Sitting of 22 April 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Factories; Silk Factories.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Elliot, from Kelso, and its vicinity, for the Separation of Church and State.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Labourers of the Metropolis, and from the National Association of Lambeth, for the Liberation of Political Prisoners; and from two Polish Refugees, complaining that, the Bounty of this country had been illegally withheld from them.—By Mr. L. Hodges, from Maidstone, Mr. R. Currey, from Northampton, and Mr. Hume, from Brentford, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Mr. Hume, from Irishmen, inhabitants of Manchester, for an Alteration in the Poor-law to enable them to obtain Relief in England.—By Mr. Easthope, from Newport, Waltham Abbey, and other places, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Sir C. Coote, from Medical Practitioners of the King's County, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. Muntz, from Birmingham, to Alter the Tariff, and against the County Courts Bill. -By Mr. H. Berkeley, from South Australia, against the appropriation of the Land Fund to other purposes than Emigration,—By Sir G. clerk, from Stamford, and places in Rutland, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Hawes, from a Dissenting Congregation, against Church Rates, and Church Extension.—By Viscount Morpeth, from Working People in the county of York, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws; from the Protestant Dissenters of Zion Chapel, Wakefield, for the Abolition of Church Rates; and from the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, against placing the Medical Institutions of Ireland under Poor-law Commissioners.—By Viscount Sandon, from the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, for Relief from Taxation.—By Mr. Villiers, Mr. Thornely, and Colonel Salwey, from Bermondsey, St. Paul's, Bethnal-green, and other Districts of the Metropolis, and from the West Riding of Yorkshire, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. E. Buller, from Buckingham, for Church Extension.—By Mr. O'Connell, from English Catholics, in favour of the Grant to Maynooth; from Manchester, against the Corn-laws; and from a place in Scotland, against Distilled Liquors except for Medicinal or Manufacturing purposes.—By the Attorney-general, from the Lord Provost and Council of the city of Edinburgh, praying that that City may be Exempted from the Scotch Boroughs Bill.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Salford, for the Revision of the Tariff.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS(IRELAND).
Viscount Morpethhad to state, that the only alteration of any material character which he intended to propose in committee on the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill, was to raise the amount of rating which was to confer the elective franchise for counties from 5l. to 8l.
Mr. C. Woodwished to know whether it were intended to produce the informa-

971
tion which he had suggested ought to be laid before the House respecting the number of persons now entitled to vote in Ireland, the voters being classified according to the nature of their respective qualifications, and the returns showing the numbers in each class. They might not be able to obtain this information as regarded the whole of Ireland, but they ought to be furnished with it to such extent as was practicable before they proceeded to legislate on the measure to which his noble Friend had just adverted. It seemed to him that they would be proceeding in the dark if they came to a determination as to the amount of the rate without this information. He wanted to know if it was to be procured, and when?
Viscount Morpethsaid, that instructions had been forwarded to the office of the Poor-law commission in Ireland to furnish this information, and great stress had been laid on the expediency of its being communicated to the House without delay. It had not readied his hands, but he begged to say, that it should be presented to the House without a moment's unnecessary delay.

FLOGGING ON THE SABBATH.—THE EARL OF CARDIGAN.
Mr. Hawesgave notice, that to-morrow he should move for a return of the number of instances of corporal punishment which had been inflicted on a Sunday in the British Army during the last ten years. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary -at-War whether there had been any infliction of corporal punishment under circumstances similar to those that had taken place in the recent punishment of a soldier of the 11th Hussars, under the command of the Earl of Cardigan.
Mr. Macaulaysaid, he was much obliged to his hon. Friend for asking this question, and for giving him an opportunity of setting right a misunderstanding with regard to what he stated on a previous night. It had been stated that he had said that there were precedents for the conduct followed—he must say most improperly and culpably—by Lord Cardigan, in flogging a soldier on a Sunday. What he had stated was this, that having inquired of officers of great standing and experience in the service, he had learned from them that there were precedents of punishments having been inflicted on
972
a Sunday, but not precedents which bore out the conduct of Lord Cardigan, because they bad stated that such punishments were never justifiably inflicted except in cases of military exigency, and on march, when there was no choice. But the Sunday punishments did not bear out the conduct of Lord Cardigan, and he had distinctly stated that the punishment in the particular case alluded to, might without the smallest inconvenience, have been postponed till next day. This information would probably meet the views of his hon. Friend. He was not aware that such a return would afford an instance of a similar kind; and his own belief was, that for the last ten years there were no instances of punishments having been inflicted on a Sunday except in cases of great disorder occurring on a inarch or other exigency.
Sir H. Hardingebegged to state that he had understood the hon. Secretary-at-War in the sense that he had explained; and that, on the whole, his explanation was perfectly satisfactory.

MR. CANDLISH—BIBLICAL CRITICISM (EDINBURGH).
Sir G. Sinclairwished to repeat a question he had put the other night to the hon. the Under Secretary of State, which he thought might have been answered, though he had not given any notice. He begged leave to ask whether her Majesty's Ministers did or did not appoint Mr. Candlish, of Edinburgh, to be Professor of Biblical Criticism for the University of Edinburgh, and whether that appointment had since been cancelled, and if so, on what grounds.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, if he had had to complain the other evening that the hon. Gentleman had asked him a question without any notice, he thought that that hon. Gentleman had been more uncourteous now, for the hon. Gentleman had asked him a question on Wednesday night totally and entirely distinct from the question he had asked to-night, and of which the hon. Member had not given any notice. If the House would permit him, he would simply state the facts of this case to the House, and the position in which it at present rested. The noble Lord the Secretary of State, and her Majesty's Government, had been most anxious, on the occurrence of vacancies in the deanery of the Chapel Royal, to make those va-

973
cancies efficient for the purposes of education in Scotland, instead of continuing them as formerly under the name of prizes in the church, and giving them to the distinguished members in the church. The first vacancy was given to Dr. Lee, the principal of the University of Edinburgh, which was an endowment to that Chair, which met of course with general approbation. On the next vacancy occurring, his noble Friend the Secretary of State, had consulted how it was best to bestow it, in a similar manner; and having referred to the report of the commissioners appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. R. Peel) to inquire into the state of the universities in Scotland, he found there that these commissioners had unanimously recommended that there should be established in the University of Edinburgh a professorship of biblical criticism. In order to endow that chair his noble Friend had considered this a fair opportnity, and selected Mr. Candlish for that appointment, who, whatever remarks might otherwise be made on him, on all hands must be acknowledged to be the best fitted by talents and theological learning in that particular branch for the discharge of the duties of such a chair. Before the appointment took place, and before any communication had been made on the authority of her Majesty's Government to Mr. Candlish, that the appointment was to take place, Mr. Candlish had, in the face of an interdict, performed certain duties in one of those seven parishes of Scotland to which attention had been so painfully directed. It was quite true, that the interdict was of more than twelve months' standing, and that it was not directed against Mr. Candlish himself, but against the general body of the Assembly, and that it had been broken by several eminent ministers. The parties who had obtained that interdict had obtained it ex parte, and in the absence of those against whom it was directed, and had not had the manliness to apply to the Court of Session to bring the matter to an issue. Under these circumstances, it would scarcely be expected, that his noble Friend should proceed in Mr. Candlish's appointment as the Regius Professor of the University; and until the further proceedings in this case should be known, it could not be expected that his noble Friend would make any declaration what-
974
ever as to his further intentions. It was sufficient to say, that all further proceedings in this matter were at present put a stop to.

THE WAR IN CHINA.
Sir Robert Peelwished to know whether any official accounts had been received of an action in Canton river, in which some lives had been lost; and if so, why they had not appeared as usual in the Gazette?
Lord John Russellsaid, there had been accounts received through India of such an action, but official accounts of such an action had not been received. There had been accounts received from which persons appeared to be missing, and when the official accounts were received, they would of course be printed.

NEW SOUTH WALES.
Mr. Groterose to bring forward the resolutions of which he had given notice, on the subject of the colony of New South Wales. The subject was the same in which he had had the honour to address the House on the 25th of last month, and it would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that the sitting of the House in that colony had been brought to an unexpected termination before he had bad an opportunity of bringing to a close the statements be had to make respecting the colony. He should, therefore, entreat the House to bear with him while he related the main features of the case. The resolutions he was about, to propose were the same as he had then brought forward, and there was merely a slight alteration in the last to get rid of an objection in point of form. It appeared, that for the last few years, since 1835, a heavy charge had been imposed upon the colony of New South Wales, the colony having the entire, and undivided charge of the gaols and police of the settlement. Up to that time the revenue had been fully adequate to meet the demands of the colony, but since then the ordinary revenue had been considerably diminished, insomuch that recourse had been had to trespassing on the land and emigration fund, which had been already pledged and consecrated to other purposes. The colonists thought that a case of extreme hardship and injustice. It should be remembered, that this was originally a penal colony, and that it still retained marks of its origin, although it was daily assuming a more

975
wholesome character. He knew it was common to say, that although there was a great number of convicts, a large portion of them were assigned to private masters, and it was assumed, that the whole benefit of these assignments was on the side of the colony; but instead of this being the case, a sum of from three to four hundred thousand pounds a year accrued to this country from these assignments. Mr. Secretary Rice, in 1835, had estimated the expense of the colony at 25,000 l., but it now amounted to more than four times that sum—it was above 100,000 l. Was not that fact enough to call upon the House to reconsider the whole subject. Had the Government been aware of the state of the gaols at that period, they would have hesitated before they altogether liberated the Imperial treasury, and threw the colony upon its own resources. That the colony had increased in wealth and population, since that period, was no valid reason for imposing upon it such heavy charges. When they considered that one-third of the population of New South Wales consisted, in 1835, of convicts sent from this country, it must appear obviously unfair and unjust to call on the free colonists to maintain, without assistance from the mother country, the whole expense of gaols and police which that criminal population rendered necessary. This was sufficiently unjust, but when the funds for this purpose were taken out of the means of providing regular emigration, the evil was very much heightened. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of emigration to the colony. It was doubly important at the present moment, because, owing to the discontinuance of transportation (a measure of which he by no means disapproved), the supply of labour to the colony was shortened, and therefore it was more than usually incumbent on the Government to maintain unimpaired all the means which existed for the encouragement of emigration. Putting an end to emigration diminished the resources of the colony, and this undoubtedly aggravated the causes of complaint. A sum of 260,000 l. was taken from what was properly the emigration fund, and applied to the expenses of police and gaols. This was an injury not merely to New South Wales, but the poorer classes of the United Kingdom. It was taking away the means of assisting labouring men,
976
who could find no employment in this country to go to another part of her Majesty's dominions where labour had a ready market, and every industrious man could command ample means of subsistence. Injustice had been done to the labouring classes at home—for those to whom emigration would be most beneficial had not the means of going to the colony themselves, and could only get there by assistance from some public fund. Every 10,000 l. that had been withdrawn from the emigration fund deprived 600 of these poor persons of the immense advantages which emigration would confer on them. It was their interest to go out, and it was the interest of the colony to receive, for the two interests were happily blended. There was abundant evidence to show the want of labourers in the colony, and the ready employment and ample wages which emigrants received. The manner in which the proceeds arising from the sale of waste lands were disposed of, did not concern New South Wales alone, but all our colonies. In all there was waste land, and its value would depend on the application which was to be made of the purchase money. Men could readily buy land, and pay a high price for it, when they knew that they were in fact subscribing to a fund for providing themselves with labourers. The sale of lands in this colony had realised an amount which astonished every one, only because it was distinctly understood by the purchasers that the proceeds would be applied to sending out labourers. If hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble to examine the documents connected with, the state of New South Wales, they would find that the colonies were suffering greatly from the want of labour. The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate which took place in the Legislative Council of New South Wales in October last, in which resolutions were passed stating the deficiency of labour and the injurious effect which it had upon the interests of the colony. The fourth resolution which he would read to the House, was to the following effect:—
Resolved, "That this Council equally concurs with their Committee, that every department of industry is cramped, and that no undertaking, public or private, can be prosecuted except at great disadvantage, in consequence of the exorbitant rate of wages and the difficulty of procuring mechanics, workmen, or servants, especially shepherds, upon any terms whatsoever; and, this Council cannot

