SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 12 June 1862)

§ MR. MASSEY
in the Chair.

LORD NAAS
inquired whether it was the intention to make any alteration in reference to the convict establishment at Bermuda?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, there was no intention to send any more convicts there, and he believed that so far as it was a convict station it would be abanoned.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
called attention to the large balances which were in hand in the case of most of these Votes; and asked whether, that being so, it was necessary to vote such large sums of money. On the 28th of February the balances upon fourteen Votes amounted to £102,000, while the amount asked for was £117,000. It certainly deserved consideration whether, if these balances were returned in hand on the 1st March, it was worth while to vote such large sums. With reference to this particular Vote, he thought, that as Bermuda was to be nothing more than a military garrison, £4,200 for the salary of a civil Governor, a Judge, and other officers, was needlessly large. He thought the revenue of the island should be amply sufficient to defray the civil expenses.

MR. PEEL
said, that the explanation of these balances was, that in the first instance these colonial charges were met out of the Treasury chest, and the sum voted 496 would be transferred in due course to that chest, the accounts connected with which were necessarily scattered all over the world, and could not, therefore, be very expeditiously adjusted. But what was voted for the year was no more than what was required for the year. Vote agreed to.

§ MR. BAXTER
observed, that there was £2,000 of the sum voted in 1861 still in the Exchequer, so that it seemed that there was an extraordinary system of keeping accounts. He wished to know whether it was clearly to be understood that the payments would terminate with the lives of the present recipients?

MR. PEEL
said, that the accounts of 1861 were not completed on the 28th February last, and therefore all the claims on account of that year were not yet made. It was impossible to complete the accounts sooner.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that the Vote was an expiring one, and would die with the last recipient. It had at one time been as much as £21,000. In fact, since the Vote had been framed, one of the recipients had died.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he had last year given a sort of pledge that the supply of blankets should be discontinued. On inquiry, however, he found that these blankets were strictly in the nature of personal allowances to the Indians, and on the same footing as the pensions. There was a list of Indians above sixty years old, to whom these charitable allowances were made, but the Vote would disappear altogether with the decease of the present recipients.

§ MR. BAXTER
referred to the statement made on the Estimates, that one moiety of the cost of the Royal Engineers would be borne by the colony and another by the mother country, and asked whether the colony had ever, in fact, paid a farthing of the proposed contribution.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the colony had paid a very considerable sum towards the expenses of the Royal Engineers. It had defrayed a larger proportion of its military expenditure than 497 most young colonies were asked to contribute, or even than most old ones.

§ MR. ARTHUR MILLS
asked for further information beyond the words "an estimate of the sum to defray expenses consequent upon the resumption of Vancouver's Island from the Hudson's Bay Company by the Crown."

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, it was a Vote which never could appear again in the Estimates, but it was a Vote without which the Crown could not resume possession of the Island. In the grant of 1849 to the Hudson's Bay Company it was provided that the Crown should have the power of resuming possession of the Island at any time after the expiration of the licence to trade, upon payment to the Company of the actual amount which they had expended in establishments, bringing emigrants there, &c. The Company demanded a much larger sum than £55,000. There had been a great deal of negotiation between the representatives of the Treasury and of the Colonial Office and the Company. A compromise had at length been arrived at, and legal proceedings of a very protracted and expensive character had been avoided.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, that however satisfactory it might be to hear that the Crown could not buy Vancouver's Island of the Hudson's Bay Company twice over, and that another Vote would not be asked for the same purpose, he still wished to know what we were to have in return for these payments, and he should also be glad to know whether any similar arrangements had been made with respect to transfer of the rights of the Company on the mainland.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he was very sorry that the Crown had been obliged to buy Vancouver's Island at any price, but it became necessary when the Government determined to form a colony at Vancouver's Island. The matter was part of the arrangement made in 1849, and every farthing of this sum had been expended by the Hudson's Bay Company—in fact, it was only the balance after giving credit for the proceeds of the sale of lands. With respect to the mainland, the claim of the Company was of a very minor character, and it had been compromised upon favourable terms.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
inquired, whether the Company had any claim upon the mainland, and also whether the Government would furnish a Statement of Account as to this £55,000, showing what it had been paid for.

§ MR. CHILDERS
was afraid that the Committee could take no other course than grant the money, although it would have been better if they had had some explanation in reference to the items. The Company by their charter were entitled to be paid, not simply the value of the things existing on the Island, but the actual money which they had expended.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he could only refer the Committee again to the Company's charter. The amount of the Vote represented the value of establishments handed over to the Government and the amount expended in conveying settlers from this country.

§ MR. ARTHUR MILLS
wished to know if the whole affair was now wound up; and he also expressed his opinion that it was objectionable that they should have to vote money for carrying out emigrants, of whom he thought there must have been very few.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he must press for a detailed account.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, there were a considerable number of emigrants. He would take care that a detailed account should be prepared.

§ MR. CHILDERS
asked, whether any conclusion had been come to as to separating the Government of Vancouver's Island and that of British Columbia.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
could not give any positive information at present; but he could say that the subject was under consideration of the Colonial Secretary.

§ MR. PEASE
asked, whether emigrants were encouraged by grants of land or minerals?

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the land laws of Vancouver's Island and British Columbia were of a most liberal character, and were on an equality with the land laws of the adjoining territory of the United States.

§ MR. ARTHUR MILLS
asked, whether this would be a final settlement?

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that he confidently believed that this would be a final Vote. At the same time, there was a slight difference between the Government and the Company, and a claim 499 ranging between £5,000 and £10,000 was in abeyance. He did not think it would come to anything, but could not speak positively,

§ MR. ADDERLEY
wanted to know whether, after the arrangement was concluded, the Hudson's Bay Company would still exist?

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
replied, that the question they were now discussing in no way affected the Hudson's Bay Company's charter; but their power would cease under the agreement over all territory west of the Rocky Mountains except as a private company.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
understood that the Hudson's Bay Company had a legal claim upon the Government, and under those circumstances it would be a most unusual course for the House to interfere with the payment.

§ MR. ARTHUR MILLS
objected to the appearance in this Vote of sums paid for the salaries of Governors of colonies having representative institutions, and called attention to the appearance for the first time of an item of £300 for the salary of the Chief Justice of the Bahamas of which, if it were not explained, he should move the omission.

§ MR. CHILDERS
complained of the reappearance of the charge of £3,500 for the salary of the Governor of Jamaica, which the House had been twice promised had been voted for the last time. In 1835, when a promise was given that this item should not appear on the Estimates again, it was stated that negotiations were pending with the Colonial Legislature which rendered it inconvenient that the amount should be struck out at that time. The Governors of colonies having representative institutions ought to be paid by those colonies.

