SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 14 April 1856 vol 141 cc1001-44

House in Committee, Mr. FITZROY in the chair.

(1.) £4,050, Bermudas; agreed to.

(2.) £7,397, North American Provinces.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that Canada was in so prosperous a condition, and so able to maintain its own ecclesiastical establishments, that he thought the proposed Vote ought to be withdrawn. The people of England should not be called upon to pay £1,990 to the bishop of the rich and flourishing city of Quebec, and £300 to the rector of Montreal. He objected also to the payment of £2,762 to the foreign missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Some years ago the House was informed that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland was to receive £100 per annum. He observed that functionary was down in the Vote for £500. Seeing that a large portion of the lands given up by the Crown had been exclusively applied to the payment of the clergy, he thought that no more demands should be made upon the British Parliament; he should therefore move that the Vote be disallowed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that the answer which he had to make to the hon. Gentleman was the same as that which had been given every Session for several years past. The truth was, that the various items in the Vote were the remains of a system which had been abolished. No new payments were now made by Great Britain with regard to the ecclesiastical establishment in Canada; but, inasmuch as there were individual clergymen who had accepted offices in Canada on the faith of this Vote, they could not with justice be deprived of their salaries, which, however, would cease at their death.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that the clergy ought to have been provided for in the Civil List, which was arranged when the Government of Canada was vested in the Colonial Legislature.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that it would be adding insult to injury to throw the individuals mentioned in the Vote upon the Colonial Assembly, which had resolved not to vote money for the clergy of any particular denomination.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, the question had been so often discussed and decided that he was surprised it was again revived. It was a question of good faith. The Colonial Legislature was not bound to pay these claims. The honour and good faith of the British Parliament were bound, as much as they could be bound, to defray them. He therefore hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would remind the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that one of the bishops for which an amount was to be voted was a Roman Catholic.

MR. SPOONER

said, he would state his views on that point when a specific Motion was made, but to a general Amendment of this sort he should not give his support if it was to take away a grant sanctioned by the British Parliament and guaranteed by that House.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £4,713, India Department, Canada.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to call attention to the large sum—£2,255—paid in salaries, and he desired to know who the parties were to whom those salaries were given. He noticed the sum of £78 charged under the head of gunpowder; he also wished for an explanation of the item of £750 for office hire, fuel, stationery, postages, and miscellaneous. He must also complain of the large sum expended in presents to the Indians.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that the Vote had been reduced by nearly one-half since last year, and that the nature of the presents to the Indians had been altogether changed. With regard to the salaries, it must be remembered that the duties of the officers of the Indian Department were by no means confined to distributing presents, but that many of the Indian tribes had very considerable landed and funded property, which required to be carefully managed.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £24,728, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Salaries of the Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and others, in the West Indies, and certain other Colonies, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he should move to reduce the Vote by the amount of £5,300, being £1,800 for the salary of the Governor of Western Australia, and £3,500 part of the salary of the Governor of Jamaica. That island used formerly to pay its own governor, and the present Vote was quite a recent charge. He saw no reason why the Governor of Jamaica should be paid a salary of £7,000, when the Governor of the State of New fork, the population of which was upwards of £3,000,000, received only £800 a year.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he conceived that the true policy of this country was to pay the salaries of the Governors of the Colonies, who were imperial officers, much more generously than they did at present. The Governor of Jamaica received £1,500 a year from colonial sources, and £3,500 from the Imperial Government. The question had been carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they had come to the conclusion that until Sir Henry Barcly's Government should expire, it would be highly improper that any change should take place. He need hardly say how difficult a task Sir Henry Barkly had had to perform in introducing financial reform and checking expenditure in the colony. In doing that, of course he had to run counter to the private interests of many individuals, and they thought it would be a most impolitic thing that he should have to depend on the Colonial Legislature for his salary. With regard to Western Australia, it should be remembered that that was now the only colony that received transported convicts from this country. He thought, in such a case, the salary of the Governor ought to be paid by the Imperial Government.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was different from that which was made when it was first proposed, that a portion of the salary of the Governor of Jamaica should be paid out of the Imperial Treasury. That was before Sir Henry Barkly was Governor of Jamaica. He should, however, take the sense of the Committee on the Vote. They had in the present year the most extravagant Estimates in every department that had ever been presented in his time.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that the Colonial Estimates were reduced last year by nearly £4,000, and they were now less than one-half what they were six years ago. In 1850 they were £212,000, and this year they only amounted to £104,000.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) hardly recollected what occurred with reference to the salary of the Governor of Jamaica being thrown on the Imperial Treasury. It was at the time of the appointment of Sir Henry Barkly, and the object was not only to grant the salary of the Governor, but it was a general object with regard to the constitution of Jamaica. There had been for many years great embarrassment in carrying on the Government of Jamaica, and at the same time the colony was in a very distressed state. The object then in view had not been fully accomplished, and he considered that it would be unwise to disturb the present arrangement.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the people of this country ought not to be taxed for the benefit of Jamaica, from which colony they did not derive any benefit whatever.

MR. T. HANKEY

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his opposition to the Vote.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he rose to take the opportunity of referring to an omission in the Estimates. If there was one thing which should always be maintained, that was the good faith of that House. He thought that the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) would, not contradict him when he stated that the Bishop of New Zealand had accepted that office upon a bonâ fide understanding that he should receive a salary of £600 a year as long as he lived, or until he should be otherwise provided for. Two years ago that grant had been struck out from the Estimates, and he was then told that the matter would be referred to the colonists, but they had done nothing in the matter. The good faith of that House and the credit and character of the Church of England, required that the Bishop of New Zealand should not be left without that income, and he wished to know if the attention of the Government had been directed to the subject?