977
but view with apprehension the check which must be given to the advancing prosperity of the colony, unless the urgent demand for labour which exists in every part of the colony be promptly and effectually supplied."
It could not be denied, that the value of waste land in our colonies depended, in a great degree, on the use that the Government made of the proceeds of the sales of land; and, therefore, by confining the produce to emigration, a new property would be created which otherwise would have no existence. After the various declarations that had been made by the different colonial secretaries, the colony never could have expected that the Government would seek to exonerate the British Treasury from the expence of the police establishment. It was true, that the land sales and emigration had greatly increased, and two new settlements had been established in the last year, namely Port Philip and Portland Bay, and Sir George Gipps had stated, that an acre of land near one of the towns would bring as much as 500 l. But the land sales could not continue unless the purchaser could procure emigrants to work. Several Ministers had given assurances which contributed to produce this impression. In 1831, Lord Howick wrote that it was the opinion of Lord Goderich that the land fund ought not to be considered as part of the ordinary revenue of the colony, but as capital to be invested in some way which would produce a return. In 1836 and 1837, Lord Glenelg distinctly declared, that the land fund should be applied to emigration. It was impossible for parties about to purchase land in the colony not to rely on these assurances, and on the faith of them they invested their capital in land. It was, in the highest degree, unjust, to violate that arrangement and apply the fund to a different purpose. He thought that both justice and reason required that the Imperial Treasury should bear half the expenses of the police, which now fell undivided upon the colony. He had thus endeavoured to enforce on the House the well-founded complaint of the colonists; but all that he required by the resolutions which he was about to submit to the House was the admission that those complaints were well-founded, that injustice had been done to the colonists, and the House considered it a fit subject for inquiry. He did not think that the House could do
978
less than acquiesce in the resolution that a great hardship had been inflicted, and that a remedy was required, and with this feeling he should leave the question with confidence in their hands. The hon. Gentleman moved the following resolutions:—
1." That it appears that, in October, 1840, the following resolutions were passed by the Governor and Legislative Council of New South Wales;—
" '1. That in the opinion of this Council, the parent State, indisputably deriving a direct pecuniary saving (independently of other advantages) from the assignment of convicts to private service in New South Wales, and its interests being at all events in an equal if not a superior degree involved in the due coercion and discipline of such transported offenders, ought in justice to bear at least one-half of the expenses attendant on the police and gaol establishments, which are raised to their present large amount chiefly through the introduction of a convict population into the colony.
" '2. That his Excellency, the Governor, be respectfully solicited to represent, on behalf of this Council, to her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, that this Council has most reluctantly consented to so large an expenditure for the support of those establishments since the 1st of July, 1835, and has voted the full amount of the estimate for the same for the year 1841, solely from a conviction that it would not be justified in declining to make provision for the maintenance of the public tranquillity and security.
" '3. That by the appropriation, for the period from the 1st of July, 1835, to the 31st of December, 1841, of so large an amount (about 597,000 l.) of the colonial revenue, arising partly from the sale of public lands, partly from ordinary sources, in defraying the whole charge of the police and gaol establishments, including buildings, and the consequent diminution of those funds which would have been available for the introduction of free labour, every branch of the productive industry of this colony is in danger of falling into decay, to the great loss and injury not only of the colony, but of the parent state also, more especially of its manufacturing, commercial, and shipping interests.'
" II. That the above large expenses of police and gaol establishments have, since July, 1835, been defrayed by the application of a considerable portion of the net proceeds of the sales of Crown lands in the colony to the general purposes of colonial revenue.
" III. That it appears, by papers now be" fore the House (No. 511,1840, No. 81, 1841), that there has been received from the sales of Crown lands in New South Wales, during the period from 1831 to June, 1840, inclusive, a gross total sum of …… £958,000

979
"From which deduct—

1. Charges of various kinds, including expenses of the settlement of Port Philip, and of protection to the Aborigines

£41,300

2. Actual charge of survey and management (though for eight years paid out of the general revenue of the colony) about

149,700

Making together about

—

191,000

And leaving net proceeds of sales of Crown lands to June, 1840

£767,300

Whereof the sum of 502,500 l. only has been applied to the purposes of emigration from the United Kingdom to New South Wales."
" '4. That this House will, on Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the manner in which the cost of gaols and police in New South Wales has been defrayed, and the manner in which the land fund of New South Wales has been expended, since 1835.' "
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the objections which had been urged by his hon. Friend, and upon which his speech seemed to hinge, had reference to two points. His hon. Friend stated first, that he considered a most unjust and unfair arrangement had been made with the colony, by charging it with the payment of the expenses of police and gaols; and next, the hon. Gentleman adverted to the administration of the emigration funds. With regard to the first part of his hon. Friend's remarks, he thought it but fair to state what had actually been the course pursued by the Government in regard to this colony. The original course of proceeding was to pay out from this country the whole of the expenses of the colony, deducting the proceeds of the colony, and making up the deficit by a vote of Parliament. When Lord Goderich was Secretary for the Colonies, in the year 1827, an arrangement was then made by which the expenses of police, Was made payable by this country; but in the despatch in which the arrangement was made, Lord Goderich distinctly held out, that if the revenue of the colony should at a future time be able to bear it, the colony must pay a part of the expense of the convict establishment; and he more specially pointed out and alluded to the mixed expenses (as they were termed), viz. the police and gaols, which ought to be paid by the colony. He was anxious to state these facts, because the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the course
980
which had been pursued was in direct contradiction to that which bad been recommended by his noble Friend. He could only refer to the official despatch in 1827, though he believed, that the same proposition had been under the consideration of previous governments. That despatch recommended that ultimately the colony should be prepared to bear part of the convict expenses. From the year 1827 to the year 1834, the arrangement continued in force as fixed by Lord Goderich; but in the year 1834, the revenues of the colony having increased, and the finances of the colony being in a flourishing condition, it was thought they were adequate and sufficient to meet their expenses; and a further arrangement was consequently introduced by the Government, and Lord Spencer communicated with Lord Monteagle, and a despatch was forwarded (dated November 15,1834), carrying out certain propositions. But it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had not stated distinctly what was the nature of that arrangement, and what was the arrangement of the Treasury and the despatch of Lord Monteagle; because it was not the fact that the whole of the expenses were thrown upon the colony without some equivalent. On the contrary, the proposal was, that, whilst the colony should take upon themselves that part of the expense which the home Government now paid, this country would, in return, hand over to the colony certain revenues (small in amount certainly) which were receivable by the Crown, and which were carried to the military chest, and that the colony should be also relieved from the expenses of convicts whose labour was employed on public works, which they then paid. He was anxious, at this early period of the discussion, to remind the House that this was not a case in which the Government of the country threw upon the colony a naked burden; but it was imposed in lieu of certain expenses which had formerly been paid by this country. But what was the principle on which we were called to act in dealing with our colonies? In the infancy of our colonies, this, the mother country, out of its own funds paid, if not the whole, at least the greater part of the expenses; but as, from time to time, a colony grew stronger, additional charges were thrown upon it, so that the ultimate object was, that each colony should pay for its internal expenses, the mother country-being prepared to extend its protection and

981
aid at all times. The argument of his hon. Friend would go to show that in its arrangement with the colony this country had made a great saving, while the former had incurred a much increased expenditure. The fact, however, was, that since that arrangement, the expense to the colony and to the mother country had mutually increased. The expense of the colony had been increased by its own prosperity, which required a great outlay upon public works, establishments, and a police force. But since the arrangements of 1835, the expenses of the mother country upon account of New South Wales had increased in a corresponding ratio, notwithstanding the progress of the revenue of the colony. Before the arrangement of 1834, which came into operation in 1835, the whole issue from the military chest, which was the English treasury there, and which included payment for a good deal of police service rendered by soldiers, scattered over the country, in reference to the convicts, amounted in 1831 to 167,000 l., in the year 1833–4 it was 182,000 l., in the last year it was 332,885 l. The expenses charged on the general revenue of the colony had been also advancing since 1832, when it amounted to 112,000 l. until, at last, it reached the sum of 346,424 l., which but little exceeded the sum above stated to be paid by us; so that near half the expense of governing the colony was contributed by the mother country. This statement was confined to the military chest. There were also, some naval and other expenses, all of which were met by the mother country. Then since the expense of the police—a very considerable sum, nearly 100,000 l. a-year—had been transferred to the colony, this country had also incurred great outlay for the colony. Before he proceeded further, he must remind his hon. Friend that, even under the old system, the colony paid one third of the police expense, in the shape of money paid into the military chest for the food and clothing of the convicts employed on the public works. And if the colonists were now to go back to the old arrangement, they would, under that system, have to pay 30,000 l. or 40,000 l. a-year. Considering the distance, and the great difficulty of meeting local emergencies, the Government at home could not undertake the task of checking the police expenditure of New South Wales. This must be the duty of the local Government. But he did not think the colony would now consent to go back to the old system, paying one-
982
third of the police expenses, and returning also those sources of revenue then paid into the military chest. If this proposition were made to the colony, no doubt the council would complain of it as a great hardship. Personally, he could assure the colonists that he had no desire to cheat them, nor to gel more from the colony for this country than was fair and just. But assurances of the best intentions were seldom of much avail from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in respect of sympathy, was the most unfortunate individual in the Mouse of Commons. [Sir R. Peel. Hear.] He was thankful for the encouragement of the right hon. Baronet; still the general complaint was true. Whether it was the Spanish debt, or the Danish claims, or the cost of the army or navy, that came on—in short whatever came on that had not some particular interest connected with it, no one was ready to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The general feeling seemed to be that he must be always in the wrong. The next point alluded to by the hon. Member for the City of London was emigration. True, the general principle laid down had been that the proceeds from the sales of land should not be laid out in the annual expenses of the colony, but should go to increase its capital by sending over emigrants from the mother country. But this view should not be confined to emigration alone, for surely they were increasing the capital of the colony by making harbours, roads, and bridges, without which the land could be of no value for what could immigrants do without facilities of communication? Now the land fund system was introduced by Lord Howick, under Lord Goderich, instead of the previous system of granting districts of land which brought nothing to the public or the revenue. The charge was then complained of as a great grievance, and he believed he could show his hon. Friend minutes showing that the leading parties complained that great injustice was done to the colony by employing the proceeds in emigration from the mother country instead of in works on the spot. Thus it appeared that considerable changes had taken place in the minds of the colonists. But if it should appear to the House that it was advisable to pay so large a sum as 50,000 l. a year, for the advancement of the colony, they should then consider whether it would not be advisable to give up all control over the police to the colony, and apply the money to the pro-