§ MR. BAXTER
reminded the Committee that the Australian colonies, with the exception of Western Australia and New Zealand, and the North American colonies, with the exception of Prince Edward's Island, paid their own Governors, and he thought it should be urged on the other colonies that they should do the same.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he very much agreed in the general principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman, as to the duty of colonies haying representa- 500 tive governments to pay their own Governors; but it must be remembered that the colonies whose Governors we were asked to pay were, with the exception of Jamaica and the Windward and Leeward Islands, colonies which were of a very poor and insignificant character, and which had until the present day suffered from serious embarrassments. With respect to the Vote for the Governor of Jamaica, he must repeat the explanation that it was of a temporary character, and would, he anticipated, in consequence of an arrangement which had been made, soon disappear from these Estimates. With respect to the other two, they were Governors-in-Chief, each having jurisdiction over some half-dozen dependencies. These dependencies having their own establishments, it would be very difficult to, obtain from them, by their several contributions, the sum necessary to pay a man of ability to fill the post of Governor in Chief. With respect to the Chief Justice of the Bahamas, the duties which that judge had to perform for his £300 a year were strictly of an Imperial character, it being his duty to check those wrecking transactions which operated so injuriously on our trade, and the existence of which was a disgrace to this country.

§ MR. CAVE
observed, that if the question was raised as to whether the salaries of those Governors should be made up by the House of Commons, there was this further question to be decided in respect to some of those colonies—namely, whether they wanted Governors at all? It was perfectly absurd to have the expensive paraphernalia of a Court in colonies not larger than an English parish. No doubt there were anomalies connected with the whole of this Vote; but as the Colonial Office had to deal with those colonies when they were in a state of transition, owing to the effects of Imperial policy from which they had not yet recovered, the House might look at the Vote with more favour than they would otherwise be inclined to show it. The Colonial Office had more power in those colonies than it had in larger ones; and although he admitted that, as a general rule, the appointment of Governors had of late been characterized by honesty and conscientiousness on the part of the Government; yet, if the question as to the continuance in office of the Governors were put to the colonies, while some might probably be re-elected for life, others would have no 501 more chance of maintaining their position than the Pope would if the French left Rome; and these small payments were of little account compared with the mischief which had been inflicted by misgovernment in some of these colonies.

§ MR. HENNESSY
, in reference to the charge of £100 a year for the Chief Justice of Anguilla, remarked that the revenue of Anguilla amounted to £414; the territory was sixteen miles long and two broad; the number of the white population was under 100, yet a Court of Queen's Bench, a Court of Common Pleas, and, he believed, a Court of Chancery, were kept up in Anguilla. It was now proposed to pay the Chief Justice at the rate of £1 per head for the white population.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
asked for some explanation.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
remarked, that the number of convictions by the magistrates in Jamaica amounted to about the number of pounds that they received as salaries.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the Vote had been gradually diminished, vacancies either not being filled up at all, or the charges on account of new appointments being- transferred to the colony. The Vote was strictly therefore of an expiring character. When these magistrates were appointed, the colonies to which they were sent out were in a state of transition from slavery to freedom. In 1835–6 their salaries amounted to £69,000; they were now reduced to £10,800.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
inquired, whether, when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary spoke of the Vote as one of an expiring character, he meant that it would expire when all the magistrates expired?

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that was exactly what he did mean—that it would expire when all the magistrates died or resigned.