MR. WIGRAM

said, he wished to explain the circumstances under which the salary was granted to Dr. Selwyn. It was in 1854 that the colony declined to pay the salary. At that time the bishop was in this country, and was informed that communications had been made to the colony on the subject. Sanguine expectations were entertained that the colony would provide for him, but unfortunately it had not done so. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would consider the matter; as the only reason why the Vote had been discontinued was the expectation that the colony would provide the amount.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he thought that the question had been decided, and was surprised at the application being renewed. It was something inconceivably monstrous to expect that this overtaxed country should not only pay its own bishops, but be asked to pay for the luxury of a bishop to a colony. He believed that the bishop was an excellent man, that he had done great good in the colony, and if a subscription book were opened for him, he would willingly put down his name.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, the case under consideration was simply this: in 1841 a gentleman distinguished in the Church of England accepted the appointment of Bishop of New Zealand at the moderate income of £600 a year. He discharged his duties to the satisfaction of every denomination of Christians in that colony. A distinct assurance was given that the allowance should be continued until the colony of New Zealand should itself make provision for it. But what was the treatment the Bishop received? On the 30th of June, 1854, he learnt that his salary had ceased on the 31st of March, 1853.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was somewhat reluctant to take any part in the present discussion, because he thought it Was not a convenient practice to raise questions of this nature when the Committee was considering the ordinary Votes for the year. Not wishing, however, to appear discourteous to the right hon. Baronet opposite, or disrespectful to the distinguished prelate in question, to whose personal merits and high character he was ready at all times to bear testimony, he might state that if ever they were to decide a question with reference to the merits of the individual, no man could have a stronger claim to their consideration than Dr. Selwyn had, whose exemplary conduct had conferred not only great benefits on the colony, but on the native population. But, with regard to the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand, he was bound to say that the course taken by the Government had not been suddenly taken. He believed that Bishop Selwyn the last time he was in this country was apprised that the Government could not undertake to ask for a continual renewal of a Vote on account of his salary, and that it would require especial and stringent circumstances for Government to come again to Parliament to demand any such Vote. He must say, though it might be with great regret, that, looking at the whole of the circumstances, such a case of good faith had not been made out as to entitle the Colony of New Zealand to claim a continuance of this grant to the Bishop of that Colony. He therefore did not think that the Government of this country could be justly accused of any breach of faith in the matter of the description referred to. He had no fear that the community in New Zealand would suffer from the course which had been pursued with reference to the stoppage of Bishop Selwyn's salary, and in proof of the justice of his view upon that point he might observe, that he had not long since had an application from the inhabitants of the Colony in question for his sanction to the formation of a new diocess, and as a consequence the nomination of a new Bishop. Upon receiving that application, he had endeavoured to ascertain whether funds had been provided for the payment of the salary of another Bishop, and in answer to the question which he had put upon the subject he had been informed that the funds would be in readiness as soon as the proposed See was established. Under those circumstances, he should, he thought, not be justified in placing a sum of money in the Estimates for the salary of Bishop Selwyn.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that he had long had the honour of being acquainted with that most excellent prelate the Bishop of New Zealand, and he had listened with satisfaction to the encomiums which had that evening been passed upon him. While making that statement, however, he was of opinion that the Committee should regard the payment of the salary under discussion, not so much with reference to the merits of the man as upon the ground of abstract and simple justice. Looking at the question, then, in that point of view, he must contend that a clear and distinct promise had been made to Bishop Selwyn that he was to receive a certain salary; nor did he think that the facts which had been adduced by his right hon. Friend near him (Sir J. Pakington), in order to show that such was the case, had been in the slightest degree controverted by the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. It was not right that that House should, for the sake of a few hundreds a year, deprive any man, however distinguished or humble he might be, of that income which, at the date of his appointment to a particular office, he had been led to suppose he should continue to receive. If the act by which faith was broken with Bishop Selwyn was the deliberate act of the Home Government, then by so much was it the more discreditable to them, and by so much the more ought the House of Commons to endeavour to do a tardy act of justice to one of the most successful of those zealous pioneers of the Gospel in foreign lands.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, there were circumstances with regard to the Vote for the clergy of Canada which did not belong to those for New Zealand. With regard to Bishop Selwyn, when the Vote was first granted, he (Lord J. Russell) communicated to him that in the opinion of the Government a Vote of £600 should be taken for him; but at the same time, he mentioned that that was only the opinion of the Government, and he could not answer that such a Vote would be acceded to by the House of Commons. It was agreed to, and it went on until the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) was Secretary for the Colonies, and then that right hon. Baronet gave a pledge to the House that the sum should not appear in the Estimates again. Now, assuredly if he wanted to maintain the salary he should not have given that pledge. When he (Lord J. Russell) held the office of Colonial Secretary, he did not propose any salary to the Bishop of New Zealand; and in doing so he thought he was carrying out the arrangement made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. As to Bishop Selwyn not being acquainted with the salary being discontinued until after fifteen months had elapsed, that arose in consequence of a despatch sent out to the Colony not reaching the Governor until after he had left the Colony for this country. When it was discovered that Bishop Selwyn had been taken by surprise, it was proposed that, for one year, the Vote should be placed in the Estimates. That was done; but it was at the same time intimated that it could not be proposed for a longer period. The Vote had been discontinued through a pledge given to the House that it would not be proposed again; and he (Lord J. Russell) must say, that it was a much easier thing to take a Bishop off the Votes than to put him on again.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, the question of the good faith and honour of this country could not be got rid of by a joke of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had referred to a pledge he (Sir J. Pakington) gave when he had the honour of being Colonial Secretary. That was not the first time that he had attempted to do justice to Bishop Selwyn when reference had been made to the part he then took on the subject. He would not say that he did not make now of the words alleged, but the answer he had to make now was, that he intended to apply them with reference to the civil Government of Now Zealand. The Committee would remember that for that Colony very considerable Votes for her maintenance were granted. Those Votes underwent a gradual reduction from year to year, and in 1852, when at the head of the Colonial Department, he stated that no further grants would be made for the civil government of that Colony. In making that statement he had no intention whatever of becoming a party to withdrawing the grant made to Bishop Selwyn. He believed that that was a matter of honour and good faith with Bishop Selwyn, and that the House of Commons was bound to provide him with a salary to the extent of £600 a year so long as he lived, or other arrangements respecting him were made. He still hoped that the Government would take this matter into consideration, and not allow this scandal to remain any longer.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £19,428, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Salaries of the Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and others, in the West Indies, and certain other Colonies to the 31st day of March, 1857.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 3, Noes 269: Majority 266.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.)£24,300, Stipendiary Justices, West Indies and Mauritius.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that he believed this Vote to be about as objectionable a one as there could possibly be. Still, if he divided the Committee, he supposed that he should not conciliate any more support than he had just obtained. We received no advantage from our connection with these colonies, and he objected to the people of this country being taxed for the payment of stipendiary magistrates in them. The justices of the peace, for whose salaries it was intended to provide, had been appointed nineteen or twenty years ago, when slavery in our West Indian Colonies was converted into a system of apprenticeship, and when it was necessary that the apprentices, or partially liberated slaves, should be protected against oppression upon the part of their masters. That necessity, however, now ceased to exist, and he saw no good ground, therefore, why those justices of the peace should be continued. There were seventeen of them in the island of Jamaica alone, and the aggregate amount of the salaries of those seventeen was not less than £7,650 per annum.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he must explain that, at the time of the emancipation of the slaves in the British Colonies, it became indispensable to appoint stipendiary magistrates to carry out the system of apprenticeship, but that no appointments had since taken place, Government allowing the vacancies occasioned by death to remain unfilled. He hoped that explanation would satisfy his hon. Friend.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would not, after the explanation, divide the Committee. He was often taunted for not dividing upon the subject of these Votes; but the last division showed that the House of Commons was indifferent how the public money was spent.

Vote agreed to; as were also the three following Votes—

(6.) £10,230, Civil Establishments, West Coast of Africa.

(7.) £10,856, St. Helena.

(8.) £960, Heligoland.

(9.) £2,901, Falkland Islands.

MR. WARNER

said, he wished to inquire what use those islands were to the mother country; and whether it was intended to send convicts to them?

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that they were very useful to this country, being places of great and increasing resort for whalers and other traders in those seas. The Government would not determine upon sending convicts there without very mature consideration.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £14,582, Emigration.

MR. SPOONER

said, he thought that the experience we had learned during the prosecution of the late war ought to convince us that it was not sound policy on the part of this country to stimulate emigration. The people who emigrate from our shores were, for the most part, men of energy and activity—the very men whom it was most desirable that we should, if possible, keep at home; and we should be acting much more wisely in spending money in making them comfortable in their native country, rather than in spending it in removing them to distant lands. A much sounder policy, he considered, would be to find employment for our people at home, and he trusted the Colonial Secretary would do all he could to diminish emigration.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it had never been the policy of this country to stimulate emigration, but to direct and control it. The amount of emigration depended upon the circumstances of our home population; but even in the most prosperous years there was a considerable number of persons desirous of going to the colonies, and it was the duty of the Government to watch over them on their passage across the sea, and to protect them against those dangers which too frequently attended voluntary emigration. Moreover, it was the business of the Commissioners to look after the emigration of coolies to the Mauritius and to the West Indian islands; and, on the whole, he could not recommend any great or immediate reduction of the establishment.

MR. HUTCHINS

said, he wished to know whether this sum of £14,582 was to be a permanent charge on the revenue of the country? When the Emigration Board was established it did a great deal of good; but circumstances had materially altered, and, at a time when labour was scarce, it was wrong that the emigration agents should be allowed to send our best labourers out of the country.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that the amount of the Vote must, of course, vary with the amount of business which the Emigration Commissioners might have to discharge. He anticipated that there would in the course of time be a great reduction in the quantity of labour they would have to perform, and their remuneration should then be proportionately diminished. But they had still very considerable and important duties to fulfil, as might easily be inferred from the fact that 176,000 persons had emigrated from this country during the last year.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered the propriety of establishing an emigration port along the line of coast between Plymouth and Liverpool? The inhabitants of Bristol had twice brought under the notice of the authorities at the Colonial Office the manifest expediency of selecting that city for such a port.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that subject had not been brought under his notice. If it should come before him, he should of course give to it his best consideration.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, that so many dreadful accidents had occurred with respect to passenger ships that no one, he believed, would object to any expense which might be necessary to carry the provisions of the Passengers' Act into effect. As it was no longer found advisable to stimulate emigration to the Australian Colonies, he thought that some reduction might well be made in the expenditure incurred for the Emigration Board in the metropolis. He understood that a large portion of the staff of that Board was occupied chiefly in managing the funds sent over to this country by the Colonial Legislatures for the purpose of procuring English emigrants; and it seemed to him that the cost of managing those funds ought to be defrayed by the colonists themselves.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it would no doubt be the duty of the Government to diminish the cost of the Board in proportion as they might find its legitimate business decreased. But, at the same time, he thought there was some advantage in maintaining a uniform system of emigration control by means of public officers; and he did not consider that it would be good policy to diminish precipitately the staff of the Emigration Commissioners. There was an important duty discharged by those gentlemen in addition to those he bad already mentioned. They afforded most important assistance to the Colonial Office in revising the drafts of Colonial Bills.

MR. SPOONER

said, that he objected not to the protection of emigrants, but to the encouragement of emigration.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he thought that means ought to be found to enable the Colonial Office to discharge its own special business, and that the number of the Emigration Commissioners ought to be reduced.

MR. WARNER

said, that there was a strong and growing feeling in this country against our sending from our shores the very flower of our population. He thought the Colonies ought to defray an expenditure which was incurred solely in the promotion of their interests.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, it was his opinion that the Vote might be reduced by one-half. He objected to the vague terms used in the Estimate. Mention was made of an agent and assistants. How many assistants were there? There were ten agencies at different ports in Ireland. It was necessary to incur proper expenditure for the inspection of emigrant vessels; but he was confident that much of this expenditure was unnecessary.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he could not help thinking that the Vote would bear diminution. Emigration from this country, although still considerable in amount, had greatly diminished within the last few years; and, besides, a change had within the same period taken place in the nature of our relations with the Australian Colonies. Formerly the Colonial Land Fund had been divided into two portions, one of which was devoted to the encouragement of emigration from this country; but the whole of that fund was at present at the disposal of the colonists, and that portion of the emigration to which one-half of it was at one time applied was no longer conducted as before. He would readily bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the present Emigration Commissioners performed their duties, and to the valuable assistance which they afforded to the Colonial Office, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), in revising the drafts of Colonial Bills; but he was, nevertheless, of opinion that the. Vote should for the future be reduced.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought they had reason to anticipate for the future a diminution of the business of the Commissioners, and the Government would, of course, feel bound at the same time to diminish, as far as possible, the expenditure incurred under that head.