983
motion of emigration under our own management. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the previous question.
Mr. C. Bullerhardly knew in what way to take the last sentence of his right hon. Friend. As far as he could understand, the only objections of the right hon. Gentleman to the view of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for London, related to matters of detail. ["No! "from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] That was a short way of disposing of the matter. He must suppose, therefore, the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman to be hypothetical. The question to be considered, he apprehended, was, whether it was worth while for this country to pay, 40,000 l. or 50,000 l. for the purpose of encouraging emigration to New South Wales, a colony which, while it produced articles of the most valuable kind, consumed a large quantity of the produce of the mother country. If that were the question, he felt convinced that the universal feeling of this country would be, that it was well worth while to pay such a sum. It was a question of light and justice between the people and the Government of the country. The colony of New South Wales was charged a large sum for the maintenance of a police. He denied that that was a charge which ought to be thrown on the colony. It was not properly a colonial charge, from whence arose the necessity for the heavy expenditure incurred under this head, but from the circumstance of this country sending out her felonious population to New South Wales. If the convicts, after their term of punishment had expired, were not turned on the population of the colony, the necessity for this great expense would have no existence. At present, the inhabitants of the colony of New South Wales paid taxes as heavy as those of the mother country, with the whole expense of the interest of the national debt included. The taxation averaged 2l. a head, which was, in fact, double the amount of the burden borne by the population of the United Kingdom, for the interest of the national debt might be taken for one half the amount of actual taxation. Not content with heavy taxation, the land fund had been diverted to the purpose of paying the expenses of police and gaols, a fund which properly should be applied solely to promote emigration. Emigration was the true source of prosperity to the colony. To this prosperity the emigrant contributed, not only by his own labour, but by the taxes
984
which he paid, and the probability was, that, if they had not cut open the goose that laid the golden eggs, the money would have been raised from the emigrants themselves. The trade of New South Wales was one of the greatest importance to this country. It behoved Government to beware of altering their system from day to day. They should proceed on some intelligible plan, to provide the colony with labour, and England with a market for her produce, and to furnish employment for her destitute labourers. He had spoken this in no spirit of hostility to the Government. But he hoped that the noble Lord would give them his assurance, that measures should be taken for the purpose of enabling the colony to derive its full advantage from the revenues raised by the sale of land. It had been said, that a good price had been obtained in the market for the commodity: it ought, then to be made applicable to that which should be the primary object of the Government—emigration. He trusted that the noble Lord would act towards New South Wales, in that spirit which had rendered his Government so dear to that colony, ever since he had filled his present office.
Viscount Mahonadmitted the able manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met several of the statements of the hon. Member for London, but it seemed to him that the main positions of the colonists remained altogether untouched. Was it denied that the most grievous distress prevailed at the present moment in New South Wales for want of labour? Was it denied that this distress proceeded mainly from the acts of the Government at home? That colony had been in existence little more than fifty years. Within that short period it had attained a degree of strength and development altogether unparalleled in ancient or modern times. It had become the greatest wool market in the world. In 1807 wool had been exported to the extent of less than 300lbs., and the gentleman who first introduced the breed of sheep into the colony had died but three or four years ago. But last year the exports of wool had reached the enormous amount of 6,000,000lbs. This prosperity had been arrested in a great measure by the conduct of the Government. First of all, in 1834, came the Act of Mr. Spring Rice, which threw on the colony the entire charge of the police and gaols, expenses incurred beyond all doubt in a great measure by the mother country

985
for the maintenance of her convicts. Still, however, the colonists, although they complained of the hardness of the bargain, after several complaints from the Legislative Council of the undue severity with which they had been treated, and several protests from individual members, acquiesced in the compact thus forced upon them. They reckoned as a compensation on the continued arrival of convicts, and on the continued sanction by the Government of the system of assignment. But in a few year smore they were miserably disappointed. He (Lord Mahon) was no friend to the system of assignment; he believed it to be of unequal operation, and therefore evident demerit as a penal mode of treatment; but, right or wrong, there could be no question that the colony owed its unprecedented prosperity mainly to that system. He did not mean to deny that a good soil and genial climate and the spirit of enterprise of our countrymen had had some share in producing this result, but no person at all acquainted with the colony would or could deny, that the labour of convicts had been the great and paramount cause of its welfare and its wealth. It had proved to them in truth a mine of gold. First, then, by Mr. Spring Rice's measure, the entire burthen of the gaols and police was thrown on the colony, and in the next place, by the measure of the noble Lord, a measure right in itself, but hastily adopted, without due notice, and without sufficient gradation, the colony was deprived of the advantages which it derived from convict labour. It could not be denied that great distress had been the consequence. The governor of the colony, in a despatch dated the 8th of September last, stated, that in every public department the greatest difficulty was felt. Every branch of industry was paralysed from the inadequate supply of labour. The result had been that lambs—the great staple wealth of the colony—had been deliberately left to perish from want of hands to tend them. Were not these facts which called for the most serious attention of the House? He could not come to the conviction, that because the system of assignment might have been wrong in its commencement, or abused in its progress, that therefore the House should close its eyes to the great distress which the abolition of that system had caused. But there were reasons to fear that, great as the distress was, it had not yet reached its height. Mr. Gibbon Wakefield, a very competent judge, de-
986
clared that to be his opinion a few days ago before the committee of the House of Commons upon South Australia when New South Wales happened to be incidentally mentioned, asserting his belief that a very dangerous state of things was coming on in that colony. If he were asked how this evil might be remedied, he would say at once that there were several modes by which the House might interpose,—there was the guarantee of a loan—there was the undertaking some share in the expenses of police and gaols, according to the opinion expressed last year by the Earl of Ripon in the House of Lords—but he was not prepared to concur in any vote for the repayment of any sum of money taken from the land fund; the labour of convicts from the year 1835 to 1840 might be deemed sufficient to cancel any such claim. He could not have supported the motion in its original form, but now that it proposed merely that the House should resolve itself into a Committee "for the purpose of considering the manner in which the cost of gaols and police in New South Wales have been defrayed, and the manner in which the land fund has been expended since 1835," the mode and degree of the relief being left perfectly open, he felt himself at liberty to vote for it, reserving to himself the right of acting as he thought fit with regard to practical measures hereafter. He thought a primâ facie case of grievance had been made out to justify the course proposed in the motion. He must also express his opinion that this was a question of great importance to ourselves—a question which acquired additional weight from the increased flow of emigration into New South Wales, and the manner in which emigration was now regarded by enlightened portions of the community at home. In a petition sent to that House from the members of the Protestant Emigration Society of Glasgow last year, the petitioners, poor mechanics of Glasgow, made such statements and used such language as would have done honour to any station or any acquirements. Here are their own words:—
" That your petitioners are labouring under privations of the most appalling nature, in consequence of being frequently out of work, and, when fully employed, their wages ate in-adequate to purchase a sufficiency of the common necessaries of life; that in consequence of their poverty your petitioners, with few exceptions, are so ill clothed, that they cannot attend the public worship of God without violating the sense of decency instilled into them by early education, and their children are

987
growing up without education. Your petitioners presume to state, that their experience for many years convinces them that the principal cause of their accumulating misery is a redundancy of hands in the labour-market, where, according to the fluctuating state of trade, roasters have it not in their power to employ all that are out of employment. That, in consequence of the rapid improvement of machinery, and its application to almost every branch of industry, your petitioners apprehend a still greater redundance of manual labour; and if not averted by wise legislation, our country, once so celebrated for virtue, piety, and intelligence, will sink, and is rapidly sinking, into discontent, poverty, ignorance, and crime. Your petitioners, however, consider, that this appalling state of things may be averted by a well-timed continuous system of emigration; thus abstracting labour where it is no longer useful but injurious, and placing it where it will find ample and profitable employment—profitable to the colonists—profitable to those who emigrate—and profitable to the mother country."
Now, he did not mean to say, that these sentiments, though most ably expressed, were in themselves adequate reasons for supporting the motion, but they furnished corroboration for such a course, and showed how intimately the interests of New South Wales were connected with the interests of the home population. The state of the country was such as to render emigration highly needful. Look to our increased and increasing population—the growth of labourers far exceeding the demand for labour—and see whether emigration be not the very safety-valve that our social position requires. Country gentlemen might depend upon it, that emigration in the long run would be found the best Poor-law. Not only would it afford relief to the labouring and manufacturing classes, but also to persons of higher pursuits, for it was impossible for any one to become acquainted with the literary walks of society without finding many individuals of learning, talents, and genius, who were debarred from procuring a livelihood, and doomed to struggle with privations by the pressure and competition for all branches of employment. He (Lord Mahon) believed, that this glorious destiny was reserved for us—that it was only by laying the foundation of future empires abroad, England could maintain her empire at home; that by establishing free, prosperous, and orderly colonies, would she best secure freedom, prosperity, and order on her own shores.
Lord John Russellsaid—It would, no doubt, be agreeable to any member of
988
a government holding the situation I hold, if, on a case of grievance being made out for a colony, and assistance asked, he could recommend that assistance to be given. I can assure the noble Lord who has just sat down, that there would be no end of applications and of cases. It happens to me continually to receive such applications, often grounded on very strong reasons. One colony after another makes complaints of grievances, and asks for this particular kind of redress, namely, that part of the expense charged upon them should be charged upon the public funds, and, be it remembered, upon the taxes of this country. There is one state rather than colony connected with this empire, respecting which a noble Lord has a motion on for this evening—I mean the Ionian Islands. The people of those islands consented to pay 35,000 l. a-year as a military contribution, but are now in great distress, and constantly sending over applications to be relieved from the burden. In Malta there is a large number of people of the poorer class who are in a state of great distress, and find great difficulty in contributing towards the revenues of that country; and yet that island contributes 5,000 l. a-year towards our establishments. In Ceylon there is a very large sum of money paid by that colony towards its military expenses. Jamaica also complains that it is subject to great expenses for education, Courts of Justice, the clergy establishment, &c., which expenses are imposed upon their revenues by this country. Indeed, there is not any single colony which would not say how great an advantage it would prove to it if a part of its expenses were defrayed out of the revenues of this country. The hon. Member for London made it part of his case that the Governor of New South Wales took the same view of this matter as he did. No doubt, with respect to the governor of a colony, he never fails to recommend any measure which may have the effect of relieving the revenues of that colony from any burden upon them, and there is scarcely any governor who does not urge that this country should pay part of the expenses of his establishment rather than the colony. A distinguished general (Sir Colin Campbell) had hardly been appointed to the government of Ceylon one week when, as I was consulting with him on the best measures to be adopted for the prosperity of that colony, he said

989
that beyond all doubt the best thing I could do for Ceylon would be to take off the military expenses now paid by that colony, and impose the burden upon the mother country instead. If, therefore, you wish to dispose of 50,000 l. a-year in relief of the colonies, or a much larger sum, you will find no difficulty from the paucity of applicants. But, before you decide on giving that sum to any one colony, you should first of all compare the cases of all the various colonies, and, if you do so compare those cases, my opinion is that the colony which has been the most favoured, and which has the least cause for complaint, of all our colonies, is the very colony on whose behalf these com-plaints are now made—the colony of New South Wales. Port Philip, a dependency of New South Wales, but a short time since made a complaint, and asked to be indulged with a separate government, stating that much undue favour had been shown to New South Wales from the beginning to the present time—that it was not in comparison fairly treated. The noble Lord opposite (Mahon) states as a grievance and proof of distress in New South Wales, that there is a general demand for labour. No doubt there is, and that that the colony would be much benefitted by a large increase in the amount of its labourers. But surely this is not a case of distress in that colony. When Gentlemen from Ireland tell me that great distress prevails there—that a man cannot earn more than sixpence per day—that in consequence of insufficient wages he and his family cannot obtain sufficient food, and are therefore subject to fevers and other lamentable disorders, I cannot doubt that distress exists in that country; but when the noble Lord tells me that in New South Wales the demand for labour is such that the labourers obtain comfortable rations of food besides high wages, I cannot admit that colony to be in a state of distress. It may be a reason why the colony does not make more progress that it cannot command more labour. But such a state is not a state of distress. The reason is, that there is so much capital in the colony, that there is not sufficient labour for that capital to employ, and to what is this state of things owing? Is it that labour is exported from that colony? Is it that less sums of money are applied than merly to take labour there? That that is not the case is proved by the papers
990
now on the Table of this House. Take the last report, signed by the Bishop of Australia, and you will find it stated that since the last returns, what with the bounty paid by the colony, and what through the Government ships, of which the charges are paid by the sales of land in this country, upwards of 20,000 labourers have emigrated from this country to that colony. By Government ships, of which the emigration charges have been paid by the Government here out of the land salts, there have been sent out 12,770 emigrants; by the bounty fund paid by the colony 5,320, and unassisted 4,986; making a total of 23,876, of whom more than 18,000 have been sent out by Government means. It is, therefore, not because the number of labourers in that colony have decreased that the wages of labour are so high; on the contrary, they have much increased; and if you add to this number the 15,000 or 16,000 persons who were sent out prior to the period alluded to in this report, you will find that upwards of 40,000 persons have been added to that colony at the expense, in point of fact, of revenues created by the Acts of the Government. And yet it is in behalf of this colony that the noble Lord makes such a special complaint. By the acts of the Government in 1831 we created a fund, and of that fund we have expended upwards of 500,000 l, in adding largely to the mass of labourers in this colony. The case attempted to be made out in support of this motion is, that nothing has been done for the colony, that the colony has been deserted, and that no emigrants have been sent to New South Wales. Now, I must say, that for some colonies for which very little has been done, some plausible complaints of this nature might be made; but with respect to this particular colony, so far from such a complaint being just, it appears that the Government has done a great deal, and that the colony has prospered greatly in consequence of what the Government has done. It has already made great progress, and is desirous of making much greater progress, and all that I can make of this complaint—the whole I can reduce it to—is, that the colony would advance much more rapidly if we would contribute 50,000 l. a-year to its revenue. No doubt, if you were to allow 50,000 l. a-year to this or to many other colonies, the rate of their prosperity would be advanced. But, as to the claims of this colony

