Sitting of 27 March 1843

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For the City of Durham, in the room of Captain FitzRoy, Governor of New Zealand.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Fits Roy Kelly, Esq., for Cam bridge Borough.
BILLS. Public.—Reported.—Registration of Voters.
3°. and passed:—Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Private—2a. Temperance Friendly Society; Hull Waterworks; Liverpool Docks; Anderton Carrying Company; Aberdeen Harbour; Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation; Belmont Reservoir; Bolton Waterworks; Schoolmaster Widows Fund (Ireland); Borrowstounness Harbour and Improvement.
Reported ߞCockermouth Roads; Trentham Roads.
3°. and passed;—Lady Fleetwood's Naturalization; Samwell's name; Oxford and Barest Navigation.

PETITIONS PRESRNTED. By Mr. Tancred, from Harmony Hal
, for Home Colonization.—By Messrs. Brotherton, Greene, Dr. Bowring, and Sir G. Strickland, from Lostock, Rumworth, Ainsworth, Tong, Heaton, 6harples, Harwich, Edgworth, Sabden, Higham, Barrowford, Burnley, Little Hutton, Breightmet, and Cottom, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Brotherton, Mr. V. Smith, Lord John Russell, Mr. Greene, and Lord R. Grosvenor, from Newbury, Manchester, Holme Mill, Welford, and Tattenhall, against the Factories Bill.—By Mr. Darby from Lladdmiolan; and Hartfield, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Nottingham, Kirkdale, and James Mitchel, against the Conduct of the Magistracy during the late Disturbances.—By Sir G. Strickland, Mr. Christopher, Lord F. Egarton, and Capt. Polhill. from Wainfleet, Wakefield, Preston, Oldham, and Bedford, against the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill.—By Mr. Ferrand, from Letham, against Machinery, and from Bishop Auckland, against the Truck System,—By Mr. Grogan from the Royal College of Surgeons (Dublin), for Inquiry into the Medical Charities in Ireland.—By Mr. E. Tennent, from Newry, against the Pawnbrokers (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Colville, from Scarcliffe, and Brewers, for Church Extension.—From Stratford-upon-Avon and from an Anti-Slavery Society at Bridgewater against Portions of the American Treaty.—From Coventry, Warwick, and Leamington Brewers, for Relief from Surcharges.—From London, against the Repeal of the Mines and Collieries Act—From Cambridge, against the Income-tax.—From George Julian Harney, for In-
6
quiry into his case.—From the Limerick Union, against the Irish Poor-law.

GLASGOW POLICE.
Mr. Oswald,seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, asked whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government, during the present Session of Parliament, to introduce a bill for the regulation of the police within the Parliamentary districts of Glasgow?
Sir J. Grahamreplied, that the hon. Gentleman must be aware that there were already three private bills before the House for the regulation of the police of Glasgow and its suburbs. Now, considering that Glasgow is the second city in point of population in the empire, it did appear advisable to her Majesty's Government, with the assent of the rate-payers, to introduce an uniform system of police in Glasgow and its suburbs; at the same time they were quite aware that the efficiency of such police would much depend on the assent of the rate-payers to the rate to be laid. He was sorry to learn, that great excitement prevailed in that city, in consequence of the announcement that Government intended to introduce a general measure. It was the anxious wish of her Majesty's Government, to make an arrangement with a more general concurrence. To pass the bills now before Parliament, unless precautions were taken, would be a serious bar to such an arrangement. He was perfectly willing to declare, on the part of her Majesty's Government, that during the present Session they would not attempt to force a general system of police on Glasgow; but he would propose in each separate measure before the House to introduce clauses of suspension with regard to the criminal police, declaring they should only endure till it should be by Parliament otherwise provided. It would then be open to Parliament, notwithstanding these local acts, to pass a general measure. If he did not succeed in introducing such clauses, of course it would be open to him to proceed, even during the present Session, with a general bill.

SUPPLY—CIVIL CONTINGENCIES—FISHERIES, &c
House in committee of Supply.
On the motion that 110,000 l, be granted for civil contingencies.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that there were a great number of items in these charges, which ought not to be paid by the public. The cost for foreign ambassadors was already enormous, and here he found a sum of 19,800 l. for extras during this year. A comparison with the United States made this charge most striking, and yet it was admitted that no country was better served, there were no men of higher character, integrity, and fitness, than the foreign ministers of the United States. The cost of our foreign ministers with the extras this year, was 205,900 l. for the pay and expences of twenty-six persons: the United States employed twenty-two persons, and the whole cost was Only 28,200 l.: the difference between the cost of the two countries, was perfectly monstrous, and yet if there were a difference, the Americans had persons of superior talents, and generally outwitted the ministers of other countries. There were some embassies to the petty states of Germany, for which large sums were expended, and which were totally uncalled for. What could we want with a chargé d'affaires at the petty court of Wirtemberg? Yet we had one who cost 3,257 l. this year. The chargé d'affaires in Saxony cost 3,350 l., and the cost of our representative at the little state of Tuscany last year amounted to 3,265 l. The ministers of this country at these petty states cost nearly twice as much as the American representatives at this court, or at the courts of France, Russia, Prussia, Constantinople, or any of the other great courts. The consuls were quite capable of performing all the civil duties required at these small courts. There were other charges in this vote to which he should decidedly object. He found a charge incurred by Lord Wilton for going to the court of Saxony to invest the sovereign with the Order of the Gartar, amounting to 1,117 l. Was it not a reflection upon the British nobility that they could not convey a mark of honour from her Majesty to a foreign king, without coming upon the overtaxed people of this country to be paid for it? 53 l. was charged for his passage to Rotterdam, a passage which ordinarily took twenty or twenty-four hours, and cost 2l. to each person; and then there was a charge of 65 l. for his journey from Rotterdam to Dresden. Such a charge as this ought not to appear upon the public accounts against the people of this country. The
8
next was a very heavy charge of 7,680 l. for extra expences incurred in the embassy at Constantinople, independent of the pay of the ambassador, and those with him—the whole cost this year not being less than 16,230 l. Then was an extra charge of 1,591 l. for the passage of Sir Charles Bagot to Canada. Had there ever been seen such a charge for conveying a governor? When he took the items, it appeared ridiculous to allow them. There was 180 l. for the remainder of allowance for the cost of passage, and an item of 911 l. for the conveyance of Sir Charles Bagot's baggage from New York to Canada. This charge was perfectly astounding: there must be some mistake in it. There was besides a charge of 500 l. for sending a steamer from Quebec to Halifax. If that were necessary, why did not the governor take his baggage with him? If he had so done, the country would have saved the 911 l. Then there was a charge of 835 l. for the robes, collars, and badges of the knights of the several orders—a charge which he was at a loss to know why the public should pay, instead of the parties upon whom her Majesty conferred the distinction. And there was also a charge of the same character, that of 242 l. for heralds and pursuivants' commutation, in lieu of insignia and tabards, and a charge of 229 l. for a marshal of the ceremonies. What on earth did the public gain by that? Then he must call the attention of the House to a charge of 1,921 l. for the clothing supplied to the trumpeters of the two regiments of Life Guards. If there were any ground for that charge at all, it appeared that the proper place for it was the army estimates. Then there was a charge of 55 l. for altering the arms of the Prince of Wales. Now, the Prince had large revenues arising from the Duchy of Cornwall, and the expense ought to be charged upon those revenues. The total of the Household expences was 6,539 l. and he should feel it his duty to propose a reduction to the extent of those items he had pointed out.
Sir George Clerksaid, that in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, why a separate vote was not taken on each of the six branches, he could only say that the paper was an account of the manner in which the sum of 130,000 l. voted last year, for civil contingencies had been expended. The hon. Member had objected to the payment of the foreign ministers;