CAPTAIN BELLEW

said, he hoped that, whatever reduction might be made in the expense of the central Board of the metropolis, no diminution would be effected in the number of emigrant officers employed in the smaller ports for the protection of emigrants. The services of these officers were exceedingly valuable, and very much needed.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he thought we ought to provide, as far as possible, for the comfortable removable of emigrants to the distant lands in which they were to settle, and not allow them to quit our shores with a feeling of discontent and ill-will, which might hereafter materially militate against our own interests.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

said, that when peace was fully restored emigration would probably revive, especially among discharged soldiers and the militia. Then, instead of there being a deficiency of labour, many hands might be thrown out of employ; and it was then most desirable to encourage the emigration of deserving persons.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(11.) £12,000, Captured Negroes.

(12.) £11,050, Mixed Commissions.

MR. BIGGS

said, he could conceive no greater inconsistency than that involved in the conduct of this country in making such strenuous efforts for the suppression of the slave trade along the coast of Africa, and tolerating the brutal and debasing traffic in slaves at Constantinople. We had now a recognised right to interfere in the Government of Turkey, and it was our duty to exercise that right for the destruction of an iniquity which had become an abomination in the eyes of God and man. What was now most wanted in the East of Europe was the establishment of a Christian State on the ruins of the vile and degrading empire of the Turks. At present there were 50,000 slaves in Turkey, most of them Christians. They were brought from Tunis, Kurdistan, and other places, and sold in the market of Constantinople. He would not object to the Vote, but he thought it a piece of national hypocrisy to pass this Vote, and to ignore the existence of slavery in Turkey, now admitted as a sort of junior partner in the European firm. There was a slavery now going on in Europe which put to shame the worst features of West Indian slavery when it existed. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe said that this slavery was calculated to excite the indignation of all Europe against Turkey. He considered that this country was morally responsible at the present moment for the existence of this vice. Brigadier General Williams, speaking of the social state of Turkey at the latest moment, stated that the buying and selling of slaves was notorious amongst the officers of the Kars army, and that any attempt at its abolition by firmans was a mere mockery. From a careful perusal of the reports of all travellers he denied that the boasted civilisation of the Turks was more than skin deep, whatever might be said by lying French journals. Let the Greeks and the Christians be encouraged in that country, and they would soon plant another London on the Bosphorus. At present it was blasted by a people who were scarcely fit to exist, either in Europe or elsewhere. Mr. Layard had attributed all the misery of the Turks to their false faith.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Vote before the Committee was for the salaries and contingent expenses of the Mixed Commissions for the suppression of the slave trade.

MR. BIGGS

said, that he believed he should have introduced the subject in another form, and regretted that he was not better acquainted with the rules of the House. He would, therefore, only say, in conclusion, that to be spending £20,000 for the release of nigger slaves on the coast of Africa, whilst they allowed this slave trade to be carried on at Constantinople, appeared to him to be one of the grossest cases of political hypocrisy.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £167,498, Consular Establishments Abroad.

