Sitting of 19 July 1850

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Southampton, Alexander James Cockburn, Esq.
1a County Prisons.
2a Union of Liberties with Counties Fisheries.
3a Stock in Trade.

MERCANTILE MARINE (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee.
Clause 70 agreed to.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that Clause 71 being much objected to, he would withdraw it.
Clause struck out; Clauses 72 and 73 were postponed; Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75.
MR. HENLEYsaid, this clause as it stood would be productive of great mischief, as there would be conflicting jurisdictions, and the powers of neither of the courts were properly specified. Suppose one of these courts ordered a man to be flogged, and he resisted, and in doing so killed one of the sailors who was endeavouring to carry out the order of the court, could such case be regarded as one of murder, as the court might not legally have the power of inflicting punishment, unless it was specified?
MR. LABOUCHEREattached the greatest importance to this clause. It was necessary to give the power proposed to be conferred upon the naval courts in somewhat vague and general terms, and, indeed, it was a question between justice to be obtained in the way specified, or no justice at all. It was important that our ships, scattered as they were over the whole world, should be able to find courts for the administration of justice. It sometimes happened that a ship remained away from this country for several years, and it was a monstrous state of things that during that time no means should exist of checking abuses on the part of the captain or sailors. It was his belief that the mere possibility of summoning naval courts would prevent many abuses. This was the case in the Dutch service. He had lately received a letter from an intelligent English shipowner in Holland, who had examined the Dutch maritime code—one of the wisest in the world—and the writer informed him that naval courts similar to those proposed to be established under the Bill had long been part of the Dutch maritime code; and that the knowledge that the courts could be summoned almost entirely superseded
12
the necessity of calling them. The captain and sailors of a Dutch ship at Java, or any other distant part of the world, knew that a naval court could be summoned, and that prevented abuse. He would listen to any suggestion for the amendment of the clause offered by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire with the respect which was due to anything that fell from that hon. Member; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not object to the establishment of the naval courts.
MR. CARDWELLdid not understand that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire wished to interfere with the appointment of these courts, but that the clause should define the powers of the court. All that he required was, that the clause should be made intelligible. He challenged any human being to understand it as it now stood.
MR. BAINESthought it was unnecessary that the powers of a court of this kind should be specifically defined. With respect to the case put by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that if any person in resisting the orders of this court, and in doing so killed another, he was satisfied it would amount to murder.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the clause was crude and indefinite, and the best course the Government could pursue was to postpone the clause, and remodel it.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought it would be better to leave a good deal to the instructions which would be sent out by the Board of Trade to naval officers and consular agents in ports abroad as to the authority of and course of proceedings to be taken before these courts.
ADMIRAL BOWLESadmitted this to be a most important clause. His own as well as his hon. Friend's object was so to improve it as to make it as clear as possible; and therefore they wished to have a definite description of the powers and constitution of those courts.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, that in some ports abroad there might be no British naval officers or consular agents. In such cases how was the court to be constituted?
MR. LABOUCHEREreplied, that provision was made in the clause for the purpose. It enacted in such a case that the places should be filled by masters of British merchant ships, or respectable British merchants.
After some further conversation, Mr. LABOUCHERE consented to postpone the clause.
Clause postponed.
Clause 76.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the effect of this clause would be to cause every case determined in these naval courts to be tried over again in this country.
MR. BAINESthought the clause might be safely struck out of the Bill.
Clause struck out.
Clauses up to the 98th were then agreed to.
House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next,

GRANT TO THE FAMILY OF THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.