9
but those payments were made under the authority of regulations made in 1831, when the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, was in office. The present payments were in strict conformity with those regulations, and the allowance to those persons was seldom more than necessary for actual expenditure. In regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member of the expense incurred by the special mission, for the purpose of investing the King of Saxony with the order of the Garter, and to the remark he made that no Member of the English nobility could be found to undertake that mission, without saddling the country with the expense, he could only say, that he believed that Earl Wilton had declined to receive anything for his services, and that the sum in question was to meet the necessary expenses of the king-at-arms, heralds, and other officers, who had accompanied the noble Earl to perform the ceremonial. If the hon. Member would refer to former accounts of the civil contingencies, where there had been charges for special missions, for similar purposes, he would find, that none had been conducted at a less expense. The hon. Member had also expressed his surprise at the amount of passage-money on that occasion, being 53 l. from London to Rotterdam. The facts were these; Earl Wilton, Garter king-at-arms, and other officers, embarked for the purpose of going, not to Rotterdam, but to Hamburgh, a voyage of fifty or sixty hours. The expenses allowed to the captain of the vessel were in accordance with the regulations framed by the Board of Admiralty, in respect to vessels engaged in the public service. In consequence of bad weather, the vessel was engaged three days at sea, and at last, not being able to reach Hamburgh, was obliged to put in at Rotterdam. The expense, therefore, was not incurred under ordinary circumstances, but inconsequence of the weather. The hon. Member had likewise commented upon the expense of the embassy to Constantinople; but if the hon. Member had looked into the items he would have seen that the amount was increased by a charge of 2,750 l. for the salaries of dragomans, and a great part of that expense was incurred for the purpose of affording education to students in the Turkish language, who might afterwards be attached to the embassy, and that was one of the most important
10
changes that had been introduced into diplomatic arrangements. Another large portion of the expense arose from the necessity of paying a large rent for official residences, the embassy having been destroyed by fire. A new building was, however, in preparation, and when completed, the country would be relieved from that charge. With respect to the conveyance of the baggage of Sir C. Bagot, it was true the expense was larger than on similar occasions, but the reason was this. In consequence of the death of Lord Sydenham, it became necessary to appoint a governor in Canada immediately. An accident happened to the vessel in which Sir C. Bagot embarked, and the expense of outfitting had to be incurred again, and a vessel hired to convey the Governor. No blame, however, could possibly be attached to Sir C. Bagot for that. As to the expense of 835 l. for the badges and collars of the knights, it had been the custom from time immemorial for the Sovereign, when conferring a distinction of the kind, to present the knight with the decorations. Those decorations, were, however, afterwards returned by the families of deceased knights, and the expense was for repairing them. The charge of 1,921 l. for the clothing of the trumpeters of the Life Guards was not annual, it was only for the dresses to be worn on state occasions, and was made about once in three years. The dresses were supplied by contract, and the lowest tender had been taken; moreover, the term "trumpeters" included all the band. When the new arrangement of the civil list was made, it was thought proper that all these disbursements should no longer be charged upon the civil list, but should form a charge to be defrayed by the public, and since 1815 the practice had been to place them in the civil contingencies. In regard to the Prince of Wales's christening, it had been thought becoming that that ceremony should be performed in one of the sacred edifices of the country, and no place was thought more eligible than St. George's chapel. A heavy expense had been incurred in fitting up the chapel for the occasion. The expense had been greater in consequence of the visit of the King of Prussia, and the time of year at which the ceremony had taken place. Altogether the entire vote was 20,000 l. less than last year, and 5,000 l. less than the year preceding.
Captain Pechell:On several occasions he had sought information on the subject of the Channel Fisheries, and the reply had generally been that, to give that information would be detrimental to the public service. In the year 1839, the noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, effected a treaty with France for regulating the fisheries on the coasts of the two countries, and a commission was appointed, in order to lay down certain rules upon which an act of Parliament was to be founded. There was great praise due to the noble Lord. He (Captain Pechell) wished to know what was the existing state of the question with regard to France at this moment.
Sir G. Clerkbelieved, that very shortly the arrangement of the commissioners would be in a complete state, and that a bill founded upon them would be introduced during the present Session of Parliament.
Captain Pechellwished to know, if that point made by the French Government, that the fishing boats of France should be allowed to enter within the three miles of ground ceded to this country, had been insisted upon. That point had been urged by the French, and resisted by the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston).
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the question was whether, in the negotiations now going on, the commissioners had come to any agreement on the point that had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member. The treaty between the two countries contained an article by which each country reserved, exclusively for the use of its own subjects, the right to fish within three miles of its own coasts. Certain rules were then framed for the guidance of the fishermen when they met. The French commissioner had, indeed, requested that in those regulations should be contained an article permitting the French fishing boats to enter and station themselves within our limits, although the exclusive use of the water within those limits was reserved to our own boats. That point was reserved for further consideration. It was, however, obvious, if the French boats were permitted to enter and station themselves within those limits, such a permission would annul the article in the treaty, by which the exclusive right was reserved for our own fishermen. France, by her present law, not only prevented our boats from entering within three miles
12
of her coast, but even went beyond what might be justified by the international law, for he believed she prevented the approach of the boats within six miles. Now, if the proposal of the French commissioner had been for mutual privileges, we should not get the worth of what we gave, and he thought that the negotiation should stand on its original footing. If the French boats were allowed to enter and station themselves within the three miles, we could have no security that they would not violate the treaty within those limits by fishing. Great facilities for smuggling, moreover, would be afforded by such a permission, and the spirit of our revenue laws would be violated.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that this fishery question was one, like many others which he had found not brought to a final close. It was a question very likely to cause collision, and the present Government had attempted to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. He had every reason to hope that an arrangement would be shortly concluded, and as soon as it was complete, the whole should be laid upon the Table of the House. But no hon. Member had a right to take up a particular point, and, before a final arrangement had been made, to ask what the Government intended to do upon that point. When the whole arrangement was made, he should lay it before the House, so as to enable them to judge whether it was satisfactory, and to the interests of the country, or not.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to say, that the present was one of many questions which the late Government had left unsettled, but he begged leave to remind the right hon. Baronet that it was one of the questions which the Government to which the right hon. Baronet belonged had left unsettled. The late Government, he might observe, had settled the oyster question. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at the name, if they pleased, but he assured them they would not have laughed at the difficulties of that question, nor at the war which it might have given rise to. The question had been in dispute since the peace of 1815, and when the right hon. Baronet opposite was Home Secretary, it had been pending some time. Now, although some mere incidental matter had been left unsettled by the late Govern-