MR. WISE

said, that he did not rise to object to the Vote, but for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to the present state of our consular establishment. It was almost impossible to overestimate or overrate the importance of an establishment so connected with the protection of trade and with the opening of new channels of industry. The duties of Ambassadors would, he hoped, comparatively cease with the prospect of peace, and those of Consuls gradually increase. This was, therefore, the time to seek amelioration and improvements; to urge the appointment of proper persons who could effectually protect our commerce, look after the interests of our shipping, and discharge with propriety the delicate functions and varied duties of a Consul. The right man was especially required in these appointments; knowledge and capacity must be considered before connection and interest, and the great interests of a great country must not be sacrificed to the little interests of little men. The Committee was aware that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made several changes and considerable improvements in the service in 1831, and the subject had since been frequently discussed in Committees. In the year 1850 a Committee was appointed to inquire into our diplomatic and consular establishments. That tribunal investigated the first branch of their subject, and recommended that the Committee should be revived in the following Session to enter into the second—namely, our consular establishments. That Committee, however, had never been appointed, and no such inquiry had yet taken place; and he should endeavour to show why the consular system should be investigated, and an extensive revision should be made. To the British Consul were entrusted throughout the world the interests of merchants and travelers he had to protect vessels, to look after shipwrecks, to settle disputes between captains and seamen, to look after the effects of deceased Englishmen, to report upon the erection of lighthouses, the laying down of buoys, to watch all armed enterprises. In many cases he had to administer Acts of Parliament, and one of the most important functions of the Consul was to acquaint his Government with the state of trade, arts, industry, and agriculture, and with the exports and imports of the country in which he resided. Our Consuls in the Levant filled positions of a peculiar and special character, requiring on the part of those selected for them the capacity to discharge not merely consular but notarial, judicial, administrative, and even at times diplomatic duties. Extensive powers were conferred on these officers by Acts of Parliament, including a civil and criminal jurisdiction, and authority to punish by imprisonment and banishment. These Consuls ought, therefore, to be men of high principle and independent character; and, if we wished to increase our influence in the Levant by their agency, it was full time a Commission was appointed to examine carefully into that part of our consular system. It was clear that merchants actually trading ought not to hold consular offices; and that all consular fees affecting the travelling and shipping interests should be as far as possible abolished, additional salaries being awarded, where necessary, in lieu of such fluctuating emoluments. National duties should be discharged at the national expense. The man who sustained the double character of a Consul and a merchant occupied a very anomalous situation, having constantly to balance between his private interests and his obligations as a representative of the Government. He did not mean in any way to cast reflections or bring charges against our consular body in the Levant—many of its members were most honourable and efficient, and he did not think they were adequately paid or properly promoted; but, undoubtedly, there were members of the class who were wholly unfit to represent the interests of a great country like England. Among those who had most effectually served the Government in the late war were Mr. J. Brant and Mr. Calvert, to whom an especial tribute of praise was due. In support, however, of his own opinion as to the character of many of our Consuls, he hoped he would be allowed to quote a very eminent authority—the correspondent of The Times, who, on the 6th of February, 1855, wrote thus— The French Consuls throughout the continent of Europe are, with few exceptions, men who have already distinguished themselves in some branch of the public service, and, being in general accustomed to business, know both how and when to do what is required of them. They are almost all Frenchmen, and many of them are members of the Legion of Honour, and thus, both from their birth and antecedents, are devoted to the interests of their country. They avail themselves of the facility which their national habits afford of mixing with the society of the place where they reside, and thus have the means both of information and action at command whenever the public service may demand them. Such may he said to be the almost universal characteristics of the French Consuls. The English Consuls, on the contrary, are of several classes, and, although some are in all respects similar to the French, there are others who, being Englishmen, have received their appointments through interest, who assume an air of superiority and exclusiveness, and who do not consider it necessary to be conversant with business, but leave everything to be done by Vice-consuls or other deputies. The next authority which he wished to adduce to the Committee was that of Lord Carlisle, who, in his Diary in the Greek Waters, stated that, as compared with foreign nations, he regretted that England, in regard to its consular proceedings, did not hold the high place she once held, and which we must all desire to see her do again. The noble author went on to observe that great responsibility attached to those who had the selection of persons for consular appointments, and expressed a hope that the time had gone by when failure and insolvency in trade would be regarded as proper qualifications for those offices. Dr. Sandwith, the author of the Siege of Kars, thus spoke of consuls in the Levant— While we are anxious to reform the Turks—and assuredly no people ever needed it more—our first efforts should be directed to setting them a good example in their own country, and to do this we must reform our consular system. He (Mr. Wise) trusted that those opinions would induce the Government to take into their serious consideration the present condition of the consular service. The Vote proposed in the present Estimates for the maintenance of our consular system was £167,498; but there was a further Vote of £18,957 for superannuation allowances and compensations, which made the total amount £186,455. He did not so much object to that amount, but to the way in which it was distributed. The whole number of persons employed in the consular department was 533. There were twenty-seven Consuls-general, 119 Consuls, 228 English Vice-consuls, and 159 foreign Vice-consuls. Of these, twenty-four had salaries from £1,000 to £1,800 a year, sixty-nine from £1,000 to £500 a year; the others had salaries between £500 and £200 a year. There had been a considerable increase in the establishment since 1848 of which he did not complain, as the increase was owing to increase of trade with China and other places. The increase consisted of forty-four new Consuls and thirteen, interpreters, and the cost was £19,300. Notwithstanding this he certainly thought that some of the Consuls might be altogether dispensed with, and that new Consuls should be appointed from time to time as their services might be required at other places. While this country maintained a very large diplomatic establishment at Constantinople and in the Levant, costing about £40,000 a year, the consular establishment at Constantinople cost £2,500, and he thought the consular expenditure in that quarter of the world might be revised with great advantage. Our embassy at Madrid cost £6,000 a year, and we maintained in that city, where there was no commerce, a consul, whose duties he could not imagine, at a salary of £200 a year. Our embassy at Naples was maintained at a cost of £6,600 a year, while we have there a Consul with a salary of £500 a year. At Lisbon, also, we had a Consul and a Vice-consul, the former with a salary of £600, and the latter of £300. The Consul, he believed, slept by day and played at whist by night, and if those wore his duties no doubt he enjoyed himself. He had no complaint to make with regard to the superannuations, except that he thought the scale of allowances was excessively low, and that many of the consuls received very inadequate amounts. There was, for instance, one gentleman who had served this country as Consul in Chili for a period of eighteen years, who was sixty-one years of age, and who received a superannuation allowance of £400 a year—a pension which he (Mr. Wise) thought was very insufficient after so long a period of service. He must say, however, that he regarded many of the compensation allowances, which amounted to £9,400, as totally unnecessary. He found that Mr. Crow, who had been Consul at Tripoli, received a compensation allowance of £850 a year, and he (Mr. Wise) did not complain of the amount, but of the reason assigned for granting the compensation—namely, "abolition of office;" for in the very year when the office was nominally abolished another gentleman was appointed Consul-general, whose salary was now £800 a year; and there was, in addition, a Vice-consul with a salary of £300 a year. In 1852 the office of Consul-general at Venice was abolished, and the gentleman who had held the office with a salary of £1,200 a year, and who was only forty-three years of age, received a compensation allowance of £600 a year, but in December 1852, another Consul was appointed with a salary of £700 a year. But the worst case was that at Buenos Ayres, where a gentleman only thirty-eight years of age had been compensated with a pension of £1,000 a year on the abolition of his office; hut, notwithstanding that abolition and compensation, a new consular establishment had been created, comprising a Consul-general, with a salary of £1,600 a year, allowances £997, and a Vice-consul at £500 a year. He wished to know how it was that when an office was abolished and compensation given, another Consul was immediately appointed, with a considerable salary? He found that a gentleman who had been Consul-general at Odessa for thirty-six years, and who was sixty-three years of age, received a pension of £500 a year, and he thought that was the only case to be found in the list of compensation allowances in which the pension was justifiable. The regulations with regard to compensation allowances pressed with great hardship upon Consuls. There was no deduction whatever made for superannuations from the salaries of ambassadors, who possessed large incomes, but five per cent was deducted from the salaries of Consuls. If, therefore, a Consul served his country for twenty-five years at a salary of £500 a year, £625 was taken from him in the shape of deductions, and lie then received an annual allowance of £250. He thought that, if they gave these paltry allowances to men who were exiled from their country for twenty-five years, they could not expect to get properly qualified persons to serve the country in such positions. Great complaints were made of the manner in which the patronage connected with consular appointments were made. In a work which had been published by an attaché to an embassy, the writer stated that he could recall several cases of Consuls in the Levant who had been bankrupt traders; that without attaching any ungenerous imputation to men who might at some time have been in such a position, he thought that persons who had not been able to conduct their own business satisfactorily ought not to be entrusted with the management of public affairs; and that the persons who ought to receive consular appointments were plain sensible men, who had been brought up to business, and not individuals who had failed in all their other occupations. He (Mr. Wise) must confess that, with regard to the question of patronage, he had great faith in the regulations recently issued by Lord Clarendon respecting consular appointments. He should be anxious to discover whether the new Consuls at Warsaw, Odessa, and St. Petersburg would be required to be able to speak German, Italian, or French fluently, to possess a competent knowledge of international and commercial law; and, in short, to come up to the requirements of the examination paper recently published. A better mode could not be adopted to secure the proper disposal of the patronage of the Foreign Office; but meanwhile he could not help saying that, if hon. Members were anxious to ascertain who they were that got the nice appointments of £1,800, £1,600, and £1,200 a year, and who were put in the inferior places of £500, £300, and £200, they had nothing to do but to look at the list of Consuls, and the required information would speedily develope itself. He would also suggest to the Government the expediency of adopting one feature of the French system, and attaching to all the large consulates a number of Consul pupils, thus securing a succession of young men conversant with duties that ought to be discharged by the Consuls. The Government had already carried out that principle to a certain extent by sending out young men as attachés to the Consuls in China; and he was satisfied that great good would result from having a number of pupil-Consuls connected with the consulates at Bordeaux, Marseilles, Hamburg, Leghorn, New York, Odessa, and Smyrna, who would in a few years be found qualified for Vice-consulships, and might in time be promoted to consulships. He hoped, however, that they would not be treated in the same way as those who had been induced to enter the diplomatic service—young men who had been tempted to quit high positions at the Universities and to learn foreign languages, and then compelled to pass a number of years at Constantinople, for example, when they ought to have been promoted. In the French system merit was rewarded. Out of the 115 French Consuls no fewer than ninety-four wore the decoration of the Legion of Honour—a proof of the estimation in which they were held in their own country. There were three remaining points upon which he wished for information. From what he had himself seen and heard in the Mediterranean and south of Europe generally, he believed that the system of fees was universally condemned as extremely injudicious and undignified. What could be more absurd than for the paltry sum of £31,739, which was the amount of the fees last year, to make our commercial representatives taxgatherers instead of what they ought to be—the protectors of our rights and interests? The great bulk of the fees were collected at a few ports, among which Constantinople, San Francisco, New York, and Alexandria were the most conspicuous; the fees at Constantinople being last year £2,680; at Callao, £1,514; at San Francisco, £1,200. At Boston, New York, Alexandria, Smyrna, Leghorn, Hamburg, the fees varied from £1,000 to £400 a year. At Paris they were £506, at Boulogne, £536, and at Marseilles, £435. It appeared singular that where the salaries were large, the amount of business appeared remarkably small and vice versâ. At Leipsic the salary was £750, and the fees £18. At Stockholm, the salary £500 and the fees £9. At Bogota the salary was £2,000 and the fees £8. At Boston, on the other hand, the salary was £200 and the fees £1,600. At New York the salary was £500 and the fees £870. At the Dardanelles the salary was £300 and the fees £450. It had been stated that fees represented the amount of business done, and that the greater the sum taken for notarial fees, the more necessary was the Consul. He was therefore desirous to ascertain what were the duties of Consuls in places where no fees were levied. Upon the subject of fees he ventured to quote the opinion of an attaché to one of our embassies, who thought that these fees ought to be abolished. That nine times out of ten the Consul himself did not deign to touch his fees, but banded them over to somebody who very often touched too much; that they afforded a premium to delays and vexation in civil suits brought before Consuls, and they often occasioned serious altercation with sea captains, who were disposed to pay less and to charge their employers more than they should, and that by permitting fees, we were lending our authority to the system of passport exaction, which we have not scrupled to condemn elsewhere. He (Mr. Wise) thought that no inconvenience, but the reverse, could arise from the abolition of fees, which might, he apprehended, be done by an Order in Council. He also objected to the employment of foreigners, of whom there were at present no fewer than 159 acting as Vice-consuls. At Hamburg there was one with £300 a year; at Bremen another with £150, and at Scutari a third, with £130. They might be good, worthy men, able, and, he hoped, honest, but still they could not have the interest of this country at heart as much as Englishmen; and, if pupil-Consuls were attached to our larger consulates, and from time to time promoted to the Vice-consulships, there would be no necessity to employ foreigners, and a great improvement would be made upon the present system. It was likewise of the highest importance—and that was the last point upon which he would touch—that our Consuls should not be in business. If a consul-merchant failed, discredit was brought upon England, and his official position was compromised. One instance was known in which information was given to a French Consul because he did not trade, and withheld from the English Consul in the same place because he was engaged in business. The reason was, that it was supposed he desired intelligence for the advancement of his own private interests. Part of the duty of a Consul was to witness documents. If a merchant in the same city wanted to raise money on his ships or goods, would he not think it hard to be obliged to expose his private affairs to the Consul, a merchant engaged in the same trade? During the present war the letter-bags had been sent to the Consuls, who had thus the power of keeping back the correspondence of their rivals in business, and of acquiring early and exclusive information, such as might enable them to buy or sell to advantage. Consul-merchants, in short, had every temptation to advance their own private interests at the expense of their brother traders and of their consular duty. He had received a large number of letters from all parts of the Continent upon the subject; but he would not trouble the Committee with more than one case. A vessel, the Mermaid, arrived at Pernambuco with a cargo of golddust and bullion to the value of upwards of £400,000. The captain wanted fresh vegetables and meat, nothing more. But the Consul sent a surveyor on board, and the ship was declared unseaworthy. Captain Davie denied it, and the passengers, who were anxious to get home, supported him. The Consul told the captain to put to sea at his peril, threatening that, if he did so, he would have his name struck off the list of officers qualified to servo in the marine. But as the effect of staying at Pernambuco would have been that the owners would have been compelled to pay to the Consul a per centage upon the entire value of the cargo, which percentage would have amounted to the sum of £10,000, Captain Davie continued his voyage. The Consul sent a statement of the case to the Board of Trade, and when the Mermaid arrived at Liverpool a thorough investigation took place into all the circumstances of the case, the result of which was that Captain Davie was told by the Government officers he did quite right in leaving Pernambuco; the conduct of the Consul being thus virtually condemned. The continuance of such a system as that must be highly detrimental to the public interest, He would not trouble the Committee any further, but he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give their attention to the points to which he had referred; first, that traders should not be appointed; secondly, that the system of fees should be abolished; and thirdly, that the patronage of the Crown should be exercised in such a way as to secure the appointment of persons who would comprehend the interests of trade, commerce, and shipping, and discharge the consular functions with credit and honour to themselves and with benefit to the British Nation.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he thought that the facts which had been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) required the attention of the Government. It was notorious, when the war broke out, how meagre was the information which we possessed with respect to the resources of the Russian empire; but he believed that if we had had as Consuls on the coast of the Black Sea men who had been trained in habits of diplomacy, we should have obtained from them most valuable information. He had heard that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to consider the whole matter, and he hoped that the rumour was correct.