991
of New South Wales, it so happens that more has been done for it than for any other under the Queen's Government. In the early part of its history, by the assignment system, which the noble Lord says has been properly though hastily abolished, we added much to its prosperity. The noble Lord agrees with me that the assignment system was properly abolished, and, without entering into the question whether it was hastily abolished or not, I agree with him at the same time that it did much for the prosperity of the colony. Setting aside for a moment all views of morality, I agree that nothing tends so much to advance the prosperity of a colony as a great command of slave labour, and the assignment system was a system of slave labour. But in course of time the increase of the convict population continued, would become so alarming, that it threatened to endanger the future peace of the colony, and to require strong measures of military coercion to preserve order and property, and obedience to the laws. In a moral point of view, the great increase of a criminal population threatened the most dangerous consequences; and the result, if persevered in, would have been, that all men who had any regard for morality, or the preservation of social order, would have left the colony rather than live in the midst of such corruption. At the very time when this danger presented itself, Lord Ripon established the system which has since been acted upon, that instead of the lands of the Crown being granted almost gratuitously, and, no doubt, in many instances, very improperly, they should be sold, and used as a means of augmenting the population of the colony, from the funds which were thus raised for that purpose in the United Kingdom. By enabling the Government to send thither many families of good character and industrious habits, it tended to neutralise, in a great degree, the effect of the convict system; and having by that system in the first instance laid the foundation of the material prosperity of the colony, they were subsequently by Lord Ripon's system enabled to lay the foundation of its moral and social prosperity. Without pretending any special favour for the colony of New South Wales, it has so happened that in these respects that colony has been particularly favoured, and, if I were to go through the list of all the colonies of the British empire, I do not
992
know one which has been so fortunate as New South Wales. The noble Lord, however, says the present position of New South Wales is one of distress. Let us see how this statement is borne out by facts. With regard, first of all, to its revenue, it appears from the official documents that previous to the transfer of the police and gaol charges the revenue for 1833–4 was 150.000 l. In 1837–8, the revenue had increased to 208,878 l., and according to Sir George Gipps's despatch of the 1st of August, 1840, the total revenue, including the land fund, quit rents, and other payments, had risen to the sum of 427,368 l. Is that the description of a colony in a state of distress—is this a colony in a state of ruin—are these the facts which the noble Lord brings before us in order to induce us to vote out of the taxes of the United Kingdom—taxes paid by a heavily burdened people—the sum of 50.000 l. per annum in aid of the colonists of New South Wales? Here is a colony, which in 1834 has a revenue of 150,000 l. per annum, and which in 1840 has a revenue of upwards of 400,000 l. per annum. I ask if you can mention an example of any colony or State which has progressed so rapidly as this colony? The hon. Member for Liskeard says, the colonists are very heavily taxed, because, if you take the population per head, you will find they pay a greater amount per head than in many large States, or in any other colony. I will not enter into the comparison with other colonies on this subject, but I certainly must say, that such a comparison is very fallacious. What is the nature of the burdens which they have to bear? If you find they have to pay heavy window duties, heavy assessed duties, heavy duties on coffee, tea, and, as a friend behind suggests, on the importation of their corn—if you find that in all these matters they are very heavily taxed, then you may justly say they are a much burdened people, and come and ask the lightly-taxed people of Great Britain to bear some portion of their burdens. But, looking to the way in which New South Wales is taxed, I could not but be much struck with the nature at once of their expenditure and. their revenue. The items of expenditure which the people of this country pay out of the county rates, the municipal rates, and the other local rates, are paid by the people of New South Wales out of the customs duties and ge-

993
neral revenue of the country. The lighting, the police, and the general charges of Sydney are paid out of that revenue; just as if the lighting and the police of London were to be paid out of the duties on rum, coffee, &c. When you talk of heavy expenditure in this colony, you must bear in mind that a great deal of this expenditure arises from the circumstance that the colonists have not submitted themselves to those local charges which we submit to, which the people of other colonies submit to, and which we think the right course of payment, and in this respect I bear out the views of Sir George Gipps, who has continually urged that these local taxes should be raised locally. As to the revenue of the colony, I find that out of the revenue of 200,000 l., in 1838, the duties on imported spirits, spirits distilled in the colony, spirit licences, wine, tobacco, &c, amounted to 145,278 l., the quit rents and land fund, be it observed, bring no burden on the colony. It appears, therefore, that with regard to the general objects of taxation, their taxation is very light; and spirits, tobacco, and wine, furnish the greater part of their revenue, and surely are, of all the articles within, the range of taxation, the articles which are the most fairly taxed. After listening attentively to the noble Lord and the hon. Member for London, it appears to me that the old ground of the violation of the faith of 1831 is abandoned, and that the general question is, whether we should afford some relief to this colony or not. When a question of this kind is put to me, my answer is, that I will not impose extra taxation on the United Kingdom: to assist those who, as the case stands, do not pay one-tenth part of the taxation which the people of the United Kingdom pay, who have already, be it remembered, many expenses on account of New South Wales to pay. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, estimates 300,000 l. as the expense connected with the penal settlement of this country. This is an expense which we are properly bound to pay, and which we do pay. There are other expenses connected with the military, which we also pay, and I do not think it any answer, as has been suggested, that our military force must be stationed somewhere, since, had we not so many colonies, we should not have occasion for so many soldiers. This is the proper way in which this country con-
994
tributes to the expense of her colonies, and by so doing we save those colonies which depend on Great Britain those expenses which independent states are compelled to incur. So far as foreign enemies are concerned, the navy of Great Britain, the army of Great Britain, the artillery of Great Britain, are at all times ready for the defence of her colonies, and from these expenses they are entirely free, and have it, therefore, in their power to devote their revenue to internal improvements. The noble Lord opposite ended by saying, that it was a very great advantage to the colonies and to the mother country to promote emigration. I entirely agree with him. I have more than once expressed my concurrence in the principles laid down in the works written by Mr. Wakefield, and which principles were adopted by the Colonial Secretary in 1831, by the application of the money received from the sale of the colonial lands to emigration. I think it a wholesome system, and far better calculated to promote the prosperity of our colonies than giving them 50,000 l. or even 100,000 l. a-year out of our taxes. I agree in the principle of emigration; but there are difficulties in its details into which I need not enter now. I will say but one word. If you ask any persons in this country who are those they wish to emigrate, or who are the persons who are themselves anxious to emigrate, the answer will be, that they are persons burdened with large families or persons whom it would be an immediate relief to the district in which they live to get rid of, The noble Lord had read a petition from Glasgow on this subject. Now, in Glasgow and other places, where there are a large number of weavers and other persons who have to struggle with great difficulties, no doubt; but if you were to send those persons to keep sheep in New South Wales, I am afraid you would equally find them unable to struggle with the hardships they would have to encounter, and that the habits of their lives have unfitted them for such emigration. It is a very different question between those persons who wish to emigrate and those persons whom the colonies wish to have. The emigrants the colonies desire to see are persons in the prime of life, able to struggle with hardships, and calculated to form the foundation of a good colonial population; and, as those are just the persons who are most

995
likely to obtain employment at home, they will not readily quit their own country, even to obtain a higher rate of wages in a colony. Doubtless, there are still a vast number of persons anxious to obtain employment, and who could be sent with advantage to the colony; but, on the whole, I know no scheme which could be devised better than that which prevails at present, combining, as it does, Government superintendance, colonial assistance, and private enterprise. The lands of the Crown in the colony being put up to sale, and the produce forming a fund, devoted to the purpose of sending out fitting emigrants, is under the superintendance of the Government, and a different form of the same sytem being adopted in the colonies, called the bounty system. One would really think, however, from what had fallen from the hon. Member for London, and from the noble Lord opposite, that this last had been put a stop to altogether, owing to some vaguely alluded to acts of the Government which they did not define. Now, what does Sir George Gipps say in his financial statement for 1839:—The land fund and the produce of land rates amounted that year to 152,962 l. You say this is all swallowed up by the expenses of the police and gaols, and of the Government; but if you turn over a leaf you will find, that in the same year there was expended in emigration no. less a sum than 158,518 l., being fully 6,000 l. more than was produced by all the land sales. Sir George Gipps says, that, in future, he shall charge the expense of the surveys on the land fund, and whatever may be thought as to other charges, there can be no doubt the surveys are properly chargeable on that fund. But Sir George Gipps has never said, nor has he ever been instructed to say, that the land fund should not be devoted to the expenses of emigration; on the contrary, he has been told that the bounty system was to be continued, and that it was approved by the Government. But what he has been told is this, that it is imprudent to incur so large an expenditure without raising a sufficient amount of taxes to meet that expenditure; that to meet local expenditure local charges ought, according to his own plan, to be adopted, and that he should either decrease the expenses of his Government, or increase the amount of taxes to meet those expenses. This he has been
996
told; but this is a totally different thing to putting an end to emigration. I do not wish to put any check on emigration. I have considered it, and do consider it as of the greatest benefit to this country, and to New South Wales. More especially is emigration of importance to a colony like New South Wales, which has so long been a receptacle for the convicts of this country. It appears to me, that the only way of laying the foundation of a moral community is, by introducing a large number of emigrants, drawn from the soundest part of our own community. I do not differ from the hon. Member for London in this respect, but I do differ from him when he says, that 50,000 l. a year should be taken off' the taxation of New South Wales, and added to the taxation of the people here. That, however, is the question before the House, on which, in 1834, a decision was come to by the Government, as was explained by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said, that if we were to make any such change, we ought to go back to the state of things which existed previously to 1834. That would, no doubt, be equitable, but it is far better not to go back to that arrangement. It is far better that the police and the gaols of New South Wales should be under the control of the Governor and Legislative Council of the colony. The hon. Member for Liskeard says, that a large taxation is imposed on the colony by a Legislature not chosen by the people of the colony; but my hon. Friend must know, as well as any other man, the difficulty in the way of giving a local Legislature to a colony of which the circumstances are so peculiar, and of which so large a portion of the population have been convicted criminals. The state of the population in New South Wales, presents many difficulties in the way of introducing a representative government into that colony; but I am happy to say, that from year to year the character of that population is changing, that it is becoming more wholesome, and that year by year it approximates more to the character of the population of this country, of Scotland, and of Ireland. As this change takes place, it will be the more incumbent on the Legislature of this country to give those representatives institutions which properly belong to all colonies derived from the race which inhabits these kingdoms. My belief in