13
meat, yet that Government had obtained from the French Government a treaty of great importance, settling the limits of the fishing between Jersey and the coast of France, which had caused serious disputes. That was not all; they had not only settled the limits of the oyster fisheries, but a question that had never been attempted before—the right of general fishery. If the right hon. Baronet had no better subject of exultation than this question, which he had been unable to settle during the year and a half he had been in office, he certainly did not envy him.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had made it no subject of exultation; he had stated a simple fact. The question had long been subject to dispute; but from 1815 to 1827 the noble Lord would recollect that he was himself connected with the Government. [Viscount Palmerston: Not in the Cabinet.] Not not in the Cabinet, but the noble Lord was Secretary-at-war. When be was Secretary of State he was not aware that there was any danger of conflict arising from the subject, and he had given entire credit to the noble Lord for having made a permanent arrangement of the principle. What he bad said, was, that it bad been left to certain commissioners to ascertain and determine certain details—that those details were not settled when the noble Lord left office. He said that there was reason to hope for an amicable adjustment. The state, however, in which the noble Lord had left the question was as pregnant with difficulty as in 1828 and 1829. He (Sir R. Peel) repeated, that it was not right for any hon. Member to ask questions relative to the intentions of Government on a particular point of an arrangement when the whole was not finally completed.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the right hon. Baronet wag mistaken in saying that the commission had been appointed to regulate all the details of the fisheries. The treaty settled two things finally, and those two things were the matters out of which the collision had arisen. The temporary arrangement made in 1822 had not had the effect of preventing collisions, for after that collisions occurred as often as before. The first great source of difference was, that our fishermen bad trespassed upon the limits of the French oyster fisheries, and the ground of excuse was, that the French
14
limits were too extensive, and those limits excluded our men from grounds on which they could fish with advantage. The late Government obtained from the French an extension of the limits, and that put an end to those points of difficulty and dissatisfaction. But there was another question which had never been touched upon by the right hon. Baronet, namely, the encroachment of the French fisherman within three miles of the shores of this country. Upon that point the late Government had concluded with France a most satisfactory arrangement, by which each country retained the sole right of fishing within that limit from its own coast. There were also some regulations respecting the manner in which the fishermen were to treat each other if they met. The only point left was, that the French commissioners asked to allow the fishing boats of that nation to anchor, within three miles, which, if assented to, would virtually cancel the most important article of the treaty. He thought that it would be better that no regulations of the kind alluded to should be made, but of course, after what had been said by the right hon. Baronet with respect to the probable settlement of this question, he could not press for any explanation as to the proposed regulations. Alt that he meant to say was, that the main matters of dispute had been settled by the treaty.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that something else besides the mere articles of the treaty were absolutely necessary, and as such was the case the regulations were being framed, and as soon as they were concluded they should be laid on the Table of the House. It was not, however, to be expected, that he could go into an explanation of parts of those regulations when the whole question was in the course of settlement.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to know why this country was called on to pay the expenses of the Prince of Saxe Coburg on his voyage to this country, and of the Duchess of Victoria in her journey from Malaga to Gibraltar. He thought that those foreigners who were in the habit of coming over here from the Continent ought to pay their own expenses. Again, it appeared that those foreigners, when they landed in this country, were allowed to smuggle goods to any amount. Their persons wore considered sacred, and they were exempted from all those liabilities to

15
which British subjects were exposed. He believed, too, that foreigners did not smuggle goods for their own use, as was usually the case with Englishmen; but their goods were usually consigned to waiters and parties at the different inns, and sold by those persons for the benefit of the foreigners. Now, he saw no reason why this exemption should be allowed, and why foreigners should not be liable to the payment of the same customs duties as Englishmen.
Mr. Humedeprecated the desultory manner in which the House was in the habit of disposing of the miscellaneous estimates and civil contingencies. There were upwards of 200 items in the estimates before the House, very many of which required explanation, and he must again, for the twentieth time, submit to the right hon. Baronet the propriety of having these estimates examined by a committee before they were presented to the House. There was scarcely any part of the world in which such a course was not pursued, and with the best possible results. Perhaps the House was not aware of the amount of money voted in this desultory manner. They would be that night called on to vote, and, in all probability, there would be voted 2,938,000 l. It was impossible that any man, whatever his talents and opportunities, to ascertain the nature of all the items that that sum included. To many of those items they were obliged to object, and yet they could get no information respecting them. The hon. Member then pointed out some of the items which he thought particularly liable to objection. To defray the expense of the mission of the Earl of Wilton and Sir C. Young to Dresden, to invest the King of Saxony with the order of the Garter, he found a charge of 1,065 l. What Government, he should be glad to know, would pay so much as we did for sending these baubles to distinguished foreigners? 603 l. for the voyage of the Bishop of Jerusalem to Jaffa was an item of which he should like to have some explanation. Another item of a similar nature was 911 l. for conveying Sir C. Bagot from New York to Canada, with a second charge of 180 l., and a charge of 500 l. as remuneration to Messrs. Cunard, for losses incurred in conveying Sir C. Bagot to Quebec. These were charges of the justice of which it was impossible for him to judge without some additional information. As
16
it was they appeared to him very excessive. He also objected to 344 l. to Captain Sir E. Parry for remuneration and expenses while employed in an inquiry respecting the Caledonian Canal; to 385 l. to Mr. Walker, the engineer, for services connected with Leith harbour; to 634 l. to a commission for revising the offices of the Dublin courts; to 3,313 l. for expenses incurred by the Government of the Cape of Good Hope and Mauritius on account of refugees; and also to some of the charges defrayed by officers of the household, amounting to 6,539 l., much larger than in former years. There was a charge of 2,753 l. for the trial of Mr. M'Leod in the United States. Now, he did not see why he should not have been allowed to pay his own expenses. Mr. M'Leod had boasted in a public company at New York that he had been one of those who had destroyed the Caroline. He must also object to the item of 2,341 l. to pay fees for passing declared accounts, and for compensation in lieu of fees to officers of the Exchequer. After the reform which had taken place in the Court of Exchequer he wished to know why the country was to be put to the expense of paying the Exchequer officers for passing their own accounts; and whether the fees were not abolished. 577 l. for erecting the Bishoprics of Barbadoes, Antigua, Guiana, Gibraltar, and Tasmania, was a charge he should like to have explained; for they had been told that the bishops would be appointed in those cases without a penny expense. This was a breach of faith, and he hoped the correspondence on the subject would be produced. The amount issued for the relief of the distress in the western districts of Ireland was 3,036 l.Now, he did not object to this, but he wished to know under what circumstances it was paid? When an application was made for a grant on account of the distress in Scotland, they were told that no money could be given. If there was no money for the distress in Scotland, where did this money for Ireland come from? There was a number of other items which he should wish to see explained, but he would not detain the House by enumerating them. He was convinced that there could be no satisfactory explanation laid before the House until the Government consented to refer these estimates to a committee, to be there examined and then reported to the House.
Sir Robert Peelbegged to point out to the hon. Gentleman that this was not an estimate, but an account of money actually spent. The House last year, as usual, voted to the Government a sum to meet unforeseen expenses. And the Government had, he would submit, shown themselves not altogether unworthy of the confidence thus placed in their discretion, by retaining unexpended no less than 15,000 l. of the sum which had been placed at their disposal. He differed, therefore, from the hon. Gentleman as to the advantage of appointing a committee to inquire into accounts of this nature, for he believed the best possible check against the abuse of a discretionary power was to publish every item of the expenditure, as had been the case in the present instance, and to invite the sort of questioning which the Government was now submitted to. As to the advance of 3,000 l. for relieving the distress in the West of Ireland, of which the whole details should be readily given if Parliament required it, although he was aware that it was not desirable generally to make advances of public money, yet they could not always abide by that rigid rule. The potatoe crop had entirely failed, and deep distress and much disease had been the result; and the Government had the great satisfaction of believing that by the comparatively small expenditure of 3,000 l. they had alleviated many of those evils at the time when they were most pressing, and he felt convinced that the House would justify them in that expenditure. As to the accounts generally, he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would admit that her Majesty's Government had endeavoured to simplify them to the utmost, and they had also deprived the Government, which he thought was desirable, of much of its discretionary power, by including many items in the regular estimates, which were formerly included in the vote for civil contingencies. With respect to the charge of 343 l. connected with the Caledonian Canal, however unwise the speculation might have been, it had gone on so far, and the question was whether the works should be destroyed, which would cost 40,000 l., or whether the undertaking should be completed, which would cost 150,000 l.? Before the Government decided upon the point it was obviously necessary that the actual state of things should be ascertained by survey, and accordingly Captain Parry, an eminent offi
18
cer, was sent down for that purpose. He received no salary for this service, and the amount of which the hon. Gentleman complained was merely the sum of 343 l. which the gallant officer's actual expenses amounted to. The hon. Gentleman would hardly say that Captain Parry should be called upon to pay his own expenses when employed on the public service. With respect to the cost of Lord Wilton's special mission, here, too, the only sum which the House was called upon to sanction was that which the noble Lord's actual expenses of the journey came to; for he received no salary or payment himself upon the occasion. The hon. Member had spoken of the Order of the Garter as a bauble, but it was an honour coveted by the Sovereigns of Europe, and in this ancient monarchy he did not think the public feeling would altogether agree with the feeling expressed by the hon. Member. At all events, when the Sovereign of these realms sent such an Order to the head of the house of Saxony, he thought it was at least right to send it in a becoming manner, and even the hon. Member, however, anxious for economy, would scarcely recommend that the insignia should have been packed in straw, put in a box, and transmitted by the mail coach. [Mr. Hume, it might be sent to the resident minister for presentation]. That would not be decorous, though it would not be so bad as sending it direct per mail. The hon. Gentleman complained, among these estimates, of a number of new charges; but these were precisely the charges which, by act of Parliament, had been removed from the civil list, and ordered to be placed among the estimates, in order that each might be scrutinized. As to the charge of conferring the Order of St. Patrick upon Prince Albert, this was one of those charges which heretofore would have equally been defrayed by the public; the only difference was, that it was now placed among the estimates, whereas formerly it would have been placed amongst the civil list charges. The suggestion for abolishing the fees of heralds, and paying them by salaries, would be attended with no public advantage, but would rather add to the charge upon the public. The hon. Gentleman complained of the 2,500 l. which was charged towards defraying the expenses of christening the Prince of Wales. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that the revenues of