§ MR. CHILDERS
called attention to the fact that for years past the revenue of Sierra Leone had been more than the expenditure by as much as £2,000 a year. Now, he thought under these circumstances the colony ought to bear a portion of the general expenses of the Coast.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he would direct the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the subject.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
complained of the expenses of the Gold Coast. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £2,500, half of the amount for the maintenance of forts and establishments.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
explained, that though they had great influence on this part of the coast of Africa, the Government had very little dominion or taxing power. It was extremely difficult to raise any revenue by customs duties, on account of the competition of the adjoining Dutch forts; and they were obliged to ask for a small annual Vote to curry on the civil government of the territory. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. TURNER
thought it would be an unwise economy to cut off the small expenditure incurred in Western Africa. The trade to the Gold Coast was important and increasing, and attempts were being made to produce cotton.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
rose, pursuant to notice, to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum estimated for the expenses of Lagos—namely, £500 for the Governor, £1,000 for a pension to the ex-King Docemo, and £2,500 for contingencies. He said, that hon. Members would find, from the papers laid on the table, that in 1852 the late King Akitoye made a treaty with the British Government for the suppression of the slave trade. His nephew Kosoko took advantage of the unpopularity of this act; and, backed by the slave interest, drove the king from his throne, and took possession of Lagos. He then set England at defiance, and was deposed by the British Government. Akitoye was restored to his kingdom, and at his 503 death his son Docemo was set on his throne with the assent of the English Consul. The treaty with Akitoye was signed by Admiral Bruce, at that time in command of the squadron on the station, and as he (Sir Francis Baring) was then at the Admiralty, he had kept up his interest in the subject. This treaty had been suddenly set aside, and Lagos had been taken possession of as a British dependency. He took it for granted there had been some ground for breaking the treaty, and had looked into the papers to see whether there had been any complaint against Docemo that he had broken faith with England. He believed that by international law, where a treaty existed, due complaint must be made of any breach of that treaty before hostilities were resorted to. In the present case, however, the Government instructed Consul Foote to explain to Docemo that they were not actuated by any dissatisfaction with his conduct, "but that, on the contrary, they have every wish to deal with him in a liberal and friendly spirit." If no dissatisfaction existed with Docemo, on what ground, then, was his territory taken away from him? Here was a despatch from Consul Brand, dated "Lagos, April 9, 1860," which stated that— Lagos, from being a haunt of piratical slave-dealers in 1851, has, from its geographical position, and the great resources of the country adjoining, become the seat of a most important and increasing legal trade. The value of the exports, even during the past year, by no means a favourable one, is nearly £250,000 sterling. Consul Brand, it was true, represented that the Government was not sufficiently strong, and that justice was not done, and he recommended either a protectorate or that England should annex the country. But where a trade had grown up so rapidly, it was no bad proof that things had gone on pretty well, and that complaint should have been made before such an extreme measure was taken. Consul Brand's despatch was written in 1860, and it was more than a year before the Government made up its mind to annex Lagos. Consul Brand was succeeded by Consul Foote, and it was surprising, that if the latter came to the same conclusion as Consul Brand, some despatch from him had not been given among the papers. Consul Foote, however, died, and his death was, in the opinion of Commodore Edmonstone, a very severe loss to that part of Africa, as the difficulties which had occurred 504 would probably have been removed had he been spared. But what were the grounds upon which the Government thought themselves justified in taking possession of the country? They were to be found in a despatch from the Foreign Secretary, dated June 22, 1861, and were that the Government— Are convinced that the permanent occupation of this important point is indispensable to the complete suppression of the slave trade in the country; while it will give great aid and support to the development of lawful commerce, and will check the aggressive spirit of the King of Dahomey. But would the suppression of the slave trade justify the Government in breaking a treaty and seizing the property of their neighbours? If so, he did not know why they should stop there. There was an island, the possession of which everybody knew would go much further in putting down the slave trade. But would Her Majesty's Government be justified on that account in seizing on Cuba? If the United States before the late disturbances thought fit to occupy Cuba for the purpose of putting down the slave trade, would that be considered a justification? "Thou shalt not steal" was a very plain commandment, and was a particular exception to be made in favour of taking possession of Lagos with a view of putting down the slave trade? Now, taking the second reason—"It would be a great aid and support to the development of lawful commerce "—was that a ground for seizing on the country? Plainly put, the case was this—"You are my ally; I have no complaint whatever against you, but I will take possession of your country; it will be a great aid to the development of lawful commerce, and I shall therefore be perfectly justified." And then, as for checking the aggressive spirit of the King of Dahomey, what did that amount to but this—"It will greatly contribute to my overpowering the King of Dahomey if I have your territory, and therefore I am perfectly justified in taking possession of it." But there was a fourth reason— Her Majesty's Government would be most unwilling that the establishment of British sovereignty at Lagos should be attended with any injustice to Docemo, the present chief of the island; but they conceive that as his tenure of the island in point of fact depends entirely upon the continuance of the protection which has been afforded to him and his predecessor by the British naval authorities since the expulsion of Kosoko, no injustice will be inflicted upon him by changing this anomalous protectorate into an avowed 505 occupation, provided his material interests are secured. That was a very dangerous doctrine to hold. In point of fact there were none of those African chiefs who were not more or less in treaty with this country, and to a certain extent under its protection. It was under the shadow of our wings, and by the power which we exercised upon the African coast, that they were defended from their enemies. Indeed, there were cases nearer home in which the doctrine of an "anomalous protectorate" would sound very oddly. He might be told that there had been a cession; but he maintained, that when all the circumstances of the transaction were taken into account, it could not be said that any voluntary assent was given by Docemo to the surrender of the territory. The facts of the case were these:—Her Majesty's Government having decided to take possession of Lagos, Captain Bedingfield, the senior naval officer on the station, brought his ship, the Prometheus, into the river. Docemo was invited to a conference on board that vessel, when he was informed of the intention of the Government to convert the anomalous protectorate into an avowed occupation, and requested to sign a treaty of cession. Not having his chiefs with him, Docemo refused to do so, and two or three days were then given him to make up his mind. Mr. M'Croskry, the acting consul at Lagos, admitted this fact; for in his despatch to the Government he said that the King had no arguments of weight to urge against the proposed cession of his kingdom to Her Majesty, but that as his chiefs were not present, he promised to lay the matter before them. A few days afterwards another meeting was held on shore, at the house of Mr. M'Croskry, who says that they saw at once that the party opposing the cession had succeeded in getting the King to refuse. The chiefs then attempted to intimidate by threats; but as Commander Bedingfield had taken measures to put down disturbance, none occurred. Docemo was then informed, that unless he had made up his mind before the 6th August, five days, formal possession would be taken of the island in the name of her Majesty. There were at first threats of opposing this by force; but the precautions taken, and especially the imposing presence of a vessel like the Prometheus, kept all quiet. Docemo then called another meeting at his house, at which he requested all the Euro- 506 peans and immigrants to be present to hear the proposals of the Government explained. At this time there was great excitement, but, owing to the admirable arrangements that had been made, no disturbance took place. What those "admirable arrangements" were, might be inferred from the circumstance that a body of English soldiers and marines, with some cannon, were landed and drawn up so as to be available in case of need. Under these circumstances the signature of the King was obtained to the treaty, some objections which he urged being met by the insertion of one or two new clauses into the instrument. In a letter dated August 8th, 1861, written after this circumstance, Docemo stated that he never intended to cede his kingdom to Her Majesty, and that he only signed the treaty "because if I do not, he (Captain Bedingfield) is ready to fire on the Island of Lagos, and to destroy it in the twinkling of an eye." One of the stipulations of the treaty was that Docemo should receive an annual pension equivalent to the net revenues of his kingdom. Those revenues were farmed for £2,000, a fact of which Mr. M'Croskry must have been perfectly well aware. It was, however, decided upon that the King should receive a pension of £1,000 a year only. He (Sir F. Baring) did not believe that Her Majesty's Government, when consenting to this arrangement, could have been aware of these facts. That they intended to take possession of the country was perfectly true, but he did not believe they would also willingly deprive the King of half his income in addition to depriving him of his sovereignty. The King also complained that his dignity had been insulted and his feelings wounded by the subsequent proceedings of the Consul. The people of Africa were not likely to be made our friends by such conduct as that which had been pursued towards King Docemo. It was bad policy, to say the least, to deprive our friends of their crowns, and to shower favours on our enemies. King Docemo had not been fairly compensated for the revenue he had lost, and it was neither more nor less than a scandal that the memorial of a person who had suffered wrong at our hands should not have received the courtesy of an answer. He entreated the Government to organize such a system at Lagos as might secure justice being exercised there, and to give the natives some means of expressing their 507 feelings and wishes. The right hon. baronet concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum estimated for the expenses of Lagos, £4,000.