On the Question, that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee on the Queen's Message,
MR. HUMEwished to know what they would do when the Speaker had left the chair? He said he was now in a position to demand a statement of the general intentions of the noble Lord respecting the Royal grants. Probably the House was not aware that by an Act of Parliament passed many years ago 6,000 l. a year had been granted to the late Duke of Cambridge in addition to the 21,000 l. granted to the Royal Dukes, and he thus got 27,000 l.—the 6,000 l. being for his son. He was sorry to hear that he had not received it; but all he knew was, that we had paid it. Before they went into Committee, he wished to know whether the present Duke of Cambridge was to be placed on the same footing as the late Duke of Gloucester? The allowances to the Royal Family had been greatly increased, owing to the peculiar state of the currency; and he thought the time had come when these allowances should be inquired into. The King of Hanover had continued to receive during twelve years the allowance of 21,000 l. granted to him when in this country as Duke of Cumberland, making a total of 252,000 l. This principle he greatly objected to—that an independent Sovereign should receive a pension from this country. That payment ought to have been discontinued immediately the Duke of Cumberland became King of Hanover. The House had always been liberal in allowances to the members of the Royal Family to enable them to keep up their state; but the continuance of that grant to the King of Hanover was not to be justified. He had more than once brought the question before the House, but they had refused to entertain
14
it. Before going into Committee to grant an allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, a full explanation should be given of the principle on which it was grounded. He had prepared an Amendment, although he did not exactly know what the noble Lord was going to move. The grant was sure I to be more than it ought to be, and he must see if it was not possible to economise in this allowance to the Duke of Cambridge.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Mr. Bernal, in considering the proposition which I have In make to the Committee, in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message, I shall place the question entirely upon grounds relating to the Duke of Cambridge, and shall not at all refer to that question which the hon. Member for Montrose has alluded to—the annuity paid to the present King of Hanover. Whether that annuity is rightly or wrongly paid I under the authority of an Act of Parliament is, I conceive, a totally separate question. It has been brought under the consideration of the House separately. It I can be so again; and the repeal or maintenance of that Act of Parliament should be entirely discussed upon the arguments belonging to that subject alone. At present I intend only to deal with the situation of the affairs of the present Duke of Cambridge, and of his sister, the Princess Mary. The late Duke of Cambridge had, by an Act passed in 1788, part of an amount of 60,000 l., which George III. was allowed to charge on his hereditary estate, and afterwards on the Consolidated Fund, for the purpose of an annuity to his younger sons. There was a provision that none of the younger sons should be paid a greater amount than 15,000 l. a year under that Act; but, subject to that provision, the annuities which fell vacant on the death of one of the sons were to be paid to the survivors to increase their annuities. By a subsequent Act, 6,000 l. a year was added to the annuity of the Duke of Cambridge, and on His marriage a further amount of 6,000 l. a year was granted, with a settlement of that sum upon the Duchess of Cambridge if she should survive her husband. The whole amount, therefore, of the annuity paid to the late Duke of Cambridge was 27,000 l. a year. By a subsequent Act, passed a very few years ago, there was an amount settled on the Princess Augusta of 3,000 l.

15
a year; therefore the whole sum which lapses by the death of the Duke of Cambridge is 27,000 l. a year; and the sums with which the country and the Consolidated Fund are now charged are 6,000 l. a year as provision for the Duchess of Cambridge, and 3,000 l. a year, which became payable from the death of the late Duke to the Princess Augusta, the Duchess of Mecklenburg. The next matter which I have to bring under the consideration of the Committee is the state of the affairs of the present Duke of Cambridge, late Prince George. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose seems to suppose that there is a settlement made by Parliament of 6,000 l. a year upon the present Duke of Cambridge. That, however, is an error. The whole sum that was settled was at a period when Prince George was a minor, and was for the purpose of his education; and there is now no sum payable under any Act of Parliament to the present Duke of Cambridge. The further question arises, whether Prince George of Cambridge inherits from his father any considerable amount of property. I thought it my duty to inquire into that subject, because there were rumours that a very large amount of property was in the possession of the late Duke of Cambridge, which the present Duke would inherit. I find that those rumours are exceedingly exaggerated, that no very large sum was bequeathed by the late Duke to his