19
the Duchy of Lancaster belonged to the Prince of Wales, but this was a mistake: it was the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall which were an appanage of that prince. During the minority of the last Prince of Wales the Crown received the whole of the revenues; but in the present case her Majesty had directed that the whole of these revenues should be put aside, in order to make a future provision for the Prince of Wales. As to the 2,500 l. in question, no doubt the committee was called upon to sanction the payment of that amount towards the charge of celebrating the christening of the heir apparent of these realms, and it was a contribution, he was sure, the public would most readily approve of. No doubt her Majesty, had she thought fit, might have bad the ceremony performed in entire privacy in her own apartments; but her Majesty was desirous that it should be celebrated in public, in a consecrated place, thus setting an example of the highest importance to her subjects. The King of Prussia came over to this country for the sole purpose of taking a part in this ceremony; and the compliment his Majesty thus paid us, and his whole demeanour while with us, had endeared him personally to the people of this country. With the exception of the 2,500 l. now objected to, in so very unexpected a manner, the whole of the heavy expenditure which had been incurred on this occasion was defrayed out of the privy purse; as were also all the expenses of her Majesty's visit to Scotland, which, in the case of the visit to that kingdom of George IV., were defrayed by the public. In addition to this large extra outlay—at a period, too, when the necessary expenses of her private establishment were so largely increasing—the Queen had also, as be had already mentioned on several occasions, taken upon herself, equally with her subjects, the payment of the Income-tax upon the whole of her revenue. Her Majesty exhibited the sincerest desire to meet the exigencies of the country. The sum charged for the conveyance of Sir Charles Bagot would hardly be repudiated by the committee. Although in delicate health, and when the weather was most tempestuous, that gallant officer had, in the most zealous manner, consented to take his departure for Canada without the least delay, so that no injury might arise to the public service from the absence
20
from that province of a governor after the death of Lord Sydenham.
Captain Bernalbegged to ask what was the diocese and what the congregation of the Bishop of Jerusalem? At present he had heard of no other congregation for the right Rev. Bishop, but that which went out with him.
Sir G. Clerkwould suggest that this point might be better brought forward on Monday, when the hon. Member for Bolton proposed his motion as to the propriety of the appointment of English Bishops in Syria at all. The Bishop and his family and suite were conveyed to Alexandria in one of her Majesty's vessels; and as usual when persons of distinction had a passage given them in one of the royal vessels, the captain of the ship had a sum given him for the expenses which he of course incurred, which sum was paid on a scale fixed by the Admiralty.
Sir C. Napierconsidered the Admiralty scale for passages of distinguished persons reasonable. He thought it such as would neither allow the captains of vessels to gain or lose. With respect to Sir C. Bagot, the charge for passage-money appeared enormous, but the right hon. Baronet had explained the reason of this, as Sir C. Bagot had been driven back to this country by stress of weather. He was not quite certain that the Government ought not to take steps to make persons sent out of the country with appointments pay the expense of their passage, by deducting so much from their pay. Naval officers appointed to the East Indies must find their passage out the best way they could, and he did not see why bishops and governors, who were better paid, should not do the same. There was a case with regard to these passage allowances which had come to his knowledge, and which he thought one of great hardship. A gallant officer, Captain Henderson, had been engaged in the naval service on the coast of Spain, and from time to time bad taken on board not less than between 40,000 and 50,000 officers and men, for which he had not received a single sixpence. Now, though the passage was necessarily short, still he thought some allowance ought to have been made. With regard to the services of Captain Parry in the survey of the Caledonian Canal, he concurred with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, that it was only just his expenses should be paid by the Govern-