§ MR. GREGORY
gave his cordial support to the course pursued by the Government at Lagos. The question lay in a nutshell, and the statement of the right hon. Baronet might be easily and satisfactorily answered. Lagos was the port of Abeokuto, a most flourishing portion of the African Coast, but it was a district continually threatened by the King of Dahomey, and was the resort of people engaged in. carrying on the slave trade, and Docemo, if willing, was unable to restrain them. One might have supposed, from the description of his right hon. Friend, that Lagos was inhabited by a set of Quakers most peaceable and orderly in their conduct, instead of by a number of characters intimately connected with the King of Dahomey, who was engaged in organizing and carrying on the slave trade; and he agreed in the opinion of our naval commander there, Captain Bedingfield, that our occupation of Lagos would do more to suppress that trade than all the ships we could muster along the coast. With respect to the stipulations of our Government with King Docemo, he was to retain his power so long as he acted up to his engagements; but it was perfectly notorious that those engagements with regard to the discouragement of the slave trade, on the maintenance of which his support by the British nation depended, had been violated. Docemo was perfectly unable to restrain the lawless people who were congregated in his territory, and the condition of Lagos was proceeding from worse to worse. His right hon. Friend had talked of the protest of King Docemo against deprivation; but the document to which he referred was dated August, 1861, whereas the last document on the subject was dated March, 1862, in which Consul Freeman stated that Docemo was inclined to sign, but was prevented from doing so by the Whitecap chieftains; but they were afterwards quite satisfied, and the King then signed another article, and received additional compensation. Whether he considered the occupation of Lagos as an opening for British commerce, or as the repayment of a portion of the 508 debt we owed to Africa, he entirely approved what had been done, and he sincerely hoped Government would make no change whatever with regard to the cession of that place. He looked on the occupation of Lagos as one of the links in that great chain by which the slave trade was at length to be bound and destroyed. The separation of the United States was one step in that direction; the independence of the Confederate States was another step; the treaty with the United States was another step, and the occupation of Lagos was ancillary to the same end.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he would not follow his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) in his relation of the facts of this case, as in the main he had correctly stated what had taken place. He agreed that in their dealings with the natives of Africa, as, indeed, with all the world, they should be guided by strict maxims of equity and justice; and he felt confident it would appear that they had dealt both justly and most kindly with Docemo. His right hon. Friend accused the Government of violating international law; but he had really made a great deal of a very small matter. He spoke as if the King of Lagos were the head of a great independent State, instead of a petty chief exercising doubtful authority over a few people. Some years ago Lagos was a perfect nuisance on the coast of Africa. It was the resort of all the slave-dealers on the coast, it was in alliance with the King of Dahomey in his slave-hunts and his butcheries, and the greatest outrages were perpetrated by its population. The English Government were at length compelled to interfere, and an expedition was fitted out against Lagos by the orders of his right hon. Friend, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir F. Baring). After very considerable resistance, the place was taken. It became by conquest the possession of the British Crown, if we had chosen to take it. This, however, we did not do; but we removed the then ruler, Kosoko, putting Akitoye, the predecessor of Docemo, in his place, and established a kind of protectorate. Such protectorates were always unfortunate in the result. We had all the responsibility, without any of the advantages of possession. Docemo, who shortly afterwards succeeded Akitoye, became a mere puppet in the hands of a party at Lagos. We were compelled to maintain a vessel of war there to protect our interests, and the Consul at last asked for 509 a body of troops to uphold the authority of King Docemo himself. At length Lagos became a resort of the partisans of the King of Dahomey, and a depôt for the arms and powder furnished to him to enable him to carry on the slave trade and his horrible human sacrifices. It became, at length, absolutely necessary either that Lagos should be abandoned or that we should take possession of it altogether. If we had withdrawn our man-of-war and our Consul, leaving Docemo to act for himself, he would probably have been soon expelled, the slave trade would have flourished again in all its horrors, and the Government would have been compelled to fit out another expedition against Lagos. What did we do? We knew very well that what Docemo chiefly wanted was to have his revenue secured to him. We decided to take possession, and to settle upon Docemo a fixed annual sum instead of his previous precarious revenue. His right hon. Friend was in error when he talked of the land belonging to Docemo; the real possessors of it were certain Whitecap chiefs, as they were called. When the deed of cession was proposed to Docemo, a fear arose among the Whitecap chiefs lest they were to be deprived of their rights; but their apprehensions were soon set at rest, and Docemo himself was fully satisfied when he found that a yearly revenue was to be guaranteed to him on the faith of a treaty. The petitions from Docemo, the chiefs, and various inhabitants of Lagos which had been referred to were very much alike, all being written in the same peculiar orthography and style; and there was reason to believe that they had been drawn up by some persons whose object it was to restore the previous state of things in Lagos. No doubt there were those who were dissatisfied, because they could no longer carry on the slave trade with impunity, and saw that we were determined to put down their atrocious practices. If we had abandoned the place altogether, it would most probably have fallen into the hands of the King of Dahomey. Ought we to have established a more direct protectorate over Lagos? He said that to establish a direct protectorate would be an infinitely worse course than taking possession of the island: he believed that in adopting this latter course the Government had been guilty of no injustice towards Docemo. It had been alleged that no notice had been taken 510 of his petitions, which complained that we had defrauded him of his revenue. None of those petitions touched the question of revenue—they all referred to the cession. The annual revenue that had been allotted to him had been allotted upon full investigation, and it was a fair compromise which he had himself accepted. The treaty did not specify the sum of £1,000, but a sum equal to the average revenue that he had derived from Lagos before the cession. He was not aware of a single remonstrance by Docemo in regard to the sum fixed upon; if such a remonstrance had been received by the Government, it would have been referred for consideration to their representative on the spot. The only desire of the Government had been to treat Docemo justly and fairly, and he would be much happier and his position much better under the arrangement that had been come to, than if we had left him to his fate. There was not a single civil or naval officer of any authority in African matters who did not entirely approve the policy of the Government. The possession of Lagos gave us the command of that vast system of lagoons and internal waters which skirted the coast of Africa, and enabled the slaver to defy our efforts by sea to check his operation. By means of our control over that island, and of the treaty recently concluded with the United States, we had secured the greatest facilities for the effectual suppression of that abominable traffic in the Bight of Benin. He thought that the British Government could not be accused of having acted unjustly to King Docemo, whilst they had taken a most important step towards the ultimate destruction of the slave trade on the eastern coast of Africa.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, the petitions from King Docemo were drawn up by that Prince's own secretary. The Under Secretary of State said he had not heard of any complaint from King Docemo on account of his compensation, but there was a great deal that was quite true which did not appear to reach the hon. Gentleman. The complaint was made to Governor Freeman, and no attention was paid to it.

§ MR. FREELAND
said, that the sneers of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the arguments of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) were, he thought, much out of place. The Under Secretary had sneered at the idea of ap- 511 plying the principles of international law to the case of a petty African Prince. But surely the smaller and the weaker the State concerned, the more important it was that a Government like that of England should respect, as far as possible, its independence, and endeavour conscientiously to apply the same principles to it as they would apply in their intercourse with a more powerful community. Though most anxious to see the slave trade suppressed, he should feel great difficulty in supporting the present Vote, unless the Under Secretary of State gave some further explanation of the remarks which he had made.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
asked, why this Vote was necessary, seeing that there was £41,000 of credits in the Exchequer on the 1st of April last.

MR. PEEL
said, the £41,000 had been spent, and further claims had been made on the Treasury.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
asked for a further explanation of the Vote.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he hoped that this was the last, or at any rate the last instalment but one, of a series of Votes, to meet a grant of £40,000 voted in aid of British Kaffraria. It had been intended not to ask for this sum; but when the proposal was notified to the Governor of the colony, so strong a protest was made, accompanied by detailed statements, that the Government thought it right to ask for this sum.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
was glad to hear that there was a prospect of the speedy termination of this charge. At any rate, the Vote was a less evil than the possible expenses of another Kaffir war.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, a hope had been held out last year that the Vote would never be asked for again.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
asked for an explanation of this Vote, a large portion of which seemed to have been advanced without the sanction of the colonial authorities. It was stated in the 512 Estimates that out of the whole amount now asked for, the sum. of £57,420 was required "to meet the arrears due to the Treasury chest for extraordinary expenses incurred on the responsibility of the late Governor of the Cape of Good Hope to meet the emergency of a threatened Kaffir war in 1857 and in subsequent years;" and it was added that this estimate had not been previously presented, as the accounts were not sufficiently cleared up to allow of the actual amount being ascertained. He thought this a very unsatisfactory statement.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, there had been in one instance a delay of sixteen years in presenting the estimate. He wished particularly to call attention to the item of £21,772, representing sums advanced on account of the colony from 1846 to 1853. The third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which was referred to for an explanation of these Votes, did not, in point of fact, contain any such explanation. This was an audited account; but although it had appeared year after year as having been audited, and was supposed to have received a thorough examination by a Board independent of the Government, the items had been altered in the account this year, and did not correspond with those printed in former years. It was true that the difference was not large, not exceeding £150 in any one case; but the fact that any such difference existed showed the necessity of further inquiry into the mode of auditing these accounts.