children, and that that sum is divided into three equal portions, between the present Duke of Cambridge and his two sisters, the Duchess of Mecklenburg and the Princess Mary. Besides that, the present Duke of Cambridge is charged with the payment of annuities in the shape of legacies to the amount of 1,600 l. a year during the lives of the persons to whom those annnuties are left, which will absorb, I think, the whole of the amount of the one-third of the property which has been left by the late Duke; and the only property remaining to the present Duke of Cambridge is the rent received from the property of Combe-wood, and the net income from which is not more than 1,200 l. a year. The House is well aware that while it is true the late Duke of Cambridge did not exceed his income, and while at one time, when he was Viceroy of Hanover, he was enabled to make some saving, yet that it is likewise true that those savings were never to any considerable amount, and that the amounts which he bestowed in charities, to which he was always a munificent con-
16
tributor, were such as to prevent his easily amassing any considerable fortune. The House may therefore take it as the best statement that can be made of the present situation of the Duke of Cambridge, that besides that professional income which he derives from the Army, he has no other income than that of 1,200 l. a year, which is derived from the small property that the late Duke of Cambridge had—I say "that professional income which he derives from his situation in the Army." But the House is likewise aware, with reference to any means derived from that source, that Prince George of Cambridge has always done his duty as a soldier. He is esteemed and regarded by those who belong to the same honourable profession, and that income which comes to him is as fairly his right as that of any other officer in Her Majesty's service. I therefore, Sir, come to the conclusion, in which I feel sure the Committee will coincide, that, in answer to Her Majesty's message, we ought to agree to make some provision for the present Duke of Cambridge. The question next arises what that provision should be; and the precedent to which the hon. Member for Montrose referred is naturally that which occurs to me, namely, that of the Parliamentary annuity which was granted to the late Duke of Gloucester. The Duke of Gloucester, the brother of George III., received an income of 24,000 l. a year. By an Act passed in 1778, George III. was enabled to grant to the son of the Duke of Gloucester, the late Duke, an annuity not exceeding 8,000 l. In 1806 that sum was augmented by 6,000 l. a year, making an income of 14,000 l. a year, which the late Duke of Gloucester enjoyed to the day of his death. I need not allude to the provision made for the Duchess of Gloucester by various Acts of Parliament, as they form an entirely separate question. But previous to the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester, he had, under the Acts of Parliament to which I have alluded, an annuity of 14,000 l. a year. Having regard to that precedent, and taking into consideration the position in which the Duke of Cambridge stands, we have to determine what it would be right for the Minister of the Crown to propose that Her Majesty should ask Parliament to grant to the present Duke of Cambridge. Now, in considering this proposition, I think it ought to be taken into account that the late Duke of Gloucester, while he was one of the Royal Family—the nephew pf George III.—was at the

17
same time living with several of the sons of George III. I think there were no less than six sons of George III., who were enjoying considerable incomes, and who were of adult ago at the same time that the Duke of Gloucester was receiving that annuity. I say this because it is well known to this House and the country that a person in the situation of a Royal Duke has many claims upon his purse in the shape of charity; and while the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge were living there were not likely to be so many calls upon the Duke of Gloucester as upon an only living adult Prince of the Royal Family. That is the position of the present Duke of Cambridge, he being the only Prince of the Royal Family who is resident in England, except the younger brandies, the sons of the Queen, who are infants according to law, and who, of course, are not appealed to on subjects of that nature. Sir, the Committee will, I am sure, consider that this must make a difference with respect to the calls that will be made on him; and the Committee will consider, too, that he cannot say, "I will live upon the income that Parliament gives me entirely, as if it were given for my private account. I will be entirely deaf to all those calls of charity to which my father was so munificent a contributor." I don't think that that is in the character of the present Duke of Cambridge, and I am sure the Committee would not wish that he should be placed in such a position. I come therefore to the conclusion, considering these things, and considering the position altogether in which he is placed, that an annuity of 12,000 l. a year, being 2,000 l. a year less than was granted to the Duke of Gloucester by the Act of 1806, would be a proper sum for this House to vote for the present Duke of Cambridge. I think it would be a sum which would enable him to maintain his present rank. I think that it would not be at all excessive, or beyond what can be deemed necessary to maintain the dignity of his station, and to answer the many calls that are made upon him. Then there is remaining the daughter of the Duke of Cambridge, for whom no provision has been made—I mean the Princess Mary. I have already stated to the Committee, that, by a provision made a very-few years ago, the sum of 3,000 l. a year was granted to the Princess Augusta, to take effect from the death of the Duke of Cambridge. I now propose that the same gum should be granted to the Princes