MR. LINDSAY

said, it was not his intention to oppose the Vote, he merely rose to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Stafford for his very clear and able speech, which he thought had made a complete case for a Committee or Commission. A movement was now taking place in the foreign trade of this country similar to that which took place in the inland trade some twenty-five years ago. The lines of ocean steamers were producing a development in the foreign trade equal to that produced by railways in the home trade. It was therefore of the utmost importance that the country should have an efficient system of representation abroad. It was the duty of the Consuls to make Reports on the trade and resources of the countries in which they were stationed, and if that duty was efficiently performed the Reports would be most valuable to commercial men, and far more interesting than the greater number of the Blue-books. Upon the whole, though some Consuls might be too highly remunerated, he thought the consular body ill-paid. It was of great importance to have the best men, and he hoped a Committee or a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the subject.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford as to the important and multifarious nature of the duties which Consuls had to perform. His hon. Friend had in a very detailed manner explained the different points to which their attention was directed, and the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had adverted more particularly to that portion of their duties which consisted in making periodical reports of the resources, statistics, trade, and other matters connected with the countries where they were stationed. It having been his (Lord Palmerston's) duty for many years to see those Reports, he had the satisfaction of thinking that they were generally very ably drawn up, and that they contained a great deal of important and useful information. These Reports were invariably sent to the Board of Trade. They were not laid before the House, because they were rather voluminous; but they were accessible to anybody who wished for information on the matters in question, and they showed that the consuls did inform themselves of matters connected with the trade and resources of the country where they were stationed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) objected to the system of fees, but he was of opinion that his hon. Friend entirely mistook the nature of those fees. Originally, Consuls were paid by fees on shipping, but in 1826 or 1827, a measure was passed, placing those fees on a different footing, and giving salaries instead. The fees were now only levied for the purpose of enabling the Consuls to pay the expenses of their office clerks, &c. It was but in comparatively few cases that any fees went to the Consuls merely as emoluments to them. His hon. Friend also seemed to think that improper selections had been made in the appointment of Consuls. He (Lord Palmerston) could only assure the Committee that it had been his anxious endeavour to appoint fitting persons. The duties of Consuls, though very important, and involving a great number of details, did not require any particular previous education or avocation. A man of good sense was able, with very little application, to discharge the various functions which a Consul had to perform. What had passed that evening afforded a just illustration of the change of opinion which took place from time to time in that House. For many years he had been urged to appoint commercial men as Consuls: but in order to do that, it was necessary either to appoint an unsuccessful commercial man, or a commercial man who, having an establishment of his own to maintain, would, for a moderate sum, perform also the duties of a Consul. For his own part he was rather inclined to agree with the opinion that, although no doubt on economical grounds the appointment of merchant Consuls was advantageous, still that on the whole it would be desirable not to appoint merchants to that office. It was plain that when there were national political functions to be exercised a merchant was not a fit representative of the Government, because he was from his private circumstances more or less liable to be visited with the displeasure of the Government in the territory of which he was residing, and was not, therefore, so free an agent as a person would be who was not engaged in mercantile pursuits. Then, again, there was the objection that persons engaged in the same career might entertain the suspicion that the Consul made use of his official knowledge and influence for his own benefit, and he therefore thought that, as a general rule, it was not expedient to employ the services of merchant Consuls. At the same time the Committee must bear in mind that, if the principle were established that the services of merchant Consuls should not be employed, they must he prepared to give increased salaries. He felt bound to say, in justice to the merchant Consuls, that during the time that he was at the Foreign Office he never had any reason to believe that any merchant Consul had abused the influence and authority which his position gave him, or had evinced less zeal in maintaining the rights of his countrymen than those Consuls not engaged in commerce. With regard to Vice-consuls the hon. Gentleman had observed that there were a great number of foreigners occupying that position, and he appeared to consider it undesirable that such should be the case. Now the rule had been that in any port where there was a British subject who, in the opinion of the Consul, was adapted for the position, the office, the salary of which varied from £100 to £150 a year, should be conferred upon him; but in cases were there was no such British subject it became the duty of the Government to consider whether it would be desirable to find a British subject who would leave England and go to live abroad on so small a salary, or to employ the services of some respectable foreigner resident in that port. Now, the Committee would see that a salary of from £100 to £150 was not a sufficient inducement to command the services of men whom it was desirable to make Vice-consuls. Then, again, in some ports, as for instance in many of those in the Levant, the Vice-consuls received no salary at all, and the only inducements to them to perform the duty were the privileges and immunities and a certain amount of dignity which was attached to the position; but could the Committee expect any respectable man to leave this country and live abroad upon those terms? It had been stated that the Consuls were not properly distributed, and the Consul at Madrid had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Stafford as an instance. Now the Consul at Madrid was, in point of fact, only a consular clerk, with a salary of £200 a year, and he only received the title of Consul in order to qualify him for the exercise of certain functions which the Act of Parliament required should be performed by a Consul. Then, again, as regarded Naples and Lisbon, those were places where there was a great amount of British commerce carried on, and under those circumstances it was especially desirable that there should be Consuls resident at those places. It had been stated that it would be desirable to revise the whole of our consular establishment, and his noble Friend (Lord Clarendon) had laid the foundation for such a revision, for he had established a system of examination for appointments to the consular office, a system which, would, he believed, should it come fairly into operation, beyond dispute secure for the public the appointment of persons fully competent to discharge the duties of the office. His noble Friend had also sent a circular to the various Consuls, and more especially to those in the Levant requiring them to answer a certain number of questions bearing upon the subject, with the view, when the answers were received and thereby sufficient information collected—information which would be essential to assist the labours of a Committee—of authorising him (Lord Palmerston) during the next Session of Parliament to agree to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. He thought that it would be desirable to wait for the arrival of that information rather than to appoint a Committee immediately, and he had no doubt that the necessary information would be collected before Parliament met next year. With regard to the observation that the Consuls ought to have furnished the country with information as to the resources of Russia, he could only say that there were British Consuls at Taganrog and Odessa, and they had given the Government very valuable information. British Consuls could not be spies, and, as the Russian Government before the war did not allow any Consuls in the Crimea, and as Consuls could only report upon what came before them in an open and legitimate manner, the Government did not derive from their Consuls much information as to the resources of Russia in the Crimea. As to the subject of retiring pensions to Consuls, he could only say that yielding to the desire of the House he had some time ago diminished the number of Consuls-general, but as those gentlemen could not be deprived of their office without compensation, a retiring pension had been allowed them, and, although at first the cost to the public would not be diminished, still it was a step towards economy and retrenchment.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he was glad to hear that it was intended to appoint a Committee. The salaries of those officers were certainly small in some cases, but he thought that in general they were quite large enough for the duties. He could not make out in some instances what those duties were. There was a Consul at Paris with a salary of £100 and £506 fees. What could he be wanted for, when there were an Ambassador, a Secretary, and two paid attachés? The number and salaries of these officers in the East was something prodigious. He found that in Turkey there were forty-two Consuls, who received amongst them in salaries the sum of £15,635, and in fees, £5,735, making together, £21,370; and these Consuls were in addition to those employed in Egypt and at Tripoli, and Tunis, who received about £13,000. In the United States there were only thirteen Consuls, receiving £5,000 a year, and to that country the great mass of their exports were sent. At Constantinople he found they had a Consul-general at £1,500 a year, a Vice-consul at £400, and another Vice-consul at £300, besides having another Consul at Scutari. He had also to complain that in Spain there were two new appointments of Consuls at salaries of £400 a year, there was likewise a Consul at Warsaw at a salary of £1,000 a year.

MR. WILSON

That is not a new appointment, it was only supended during the war.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

He, however, thought the salary too high, nor could he see the object of having Consuls at inland towns like Cologne and Leipsic. As it was intended to appoint a Committee he would not detain hon. Members with the observations he had intended to make.