MR. PEEL
said, that with regard to the several points to which the hon. Gentleman had called his attention, he had gone into them with the assistance of the Audit Board; and though it would be very difficult for him to explain intelligibly to the Committee these matters of detail, yet he could asssure them that the explanations he had received were perfectly satisfactory. The first part of the Vote referred to a sum issued for services at the Cape as long as fifteen years ago. At that time endeavours were made to obtain repayment from the colonial funds; but difficulties were made, and the subject seemed to have been lost sight of when the constitution was granted to the colony. The Committee of last Session, however, directed the attention of the Government to £21,000, portion of the amount, and suggested a settlement. Communication was in consequence had with the Colonial 513 Office; but the answer was, that it was perfectly hopeless at this distance of time to recover the advances, and under these circumstances the Government thought that the only course was to submit a Vote to the Committee of Supply. As to the other sums, they were withdrawn from the Treasury chest upon the authority of the Governor of the Cape, in excess of the sums voted by Parliament, at a time when he was apprehensive of a Kaffir war, and thought it his duty to take precautionary measures. There could be no objection to any inquiry which the hon. Gentleman might wish into the manner in which the accounts of the Treasury chest were kept.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, there appeared up to 1858–9 advances on account of British Kaffraria £23,000, but in this account the same advances were stated to be £57,000. How was the difference to be reconciled?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that although the immediate point was susceptible of the explanation which had been given—namely, that the sums issued in the colonies without direct or adequate authority remained as a general charge against the chest until it was determined to which heads those issues properly belonged, yet it did not remove at all the substance of the case of his hon. Friend. The substantial question had first to be settled; and when it was determined to what head they belonged, they were placed under the year in which the issues took place under that head. He was not saying anything in censure of the conduct of the Governor of the Cape, or of any colonial Governor; but, apart from the motives which actuated them, a most material question remained to be settled—whether the Governor was or was not justified in issuing greater sums than what Parliament had voted. In such a vote as this the House of Commons was ousted of its control over the expenditure of the public money; and, moreover, the Executive Government at home was just as much ousted of its control as the House of Commons. These occurrences were liable to take place in different parts of the world, and, while crediting the local authorities with the best motives, it could not be expected that they would feel as jealous of Parliamentary privilege and control as the House of Commons. The subject was not new to the Government, and they had been considering in what mode they could prevent the recurrence of these ad- 514 vances, which involved the total failure of Parliamentary authority. He was not prepared to state in what precise form stringent instructions to those who had the control of the Treasury chest would be given, but he hoped and expected such instructions would be given as to render their recurrence impossible; and when those instructions were given, they would be laid on the table of the House.

§ MR. BAXTER
said, it was important that no Governor of a colony should be permitted to go on drawing sums of money, looking to be repaid in subsequent years by Votes of the House of Commons; and he was exceedingly glad to hear that the Government were about to adopt stringent measures with a view to prevent so unsatisfactory a state of things occurring in future. He hoped this was the last Estimate of the kind that would be presented to Parliament.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
complained that this Vote, although it had been diminished, had not been reduced to so great an extent as the House had a right to expect. If the Emigration Board was simply an agency for procuring emigrants for certain Australian colonies, in whose despatch we had no interest, why should the charge of that department be thrown upon the Imperial Treasury? Other colonies maintained emigration agents of their own in England, and he did not see why these should not also. Moreover, if the Board was to be maintained, why should it be separated from the Colonial Office, to which it ought properly to belong?

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that the Board had during one year only chartered thirty-three vessels, while the number of private vessels chartered was 354. It was true that to a certain extent those vessels came under the superintendence of the agents of the Emigration Board, but that duty could be equally well performed by the officers of Customs.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
thought it could not be said that the Government of this country had no interest in securing due care and protection for such of our poorer fellow countrymen as wished 515 to emigrate to the colonies, and he had never before heard dissatisfaction expressed against the Emigration Board—on the contrary, he had always heard their action referred to with satisfaction. The number of emigrants had undoubtedly diminished, but he thought it was still the duty of the Government to protect the poorer classes of emigrants who left their native country for the antipodes. The colonies, it was said, ought to take that duty upon themselves. Some of the colonies had undertaken the selection of emigrants by means of agents; but the transport of the emigrants, however selected, to the Australian colonies, was still in the hands of the Emigration Board. They chartered the vessels, and were responsible for the arrangements on board. But that was not the only duty of the Emigration Board. They exercised constant control over the great system of coolie emigration from India, China, and Africa to the West Indian colonies and to the Mauritius. They advised the Secretary of State upon all the complicated questions which arose in carrying out that system. They also administered the Passengers Act. They superintended the whole of the movements of the poorer classes of this country to the colonies; and they had many other duties to discharge in connection with the colonies, which must be performed by some Board or other. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) had asked why the Emigration Board should not be amalgamated with the Colonial Department. If that amalgamation took place, the number of clerks in the Colonial Department must be increased, and the change would not occasion much diminution of the expenditure. But he did not think it would he expedient to interfere with the constitution of the Emigration Board, which had discharged its duties as satisfactorily as any other department in the State.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
would wish to hear some explanation from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the recommendation of the Committee.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, it was quite true the Committee which had considered the subject of the transport of troops and the transport of emigrants, had expressed an opinion that it would be advisable to have both those departments of transports brought into the one office; but the Colonial Office thought that there were great objections to transferring the man- 516 agement of emigration transport to the Transport Board, and, consequently, the recommendation of the Committee had not been carried into effect.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
contended, that if the transport of emigrants was conducted under the supervision of the State, the most stringent measures should be taken to secure seaworthy ships for the emigrants.

§ MR. FINLAY
called attention to the item of £25,000 for freight of specie in aid of Treasury chests abroad, and to that of £156,147 10s. 7d. for discount of Bills drawn at Hongkong upon Her Majesty's Treasury or on the Indian Treasury. He thought that both were too large.

MR. PEEL
said, that the first item was a charge which was governed by fixed regulations, and provided for the freight of specie to the several Treasury chests abroad. He did not think it was open to the objection made to it by the hon. Member. As to the other large items, the rate of exchange in the East involved a great loss. The net loss provided for in the Estimate arising from transactions for the supply of the Treasury chest in China, in the year 1860–1, was £217,971. It arose entirely from the difference between the value of the dollar as purchased either here or in China, and the value at which it was brought to account in the books of the Treasury chest. The only real loss, however, was in respect of the payments of the troops, because in paying them the dollar was taken at 4s. 2d.—the assumed Government par of Exchange—while the sum paid for it in China was from 4s. 7d. to 4s. 9d. This might be considered as part of the war expenses with China.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the loss ought to have been inserted in its proper place— the Military and Naval Estimates.

§ MR. BAXTER
also thought this Vote ought to have been brought under the consideration of the Committee when the Army Estimates were before them.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, there was nothing in reference to the Vote which came within the Army Estimates properly speaking; and when those Estimates were laid on the table, and when he made his financial statement, this matter escaped his attention.

§ MR. BAXTER
hoped that in future more attention would be given to a Vote 517 of this sort, which was in reality one of great importance.