21
ment, and that it would be highly unjust that that gallant officer should hare to bear his own expenses, when engaged in a service from which he derived no additional emolument. He (Sir C. Napier) also differed from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) as to the expenses of the conveyance of the baubles, as they had been termed, to the King of Saxony.
Captain Bernalsaid, the explanation of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Clerk) was such as to render it imperative on him to divide. No account had been given as to the Church or the diocese over which this Bishop of Jerusalem was to preside; and he (Captain Bernal) presumed the bishop had taken out both Church and diocese with him. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman in the chair in what form it was proper, according to the forms of the House, that he (Captain Bernal) should propose his amendment.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe had a perfectly constitutional right to object to this item of expenditure; but he must protest against the Treasury being individually called upon to bear it. Let it be remembered that the Bishop of Jerusalem had been appointed with the concurrence of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) before that noble Lord quitted office; and it was not in the expectation that the bishop would find a congregation that he was tent out; but he was sent out to protect the religious interests of her Majesty's subjects resident in Syria. Having been appointed, was it not fitting that he should be sent out in a ship of war. In fact, the item objected to, was merely the expense of conveying the bishop in a proper manner to his destination, was merely carrying into execution an act of Parliament.
Captain Bernalhad observed, on referring to the estimates, that the expense of sending out this bishop amounted to more than the cost of Lord Ashburton's transportation to and return from America, and on those grounds he should certainly press his amendment to a division.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that though the question of the policy of the appointment of a Bishop of Jerusalem would come formally under discussion on a future day, he could not allow the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, to take the advantageous position he had assumed by a comparison between that appoint-
22
ment and those of the Catholic and Greek churches. The latter appointment had been sanctioned by the Porte, while the former had been met with difficulties which he was of opinion would not easily be subdued. He, however, wished to take this opportunity of asking what was the present position of the dragomans employed in the service of this country at Constantinople. It had been said, the embassy was now served by foreigners, or individuals sent from this country, and not by natives, and he wished to learn from the right hon. Baronet opposite bow many individuals of English birth were attached to the Ottoman embassy and instructed in the Oriental language?
Mr. Muntzobserved, that he understood, from the tenor of the right hon. Baronet's (Sir R. Peel's) remarks, that there was a necessity for a bishop at Jerusalem; if so, there was a greater necessity for one in Italy, where there was a larger number of British subjects resident than in Syria. But when he considered the present state of the country, he thought the House ought seriously to reflect before they ventured upon any expense whatever, except upon matters in which the interests of the people were concerned. When, therefore, he found bishops appointed where they were not wanted—and as he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet, that a bishop was necessary in the present case—he could not think this expense was a proper application, in the circumstances of the country, of the public money.
Mr. F. T. Baringcould not vote for the amendment, having been a party to the act of last Session, and considered the occasion of the future motion upon the subject of this appointment the fittest time to raise the question of opposition respecting it. As the bishop had been sent out in a British man-of-war, the circumstance, be thought, of paying his expenses, was not one for the censure of the House; but, if it should be considered so, he must say, that he could not vote for the amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
Mr. Humerepeated that, the question was, would the House sanction so large an expenditure? Nothing could in his judgment, be more monstrous than that the expense of sending a bishop to Alexandria should cost 603 l. while Lord Ashburton's mission to America and back should only by a comparison between that appoint- have involved an expense of 528 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to remind the committee that Lord Ashburton went out only on a temporary service—he knew he was shortly to return. in the case of the Bishop of Jerusalem it was different; he was going to a see with the intention of fixing a permanent residence. The latter had, of course, taken with him his whole family, his chaplain, and all the additions essential to the maintenance of his position as a bishop.
Lord J. Mannersremarked, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, he was anxious to state, that while he should refuse to vote for the proposed reduction, he was averse from the appointment of a Bishop of Jerusalem, a question which he hoped would be fully discussed.
Captain Pechellmust say, that there was no analogy between the expenses of Lord Ashburton and those of the Bishop of Jerusalem; the latter had made his passage in the Cyclops in fifteen days, while Lord John Hay did not carry Lord Ashburton to his destination in less than fifty.
Mr. Muntzmaintained that the committee was in the position of auditors of accounts, and, if the accounts were objectionable, the committee had a right, as auditors, to reject them.
Sir R. Peel: I am ready to take this question upon the grounds on which the hon. Member for Birmingham has placed it; and, certainly, if the House is disposed to resist the vote, no man can complain of any undue exercise of power on the part of the Crown or the Government in the matter. Last year this House passed an act the object of which was to enable the Archbishops of York and Canterbury to consecrate a bishop for the purpose of exercising spiritual jurisdiction over Protestants, of all nations, who might be desirous of placing themselves under his authority, for there had been many applications, both from foreign and British Protestants, to be placed under such protection. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) sanctioned the appointment of a Bishop at Jerusalem when in office, as did Parliament, when applied to, and the proper time to have made any objection upon the subject, would have been when the act in which such application was made was before the House, The House assented to the act, and the present Government
24
carried it into execution, and all it called upon the House of Commons to do, is, to sanction the expense of the voyage. If you are to assent to the appointment of a Bishop, whose position necessarily expatriates him from his native country, you will surely not go so far as to grudge him the expense of taking his family with him—and, certainly, after the House of Commons has passed this act by which the Bishop was appointed, it would be most unjust to charge the expense complained of individually, upon the Lords of the Treasury.
Viscount Palmerstonconfirmed the right hon. Baronet's statement. This appointment had arisen out of communications with the Prussian Government. The bill for the appointment of the bishop had passed that House almost sub silentio. The present question was, whether the appointment having been made, it was right to send this Bishop out in a ship-of war; and he certainly thought, considering the motives which had led to the appointment, that it was a fitting exercise of discretion to give the Bishop that passage. With regard to the amount paid, it certainly appeared large, but he believed it was not discretionary, but governed by a fixed rule according to the number of passengers. If the amendment were agreed to, it would only pass a vote of censure on those who had spent the money, and would not accomplish any financial object, the money having been spent; he should therefore oppose the amendment.
On the question that the smaller sum proposed by Captain Bernal be granted, the Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 112: Majority 75.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gibson, T. M.

Aldam, W.

Hastie, A.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Bowring, Dr.

Johnston, A.

Brotherton, J,

Martin, J.

Browne, hon. W.

Morris, D.

Busfield, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Butler, hon. Col.

O'Brien, W. S.

Cobden,R

Pechell, Capt.

Dennistoun, J.

Protheroe, E.

Duncan, G.

Ross, D. R.

Duncombe,T.

Scholefield, J.

Ellice, E.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ellis, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Elphinstone, H.

Thornely, T.

Fielden, J.

Turner, E.

Forster, M.

Villiers, hon. C.

25

Vivian, hon. Capt.

TELLERS

Wall, C. B.

Bernal, R.

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Acland, T. D.

Herbert, hon. S.

A'Court, Capt.

Hervey, Lord A.

Adare, Visct.

Hodgson, R.

Antrobus, E.

Hope, hon. C.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hope, G. W.

Arkwright, G:

Hornby, J.

Baillie, Col.

Hussey, T.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Ingestre, Visct.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Jermyn, Earl

Barnard, E. G.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Beckett. W:

Jones, Capt.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Kemble, H.

Blake, Sir V.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Blakemore, R.

Knight, H. G.

Boldero, H. G.

Knight, F. W.

Borthwick, P,

Lincoln, Earl of

Botfield, B.

Lockhart, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Martin, C. W.

Buckley E.

Masterman, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Meynell, Capt.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mundy, E. M.

Clive, hn. R. H.

Neeld, J.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Northland, Visct.

Colvile, C. R.

Palmerston, Visct.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Patten, J. W,

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Peel. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Plumtre, J. P.

Cripps, W.

Pringle, A.

Davies, D. A. S.

Rice, E. R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Richards, R.

Disraeli, B.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Douglas Sir C. E.

Round, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Sanderson, R.

Egerton, Lord F.

Sheppard, T.

Eliot, Lord

Sibthorpe, Col.

Escott, B.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Stanley, Lord

Flower, Sir J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Fuller, A. E.

Stewart, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Stuart, W. V.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Stuart, H.

Gordon, hn. Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Goring, C.

Tennent, J. E.

Goulbourn, rt. hn. H.

Thornhill, G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Greenall, P.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Gregory, W. H.

Tufnell, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Grogan, E.

Wellesley. Lord C.

Hamilton, W. J.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Young, J.

Hardy, J.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Henley, J. W.

Baring, H.

Original resolution again proposed.
Mr. E. Elliceobjected to the expense to which the country had been put, in
26
consequence of the increase which had been made in the number of the West India bishops, and particularly to an item in the estimate of 577 l.for the outfit of the new bishops.
Lord Stanleyassured the hon. Gentleman, that the country had been put to no extra charge on account of the new arrangement with regard to the bishops in the West Indies; and that the amount to which the hon. Gentleman adverted could not possibly be refused. The late Bishop of Barbadoes, Dr. Coleridge, had a salary of 4,000 l. and by a recent Act he received a pension of 1,000 l. He came to England in October, 1841; but his resignation was not accepted until March, 1842; and at that period there was, of course, half a year's salary due to him. Dr. Coleridge, however, waived his right to the amount at the higher rate to which he was entitled, and consented only to receive 500 l. in respect of the pension given to him under the Act of Parliament; but he at the same time requested, that the 1,500 l. saved to the public in this way, might be applied in passing those public instruments by which his diocese baa been divided, and providing outfits for his successors. The bishops now appointed were, as the committee must know, to receive reduced salaries; so that, besides this saving of 1,500 l., there was a further saving of 1,500 l. for the interval between the month of March and the month of August, when his successors went out. The expense of the new bishops, therefore, was defrayed by the spontaneous act of the liberality of their predecessor, and the country would not lose, but gain by the transaction.
Mr. E. Ellicesaid, what he wished to understand was, whether the appointment of the five new bishops would occasion any increase of expense to the country.
Lord Stanleysaid, that Dr. Coleridge made no condition, but merely requested the saving might be applied in the manner he had described. With regard to the question as to the expense of the five new bishops, he had only to say, that the Bishopric of Barbadoes had been divided between the Bishops of Guiana, Barbadoes, and Antigua; and that these three bishops would only receive the amount of salary previously paid to the Church in the West Indies. The charge, therefore, to the public would remain unaltered. The Bishop of Gibraltar, and the Bishop