MR. BELLEW

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether the Government was aware that an expedition was either despatched, or about to be despatched, by the French Government to the island of Madagascar; and, if so, whether the noble Lord knew under what circumstances that expedition was about to be sent forth?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he knew that there were some rumours that it was the intention of the French Government to send an expedition to Madagascar; but there was no intention either on the part of England, or, he believed, on the part of the French Government, to interfere in any way with the internal affairs of the Queen and people of Madagascar.

MR. WISE

said, he begged to thank the noble Lord for the statement which he had made respecting our consular establishments, which he was sure would be extremely satisfactory to the shipping and commercial interests of the country.

Vote agreed to.

£25,000 Embassies and Missions abroad.

MR. BOWYER

said, there was one column in this Vote to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. It was that which related to interpreters, attachés, and clerks. He did not know whether the whole amount of the salaries was included in the sums stated in that column. He rather thought not; but he took the case as it stood on the paper, and he found that for the attachés, interpreters, and clerks in France the sum was £58 7s.; for Austria no sum was charged; while for Turkey the amount paid on account of those services was not less than £3,080 11s. 1d. He was convinced that gratuitous service was a mistake. The mode of insuring good service was by paying your servants well. In that respect the attachés connected with the various diplomatic missions deserved the attention of the Government. The attachés ought to be well paid, and care ought to be taken that they should be young men who were by their knowledge of public and international law well qualified to discharge the duties of their offices. It frequently happened that Ministers or Ambassadors were men who were taken from that or the other House of Parliament, and were not thoroughly versed in international law. To such persons it was most important that their attachés, should be acquainted with the treaties on which the public law of Europe was founded, and with the textbooks which treated of international law, and therefore able to furnish them with authorities on any subject at a moment's notice. He had often heard that in these respects English Ministers and Ambassadors did not receive from their attachés, that assistance which was rendered to the Ministers of other Powers by their subordinates. Considering how much underpaid our attachés, were, he could not blame them for this. It might be said that these young men looked for promotion; but the effect of this was diminished by the fact that promotion generally depended upon interest with the Minister, and that vacant posts were sometimes filled by men who had no previous experience of diplomacy. Instead of depending upon their hopes of promotion, we ought to give these young men such salaries as would enable them to live in accordance with their position without embarrassing themselves, and to require them in return to do their duty fully. At Paris there was a chaplain who was paid £300 per annum. He did not object to this Vote in a sectarian spirit, but he thought that, as there were so many English residents at Paris, they might support a chaplain by their voluntary contributions. In conclusion, he begged to disclaim any intention of contending that no man ought to be appointed to be an Ambassador or foreign Minister who had not gone through a certain training in public and international law. It was sometimes of advantage to appoint to high diplomatic posts Members of that or the other House of Parliament who had not gone through such training. But they ought to be assisted by an efficient staff.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that the Vote now under consideration was not for the ordinary payment of the attachés, but for the extra expenses of the diplomatic establishments. The salaries and retiring allowances of persons connected with those establishments were defrayed out of a sum of £1,860,000 charged upon the Consolidated Fund. The attachés mentioned, as serving in Turkey were, he apprehended, some who had been sent out to serve in the capacity of interpreters rather than of attachés. When he was Foreign Minister he thought that it would be very desirable to create a set of British interpreters, who should supersede the dragomans hitherto employed, who were not properly British subjects. He consequently applied to the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, each of whom recommended to him a young man, selected as being most fit for the office, who was sent out to Constantinople to learn Turkish, and then to act as an interpreter. Since that time one or two gentlemen had been added, and he apprehended that those who were referred to in this Vote were serving in that capacity. There was something in what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said as to the inexpediency of the system of unpaid attachés. It was also true that in the diplomatic service promotion was slow, but this arose from the very nature of the service. He could not, however, concur with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that a Minister ought to be dependent upon his attachés for the knowledge of public law and historical facts, necessary to enable him to perform his duties; because we must assume that the Minister had risen to the post he occupied through the lower grades, and therefore, if he was not better informed than his subordinates, he would not be well fitted for his office. He considered that the Minister ought to instruct the attachés, and not the attachés the Minister.

MR. BOWYER

said, that in nine cases out of ten, persons were appointed as Ministers who had not passed through the subordinate grades of the diplomatic service; and to such persons it would be of great advantage to have as attachés young men who could at a moment's notice furnish them with any references or facts which they might require.

MR. W. EWART

said, he would remind the hon. and learned Member that by a recent arrangement all attachés for the, future, before their appointment, would be, obliged to go through an examination in history, languages, and, to a certain extent, in international law.

MR. WISE

said, he regretted that the salaries of the Ambassadors were still paid out of the Consolidated Fund instead of coming before the House in the Estimates. He wished for an explanation of an item of £1,463 put down as lost by Ambassadors by exchange.

MR. WILSON

said, that Ambassadors had often very large disbursements to make on behalf of the Government, and in drawing Bills upon this country it not urfrequently happened that the exchange was against the place where the Bills were drawn. It was obviously unfair, however, that the loss should fall on the Ambassadors, who were merely reimbursing themselves for payments they had made. Up to the present year, although losses were allowed for, it had not been usual to account for any gains which might be made in these exchanges; but for the future the practice would be to credit all such gains in favour of the Government.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he did not see why we should have Ministers at six of the petty courts of Germany. He might pass over Hanover on account of the relationship existing between the King and Her Majesty; but that excuse did not apply to Wurtemberg. He believed that our first connection with that kingdom was when a princess of England married the Elector, as he was then called; but since her death there had been no Minister of that State at this Court.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the ruler of Wurtemberg had never been called an Elector, but that his former title was Duke of Wurtemberg.

MR. OTWAY

said, he should be glad of some explanation of the item £2 14s. 4d. in the expenses of the mission at Berlin for fêtes and illumination. Did that sum represent in itself a fete and an illumination? In reference to the subject of paid attachés which had just been discussed, he would suggest that it would be for the public service if an interchange were occasionally made between the attachés at Foreign missions and the clerks in the Foreign Office; if, for instance, a clerk in the Foreign Office were sent to Spain or Naples, or any other foreign mission, for a year or two, and, vice versâ, an attaché be brought home and placed for a time in the Foreign Office.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the practice of attaching clerks in the Foreign Office to foreign missions for short periods was not unusual, and there was no doubt that when it could be done, without inconvenience or interruption to the business of the Foreign Office, it would be very beneficial. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), if it was an error to send representatives to foreign countries it was one which was shared by the world at large; and if it was an error to send representatives to those small German States to which the hon. Member had objected, the greater number of the European Governments were involved in it. Those German States had, more particularly of late, been of considerable importance, because they formed the elements of the Great German body, and the policy of that body had been matter of great importance, especially during the last two years. Every one who had at all attended to the course of things was aware, that a great deal of our interests connected with the war which had recently taken place was dependent on the action of those separate States, composing part of the great German body, and the conduct of the great States, such as Austria and Prussia, had turned very much on the feelings and policy of the smaller component bodies. The public interest would very essentially suffer if a communication between this country and those different States were not organised.

MR. W. EWART

said, he trusted that the observations of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway) would not be lost sight of, for it was important to keep up such a system of connection as had been adverted to between the Foreign Office and the missions abroad.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) £146,537 Superannuation Allowances.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he observed some items of an astonishing character in the Vote. One person had been receiving a pension for sixty-five years, and there were numerous instances of persons who had retired from infirmity of body. One gentleman (Sir Alexander Spearman) had retired from the Assistant Secretary ship of the Treasury at the age of forty-six years, and, as that gentleman now filled the office of Secretary and Controller General in the National Debt Office, he wished to know what salary Sir Alexander Spearman received in addition to the £1,000 pension.

MR. WILSON

said, that by a rule of the service, if an officer retired on a pension and was afterwards able to return to the public service, taking an office the salary of which was not equal to the emoluments of his former office, he was entitled to retain such portion of the retiring pension as would, together with the new salary, make up the amount of the salary which he had relinquished. That was the case of Sir Alexander Spearman, who was formerly Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, when the salary of that office at its maximum was £2,500 a year. He retired on a allowance of £1,300 a year, but now held the office of Comptroller of the National Debt, the salary of which being £1,500 a year, he retained £1,000 a year of the retiring pension.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that in page 34, four persons were mentioned who had been in the Office of the Metropolitan Buildings, and who received among them £2,000, as retiring pensions. He wished to know why those persons had not been found employment in the new Metropolitan Central Board of Works?

MR. WILSON

said, that it had been found impossible, after making every effort, to find employment for those four persons, and, therefore, they were entitled to superannuation allowances. The retiring pensions allowed to the four officers of the late Metropolitan Commission of Sewers had been provided for by the Metropolis Local Management Act.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

observed, that an officer who had retired after nine years' service in office with a salary of £500 received £333 retiring allowance. According to the old Superannuation Act, twenty years' service would have been required of him before he received half of his salary on retirement. He, therefore, wished for some explanation on the subject.