§ MR. CAIRD
hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take care that the losses on the remittances to China would next year appear in the Military Estimates, for it seemed we were now likely to have another China war.

§ MR. CAVE
said, there was an increase in the charge for consular establishments in the island of Réunion above the allowance for last year. This increase they might attribute to the French. The House knew that the French were, after the emancipation of their slaves, very short of labourers in Réunion, and they smuggled large numbers of British subjects from Madras to fill the gap; but their treatment of these people was not good enough, to secure a continuance of this immigration. They then began to import negroes, with which, if it was a free immigration, we had nothing to do, and, if not, it was contrary to treaty. We could not make up our minds as to which it was; but we bribed the French to abandon it prospectively by giving them the run of the labour market of Calcutta, which was far enough from Madras to prevent any evil reports having been received. He felt it his duty two years ago to protest against this treaty, feeling very strongly that we should lose all control over those people so soon as they had passed from beneath our flag. The noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs assured him that every care would be taken that the obligations entered into by the French were strictly carried out. The French lost no time in securing the benefit of the treaty, for they sent twenty-eight ship-loads of emigrants from Calcutta to Réunion last season, or more than went to the whole British West Indies. He had heard rumours that there had been abuses even in the embarkation and transit. He had heard also that Her Majesty's Government confessed that no real control could be exercised by the Consul. If not, then it was monstrous to put more trust in the 518 Frenchmen than in our own colonists, and to subject the latter to a system of checks and supervisions, of which he did not complain, but from which the foreigner was free. He did not object to this additional allowance, which was probably necessary in so expensive a place as Réunion, if it was of any use incurring the charge at all. Under such circumstances, he had a right to ask whether any reports had been received from the Consul at Réunion. If not, or if they were unfavourable, then the best course would be to give notice to terminate the treaty, to recall the Consul; and as we had lost this opportunity, as well as that of the commercial treaty, of obtaining from France the same concession with regard to the right of search which we had happily obtained from America, we had better leave France to share with Spain the disgrace of perpetuating the slave trade; but let us not help her to supplement her importation of kidnapped Africans with British subjects from India. He would therefore put the Question of which he had given notice, Whether any report had been received from the Consul at Réunion respecting the condition of the Indian labourers carried by the French to that island from Madras and Calcutta.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, that the fact of their having been a great mortality among the Coolies sent to Réunion by the French had been reported to the Government by Mr. Hill, our consular agent in that island, and representations had accordingly been made to the French Government on the subject. There was every reason to believe that these representations would produce an improvement both as regards the class of vessels employed and the treatment of the emigrants. An English Consul had been appointed at Réunion for the purpose of seeing that the contracts with the Coolies were faithfully carried out.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the emigration of the Coolies from India was obtained in such a way that they hardly knew whether it was voluntary or not. The mortality among them even on the voyage to Réunion was calculated to excite suspicion. The Government had been compelled to place the English Coolie traffic under strict regulations, and it was unfair the French should obtain the labourers without observing rules of the same kind. The Government of India should take great care as to the arrangements under which the Coolies left the country, and that the health and comfort of these per- 519 sons during the voyage were duly attended to. It was useless to make complaints after the immigrants arrived in the colony.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
said, he had frequently heard it complained that the agreements made with the Coolies were never carried out. These persons were British subjects, and ought to have the same protection as the labourers imported into the English colonies. To say that the Coolies on their arrival in the island might appeal to the British Consul was perfectly useless.

§ MR. CAVE
said, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had only answered half his Question, and that unsatisfactorily. We might, indeed, regulate the embarkation in India, though apparently we had not even done this, but the Consul was appointed, as he had understood, when the treaty was ratified, to see that the arrangements were properly carried out in Réunion. This could only be done by sending some one as inspector round the estates to ascertain whether the Coolies were paid the stipulated wages. Rumours were current that the contracts were not carried out, and that these unfortunate people were entirely without protection or redress.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he observed in the Estimate that in addition to a Consul, Vice Consul, and second Vice Consul at Alexandria, two new offices had been created of legal Vice Consul at £600 a year, and a law clerk at £300; and asked for an explanation.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
pointed out that the salary of Consul at Lagos at £500 was continued, although Lagos was now a British dependency. There was also a new post created of Vice Consul at Abbeokuta, with £400 a year.

§ MR. DODSON
wished to know why the allowance to the Consul at Cologne was double what it was last year. It had been stated he performed the duties of postmaster in receiving the mail-bags. Had the correspondence so much increased? He observed that the Consuls kept at Chicago and Buffalo were still kept up, although the Select Committee stated that the necessity for these officers was very doubtful. At all events, if necessary, they were kept up for Canadian purposes.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, that some time ago a legal Consul was appointed at Constantinople to settle disputes between Her Majesty's subjects, and he was found so useful that a similar appointment had 520 been made at Alexandria. Consuls could only be appointed by the Crown, and the Canadian Government had not therefore the power of appointing the Consuls at Chicago and Buffalo.

§ COLONEL SYKES
supposed we should now see legal Consuls appointed wherever any considerable number of Englishmen were found.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, his hon. Friend had omitted to notice the distinction between Turkey and other countries.

§ MR. FREELAND
believed that a memorial had been received from British residents in Constantinople with reference to the introduction of trial by jury in civil cases, and also a report from the Judge of the Consular Courts, containing his views upon the question. Would there be any objection to lay copies of that memorial and report upon the table of the House?

§ MR. LAYARD
said, that the Government had not yet decided what reply they should give to the memorialists. The matter had been referred to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople for his opinion; and when it was received, there would be no objection to lay the papers on the table.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
wished the Committee to be distinctly told whether the regulations for the shipment of Coolies in French ships were less stringent than those which applied to emigration in British ships. There ought to be the same regard for the comfort and health of the Coolies whether they were shipped in French or English vessels.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, it had transpired in the course of the discussion that evening, that the Emigration Board in London were responsible for looking after the emigration of Coolies from India. It was their duty, therefore, it would seem, to lay down rules for the Coolie emigration in French vessels.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, the Government could not have a Consul at a place within the Queen's dominions; and as Lagos had been, without the sanction of the House of Commons, annexed to the British Crown, perhaps the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not object to omit the salary of the Consul at Lagos.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he was not quite able to give an answer to the noble Lord, but he would make inquiries and let him know the result before the report was brought up.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, this sum was £22,000 greater than last year, and there were six new charges for Consulates in China, which amounted to upwards of £14,000; so that the upshot of our Chinese war was, that after having expended several millions we were now to be saddled with a payment of nearly £20,000 for Consulates. What were the results of all that we had done? Our imports from China in 1857 were to the value of £11,500,000; in 1858 they were only £7,000,000; in 1859, £9,000,000; and in 1860, £9,330,000. Our exports to China were in 1857 about £1,660,000; the same in 1858; £2,500,000 in 1859; and £3,000,000 in 1860. Therefore we paid the Chinese a great deal more than we received from them, and the balance of trade was against us. He wanted to know, then, what advantage did we derive from all that we had expended upon wars with China?