997
that whether we introduce these institutions now, or postpone them to a riper period, we shall all unite in opinion, that finally it will be more safe to bestow on New South Wales a representative constitution—that she will become entitled to those checks on the expenditure of her resources which such a constitution gives, and to all those liberties which encourage men to exertion, whether in the pursuits of trade or agriculture, liberties which have been the foundation of the prosperity of tin: parent State, and which, I trust, will be the foundation of the prosperity, and long the pride of this community on the other side of the water.
Sir William Molesworthsaid, that the noble Lord who had just sat down, contended, that all the local expenditure of a colony ought to be borne by itself. He would agree to the correctness of that principle as applied to ordinary colonies. But, with regard to New South Wales, the circumstances were very peculiar, from the fact of its having beeen so long a penal settlement. Since its foundation, there had been 75,000 or 80,000 convicts exported to that colony, of which 30,000 were still under punishment. The demoralization of the population was consequently very great, No person could form any idea of the amount of crime which was perpetrated by this population, consisting in so large a proportion of convicts exported from the mother country. Under such circumstances, to compel the colonists of New South Wales to pay for the whole expense of police and gaols, which this disposition to crime rendered necessary, would in reality be to burden them with a portion of the expenses of the criminal jurisprudence of the mother; country. It was true that the colonists had derived advantages from the system of convict slavery, in the labour which they obtained from them; but it should be recollected also, that they clothed and fed their convict slaves, and thus diminished the cost of them to this country. Moreover, free labour was always found to be cheaper and better, when it was to be obtained, than convict labour. But the land-fund had been interfered with in such a way, as to deprive the colonist of that amount of free labour which they had expected on going out, and had still a right to expect. Our colonies were well worthy of attention and encouragement at the hands of the mother country. They
998
opened to us the most valuable markets for our commodities which we enjoyed, excepting only that of the United States; and it was most, important to encourage those markets at the present moment, when we were threatened with the loss of the markets of the north of Europe. But to maintain and uphold the colonies as a useful appendage in a commercial point of view, it was absolutely necessary that a constant influx of free labour should be kept up in them. The land-fund was the best means available for promoting this object, because it operated as a test and guide to the quantity of emigration required. He conceived, with his hon. Friend, that the net proceeds of this fund should be applied to this purpose without any deduction. The present population of South Australia was necessarily in a very demoralized state, and if it were considered desirable to ameliorate it, that could only be done by swamping the disreputable portion of the community by the addition of a great number of respectable and industrious emigrants From the mother country. And yet, with this great, and desirable object in view, was it fair or prudent to misappropriate from this important object so large a sum as 50,000 l. a year? It was because he did not approve of this principle, that he cordially supported the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for London.
Sir Robert Peel: Sir, I think, that some of the observations made by the right hon. Baronet have raised a new feature in this debate. The right hon. Baronet dwells on the advantages that would accrue to New South Wales from the introduction of free settlers and the promotion of emigration, and he asks will the House refuse a paltry 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. a-year, when the expenditure of that sum in a particular manner would relieve an evil existing in the colonies. Now, if the principle laid down by the hon. and moral Baronet were to be established, what would be our position? He might look at Upper Canada, and, seeing the advantages that would arise from an increase of population there, say, will you refuse 50,000 l. for this purpose? Take Lower Canada again. It would, undoubtedly, be desirable to diminish the difference, in point of numbers, existing between the French and British population in that province. So that in all these, and many

999
other cases, claims might thus be made on the resources of the mother country. But, in considering the question, we should look to the whole amount of expenses that would thus be incurred. If the principle were established it could not be confined to New South Wales. I am perfectly ready to acknowledge the advantages of emigration, of the importance of supplying our colonies with the labour of which they are in want, and, at the same time, relieving ourselves of the surplus population which cannot find employment at home. I do not, I repeat, deny the necessity of emigration; but the great principles on which this emigration is to be promoted should be considered on general grounds. The hon. Gentleman brings forward his motion on special and exclusive grounds, for New South Wales alone; but we should take a more extended view of the question. The real question is, whether it is right to lay a burthen of 50.000 l. a-year on the country, to defray the expense of gaols and police establishments in New South Wales. Sir, even if I admitted the justice of the claim for the amount asked, the last thing I should be inclined to devote it to would be to purposes of this kind. I should be certain, that we should have no proper power of controlling this expenditure. The hon. Member for Liskeard has said, he would strip the question of embarrassment, by waiving any pledge that may have been given. Sir, in that case, I feel, that we should consider the claim solely in reference to its justice and equity. I confess, I was somewhat embarrassed at hearing, that there was a public and formal engagement by the British Government to devote the whole produce of the sales of land in the colony to the purposes of emigration; that land had been purchased, and speculations entered into, on the faith of that pledge; but as that pledge is not insisted on, I look solely to the equity of the case—and unless it be shown, that an engagement is in existence, binding on us in faith and honour, I cannot consent, that this country should devote 50,000 l. a-year, to the support of the gaols and police of New South Wales. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown, that the mother country is at present at an expense of 330.000 l.a-yearly, for the government of the colony, and, in addition to this large sum, there are numerous contingent burthens to which the
1000
mother country is liable; as the protection of the commerce of the colony, her defence in case of war, and various other sources of expenditure. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) tells us, he admits, that in the case of ordinary colonies, the burthens of their police and gaols should be borne by the colonies themselves, and that, unless it appeared, that there was a special claim in the case of New South Wales, he should not have supported this claim. He says, that the convict and police establishments of the colony, are unduly large and burthen-some, in consequence of the amount of crime sent out from the mother country; that these establishments are larger beyond all proportion, than those of other places. This I admit to be the case; but, I say, if it can be shown, that this convict population has produced a marvellous and incredible amount of prosperity—for its moral effects cannot here be taken into account, but if it can be shown, that the commercial and general prosperity of the colony has been increased to an immense amount by the convict labour—if this can be shown, I say, it justifies the position, that the colony has no right to complain of the peculiar expenses for gaols and police, which that convict population has rendered necessary. We have statements made by the strongest advocates for transferring these burdens to this country, descriptive of the vast and rapid strides in prosperity which have been made by New South Wales. It is stated, that the usual rate of profit upon capital employed in that colony was 20 per cent., and that, it should be admitted, was a very high rate. Upon referring to a work, which I hold in my hand, I find, that in the year 1807, the colony of Australia had yielded only 245lbs of wool for exportation, and in 1839, there had been over 10,000,000lbs of the same article shipped from that country. Then, upon referring to it as a recipient for the manufactured goods of this country, as compared to other nations, I find the amount of home manufactured goods sent to Australia, to be only less by about 75,000 l., than what was sent to Russia. Is this prosperity a reason why a burthen of 50,000 l. a-year, is to be transferred from the colony to the mother country? If the prosperity of New South Wales is mainly owing to the peculiar demand and peculiar supply of convict la-

1001
bour, is it fair to throw upon this country the peculiar police expenses occasioned by the employment of that labour? I have been induced to take part in this debate, from my sympathy with that unfortunate sufferer, the public treasury, which is really the most injured and helpless of all sufferers. If it can be shown that the commerce and prosperity of the colony of New South Wales are declining, that her exports of wool, instead of increasing are diminishing—if this can be shown, there may be some argument why the mother country should come forward to relieve this unfortunate colony; but it is shown that the commere and exports of the country have been quadrupled within a few years, is it then to be said, that a clear proof has been given why the police expenses of the colony should be defrayed by the mother country? Sir, I am not prepared to admit, if Lord Glenelg gave an indiscreet pledge, that we are bound to pay 50,000 l. a-year for this purpose. But apart from this, here is an outlay of 330,000 l. for military purposes in the colony, besides other expenses, defrayed by this country. The expense of police and prison establishments in the colony is 100,000 l. yearly. A considerable profit is; derived from the sale of public lands. This country says to the colony, "We shall not require you to pay, from your direct and immediate revenues the whole of these gaol and police expenses; we shall set aside some of the sale of lands' fund for that purpose, and the rest of the fund shall go to the promotion of emigration—not a single farthing to the mother country, to the support of the army or navy, or any other object of the kind. Part of the land revenues shall go to the support of the gaols, and the rest to the purposes of emigration." This, Sir, is what the mother country says to the colony of New South Wales; and will any man say, that it is not in every respect just and equitable on our part? Is it defensible on any fair ground that we should be called on to pay 50,000 l. a-year, under these circumstances, for the purposes which the hon. Member has spoken of? Besides, there is the option given to the colony to supply by local rates the deficiency. Instead of the customs duties on the public revenue, it is open to the colony to make up the deficiency by a rate upon property. The entire of the land revenue may then be appropriated to emigration. Sir, I am as
1002
anxious as any one to promote the prosperity of New South Wales. I believe it contains within itself the elements of a future great and flourishing country. I should be sorry to throw any obstacle in the way of its advancement. I regret that at a time when the system of assignment was discontinued—properly and judiciously in my opinion—that at this time the state of the revenue was such that it was found necessary to take a step which imposed a check on emigration to the colony; but I cannot think that this country should be called on to pay 50,000 l. a-year for the prison expenses of the colony. I must confess, that I see with considerable anxiety, the increased and increasing expenditure of this country. The other day we were called upon to advance a sum of 163,000 l. for soldiers, and that sum could not be well refused in consequence of the increased force it was requisite to employ; and now we are in a manner called upon to advance 50,000 l. for New South Wales, a thing which, under the present financial difficulties of this country, as well as the great pressure of taxation, nothing can, in my view of the matter, sanction but o strong conviction that some pledge or obligation, or the national honour, requires the payment. I cannot avoid saying, that I think too little attention appears to be paid by all Governments to the financial affairs of their respective countries. It is of material consequence to the well-being of every state, whether under a despotic form of government, or having its constitution upon a popular basis, to look narrowly and closely to its financial system; to see that its expenditure do not exceed its means. Indeed, it is too much the custom of all European nations at present to pay very little attention to this point, and to enter into the most extraordinary expenses, without considering how they are to be met. There was, for instance, a neighbouring state, that, at a time of profound peace, merely for the gratification of some fancied military jealousy, or anticipation of evil, was about expending between twenty and thirty millions sterling in fortifications. This heedlessness of expenditure, which is, I regret to say, characteristic of all European governments at that moment, must ultimately have the very worst results. Indeed, in this country, the present financial state of affairs showed the most lamentable prospects, and if not looked to properly, could only cause a

1003
complete paralysation of its industry and commercial advancement. He was sorry to make these observations, but he felt himself called upon to do so, when he observed the course which was pursuing with regard to its financial affairs, not only in this country, but almost every country in Europe.
Mr. Wardunderstood that his hon. Friend rested his motion on the ground that there had been a specific understanding, that when lands were sold the proceeds should be applied to the importation of free and good labour; and in consequence of its being found that the Government was actuated by no fixed principle, but that the funds pledged to be employed for that purpose might hereafter be applied to the maintenance of the navy and army, or other purely English purposes, he called upon the House to consider wha portion of the expense of the police and the gaols should fall upon the colony, and what upon the mother country. He should certainly vole for the inquiry, in order that they might ascertain the state of the debtor and creditor account between Australia and this country, not for the purpose of causing any wasteful grant, but of doing an act of strict justice to the colony, and redeeming the pledges held out by the Government to induce persons to buy land in the hope of obtaining labour for its cultivation.
Sir R. H. Inglisconsidered with his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), that it was the duty of countries to make their revenue cover their expenditure. He could not, however, on this occasion, vote with his right hon. Friend, as he considered that New South Wales had a moral and binding claim on this country. If, instead of being kept at Milbank, a thousand convicts were removed to the other side of the globe, were the obligations of this country to defray their expenses any the less? Why, on the same principle, the expenses of the hulks and convict dock-yards at Portsmouth should be levied on the town of Portsmouth. As was stated in the pamphlet which his right hon. Friend the Member for Tarn worth had quoted from, it was no act of the colony to have these convicts, and the mother country should not, in addition to relieving herself of them, make the colony pay for the relief. The question was, not whether such places as the Ionian Islands, or Malta, or Ceylon, were to be relieved from certain burthens,
1004
but it was the case of a colony affected by special and peculiar circumstances. He would not then enter into the question of emigration. The question was, whether or no in the case before the House, the application was one which could not in equity be resisted. He thought it was not, and therefore he should vote for the motion of the hon. Member for London.
Sir C, Greyconsidered it most preposterous and alarming, that this country should be called upon to make distinct grants for the police establishments of colonies having separate revenues within themselves. He should therefore vote against the motion of the hon. Member for London. With regard to placing the management of the affairs of the colony in the hands of a representative government he was in favour of a measure of that sort; but he thought that, in establishing a domestic legislature, a branch answering to the House of Lords in the mother country was completely unfit for an infant colony.
Mr. Humehad always been anxious to see a representative government for New South Wales, and the present debate arose out of the fact, that the colonial system of this country had hitherto been perfectly unintelligible, and depended entirely on the Minister for the Colonies for the lime being. He only wondered that our colonies were so prosperous as they now were. In staling this, however, he saw the danger of adopting the principle of his hon. Friend (Mr. Grote); it was one which this House ought to weigh well. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, stated, that he agreed with every hon. Gentleman who had spoken as to the great advantages of emigration, both to this country and to the colony, and that we were therefore bound by every means in our power to promote the system of emigration. He agreed with the noble Lord, and the only difference between his hon. Friend and the noble Lord was, whether the whole amount of the produce of the sale of lands should be applied to the purposes of emigration or not. But the noble Lord had shown, that the whole of the proceeds of the sale of lands was applied to the purposes of the colony; then, of course, the complaint of his hon. Friend could not be supported, that we had applied but a portion of the money to that purpose. Now, suppose there were no convicts at all in the colony, would the inhabitants be obliged to maintain gaols

