he conceived that there was a wide difference between the two oases.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, 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 1,000l. 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 EXCHEQUER

said, 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. BRIGHT

said, 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.) 1,460l. Foundling Hospital of Dublin.

MR. VANCE

said, 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. WILLIAMS

said, 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 DUNNE

said, 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:—

That a sum, not exceeding 38,492l., 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.) 6,537l., Concordatum Fund, and other Charities and Allowances, Ireland.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, 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. BRIGHT

said, 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 35l. for the payment of a minister, applied to Government for a sum out of the Regium Donum, which sum varied between 70l. and 90l. 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 25l., but the necessary amount was made up by putting down 10l. 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 70l. from the Regium Donum. It very frequently happened also, that though the 35l. 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 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 38,000l. became 50,000l. 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 HAMILTON

said, 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 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 38,000l.? 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- 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 CLAY

said, 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 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 YOUNG

said, 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- 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 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. COBDEN

said, 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 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 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, 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 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 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. SPOONER

said, 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- 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. CAIRNS

said, 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 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. FOX

said, 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 HASTIE

said, 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. MAGUIRE

said, 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 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 38,000l. 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'CONNELL

said, 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. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 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'MAHON

said, 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 38,492l., 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.) 6,537l. Concordatum Fund, and other Charities and Allowances (Ireland).

The House resumed. Committee report progress.