§ MR. LAYARD
said, that the new ports in which Consulates had been established promised great results, and would be, he was convinced, of the greatest possible advantage in the way of trade.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
asked for an explanation of charges for two countries that had disappeared from the map of Europe, the Two Sicilies and Sardinia.

§ MR. CHILDERS
wished to know how it was that the disbursements at Paris under the head of Miscellaneous Expenditure should have exactly amounted to £1,000 a year. Had they contracted for Miscellaneous Expenditure at that sum?

§ MR. PEACOCKE
asked for explanation about the miscellaneous charges for the Turkish Embassy.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the attention of the Committee ought to be directed to the enormous expense of the establishment at Constantinople. A palace had been built, at an expense of £85,000; then a Vote for a chapel, which was at first refused, was taken, and then another Vote; and then upwards of £50,000 was spent upon consular buildings. Having expended nearly £140,000 on public buildings at Constantinople, one would have expected that the annual charge would be reduced; but it appeared to have increased in pro- 522 portion to what they had already laid out; in short, there appeared to be a total expenditure of £33,000 a year on the establishment; a few years ago it was £15,000. Then there was a house at Therapia, which had been presented by the Sultan, and on that account had to be maintained; and in consequence there was a very considerable item for boat-hire between Constantinople and Therapia.

§ MR. FREELAND
had, on a former occasion, called attention to the growing amount of the sums required for the repairs of the Ambassadors' residences at Constantinople. They were now asked to Vote a sum of £11,728 for extraordinary disbursements connected with the Embassy at Constantinople. This was a sum enormously in excess of the sum demanded for similar purposes in connection with any other Embassy. He thought that the whole expense of the Establishment at Constantinople ought to be thoroughly looked into.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, the sum of nearly £2,000 for telegraphic messages was a large one, but the couriers who were formerly employed entailed a much heavier expense. As for the sum of £1,300 for boat-hire—if our Ambassador lived in Constantinople in summer, the expense of his residence would be much larger. But all the Ambassadors left the city in that season, and therefore the two residences were necessary. The sum for the Embassy was large, but he trusted that in time it might be reduced. As regarded the Paris expenditure, it had been thoroughly investigated at the Foreign Office, and not a shilling had been laid out which was not well accounted for. As to the question of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), the statement of expenditure was for the year 1860–1, when the Two Sicilies and the Kingdom of Sardinia were still in existence.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
thought the expenditure ought to be compared with the trade between this country and Turkey, for a large trade could not be carried on without a commensurate expenditure on the diplomatic service.

MR. WHITE
found that this country paid five times as much for the conduct of its trade with Turkey as for the conduct of its entire trade with the United States. He was of opinion that the consular establishments in Turkey required curtailment.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that 523 the hon. Member appeared to forget that in the United States the people spoke English, and the English law prevailed; whereas in Turkey the people spoke Turkish, and the Turkish law prevailed. Consequently, it was necessary for the English Government to maintain a number of interpreters in Turkey. By agreements between the English and Turkish Governments a peculiar jurisdiction was also established in Turkey for British subjects. These things naturally caused larger expenses in Turkey.

§ MR. FREELAND
expressed a hope that the whole matter would be carefully considered.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
noticed the item of £1,500 for "inquiry into the Finances of Turkey;" and inquired whether this mission were undertaken for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country, or for the good of Turkey? The taxpayers should not be called upon to pay this sum unless they received some adequate return for it. The result was certainly satisfactory, for we had discovered that the Government of a great Empire could be carried on at an expense of only eleven millions a year, while this country had to pay seventy millions. Yet, on the other hand, this sum was virtually paid for a quasi guarantee of the Turkish loan. After the Crimean War the Turks were unable to raise money in this country without a direct guarantee from both Prance and England; while the loan of this year, on the contrary, was instantly subscribed, because it became known that our Government had investigated previously the financial resources of Turkey. This inquiry was therefore, in fact, a guarantee to the capitalists of this country. It would be well, therefore, for the Committee to take into conideration the nature and effect of these loans. He did not allude to the direct effect of such loans, in withdrawing a vast amount of money from the reproductive capital of the nation—from the capital which stimulates energy and creates wealth—and in applying it to unproductive works, to that which destroyed energy, dissipated wealth, and nourished hatred and distrust. He did not allude to this effect, but to another result far more momentous. These loans he believed to be the cause of the feverish anxiety felt at home concerning 524 the affairs of nations abroad; the origin of that meddling and interference, and that state of incipient war which always existed. Take the case of Mexico for example. Many years ago this country lent money to that republic; English bondholders held their bonds, and received a high interest because of the risk they incurred. Yet the moment that the danger became imminent, the bondholders, not satisfied with the ample returns they had already received, began to cry out; and the Government sent an expedition at a vast expense, and went to war in order to recover the money. Yet Mexican Stock had never attracted any attention in the market until the bondholders had complained, and we had begun to interfere. Then again, this year we lent £426,000 to Morocco, to enable them to pay off the indemnity to Spain. The Customs revenues of that country were mortgaged to us in return. We therefore were the mortgagees in possession of the revenues of Morocco. Now here was a casus belli far more clear than that in Mexico, of which we had already taken advantage. Hero war and expenditure loomed in the distance. If France attacked Morocco on the side of Algiers, or if Spain invaded her again on the side of Tetuan, we should have to join in the fight, in order to save our bondholders. Then, again, we lent six or eight years ago the sum of £1,600,000 to Egypt; in return for which the Viceroy secured to us an annuity of £176,000 on the revenues of the Delta. We were therefore the mortgagees of the Delta. A specific thing was mortgaged to us; and if there should ever be a breach of agreement (either because of wars with other Powers, or from other causes), we of course should seize upon that security. Now, we knew how jealous Prance has been of our influence in Egypt; so that the security for our bondholders would here oblige us to enter upon a long and disastrous war with France. There were many other loans, with which he would not trouble the Committee. This system of loans had greatly increased of late years. During the last ten years the loans of Prance alone had been increased by the sum of 168 millions of pounds; and the debts of the whole world had been augmented, during the same period, by a sum of 500 millions of pounds. The loans of the whole world now amounted to 2,074¼ millions of pounds. It would be seen, therefore, that not only was the wealth of the nation directly crippled by 525 these means; but also we had put out many millions in such a way as to bring us into contact with every Power of the world. If a debtor was in danger of impoverishment, we must interfere. If we heard of diplomatic differences, we must diplomatize. If armaments were increased, we must arm too. We thus always embroiled ourselves with other's embroilments. When war threatened, our Exchange trembled, and our capitalists forced the Government into war. He believed that this improper employment of capital was the real cause of all our meddling, and interference, and bloated armaments." and "profligate expenditure."

§ MR. FREELAND
said, that they were voting large sums for an outlay arising out of their connection with Turkey. In this Vote alone no less a sum than £12,090 in the whole was asked for. He should like to know whether the reforms promised by the Turkish Government, especially those in which British subjects were interested, were being carried into effect? He particularly wished to know, whether the route from Trebizond, by way of Erzeroum to Tabrez, over which great quantities of British merchandise passed to Persia, had been improved?