1005
and a police? Certainly they would; then why should they not maintain them now? The hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, said there were 38,000 convicts now assigned and working for the colonists, and that it was a loss to the colony when convicts were set free. So that here was this large number of convicts at work for the colonists, merely at the expense of food and clothing, and yet the colony said they could not maintain a police to keep those who had been set free in order. Why these discharged convicts now formed part of the colony; they were no longer convicts, and contributed towards the revenue of the colony. He could not see why the people of England should be called on to tax themselves to keep a police for New South Wales, merely he cause, by the assignment system, we had allowed 38,000 convicts to be employed by the colony for its own good. If we were to pay for emigration, there were other places than New South Wales, to which in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, it should be directed. But that, was a question which ought to be taken into consideration separately, and the motion before the House should not he pressed on the principle that emigration to New South Wales alone was necessary. It would be most unjust to apply 50,000 l. a-year to that colony more than it already possessed. The inhabitants of New South Wales were perfectly capable of being taxed as they thought fit, for he wished to leave it to themselves, and all that was asked of them was to levy an amount of; taxes sufficient to maintain the internal establishments of the country. This was a simple question, and it ought not to he mixed up with any other. He wished the colony to have free institutions, and liberty to manage its own affairs; but we must not undertake to defray the expenses of its police and gaols. It would be a dangerous precedent to entertain such a motion as that of his hon. Friend; and every hon. Gentleman who voted for it would be pledging himself to give money from the taxes of this country—not as to the amount, but as to a portion of these taxes for the maintenance of the gaols and police establishments of New South Wales. Under these circumstances he should vote against the proposition of his hon. Friend. Mr. Grate briefly replied, and observed, that he was pleased with the general views of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the
1006
Colonies; but he could not see, in the history of New South Wales, that they had ever been tarried into effect. If the promises of Lord Glenelg and Lord Ripon had been executed, every farthing of the 260,000 l, to which tit a former period of the evening he had referred, would have been devoted to sending emigrants to the colony.
The House divided on the previous question, viz—that the question be now put:—Ayes 8; Noes52:—Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Bolling, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Brownrigg, S.

Ward, H. G.

Hodges, T. L

TELLERS.

Jervis, S.

Grote, G.

Mahon, Viscount

Buller, C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Muntz, G. F.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Barrington, Viscount

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Bernal, R.

Praed, W. T.

Brabazon, Lord

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Brotherton, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Busfeild, W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A

Chichester, Sir B.

Salwey, Colonel

Dundas, D.

Scholefield, J.

Evans, W.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Smith, R. V.

Gladstone, W. E.

Sotheron, T. E.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stuart, W V.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Greg, R. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Thornely, T.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Trotter, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wilbraham, G.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Hutchins, E. J.

Wood, B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Wyse, T.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Yates, J. A.

Maule, hon. F.

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Stanley, E. J.

Morrison, J.

Parker, J.

IONIAN ISLANDS.
Lord C. Fitzroyin calling the attention of the House to Ionian affairs, was fully aware of the difficulty of the task that he had undertaken, not from want of conviction of the justice of the cause he was about to advocate, the defence of the Ionian people against their Governor, but from having opposed to him the Gentlemen on the other side of the House, whose principles of government arc so much in accordance with those of the present Lord High Commissioner and

1007
with them on this occasion were joined the Liberal Government of her Majesty, and all those whose prejudices condemn these people as nothing but Ionians. But he must have erred most deliberately if it could be shewn by any, but the advocates for absolute rule, that the Ionian people had no ground of complaint against their Governor. If it could be shewn that an intelligent, industrious people, of not less education than many countries, and counties of countries that he could mention, whose higher classes were wealthy, and possessed of talents of the highest character—if it could be shewn that after a thirty years protection under the British Crown, these people were unfit for a further advancement in the scale of civilization by an extension of their political rights, then had he (Lord C. Fitzroy) not only mistaken the character of these people, but had been more mistaken in what he had conceived to have been the paternal duties of the protecting Government. What would have been the position and condition of Ireland, at this moment, but for an extension of their political rights, and a change in the system of government which established a more just, in a more equal, administration of the law. He (Lord C. Fitzroy), while Governor of Zante, had realized the good effect of the principles of impartial justice; he had obtained through it the entire confidence of the people of that island. But how was it possible for Sir Howard Douglas to obtain that confidence while he governed entirely by the high police power vested in him by the Constitution to be used only on great emergencies. And whilst that was the case it was impossible that the good intentions of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, could be carried out.
He (Lord C. Fitzroy) now wished to proceed to the object of his motion—to obtain a Committee to take into consideration the papers relating to the Ionian States, ordered to be printed by the House of Commons 22d. June, 1840. These papers (four in number) consisted of two letters from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies; a memorial from an Ionian, (Mustoxides), and the fourth an answer to the memorial from Sir H. Douglas. The first of these letters he could not too highly extol. In it the noble Lord said,
" That, if it were not intended to advance farther in the grant of political rights, it must
1008
be admitted that there was little wisdom in the establishment of a government of this sort."
And yet, in the second letter, the noble Lord virtually annulled that, by saying that he
" Yielded to the strong conviction that changes of this kind were dangerous."
Still, however, the Ionians clung to hope, and annexed to that former letter the motto of their islands, "auspicium melioris œvi." Now, it was true, that there were exaggerations of statement in the memorial of Mustoxides. But were there not in the public despatch of Sir H. Douglas, the answer to this memorial, misrepresentations, and mis-statements without end? Was there not a material difference between the one endowed with a strong poetical imagination, exaggerating, in some degree, the grievances under which his country laboured? And the other, the Lord High Commissioner, from the archives of his office, misrepresenting and mis-stating to show his the better cause, to extol his own merits, and trample down a feeble adversary? Now, if Sir Howard Douglas was neither justified in his injurious attacks against the character of the Ionian people, nor his representations and statements correct, he (Lord Charles Fitzroy) thought that it was not too much to ask, that this despatch should be withdrawn from the records of the Colonial-office; and that the noble Lord's first letter (21st December, 1839), should form the basis of instructions to all future Lords High Commissioners.
He must be tedious to the House in pointing out these mis-statements; they were to be found particularly in pages 25, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42, 44, 53, and many mis-statements with regard to education. Now, in p. 25, what said Sir Howard Douglas in his despatch:—
" The same agents, the agents of the Philorthodox Society moved by the same influence, their views directed to the same end, are the framers of this memorial."
This statement was entirely refuted by Count Viaro Capodistrias and Petrizzopulo, They shewed that the accusations made against the Ionians, individually and collectively, on account of the Philorthodox Society (existing in Athens) were calumnies, as all accusations without proofs became, and more particularly when there was an eager desire, as in this case, to

1009
avoid them. Again, in p. 36, Sir H. Douglas said,
" With respect to the false and slanderous remarks, &c., &c., Signor Dondi, for malversation of office, fraud and peculation was subjected to a criminal prosecution. In this I however took no part, further than to stay the proceedings during the sitting of Parliament, that it might not be charged against the Government as an act of vengeance to remove an opposing member."
All that was true; but on Signor Dondi being acquitted of the charge brought against him by Sir Howard Douglas, before the Supreme Court of Justice, Sir Howard Douglas addressed a circular letter to the regents and presidents of the different islands to the effect of maintaining the culpability of Dondi, and blaming the judges for their acquittal of him. In p. 53, Sir Howard Douglas said,—
" And not by words only have the Ionian people shown their contentment, for at the late elections consequent upon the dissolution of the Sixth Parliament, they flocked in unprecedented numbers to give their votes in favour of the candidates brought forward."
" Now, Sir, it is not possible to conceive that such a statement made by the Lord High Commissioner (representative of her Majesty) should not be correct. But what was the fact at this election for the members to form the Seventh Parliament? At this election, after the dissolution of the Sixth Parliament, the soldiers for duty j were doubled, the artillerymen stood to their guns, the agents of police went through the country obliging all the electors to leave their occupations and go and vote, marking down on a list, the names of those who refused. And who were the persons selected by the Lord High Commissioner as candidates for this Seventh Parliament? The most ignorant and time-serving men who could be found. And all this can be proved. And this election, it should be borne in mind, (where the people showed such contentment) was carried on while the prohibition of intercourse between the islands and Greece existed, under the pretence of danger to the country, through the Philorthodox Society (in Athens). At a time, too, when all newspapers were prohibited, in order not to distract the attention of the people from the calumnious statements put forth in the only newspaper of the islands (The Government Gazette) as to the ulterior object of that
1010
society through the agency of Roma, Mustoxides, &c., &c." He (Lord Charles Fitzroy) complained, of the inconsistency of Sir Howard Douglas' charges against Mustoxides, Roma, Petrizzopulo, Plessa, &c., (almost all of whom served in the sixth Parliament), and whom he (Sir H. Douglas) addressed, on the 5th March, 1839, in these words:—
" I have much pleasure in meeting the sixth Parliament of the Ionian States, and I congratulate the country, that the constitutional functions and electoral rights have been exercised so judiciously and beneficially, as to have assembled in this House, persons of so much consideration, character, talents, influence, and stake in the country, as those whom I have the honour to address. Never has the electoral body more spontaneously, cheerfully, and numerously, discharged their electoral rights, than upon the recent occasion."
" With these excellent men, Sir H. Douglas quarrels in six weeks; he prorogues the Parliament, and afterwards dissolves it; and selects a new Parliament (the seventh Parliament), of whom he only says, "They do everything that I desire." These men, amongst other things, passed the new codes of law, as he desired them, without any deliberation. Now, Sir, one word with regard to these codes of law (civil and criminal). These codes have not passed the Legislature according to the Charter of the Ionian Constitution. Another Ionian Parliament may moot the question of difference which existed between the Legislative Assembly and the Senate, in the sixth Parliament; other Crown lawyers may give a different opinion, and reverse the decision upon which the seventh Parliament now acts; which would render the codes an illegal act. The question ought to have been discussed before her Majesty's Privy Council. Arguments would have been heard on both sides; it was a slovenly mode of proceeding, deciding a point of importance on the undivulged opinions of Crown lawyers. There may be an anomaly in the Ionian Constitution, but one that may have its use. The Ionian Legislative Assembly meets every two years. The senate (consisting of five persons) is always sitting as the Executive Council, under the Lord High Commissioner, who uses it as his mouthpiece. Therefore, in the framing of fundamental laws, it might be quite right, that the Senate should take no part in them. And the codes are fundamental laws. Now Sir, Sir H. Douglas talks of