27
of Van Diemen's Land were entirely new appointments. They, however, would be no charge to this country, the expense being made up partly from the Colonial Bishops' Fund, and partly by subscriptions.
Mr. Protheroeasked upon what principle the sum of 100 l. was to be given in aid of the publication of Wright's Parliamentary History?
Sir G. Clerksaid it had been deemed desirable to have the Parliamentary history of that House completed, and that was the reason why this grant was to be made. This was a work the general circulation of which was not likely to repay the publisher and compiler, and the late Government, therefore, considered it right to issue 500 l. to assist them in publishing their work. The 100 l.now proposed to be given was part of the 500 l.
Mr. Protheroethought, that by the same rule, the Government should contribute to the publication of half the works that issued from the press. He should like to know whether the work on the public records was also to be continued?
Sir R. Peelwould not enter on the subject of the continuation of the work on public records, but he thought they ought to give this sum of 100 l. to Mr. Wright to enable him to complete his history of the debates in Parliament. That was a work, which it was desirable to have, supplying, as it would, a chasm in Parliamentary History; and as the publication of the portion relating to privilege had occasioned loss, the Government felt themselves bound to make the loss good.
Mr. Humeseeing a considerable sum for the National Gallery, wished to call the attention of the Government to the fact, that the National Gallery was shut for a period of six weeks during every year, he was anxious to ascertain if there was any sufficient reason why the public were prevented for so considerable a period every year from visiting it.
Sir R. Peelthought it rather hard to deprive the officers of that Institution of six weeks holidays out of fifty-two weeks, and there would be some difficulty in appointing temporary officers during their absence. He could assure the hon. Member that, in considering the subject he had not forgotten the necessity of giving to the public every facility for visiting the National Gallery. Whilst adverting to that subject he had great pleasure in stat-
28
ing that for the last seventeen years, with an average of 200,000 or 300,000 persons annually enjoying the refined pleasure of visiting the British Museum, not one single article had suffered the slightest injury. The number of persons visiting the Museum had increased in the last year to 540,000, and yet for the last seventeen years, with so large an annual average of visitors, he had been assured the only accident which happened at the Museum, was the fracture of two panes of glass by a boy who accidentally fell against them. He was anxious to state that fact, in order that those who had the care of other institutions might not entertain any unfounded idea of the danger of allowing them to be open to the public.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that the sum of 105,636 l. be granted for public buildings, and royal palaces,
Mr. Williamssaid, that as Richmond Park was maintained at the public expense, he did not see why it should not be open for the recreation of the public. For his own part, however, he had felt no inconvenience, though he had heard others complain. He had himself never been prevented from riding in Richmond-park.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, that these two parks, Richmond and Kew, were the only two into which the public were not freely admitted. The expense incurred on account of these two parks was very trifling, as compared with the others. The average expense for maintaining these parks for the last eight years, was not much more than 20,000 l.
Mr. Horsmanwished to state a fact that had come to his knowledge. A gentleman living near Richmond, and in delicate health, wrote to Lord Sidmouth to request permission to ride in Richmondpark, and received for answer, that he (Lord Sidmouth) did not give permission, unless to his private friends. The case appeared to him particularly hard, as he heard that some gentlemen had the privilege of riding in this park.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, that the regulations of Richmond-park were different from those of the other parks in the neighbourhood of London. Any alteration that had taken place in those rules had been in the way of altering their stringency; He was surprised that the case alluded to by the hon. Member had occurred, as Lord Sidmouth was in the habit of attend-

29
ing with the greatest courtesy to applications made to him. From the statement of the hon. Member for Coventry, it appeared that the orders given to the keepers were not very stringent, as the keeper had permitted that hon. Member to pass without any order at all, only seeing him to be a gentleman of respectable appearance.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, the joke of the noble Lord might be a good one, but his explanation was not satisfactory. After the honourable testimony borne to the conduct of the people by the right hon. Baronet opposite that evening, he thought that the public ought to be allowed to have free access to those parks.
Colonel Sibthorpwas anxious that every reasonable indulgence should be afforded the public in admitting them to these place of recreation. He thought it, however, rather extraordinary that those attacks had not been made on the hon. Gentlemen opposite during the ten years they held the reins of power; and he thanked God they held them no longer. He thought it extraordinary to have those attacks made on the present Government, who were really disposed to afford those recreations and indulgences to the people. The present Government preferred doing what they intended to do, rather than pretending to be desirous of doing that which they never intended to do. It was singular those attacks had not been made on the former Government, or if they had, they certainly had made no impression.
Sir C. Napierwas desirous to know, whether it was in contemplation of the Government to remove the whole of the Admiralty to Somerset House? Great inconvenience to the public service arose from the present distribution. At present the civil department of the Admiralty was at Somerset House, whilst the executive part was at Whitehall. The advantage of uniting them in one place would be very great, and very beneficial to the public service.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware that any such change as that mentioned by the hon. and gallant Officer, was in the contemplation of the Government, it would involve considerable expense.
Captain Pechellthought that the change would be beneficial.
Mr. Humehad long recommended the consolidation of the navy and ordnance.
Colonel Napiercordially supported the hon. Member for Montrose in that recommendation. He hoped the right hon. Member for Dorchester, who had formerly approved of this change, would give his opinion on the matter now.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 140,000 l.be granted to defray the expenses of the works of the New Houses of Parliament.
Dr. Bowringwished to know whether any determination had been come to by the commissioners as to the internal decorations of the Houses of Parliament—whether fresco painting were intended to be adopted or not.
Sir R. Peelreplied, that the commissioners had not come to any decision as to the internal decoration. They had invited designs, which would be exhibited in Westminster-hall in May or June next, and the decision of the commissioners was suspended until that exhibition had taken place.
Mr. Humesaid, that it now appeared that the new Houses, the expense of which was estimated at 770,000 l., would cost 1,016,000 l.. It was plain that one of the commissioners was right in saying of these new buildings that "they would look well on paper, but were not fit for use." For half the money, they might have had a dry, good building, instead of being burred under ground. For his part, all the satisfaction he now had was to complain.
Vote agreed to.
On the next vote of 67,350 l. for the salaries and expenses of the two Houses of Parliament,
Mr. Humemoved that the vote be 43,750 l.on the ground that no account was furnished of the salaries paid to the officers of the House of Lords.
The committee divided on the amendment.—Ayes 47: Noes 135; Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fielden, J.

Aldam, W.

Ferguson, Col.

Barnard, E. G.

Guest, Sir J.

Bernal, Capt.

Hill, Lord M.

Bowring, Dr.

Hindley, C.

Brotherton, J.

Horsman, E.

Busfeild, W.

Howard, hon. C.W.G.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hutt, W.

Duncan, G.

Layard, Capt.

Ellice, E.

Martin, J.

Ellis, W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Elphinstone, H.

Morris, D.

Evans, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Ewart, W

Napier, Sir C.

31

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Thornely,T.

Pechell, Capt.

Turner,E.

Philips, G. R.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Plumridge, Capt.

Wakley, T.

Protheroe, E.

Wawn, J. T.

Rice,E. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Scholefield, J.

Scott, R.

TELLERS.

Stanton, W. H.

Hume, J.

Strutt, E.

Williams, W.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Grimston, Visct.

A'Court, Capt.

Grogan, E.

Acton, Col.

Hale, R. B.

Ainsworth, P.

Hamilton, W. J.

Antrobus, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Arkwright, G.

Harcourt, G. G.

Astell, W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Baillie, Col.

Hardy, J.

Bankes, G.

Hawes, B.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Baring, right hn. F. T.

Henley, J. W.

Beresford, Major

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Bernard, Visct.

Herbert, hon. S.

Blakemore, R.

Hervey, Lord A.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodgson, F.

Borthwick, P.

Hodgson, R.

Botfield, B.

Hope, hon. C.

Broadley, H.

Hope, G. W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hughes, W. B.

Buck, L. W.

Hussey, T.

Buckley, E.

Irton, S.

Campbell, Sir H.

Jermyn, Earl

Chetwode, Sir J.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Clerk, Sir G.

Johnstone, H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Jones, Capt.