§ MR. LAYARD
said, in reference to the Morocco loan, that all we had to do was to allow our agents there to receive a portion of the Custom-house dues, and to hand them over to the creditors of Morocco. He also denied that we had been at war with Mexico. The road to Erzeroum, to which allusion had been made, had not, he was afraid, been carried out, as ought to have been the case; but the Turkish Government would, he trusted, see the expediency of taking the matter vigorously in hand.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he was astonished at the denial made by the Under Secretary for [Foreign Affairs, that we had been at war with Mexico. He (Lord Robert Montagu) must therefore call a witness into court to prove that point. The witness should be no less a person than the noble Viscount himself. The noble Viscount, in answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), the other day, accounted for the great expenditure of this year and last year and the year before. In doing so he particularly mentioned the war with China and the war with Mexico as unavoidable 526 causes of expenditure. He made particular mention of the war with Mexico as an argument and excuse. If, therefore, the Under Secretary be right, the noble Viscount was wrong. If the noble Viscount was right, then he must correct his Under Secretary. He (Lord Robert Montagu) appealed to the noble Viscount. Then, again, the Under Secretary took exception to the word "mortgaged." If he lent money to any landholder, which was secured on the income from the creditor's lands, then the land was said to be mortgaged to the debtors. It surely, then, was a very fair figure of speech, and not by any means far-fetched, to say that the Delta of Egypt and the Empire of Morocco were mortgaged to us. We had lent £426,000 to Morocco, which was raised in 5 per cent bonds. The amount of Customs revenues collected in that country were £322,900; out of which the half (£160,000) were yearly secured to us. And yet the amount of interest and sinking fund annually due to us was only £38,000. This therefore, was excellent security. Then, again, with regard to the Egyptian loan the same may be said. He alluded to the loan of £1,600,000; in return for which £176,000 were secured to us by the Viceroy, to be paid annually out of the revenues of the Delta. The Delta was, in fact, mortgaged to our bondholders. He repeated that this system of loans embroiled us in the difficulties of others; and was a cause of our vast expenditure.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) had not stated that the Government had not taken any measures against Mexico to obtain satisfaction of our just claims; what he stated was that the claims we had made upon that Government did not apply to debts due to bondholders. The claims against Mexico had reference, in the first place, to the non-payment of certain sums which, by convention, the Government of Mexico had agreed to pay; and in the next to the restoration of a sum of 600,000 dollars which was forcibly taken from the House of our Minister. This money was under seal, and the seal was broken as he was on the point of leaving the country. Such acts as these were national injuries—a breach of faith, and an outrage for which they were entitled to demand satisfaction. He might add that it had been the invariable rule of the English Government not to undertake to require payment for British subjects who, of their own authority 527 and without any sanction by the Government, advanced money to the Governments of foreign States. These parties did so at their own risk and peril, and all the Government ever did was to give then-good offices to induce the Government to whom the money had been lent to pay; but non-payment had never been made the ground of war. If it had been the practice of the Government of England to go to war in order to obtain payment to bondholders, we should have been at war with Spain many years ago—we should have been at war with almost all the Spanish States of America, and we should have been at war with many other countries into the bargain. That, however, was not our practice, and therefore any alarm which the noble Lord might feel that we should be led into war in consequence of loans advanced to foreign Governments was entirely unfounded.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
would ask the noble Viscount whether it were not the case that the Conventions to which the noble Viscount alluded, were not entered into a very short time ago, in order to regulate the payment of the interest on a former loan, and merely grew out of that loan? He would also ask whether the 600,000 dollars were not stolen by Miramon's Government—from whom no satisfaction was required; and whether it was not the fact, that when his opponent, the popular President Juarez, came into power, then satisfaction was claimed by the noble Viscount? Juarez showed his inability to pay the sum at once, but secured the sum on public buildings; among which, he delivered over even the National Palace, as a pledge. This was stated by Sir C. Wyke, our Minister at Mexico, in the despatches laid upon the table of the House. The noble Viscount had therefore proved that the war arose out of the loan, and out of that alone. He was glad, however, to hear the noble Viscount disclaim for the future all intention to levy war in order to secure the capital of money-lenders. This statement would tend greatly to discourage the system of loans.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
, said, he was glad to have the distinct declaration from the noble Viscount that the money lent to the Turkish Government was lent purely at the risk and peril of the capitalists who advanced it. It was most questionable whether the Government should give any sort of sanction or authority to any 528 trade transactions between British subjects and foreign Governments; any such proceeding was very much calculated to embroil us in war.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, when a short time ago the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated the debt of Turkey at £14,000,000, he entirely omitted the domestic debt. It appeared from the report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster that the entire debt of Turkey, external and internal, amounted to £42,000,000.

§ MR. LAYARD
explained, that on the occasion referred to his remarks were avowedly confined to the foreign debt of Turkey. The report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster completely verified what he then stated to the House.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he believed that the physical and scientific difficulties in the way of tracing the boundary between our possessions in North America and those of the United States were so great that it would he almost impossible to accomplish the work. He thought the Government should submit to the House an estimate of the entire cost of the Commission, and should also state when the undertaking was likely to come to an end.

MR. PEEL
believed, that the boundary had been traced, and that the Commissioners were now on their return home. The present Vote, added to the £60,000 voted last year, would be nearly sufficient to defray the whole expense, which could not exceed £110,000 altogether.

§ MR. PEASE
asked, whether the United States Government had consented to the boundary so far as traced?

MR. PEEL
replied, that the Commission was a joint Commission, and that the United States Government paid half the expense.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
wished to know, whether the sum now asked would practically close the account. If so, he should be satisfied.

MR. PEEL
could give no such assurance; but such was his belief.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
thought that 529 his right hon. Friend near him seemed to be more easily satisfied than some of the economists who were not there. He thought the hon. Gentleman had given no assurance that there would not be a repetition of this Vote of £40,000. He would move that the Vote he reduced by £20,000.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that his hon. Friend had come down to the House late this evening, and he supposed must have his joke. But he supposed his hon. Friend did not mean that this boundary was not to be traced, or that people were not to be paid for tracing it. The American Government were in perfect concert with ours in this matter, and had agreed to share the expense.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, he wanted the noble Lord to give a pledge that the cost would not be repeated.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he could give no pledge without knowing the facts to which it was to apply. He suggested that his hon. Friend should move for a report of the probable amount that would be required to complete the survey.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, he would do that too.

§ MR. LAIRD
wished to know, whether the money had been well expended? He therefore asked, whether the American Government were so far agreed with us as to the boundary?

MR. PEEL
believed they were entirely agreed with us.

COLONEL DUNNE
hoped a tracing of the boundary line would be laid before the House.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
wished to know, whether the expense had been borne by both Governments.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, there was a treaty between the two Governments that there should be a boundary line. The American Government were acting with us in order to trace that boundary and prevent disputes. It was surely reasonable that it should be traced at the expense of both parties.