1011
the country becoming quiet. It never was disturbed. He himself provoked the Patriarch of Constantinople to an act for which Lord Ponsonby obtained most unjustly his (the patriarch's) dismissal. What had Sir H. Douglas required of the patriarch? To alter the religious ceremony of marriage, which, in the Greek Church, is one of the sacraments. Properly indignant, the patriarch refused; and addressed a pastoral letter to the clergy in the islands on the subject. Wantonly eager, he (Sir H. Douglas) makes use of the Philorthodox Society as a pretext for the exercise and abuse of his high police power. He (Sir H. Douglas) talks in page 42 of the despatch of a faction. "That the people rejoiced in the destruction of—" Why, Sir, there was no faction. Sir H. Douglas, when he raised his storm, must have his thunder, or otherwise the people, he thought, would not believe, that there was a storm. But this whole theatrical exhibition has turned against Sir H. Douglas himself. And was not Sir H. Douglas himself doubtful of his extreme popularity from his acts; otherwise, why did Mr. Gisborne (secretary to Sir H. Douglas) think it necessary to write to the Residents at the different islands (which Sir H. Douglas intended visiting at that time, to prepare for him a good reception. The agents of police were again actively employed on this occasion. The message sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople was, on the part of the Lord High Commissioner, most unjustifiable, and the dismissal of the Patriarch obtained through Lord Ponsonby, was an act of positive injustice." He (Lord C. Fitzroy) had the whole of the evidence to lay before the committee, by which it was clearly shown that there was not the slightest ground for accusing the patriarch of meditating anything injurious to the interests of Great Britain in the Ionian Islands. The seizing the papers of some of the most respected persons in the islands, on account of the Philorthodox Society, and neither bringing them to trial, nor opening those papers, and yet holding them still guilty, calls for inquiry. With regard to the finance he (Lord C. Fitzroy) feared to be tedious going into it at length. He should content himself with the fact of the excessive expenditure. But first, he must allude to a letter which had been sent to Corfu in April last, requesting information on this subject, which letter
1012
was detained in the post-office there many months. And he must likewise read a letter from Mr. Courage, a merchant in Corfu, who says—
" Our post-office is invested with very great power and may at pleasure open letters."
Now, as to the finance. It could be proved before a committee, that the public works, for which the excess of expenditure was to be attributable, and detailed for that purpose in Sir H. Douglas's public despatch (page 35) in these words—
" As having been established or decreed since my arrival in these islands "—
were, in truth, works constructed by Sir T. Maitland, Sir F. Adam, &c., &c., one or two only being Sir H. Douglas's and of no moment. And many of these works were constructed out of the municipal funds of the respective islands, drawing nothing from the public treasury for them. The Valle di Roppa is still a marsh, though stated (page 33) to have been drained and cultivated. It could be proved, that Sir H. Douglas had swallowed up the surplus left in the treasury by Lord Nugent, l26,000 l., the pension fund,40,000 l., the amount of reduction of many salaries, and has incurred a debt of 77,000 l., to meet which Sir H. Douglas proposes a duty of upwards of ten per cent, on the importation of all grain.
He (Lord C. Fitzroy) thought he had shewn sufficient reason for asking for a committee, he should therefore move for a committee to take into consideration the papers relating to the Ionian Islands, ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on the 22nd June 1840.
Lord John Russell: The noble Lord has stated his opinion at considerable length; but I cannot gather from his speech any reasons why this House should appoint the committee he asks for. The noble Lord should recollect that we are not speaking of a colony under the direct dominion of the Crown, or with a representative government and under the direct control of the Crown, but of the Ionian Islands as constituted under the treaty of 1815, and over which her Majesty presides under the title of Protecting Sovereign. The peculiar nature of the constitution of the Ionian Islands requires, that whatever authority her Majesty may exercise as Protecting Sovereign, she ought not to exert any direct interference over it. I do not say

1013
that some special occasions may not arrive when the Minister for the Crown of the country, or the Lord High Commissioner, may so conduct himself as that some inquiry should not be called for; but the House of Commons should be very cautious before it should appoint any such inquiry, and not at all unless upon the strongest grounds. This I know, that after the noble Lord's motion last year I received strong complaints from the Ionian Islands as to the proceedings taken in this House on that occasion. The present state of the Ionian Islands shows the whole authorities acting in harmony together, and according to the constitution, the Legislature having lately assembled and passed Acts without any difference of opinion. There are no disturbances of the people, who are generally employed, and that at high wages, and is this a state of things where it is fit for the House of Commons to interfere, and to enter into questions before its committee, and to receive evidence of every sort from gentlemen, some of very lively imaginations, of great literary ability no doubt, but who, when they come to treat of political questions, allow their literary and romantic imaginations to enter into their statistical facts, and whose evidence might excite great indignation at first against the Ionian Islands' government, but which would be succeeded by the opposite indignation, that any such evidence should be given. My noble Friend has told us, that various public works have not been carried on, but I trust Sir Howard Douglas's authority in these matters, and conclude that they have been completed The question of the Philorthodox Society, I will not go into. The Greek government have not thought it necessary to go very deeply into it—the danger of it has passed—and I do not think that Sir Howard Douglas has taken any very severe measures upon it. My noble Friend said, with respect to the question of finance—on which I thought he was going to make some important statement—that a letter sent out to Corfu had been opened by the Post-office. I can give no answer to that complaint. Sir Howard Douglas frequently urged on the Government, attacked as he was by those who said he was hostile to giving free institutions to the Ionian Islands, strong representations in favour of a diminution of their burdens—a fact so highly credit-
1014
able to him, that I cannot refrain from mentioning it on this occasion. Under these circumstances, then, i cannot see, Sir, that the Ionian States present any object for u committee of the House of Commons to inquire into, and particularly when I consider that no later than last year there was a very general opinion expressed in this House that there existed no necessity for making those alterations which my noble Friend appears to think requisite; and I am sorry my noble Friend has again thought it necessary to agitate this subject, because, knowing the extraordinary political activity and restless spirit of many parties connected with these islands, and the manner in which they may look at this motion, I cannot but consider the result likely to lead to still further desire for political changes, which it is impossible to realise, rather than to promote and contribute to the development of that improvement which would, otherwise, take place in the Ionian States. I shall, therefore, oppose the motion of my noble Friend.
Sir H. Hardingemust defend the conduct of his absent Friend (Sir H. Douglas) from the insinuations which the noble Lord opposite had made against him, but at so late an hour he would not go into (he various details into which the noble Lord had travelled in connexion with the subject. At the same time he must say, he had read the letter of the noble Lord, to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, respecting Sir H. Douglas with the greatest pain. With respect to the charges made against his absent friend, that he was hostile to granting freer institutions to the Ionian States, he considered the noble Lord (J. Russell) had, in his letter of the 30th of November last, sufficiently answered all those charges, and particularly when he said that, if the changes that were claimed were granted, the people of those islands themselves would be the first sufferers in consequence. Sir H. Douglas was an active and most able officer, and he had the concurrence of the Secretary of State himself in saying that the Ionian Islands were not in a fit state for free institutions. With respect, however, to the charge or insinuation of the noble Lord (Lord Charles Fitzroy) as to Sir H. Douglas having opened a letter and replaced it in its cover, he begged the noble Lord would be kind enough to state to the

1015
House whether he really intended to make such a charge against his absent Friend, for he could not conceive that such was his intention.
Lord Charles Fitzroypresumed, that the gallant Member had not heard the letter read from Mr. Courage, who distinctly states, that the Post-office was invested with the power to open letters. An authority that could only emanate from the Government. The letter that he (Lord Charles Fitzroy) alluded to, had been detained four months in the Corfu post-office, and came out from thence on delivery, with the Corfu post-mark upon it, although this letter had been sent under cover to a merchant who never received it.
Sir R. Inglisthought the conduct of Sir H. Douglas highly creditable, and that he was fully deserving of the testimonials in his favour which had appeared in the Ionian papers.
Mr. Humesaid, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies seemed to imagine that the House of Commons had no right to interfere in the matter; but he (Mr. Hume) contended that there was no other tribunal to which an appeal could be made. He supported the motion, and was astonished that the friends of Sir Howard Douglas did not court the inquiry which was sought for. The Parliament of the Ionian Islands had been curiously elected under the auspices of Sir Howard Douglas. The members of that legislature had, in fact, been elected at the point of the bayonet. Under such circumstances could it be a matter of surprise that a body so elected should be loud in their expression of devotion to the party who had caused their election. The freedom of the press, too, was annihilated under physical restraint. If the House of Commons did not allow this inquiry, they neglected their duty. If the noble Lord were supported by no other Member than himself, he would advise his noble Friend to divide the House.
Sir R. Peelreferred to a report of a finance committee on the annual expenditure of the Ionian Islands, for the purpose of showing that the state of the finances under former governors was no better than at present, and said, that if such a thing could be done as to call for a committee of inquiry of the House of Commons with respect to Sir H. Douglas, an officer who, for six years, had served his country in a
1016
post of great difficulty, it would be only equally fair to do the same with reference to all former Governors. This would lead to endless vexation, and would certainly be the very thing to make the Ionian Islands feel, not that they were under the protection of this country, as the noble Lord had pointed out, but that they were a dependency of the British Crown. The noble Lord approved of the manner in which Sir H. Douglas had executed his high functions, and it could not be said that the noble Lord had any bias in his favour. The motives and prudence of Sir H. Douglas had been approved of by the Government, and he believed that the only reason why Sir H. Douglas had been recalled, was because he had held the office of Governor of the Ionian Isles for the ordinary period, and not because the manner in which he exercised the office of High Commissioner had been disapproved of by her Majesty's Government. He was satisfied that the offensive expressions which had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny in reference to Sir H. Douglas were not warranted by any thing which the noble Lord bad stated, and he would appeal to the noble Lord in confirmation of this assertion.
Mr. Humeadmitted, that the noble Lord had not censured the conduct of Sir H. Douglas, but still he thought there was sufficient ground for inquiry, although the whole of the papers had not been produced.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had not understood him, because what he stated was that, under existing circumstances, no such inquiry as was asked for ought to be granted.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that if the noble Lord disapproved of the conduct of Sir Howard Douglas he would have voted for the inquiry.
Sir C. Greysaid, if the motion were pressed to a division, as he thought there were grounds before the House to justify an inquiry, he should vote for it.
Colonel Rawdonsupported the motion, and expressed his belief that if Sir H. Douglas knew that his conduct was impeached, he would be the first to call for inquiry.
Sir H. Viviandenied that either the honour or the integrity of Sir H. Douglas had been in the least impeached.
Lord Charles Fitzroy, in reply, begged leave to state, that all his remarks must

1017
be considered as solely against the government of Sir Howard Douglas, having unfortunately read the despatch, the character of which he (Lord Charles Fitzroy) had not the slightest notion when he moved for it last year; but, having read it, he felt that he had a public duty to perform, to endeavour to obtain its removal from the records of the Colonial-office, as being a dangerous precedent from the many errors it contained for future Lord High Commissioners.
Sir H. Hardingewas satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Lord.
The House divided on the Question, "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the Papers relating to the Ionian States, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 22nd day of June, 1840.":—Ayes 10; Noes 28—Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Evans, W.

Scholefield, J.

Greg, R. H.

Strutt, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Wood, B.

Morris, D.

Muntz, G. F.

TELLERS.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Hume, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Fitzroy, Lord C.

List of the NOES.

Ashley, Lord

Maule, hon. F.

Barrington, Viscount

Paget, Lord A.

Blackburne, I.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Brother ton, J.

Praed, W. T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Russell, Lord J.

Dundas, D.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A

Estcourt, T.