MR. WILSON

said, that the scale referred to by the right, hon. Gentleman applied only to gentlemen who retired from office from ill health or incapacity to continue to perform the duties. In the case of the abolition of an office, it was the practice to give two thirds of the salary for retirement.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, one of the Committees recommended that all officers who retired in consequence of the abolition of their offices should receive the same amount of pension as if they had been superannuated. He wished to know whether the Treasury Minute granting those superannuation allowances could be produced?

MR. WILSON

said, there was no objection to the production of the correspondence in the subject between the Board of Works and the Treasury.

LORD NAAS

said, the office of Counsel to the Irish Office in London having been abolished, he wished for an explanation of he charge of £500 a year, the salary of gentleman for drawing up Government Bills? Another £500 a year was charged for the retiring allowance of Mr. Batty, who formerly held the office which had been, abolished, and the duty of which was the drawing up of Bills.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, since the abolition of that office, not an intelligible Irish Bill had been been presented to the House. There were several cases of the same kind, especially in the Paymaster's Office and the Audit Office. The Administrative Reform movement of the Government appeared to consist in pensioning off all the able men and replacing them by men who knew nothing about their business. Why, some of those gentlemen were almost ashamed to receive their pensions; he knew many of them who would prefer to perform some duties for them. He wished for some explanation with respect to the retiring allowance of Mr. Mulvaney of the Board of Works, who had been removed from his position in consequence of charges brought against him by Irish Members.

MR. WILSON

said, the office of counsel to the Irish Office had been abolished by the Government, of which the noble Lord (Lord Naas) was a Member, and at his suggestion. It was afterwards found desirable to re-establish it.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, it was quite true that the office was abolished by the Earl of Derby's Government among other reductions which had taken place. But the objection was, that having superannuated the Gentleman who filled the office, the present Government, upon reestablishing it, had appointed a person to do the very work which he was fully competent to perform.

MR. HORSMAN

said, the abolition of Mr. Batty's office and the pensioning of that gentleman was one of the improvements effected by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas). It was the opinion of those who were competent to form an opinion on the matter, that those improvements were extremely ill-advised, that they were bad in theory and worse in practice. But, he office of Bill-drawer having been aboished, each Department last Session drew its own Bills, and there was no security or their being well drawn. Greater expense also was incurred; for, whereas Mr. Batty's salary was £1,000 a year, the charge for drawing even those Bills on the subject of tenants' compensation, from which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) and his colleagues had derived so much distinction, was no less than £500. Finding that the system of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) was expensive and inconvenient, he had obtained the services of one of the best Bill-drawers in London, a gentleman who had been brought up under Mr. Batty, and who, for the salary of £500, had undertaken to give the whole of his time to the Irish Office, and to go to Dublin and to attend on Parliament whenever he was required.

MR. NAPIER

said, he was confirmed by this discussion, in his opinion of the necessity for a department of public justice. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had spoken rather sarcastically about the Landlord and Tenant Bills, but he was willing enough to take them up. [Mr. HORSMAN.—Never!] Those measures proposed to change and consolidate the entire statute law of landlord and tenant, as well as the law affecting leasing powers; and the best comment upon those two Bills was, that they were received with perfect approbation by both Houses of Parliament. He ventured to say that the gentleman who drew those Bills was very much underpaid; for himself, he received nothing but the usual official allowance of the Attorney General. He was astonished when he saw a Bill now before the House for amending the Common Law Procedure Act. He could not imagine who had drawn it, for it copied an English Act so slavishly that it omitted a marginal note that was wanting in that Act, and re-enacted clauses that had already been enacted in the Bill of an hon. Friend of his. He was sure it was impossible that the Attorney General for Ireland could have had any hand in preparing that Bill. Instead of giving a man a fixed salary, whether there was much work or little, he thought the best plan was to go to the best man, to put him in connection with the department requiring the Bill, and to pay him liberally for his work. If there existed a separate department for preparing Bills, all the measures prepared for England and Ireland might be deliberately drawn up and properly paid for. He trusted he should have the support of the House in putting an end to a system which was accompanied either by actual jobbing or certainly suspicion of jobbing.

MR. HORSMAN

said, it seemed that hon. Gentlemen opposite had changed their ground. At first they had objected to this arrangement on the score of economy. He had shown that the payment was less than under the former system, and now that objection was given up, and it was said that the gentleman employed was not a competent person. The gentleman engaged had had a great deal to do with drawing Bills, and was well known to Members of Parliament for his experience and efficiency.

Mr. DISRAELI

said, that having been responsible for the inquiry into the Irish Office he could not admit that the right hon. Gentleman had proved the inefficacy of the arrangements made by the Government of which he was a Member. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Here is a case in which a Gentleman received £1,000 a year for performing a particular office, and you, on a plea that his duties could be performed more efficiently and economically, terminated his engagement. An officer has now been found to perform the same duties for half the money." But that appeared to him to be a justification and vindication of the policy which the Government of Lord Derby had recommended. If for half the salary the duty was as efficiently performed, that proved the wisdom of the recommendations of the Committee at the head of which was his noble Friend the Member for Buckingham (the Marquess of Chandos).

MR. HORSMAN

If the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the salary from £1,000 to £500 the arrangement would have been an economical one. But he abolished the office, and superannuated the holder of it, and the present Government have re-instated the office at half the salary.

LORD NAAS

said, it was found that the clerks of the Irish Office were receiving fixed salaries with very little hope of promotion, and it was thought desirable to put them upon the same system that prevailed in this country. That system was accordingly introduced into the Irish Office, and three classes of clerks were established with progressive salaries. The departments thus got rid of old men who did nothing and received large salaries, and an inducement was given to the younger clerks in the Irish Office to exert themselves. Mr. Batty was receiving £1,000 a year as counsel to the Irish Office. It occurred to the Government that the work of drawing Bills was not worth so high a salary, and that it might be performed for a less sum. They accordingly recommended that the usual annual Irish Bills should be drawn by the law officers of the Crown; but that if important Bills like the Landlord and Tenant Bills were required, gentlemen of the highest legal acquirements should be consulted, who were conversant with the particular subject to which their attention was directed. They were told that this would be found a saving of expense and an advantage to the public service, but by the arrangement at present in force one gentleman received a salary of £500 and another a superannuation allowance of the same amount.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a superannuation allowance for an architect to the Committee of Privy Council on Education. He supposed an architect would be paid in the ordinary way, and he should like to hear why he was to receive a retiring allowance of £130, having previously received a salary of £200.

MR. WILSON

said, that Mr. Westmacott was employed as architect at a fixed salary, to which he was entitled as long as he held his office. The policy had been of late to employ public officers at a fixed salary instead of fees. Mr. Westmacott was employed as architect to the Committee of Privy Council on Education, at a salary of £200, and at sixty years of age he retired with a pension of £130.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that Mr. Westmacott was not entitled, after service of only twelve years and a half to so large an allowance as had been granted.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he did not see what the Committee of Privy Council on Education wanted with an architect any more than a chaplain or a physician.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he wished to know whether Mr. Westmacott was the architect under whose superintendence £70,000 were expended on Kneller Hall?

MR. WILSON

said, whatever blunder the Government might have committed in undertaking the establishment at Kneller Hall, it was not the fault of the architect.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, the point was, that, if the architect received a commission on that expenditure, he was not entitled to a retiring allowance. There was a sum of £3,237 10s. for retiring allowances to officers under the Irish Poor Law Board. Their services could not have been very long, but no information was given in the Estimates either of their ages or services.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would move to reduce the Vote by £2,000—retiring allowances of the three Referees and the Registrar of Metropolitan Buildings.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he would suggest that the allowances should be gone through regularly, and not taken out of their order. No answer had been given to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring). The resignation of office by Mr. Westmacott was no ground for a retiring allowance; age and infirmity of course might give him a claim.

MR. WILSON

said, by the Superannuation Act, any public officer was entitled to retire at the age of sixty-five and to have a pension according to merits. This was the third year the allowance had been voted to Mr. Westmacott. It was impossible to remember the circumstances, but it was quite clear that at the age of sixty-five he was entitled to a retiring allowance.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he must repeat his observation on the £3,237 10s. for retiring allowances to officers under the Irish Poor Law Board.

VISCOUNT MONCK

said, he must beg to explain, with reference to the retired officers of metropolitan buildings, that the Act abolishing those offices contained a clause giving compensation. The special circumstances of the three referees and registrar, the officers in question, had been considered. They were all professional gentlemen, who had been taken from their private practice to fill appointments of trust. After many years' service the offices had been abolished, and they had been sent back to their professions with little chance of regaining their private practice. Those circumstances he thought were a sufficient justification for the amount of retiring allowance.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he must call attention to the fact, that the appeal of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), though twice made, still remained unanswered. If the Government offered no explanation, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £3,237 10s.

MR. WILSON

said, it was impossible to answer so many questions at the same time. The whole details of the transaction had formed the subject of two hours' discussion in a previous Session. All the offices held by those ten gentlemen under the Poor Law Board had been abolished, and a great saving thereby effected.