Cochrane, A.

Kemble, H.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Knatchbull. rt. hn. Sir E

Colvile, C. R.

Knight, F. W.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Lambton, H.

Corry, right hon. H.

Lawson, A.

Cripps, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darby, G.

Listowel, Earl of

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lockhart, W.

Eastnor, Visct.

Marsham, Visct.

Ebrington, Visct.

Marton, G.

Egerton, W. T.

Master, T. W. C.

Eliot, Lord

Masterman, J.

Escott, B.

Meynell, Capt.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Morgan, O.

Farnham, E. B.

Mundy, E. M.

Ferrand, W. B.

Neeld, J.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Newdigate, C. N.

Flower, Sir J.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Fox, S. L.

Northland, Visct.

Fuller, A. E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Patten, J.W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Gladstone, Capt.

Peel, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pollock, Sir F.

Goring, C.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. C.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Pringle, A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pusey, P.

Greenall, P.

Repton, G. W. J,

Grimsditch, T.

Rolleston, Col.

32

Round, J.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Russell, Lord J.

Thornhill, G.

Sanderson, R.

Tollemache, J,

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Trollope, Sir J.

Smith, J. A.

Tufnell, H.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Vivian, J. E.

Smith. rt. hon. T. B. C.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Smythe, hon. G.

Wood, G. W.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Young, J.

Stanley, Lord

Stewart, J.

TELLERS.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Tennent, J. E.

Baring, H.

Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 3.200 l. being proposed for the salaries and expences of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales.
Mr. Humeobjected, and maintained that the managers of the Church property ought to be paid out of that property, and not ot of the public funds.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdefended the grant, on the ground that the commission had been constituted by act of Parliament.
Lord J. Russellremarked, that the property of the Church was not increased in value by those commissioners who were appointed by the State, because it had undertaken to regulate the management of that property.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, they constituted a portion of the State, as members of which they possessed some degree of control over the management of the property, and it was their interest that it should be well managed.
The Committee divided on the vote.—Ayes 140; Noes 33: Majority 107.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Broadwood, H.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bruce, Lord E.

A'Court, Capt.

Buck, L. W.

Acton, Col.

Buckley, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Antrobus, E.

Busfeild, W.

Arkwright, G.

Chelsea, Visct.

Astell, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baillie, Col.

Clive, Visct.

Bankes, G.

Clive, hon. R, H:

Baring, hon. W. B.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Colvile, C. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Bernard, Visct.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Blakemore, R.

Cripps, W.

Boldero, H. G.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Borthwick, P.

Darby. G.

Botfield, B.

Denison, E. B.

Broadley, H.

Dickinson, F. H.

33

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lowther, J. H.

Eastnor, Visct.

Mainwaring, T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Marsham, Visct.

Egerton, W. T.

Martin, C. W.

Eliot, Lord

Master, T. W. C

Emlyn, Visct.

Masterman, T.

Escott, B.

Meynell, Capt.

Farnham, E. B.

Mitchell, T. A.

Ferguson, Sir It. A.

Morgan, O.

Ferrand, W. B.

Mundy, E. M,

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Neeld, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Neville, R

Fox, S. L.

Newdigate, C. N.

Fuller, A. E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Norreys, Sir D.J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Northland, Visct.

Gladstone, Capt.

O'Brien, W. S.

Gladstone, Capt.

O'Brien, W. S.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Palmerston, Visct.

Goring, C.

Patten, J. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Peel, J.

Greenall, P.

Pollock, Sir F.

Grimsditch, T.

Ponsonby. h. C. F. A. C.

Guest, Sir J.

Pringle, A,

Hamilton, W. J.

Protheroe, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Pusey, P.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hardy, J.

Rice, E. R.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Rolleston, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Round, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Sanderson, R.

Hervey, Lord A.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hodgson, F.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hodgson, R.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Hope, hon. C.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Hope, G. W.

Stanley, Lord

Horsman, E.

Stewart, J.

Howhard, hn. C.W.G.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hughes, W. B.

Tennent, J. E.

Hussey, T.

Tollemache, J.

Hutt, W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Irton, S.

Trollope, Sir J.

Jermyn, Earl

Tufnell, H.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Vivian, J. E.

Jones, Capt.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Wood, Col. T.

Knight, F. W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Lambton, H.

Young, J,

Lawson, A.

Layard, Capt.

TELLERS.

Lincoln, Earl of

Baring, H.

Lockhart, W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Ferguson, Col.

Aldam. W.

Gill. T.

Bernal, Capt.

Hindley, C.

Bowring, Dr.

Hume, J.

Brotherton, J.

Johnson, Gen.

Christie, W. D.

Martin, J.

Duncan, G.

Morris, D.

Ellis, W.

Napier, Sir C.

Evans, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Ewart, W.

Philips, G. R.

Fielden, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

34

Scott, R.

Wawn, J. T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Williams, W.

Strutt, E.

Wood, G. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Worsley, Lord

Trelawny, J. S.

TELLERS.

Turner, E.

Ellice, E.

Wakley, T.

Elphinstone, H.

On the question that the sum of 56,508 l. be granted to defray the charge of salaries and expenses of the commissioners appointed to carry into execution the act of 4th and 5th Will. 4th, c. 76, for the Amendment and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales, and the act 1st and 2nd Vic. c. 56, for the more Effectual Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland.
Captain Pechellsaid, he felt it to be his duty to oppose this vote. The conduct of the commissioners had excited great discontent throughout the country, and their endeavours to bring the parishes incorporated under Gilbert's Act with in their jurisdiction had been regarded with general dissatisfaction. In one case an assistant-commissioner had been smuggled into a workhouse to institute inquiries with a view to promote this object of the commissioners. It had been stated that the assistant-commissioner to whom he referred was paying a visit in the neighbourhood, and had merely paid a casual visit to the workhouse. His object was, however, undoubtedly to obtain information which might serve the purposes of the commissioners, and, instead of making a direct application to the proper officers, he was smuggled into the House under false colours, and at an untimely hour. He would oppose any vote of public money for the payment of the salaries and expenses of the commissioners, or of the assistant-commissioners, for he thought that this system of employing spies ought to be discountenanced. If inquiries were instituted in a fair and open manner, the authorities in the Gilbert Unions would, he was sure, be quite ready to meet them.
Sir C. Napiersaid, as it appeared probable that this vote would lead to some discussion, he thought at that late hour its consideration ought to be adjourned. He would, therefore, move, that the chairman do report progress.
Mr. Ferrandsaid, that when he had asked for an adjournment the House was disinclined to assent to his proposal, and he was compelled to proceed, and he