Smith, R. V,

Gladstone, J. N.

Sotheron, T. E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Trotter, J.

Gordon, R.

Tufnell, H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J

Wyse, T.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Parker, J.

House adjourned

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Indemnity; Double-Costs: South Australia.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Normanby, from Hackney, Manchester, Birmingham, and other places, for the Drainage Bill; and from Birmingham, for the Jews Declaration Bill.—By the Marquess of Westmeath, and the Marquess of Lansdowne, from the Presbyteries of Athlone, Belfast, and other places, for Non-Intrusion.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from the Ratepayers of Salop, for the Removal of the Tolls on the Bridges.

CRIMES (IRELAND)—EXPLANATION.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that seeing the noble Marquess, the Secretary for the Home Department, in his place, he begged leave to trespass for a few moments on their Lordships' attention, with reference to a matter of a personal nature. It had always been the habit of their Lordships' House, when any Member of it was labouring under an unjust imputation, to allow the individual thus situated to take the earliest opportunity of clearing himself from the charge. Therefore it was, that he felt it necessary to come forward on this occasion. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that previous to the recess, he had made a motion in that House, relative to the criminal calendar at the last Lent assizes for the King's County. On that occasion, the noble Marquess thought proper, acting on
964
the information which had reached him, to give a very strong contradiction to certain statements, which he (the Earl of Charleville), had made to their Lordships. The noble Marquess thought it to be his duty to say:—
"That he (the Earl of Charleville) had not taken those pains to inform himself on the subject which he had presumed to bring under their Lordships' consideration, which he ought to have done."
And the noble Marquess further stated:
" That if he (the Earl of Charleville) had so inquired, he would have found, that Mr. Biddulph was perfectly satisfied with the jury which had been empannelled to try the persons charged with having attempted to murder him."
The noble Marquess said, that Mr. Biddulph had not only expressed his satisfaction, but declared his entire confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the jury, that were empannelled on that occasion. The noble Marquess had then alluded to the trial of Hughes at Armagh, and of Gray, at Monaghan, and stated, that with reference to the empannelling of the jury, the same course was adopted in both these cases; and that the next of kin, had on their trial, expressed their satisfaction and confidence in the juries so empannelled. He recollected perfectly well that the noble Marquess said on that occasion, that:—
" The noble Earl had, in making his statements, left out of view the declaration of Mr. Biddulph himself, that the panel was a fair and impartial one, and that the Solicitor-general concurred in that opinion, observing, that a more impartial jury could not have been sworn. Mr. Biddulph (the noble Marquess continued) observed, that if fifty or sixty names had been struck off the panel, enough would have still remained to constitute a fair and impartial jury; and he was perfectly satisfied, that the jury would give a verdict according to the evidence."
It was not for him to conjecture how this information had reached the noble Marquess; but, in consequence of that statement, Mr. Biddulph, whom he did not know until the attempt was made on his life, had written to him on the subject. Mr. Biddulph was, he believed, considered a Conservative in politics; but, whatever his political opinions were, he was so little of a partisan, that he had voted at the last election for Fitzsimon and Westenra, so that it was clear, that he was by no means violent in his politics.

965
That gentleman, considering, that a very unfair attack had been made on him (the Earl of Charleville), had thought proper to address a letter to him, which he should now read. The noble Earl then read the letter, in which Mr. Biddulph said:—
" That he had read with much attention the statement of the noble Earl, and the answer of the Marquess of Normanby, and the latter was by no means correct, let it emanate from what quarter it might. He had objected to a person on the jury; but he was told, that the ground of his objection was not substantial, because he only acted on rumour, and not on positive knowledge. He had never expressed an opinion, that the jury was a fair and impartial one; for he felt, that they would never agree; but he said, that a better jury could not be formed out of the persons who remained, those whom he considered fair and impartial being exhausted, thus leaving him without an alternative."
He had also received a letter from Mr. Quin, in which it was stated, that the law officer of the Grown had refused to object to a juror, of the name of Collins, (who was a man of very bad character) upon the trial of certain persons, accused of the murder of a man named Powell, who was in the employ of Mr. Quin, at the time of the murder. The writer stated:—
" That neither he, nor the next of kin of the deceased, had approved of the jury empanelled on that occasion."
He had also received a communication from Mr. Parker, who was present at the trial of Gray, at the Monaghan assizes, who stated:—
" That the challenges made by the Crown on that occasion were far more extensive than those made by the Crown, on the trial of Hughes, at Armagh. In the former case, many persons, who were not publicans, were challenged."
The writer concluded by saying:—
" We are obliged to you, for exposing the manner in which juries are formed."
The noble Marquess, in the course of his reply, had charged him with having employed a person of most infamous character to collect information on the occasion of the murder of Lord Norbury. In answer to that, he would say, that he was informed by Mr. Macdonald, to whom he had applied on the subject, that Sergeant Goulding, the individual alluded to In the noble Marquess, had been seventeen years in the service. If, therefore, any
966
charge was made, with respect to his being an improper person to serve in the constabulary force, it must apply to those who appointed him to the situation, and not to him, who knew nothing of the character of the man, when he employed him. His reason for so employing him, was because he resided in the district, and was well acquainted with it. Captain Crawford, to whom he had written relative to the man, stated in answer:—
" That, during his service of seventeen years Goulding had been promoted from one step to another, and this he could say, that while he was connected with the constabulary force in the King's County, he considered the conduct of Goulding to be good, and that he performed his functions satisfactorily."
Having thus vindicated himself from the charge of the noble Marquess by stating these facts, he would leave it to the noble Marquess to offer any explanation which he might think necessary.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad nothing to add to his former explanation on this subject He had not stated anything upon vague information, but had actually read the words of Mr. Moore, the Solictor-general, and of Mr. Dale, the Crown-Solicitor, with regard to the empannelling of the jury. In their statements there was not the slightest allusion to what was subsequently brought forward by the noble Earl. He would have brought down the letters of those gentlemen if the noble Earl had given him notice that he intended again to introduce the subject; but he could state, from his own recollection, that they were of opinion that the panel was perfectly correct in Mr. Biddulph's case. The letters contained no statement that the respectable part of the panel had been exhausted, and the law officers declared that at the time the parties, so far as they knew, gave to the jury their most unqualified approbation. One of them was challenged by Mr. Biddulph, merely because he did not like the individual; but he gave no reason for the challenge. With respect to what was said by Mr. Parker it should be observed that he did not state that the same number of challenges was made at Armagh and at Monaghan. It was not in his power to make such a statement. But Mr. Hamilton, the law officer of the Crown, stated that the same system was pursued in each instance. He had admitted distinctly, at the time, that there were more challenges at Monaghan

967
than at Armagh. At Armagh the challenges were only two or three, while at Monaghan they were nine or ten. With respect to Goulding, he had not said that at the time of the murder of Lord Norbury the noble Earl who employed the man to seek for information knew that he was a bad character. His observation was, that the noble Earl having, at the time, employed a person who afterwards turned out to be an in famous character, it was somewhat too much for the noble Earl to found a charge against the Government on statements derived from such a source.
The Earl of Charleville.—The noble Marquess accused me of having knowingly employed a man of bad character.
The Marquess of Normanbyassurred the House that he did not intend to convey any such charge. The man was found to be a perjurer, and otherwise a bad character, and he thought, when the noble Earl was acquainted with the fact, it ought to have made him a little distrustful of information coining from such a suspicious quarter.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that he was one of the few who had sat through the debate which took place before the holidays. He then thought that the statement of his noble Friend was a very able and a very dispassionate one, and also that the reply to it by the noble Marquess was very satisfactory. But that reply was entirely founded on the statements which it contained, and if those statements were shown to be inaccurate, the reply would of course lack all its value and its force. Now, these statements had been seriously impugned by persons whose knowledge on the subject could not be doubted—nay, had been plainly and directly contradicted, and it was the bounden duty of the noble Marquess to establish the accuracy of his own account and to overturn the facts as stated in the letter read to their Lordships that evening. This he had not yet done; and, in fact, the speech attempting to do so, which they had just heard, was, in his opinion, very unsatisfactory. The charge brought against the Government was a serious one—of having laid down a system with regard to the administration of justice, from which, under peculiar circumstances, and in a case where political prejudice was supposed to be the motive of thei conduct, they had entirely deviated. It was the duty of the noble Marquess to give every information in his power, and
968
to inform the House whether the reports of the law officers were accurate, or whether they had given a false account of their conduct to the Executive Government. The answer of the noble Marquess to the charges brought forward by his noble Friend had been, he had thought at the time, quite satisfactory; but now those statements contained in that answer were disputed, on which its whole value depended, his reply was quite the contrary.
The Marquess of Westmeathobserved, that his noble Friend had only done his duty in bringing forward this statement, although the strongest imputation of motives had been indulged against him. It would be well worth the Prime Minister's while, if his subordinates were ignorant of the true state of Ireland, and the real danger incurred by the gentlemen who lived in that country, to reconsider those principles which the noble M'arquess had so triumphantly asserted ought to guide her Majesty's Government in Ireland. For what, he would ask, was the privilege of challenging jurors given to the Crown? Was it that, by suspending it on particular occasions, they might administer to the appetite for a low and vulgar popularity. The conduct of the officers of the Crown was calculated to sacrifice the lives of those gentlemen, who, with himself and his noble Friend, had the moral courage to uphold the institutions of the country. His noble Friend was not a pensioner upon the public, nor a political adventurer, but a gentleman of ample fortune who had a good house to receive his friends in, and had the good sense to live in it. Though his noble Friend had merely called their Lordships' attention to an extraordinary deviation from the ordinary course with regard to challenges, he had been most unjustly charged with interfering with the due administration of justice.
The Earl of Charleville, in reply, stated that which he had before mentioned to their Lordships, that Goulding had never given him any information. With regard to his character, the only charge against him was, that he had been flogged in the army twenty-seven years ago, but since that time he had served for seven years in the constabulary, and had retired at his own request. The only way in which he had employed him was to gain information respecting the murder of Lord Norbury, and he had done so because he alone could efficiently perform that duty.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he should certainly make inquiries as to the correctness of the reports from which he had gained his information respecting the cases of Biddulph and Grey, and with regard to Goulding, he had called him a person of infamous character, not because he had been flogged in the army twenty-four years ago, but in consequence of conduct which he had pursued long subsequent to that period. In the absence of precise information he would not admit that there was any difference between the modes of challenging jurors in the King's county, in Armagh, and Monaghan. He knew that they were the same in the two latter, and he had every reason to believe that it was the same in all three.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that he was at direct issue with the noble Marquess upon these two points. The noble Marquess admitted, that in Armagh none were set aside by the Crown except publicans, while in Monaghan there were others. Mr. O'Loghlen's instructions were, that without cause none but publicans should be set aside. His statement was, that it had been so in Armagh, but that in Monagban others besides publicans had been ordered to stand aside, and that the rule had also been violated in the King's county.
The Marquess of Normanbycontended that the plan laid down for the guidance of the Crown solicitor's conduct was the same in all cases, and that he would have challenged the same persons in any other county, for the same cause, if it existed.
Subject dropped.

BIRMINGHAM RIOTS.
The Earl of Warwickpresented a petition from Atherstone, in the county of Warwick, praying that the hundred in which it was placed might not be assessed to make good the damages done at the riots at Birmingham in the year 1839. The noble Earl stated, that he had before presented a similar petition, and that he thought the case was one of peculiar hardship. Atherstone, which was thirty miles from Birmingham, received no advantage whatever from that town, and, therefore, he thought it was most unjust that it should be assessed in the way which was proposed. He trusted that the noble Marquess opposite would give the subject his best consideration.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he
970
had seen a deputation from the county of Warwick on the subject some lime ago, and he was prepared to admit, that the case was one of some hardship; but as the law was general it was very difficult to apply a particular remedy in this case. He could only assure the noble Earl that he would give the subject the best consideration.
Adjourned.