MR. GROGAN

said, those gentlemen were perfectly competent to fill existing offices, to which other gentlemen had been appointed.

MR. WILSON

said, he must deny that such was the fact. No new officers had been appointed to the Poor Law Board in Ireland.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that whenever vacancies occurred, the Government always gave the preference to candidates who had been previously superseded on grounds of economy.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that the subject of these superannuation allowances, having been discussed at some length last year, ought not, in fairness perhaps, to be again revived; but the amounts had certainly been fixed much above the standard prescribed by the Treasury Minute or by the Superannuation Act.

MR. SPOONER

said, he would beg to ask whether the offices of the three official referees included in the Vote still existed?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, they did not. These officers were pensioned under the Metropolitan Buildings Act, and were not subject to the control of the Treasury.

MR. HILDYARD

said, the answer that had been given might suffice to exculpate the Government, but did not exonerate the House. It was now the rage to abolish everything, to vote handsome compensation to all the persons concerned, and then call into existence a substitute for the institution swept away, which, in turn, was soon found to work little better than its predecessor. They omitted, however, to provide that the paid officers under the old system should be continued under the new. They might well take a lesson in this respect from æsop's fable of the "Fox and the Flies." Reynard, while swimming across a river, was caught in the weeds and there surrounded by a swarm of flies, who began to suck his blood. A swallow coming near wished to drive away the flies, but Reynard forbade this, shrewdly observing that the swarm which then had possession of him were nearly satiated, but if they were driven away they would be sure to be succeeded by a fresh army as voracious as the first, which would drain his body of every remaining drop of the vital fluid.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he wished to remark that there were about 300 "flies" included in the list before the Committee—in other words, there were 300 claimants for retiring pensions, many of whom were neither aged no disabled; he should like to know why they were not reabsorbed into the public service, and made to work for their pay?

MR. BOWYER

said, he would suggest that next year the Vote for superannuation allowances, which extended over thirty-three pages of the Estimate, should be broken up into a number of distinct Votes. That would be a great convenience to the Committee, and would also facilitate the task of the Government in affording explanations. The greatest confusion was produced by the present complex form of the Vote, which, moreover, was calculated to render the revision of the Estimates by that House nothing better than an idle farce.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that after the explanations which had been given, he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Vote agreed to.

(16.) £2,270, Toulonese and other Emigrants.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he observed that this Vote included a sum of £210 for "American Loyalists," and he wished to know what number of persons coming under that designation now possessed any claims upon the Government? In a subsequent Vote he found items of £700 for "poor French refugee clergy," and of £250 for "poor French refugee laity." He would suggest that all items of that description should be included in one Vote.

MR. WILSON

said, that all those charges were sanctioned by Act of Parliament, and had been carefully investigated by the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates a short time ago. He could not inform the hon. Member among what number of American loyalists the Vote was divided, but if it was thought advisable a Return of the number of persons participating in the grant could be presented to the House.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he believed that the grants to refugees had been confined to two generations, and he could not understand why the grant to French refugee clergy, who must have come to this country about 1793 and which could not have been required for two generations, should still be continued.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) £2,000, National Vaccine Establishment.

MR. STAFFORD

said, he wished to know why a long and violent pamphlet, written with great spirit and ability, but directed against the Compulsory Vaccination Act, bearing the signature of "John Gibbs," had been printed at the public expense? The production of the pamphlet or letter had been moved by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), and the writer described vaccination as "a great sham, a wicked delusion, which could have emanated only from the 'father of lies,' and to advocate which is at best but to preach, 'Let us do evil that good may come.' "As there was a great outcry against the expenditure for printing Returns, he thought the Committee should be informed why that letter had been printed at the expense of the country, and not at that of the Gentleman by whom it was written.

MR. COWPER

said, that the letter referred to was of a very amusing character, but the Government had nothing to do with printing it. The hon. Members for Salford and Finsbury were the parties responsible for affording hon. Gentlemen the opportunity of perusing this very facetious pamphlet.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, the paper in question was addressed to the President of the Board of Health, and he (Mr. Brotherton) applied to the Printing Committee, requesting them to order it to be printed, but they declined to accede to the request. That was all he had to do with the matter. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) afterwards gave notice of a Motion for the printing of the letter, and the Committee then ordered it to be printed.

MR. MICHELL

said, he knew nothing of Mr. Gibbs, but that that gentleman's letter contained much valuable information, and that from his own experience he could confirm many of the writer's statements. He regarded the letter as a very valuable document, and if hon. Members would read and consider it they would know more of vaccination than they did at present. Many deaths had been caused by vaccination, and he thought, when Bills were passed by that House causing the deaths of individuals by vaccination, it was necessary the House should be informed on the subject, although it might be by a man like Mr. Gibbs.

MR. GROGAN

said, he thought that if hon. Gentlemen took the trouble to read Mr. Gibbs's letter they would find that it referred to facts which would surprise them.

MR. COWPER

said, he was glad to learn that the pamphlet was worth reading, for if he had not heard such an opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Michell) he would have supposed it had been written by the inmate of a lunatic asylum. He had certainly been under the impression that the writer was stark staring mad.

MR. MICHELL

said, Mr. Gibbs did not receive £2,000 a year for supporting the system of vaccination, or he might not have expressed such strong opinions on the subject.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(18.) £325, Refuge for the Destitute.

(19.) £4,000, Polish Refugees and distressed Spaniards.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he wished to inquire whether the Poles enlisted in our service during the present war would be regarded as fresh claimants upon this fund, or whether arrangements would be made with the Emperor of Russia for their restoration to their own country?

MR. WILSON

said, the Vote had nothing to do with the Poles engaged in the recent war. It was established for the benefit of the old Polish refugees, and was in process of gradual reduction, having been £8,500 in 1848.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(20.) £4,371, Miscellaneous Allowances.

(21.) £2,985, Infirmaries (Ireland).

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought the time had arrived when this Vote should disappear from the Estimates. Not a single farthing was given to Infirmaries in England or Scotland. He considered that the people of Ireland should support their own Infirmaries, and he believed they would do so if they were not allowed to put their hand into the public purse.

MR. WILSON

said, the Vote was sanctioned by two Acts of Parliament; but in the Medical Charities Act it was provided that the allowances should be discontinued when the officers receiving them ceased to hold their offices.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) seemed to have forgotten that the salaries of the medical officers and schoolmasters of workhouses, which in England were paid out of the public money, were paid by the rate-payers in Ireland. A larger sum than that which the Committee was now asked to vote for Infirmaries in Ireland was annually voted for a single park in London.

Vote agreed to.

(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £1,295, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Foundling Hospital Department of the House of Industry, Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the people of England and Scotland paid for every one of the workhouses in Ireland, to say nothing of the public works, which cost several millions in addition.

MR. BLACKBURN

said that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of the Dublin Hospitals, and whose Report had been delivered only that morning, expressed the opinion that £7,600 per annum would be sufficient for the support of all the Hospitals connected with the House of Industry, of which the Foundling Hospital was one. He did not think that the Committee should be asked to pass this Vote until some attempt had been made to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that the grants to these Hospitals, dated as far back as the time of the Union. By a clause in the Act of Union, the British Parliament bound itself to grant for those hospitals, for twenty years, the same amount as the Irish Parliament had granted for their support. The grant had been continued since, principally through the recommendation of Committees appointed to report on the matter. In 1855, a Commission was appointed on the subject, but that Report had only just been laid upon the table of the House. The grant, in fact, was about the same as it had been for several years, the only alteration being that a new distribution of it was proposed.

MR. ALEXANDER HASTIE

said, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £129 10s., or ten per cent on the Vote. The ground of his Motion was that Ireland ought to support its own foundlings, and not call upon England to do so.

MR. I. BUTT

said, this Vote involved no question whatever relating to Dublin Hospitals in general. It was simply whether the House of Commons should continue to pay certain pensions and charges entailed upon a defunct establishment, and which would gradually die off.

MR. VANCE

said, the charge had been gradually diminishing, and he trusted, after the explanation which had been given, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £1,165 10s. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Foundling Hospital Department of the House of Industry, Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 187: Majority 155.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(23.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £11,790, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of the House of Industry, &c. Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

MR. ALEXANDER HASTIE

said, he should now move that the Vote be reduced by 10 per cent.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £10,611, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of the House of Industry, &c. Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 180: Majority 147.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he would now move that the Chairman leave the chair and report progress. The House had already been in Committee for seven consecutive hours.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion. He did not believe the Committee were at present, exhausted.

MR. HADFIELD

said, the labour was really more than human nature could bear; he would, however, consent to withdraw his Motion.

The following Votes were then agreed to—

(24.) £500, Female Orphan House.

(25.) £1,215, Westmoreland Lock Hospital.

(26.) £500, Lying-In Hospital.

(27.) £795, Doctor Steevens' Hospital.

(28.) £1,900, House of Recovery.

(29.) £600, Meath Hospital.

The House resumed.