35
therefore thought that it would not now be fair to adjourn this discussion. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell) had complained of the conduct of one of the assistant-commissioners in what the commissioners would consider the performance of his duty. He thought that the commissioners had acted on many occasions with great impropriety, and yet the House was now called upon to vote 56,508 l. for the payment of these harpies. He considered that the Poor-law bad not proved at all beneficial to the country. On the contrary, it had produced the greatest misery and unhappiness; and he believed that if the system continued in operation much longer, especially in the north of England, it would drive the working classes into rebellion. The proceedings of some of the assistant Poor-law commissioners during the last twelve months had been disgraceful to them as public officers; they had acted cruelly, unjustly, and illegally. In the Halifax Poor-law Union one of the assistant-commissioners had proposed what he called an out-door labour test. If a poor roan applied for relief, he received an order upon a person called a "superintendent," who was in reality a taskmaster, by whom he was set to work. In one case which had been published in a newspaper, a poor man who applied to the guardians for relief was sent to this superintendent, who put him to work for six days, and he then received 2s. and two loaves of bread. Now, he put it to hon. Members if it was not disgraceful that a man, after working twelve hours a-day for six days, should receive such a pittance? If they allowed such a state of things to continue, they were answerable for the consequences. The working classes had, for a long period, endured severe suffering with exemplary patience, and it would be disgraceful to the Government and to the House if they voted public money for the purpose of perpetuating such a system of oppression as that to which he had alluded. But how had the assistant Poor-law commissioners plundered the public purse? In 1837 Mr. Power went down to the Keighley Union; he visited it twice in 1838, twice in 1839, and he visited it in 1840. In 1841 Mr. Mott was appointed and visited it; thirteen months after he visited it again, and for discharging his duty in this manner he was paid in all 2,000 l. a-year. This was swindling the public.
Mr. Brothertonrose to order, appealing to the Chairman whether it were not irregular to raise a debate after the motion that the Chairman report progress.
The Chairmansaid, he had the highest authority for stating that the hon. Member was entitled to go on.
Mr. Ferrandresumed by remarking, that about Midsummer 1842, Mr. Mott visited the board of guardians again, when the whole board rose and left the room, so disgusted were they at his conduct. The board had only been visited three times since 1840. To pay such an officer at the rate of 2,000 l. a-year was plundering the public. The Poor-law was carried out most unequally and unjustly. Where the population was small the assistant-commissioners tyrannized; where it was large and the country gentlemen were spirited enough to resist being made slaves, the assistant - commissioners trembled and truckled. The Huddersfield Union was an example of the means adopted for carrying out the law. In order to promote that object, the noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Home Department, had appointed several persons as justices (without the sanction of the lord-lieutenant) who were known for their determination to enforce the law with rigour. In the Keighley Union the poor inhabitants of some districts had to travel twenty-five miles for relief, and they frequently came back with only 6d. in their pockets. The cruelty and oppression of the law were unparalleled in the history of civilised nations. He warned the Government that the people were acquainted with the cruelty and oppression of this law; and they would tell the Government that they would have justice founded on mercy.
Sir C. Napiersaid, that monomania was now at its height. The very moment the Keighley Union was touched on, the hon. Member seemed to go stark-staring mad. As it was impossible to discuss the motion with proper temper at that hour of the night, he should persist in his motion that the Chairman report progress.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed. The committee to sit again.
Adjourned at a quarter to one. o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS. Public.—2a. Consolidated Fund.
Reported.—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Private.—1a. Bercot and Oxford Navigation.
2a. Warwick and Leamington Railway; Liverpool Gas; Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishops of Salisbury, and Chester, from Salisbury, the Archdeaconry of Wilts, Crewkerne, Shaston, Kirby-in-Kendel and Lonsdale, Sarum, Hartfield, Withyham, Frant, East Grimstead, Rotherfield, and Malpas, against the Union of the Sees of [St Asaph and Bangor.—By the Bishop of Chester, from Bolton, Bolsover, Scarcliffe, and Malpas, for Church Extension.—By Lord Cottenham, from Norwich, and Lord Feversham, from Whitby, against the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Act.—From the Hon. and Rev. William Capel, Watford, Rickmansworth, Abbots Langley, and Sarratt, against the Tithe Commutation Act.

OCCUPATION OF TAHITI.
The Marquess of Lansdowonesaid that, seeing the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office in his place, he wished to take this opportunity of putting a question to him on a subject which had been the cause of great anxiety—he must say, of very natural anxiety—to a most numerous and respectable class of persons in this country:
2
he meant those persons who were connected with that group of islands in the Pacific, the principal of which was Tahiti, and which island, recently under a treaty, had been occupied, and authority exercised there by the French. It would be most probably known to most of their Lordships that, for a great many years past, a very great improvement in the civilisation and religious instruction of the inhabitants of these islands, amounting, he believed, to a population of 150,000, had been occasioned by persons, who, from benevolent and religious motives, had taken up their residence there, and who, having acquired a considerable influence over the natives—that influence had now extended so far as to have induced the inhabitants entirely to change their habits of life—to introduce education, to found schools, which were now numerous there, and in every other respect greatly to benefit the condition of these inhabitants. In stating that to be the fact, he by no means intended to say that any legal authority or dominion had, either on the part of these persons or on the part of the Government of this country, been acquired in these

3
islands. He did not mean to say that it was not open—that it was not now open to the government of France by treaty, to obtain either sovereignty or the right to exercise authority in any one of these islands. He was not one of those who viewed with jealousy, at least with unnecessary jealousy, any attempt on the part of the French government to extend its system of colonization; but admitting such to be the right of France to the full extent to which we ourselves bad exercised that right, it must be, at all events, a matter of anxious observation; it could not be in any case a matter of indifference, to see on what ground and under what circumstances, that right was exercised; and, above all, to see that it was not exercised in a manner inconsistent with that protection which was due to her Majesty's subjects residing in any part of the globe, and especially to that portion of her Majesty's subjects who had such well founded claims on the protection of the parent Government as those persons had, who, by their exertions, had materially benefitted the population of those islands. The question, therefore, which he wished to put to his noble Friend was, whether he had received any explanations and assurances on the subject—explanations and assurances which would satisfy his noble Friend that English subjects already settled in Tahiti, or having occasion hereafter to settle in those regions, would obtain from the French authority to be exercised there that degree of protection, which was justly their due, and that they would not be subjected to any unjust treatment, or, above all things, to expulsion from those islands? He felt confident that the answer of his noble Friend would be satisfactory in that respect, for he confided, not only in the character of the French Sovereign, but, in this instance, in the personal character, virtues, and principles, of the eminent individual who was the chief adviser of his Majesty the King of the French; and was convinced that they would not adopt any system, the effect of which would be to obstruct the current of civilisation from prevailing in those regions, or attempt to introduce any other system but that which he was sure this country had alone sought to introduce, in taking possession of any colony or country under the same circumstances.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid that her
4
Majesty's Government had certainly received intelligence of the events to which the noble Marquess had just referred, but he was not sufficiently informed of the precise grounds upon which the French government had acted, or of complaints made against the authorities in those islands, which had led to the convention, to be able to give any explanation upon the subject, nor was he called upon to express any opinion at present respecting the transaction. He entirely agreed with the noble Marquess, in being one of those who looked with no apprehension to the establishment of the French in those seas. He did not apprehend that our commercial or political interests would be affected by the French going thither. On the contrary, he thought he could perceive reasons which induced him to view their establishment with satisfaction, and from it to anticipate advantageous results. He was ready to admit to the noble Marquess, that those who had been the means of civilizing and converting the natives of those islands from idolatry to Christianity, ought to receive the utmost attention at the hands of her Majesty's Government; and as soon as he was informed of the occupation—(occupation it was not, for the French had not occupied the island, for, as he understood the convention was for a protectorship to be exercised by the French King, without the island being occupied by a French force)—as soon as he was informed of the facts, he lost no time in making representations to Paris on the subject, and he was happy to say that those representations were met with the most unqualified assurance, that every degree of protection and encouragement would be afforded to the British missionaries residing in those islands. He might also say, that, by one of the articles of the convention, giving the protectorship to the French King, it was expressly stipulated that protection should be given to all the places of worship at present existing, and that the fullest liberty would be given to the missionaries to exercise their functions in the islands. The attention of the French government having been called to the subject, and sharing with his noble Friend in the confidence to be reposed, not only in the King of the French himself, but in the minister who, at this moment, was the principal adviser of that Monarch, he could not entertain any doubt that the missionaries would be

5
protected in the discharge of their praiseworthy labours. Indeed, the same demand had been made in the French Chambers by a Protestant Member of the Legislature, who very naturally felt himself interested in the success of the labours of the missionaries, and he had received from the French minister the most unqualified assurance to the effect which he had already stated. The noble Marquess must be well assured that the attention of her Majesty's Government would continue to be applied to this subject—to the protection of the interests of the persons to whom the noble Marquess had alluded, and that all due care would be taken to procure for them every freedom and every privilege which could reasonably be expected.
Adjourned.