18
Mary, which of course would be secured by an Act of Parliament to be passed; but, on her attaining the age of 21, or on her marriage, it would be an annuity secured for her life. 6,000 l. a year is now the jointure of the Duchess of Cambridge, 3,000 l. a year is paid to the Duchess of Mecklenburg, making 9,000.; 3.000 l. to the Princess Mary, making 12.000 l.; and 12,000 l. I propose to be granted to the present Duke of Cambridge, making altogether 24,000 l. a year. The sum that was paid to the late Duke of Cambridge during his lifetime was 27,000 l. a year, therefore the sums that I propose, together with those sums now paid, would amount to 3,000 l. a year less than the sum lately payable. I think it is unnecessary to enter into any further reasoning with respect to this subject. What the hon. Member for Montrose has said upon the question does not appear to be at all connected either with the annuity payable to the Duke of Cambridge on the one band, or to any salary or pension granted for civil services on the other. I propose that those sums should be granted to the Royal Family, to enable Prince George, who I think deserves the consideration of this House, to keep up the dignity of the position to which he has succeeded, and whilst they will enable him to do that, I do not at the same time think that they can be considered excessive.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of twelve thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge."
MR. HUMEsaid, he was exceeding sorry to be compelled to differ from the noble Lord as to the amount that ought to be granted to the present Duke of Cambridge. No man had given more credit than himself to the late Duke for prudence and good management; and whether his accumulations were 100,000 l. or 200,000 l., they would not affect the observations he had to make. The noble Lord had scarcely stated the whole of the facts with regard to what George III. was authorised to do. That monarch was allowed by Parliament 60,000 l. a year, to be divided among ten sons, being 6,000 l. a year each; but it was provided that upon the death of any one, the income which he received should be divided among those who remained, it being stipulated that none should receive

19
more than 15,000 l. in the whole; otherwise, under the provisions of the Act, the last survivor would have been entitled to the whole 60,000 l. For many years all that was granted to the Duke of Gloucester was 8,000 l. a year; but the noble Lord had omitted to state that 6,000 l. was granted to the late Duke of Cambridge for the education of his son; and at the same time a similar sum was granted to the Duke of Cumberland. At that time he (Mr. Hume) moved an Amendment that the Duke of Cumberland should not receive that allowance unless his son was educated in England, which was passed. But up to the present hour the late Duke of Cambridge had been receiving 6,000 l. a year on this account. He wished, then, to put it to the House whether they would not adopt the precedent of the Duke of Gloucester's case, and consent to vote only 8,000 l. It was well known that the great increase in the expenses of living had led to an increase of salaries, and that an amount had been added to the allowances of the Royal Dukes, to put them upon a supposed equality with others who were receiving large salaries. But those times had gone by; we had returned to bullion payments, and all expenses had either come down or must come down. In a time of peace, like the present, the House ought to study economy; and as this was the first opportunity that Parliament had had for some years of dealing with the allowances to a Prince of the Blood, he hoped they would see that the same amount which was enjoyed by the Duke of Gloucester was large and liberal at the present moment. He wished to see the Royal Family maintained in the dignity which became their position; but he did not wish to see them in the enjoyment of such very large sums from the Consolidated Fund, whilst there was so much want and poverty in other circles. As trustees of the public purse, the House ought to consider whether, by granting the amount now proposed, they would be doing justice to their trust under all the existing pressure and difficulty. He was glad to hear that the Duke of Cambridge was following his profession as a soldier with so much merit, and that he was beloved by the Army; but 8,000 l., with the emoluments of his military command, and the third of the income left by his father, would, he contended, be adequate to enable him to maintain the position to which he was born. Under these circumstances he should move, as an Amendment, that "8,000 l." be inserted
20
in the resolution, instead of "12.000Z l.," and he should take the sense of the Committee upon it.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of eight thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge."
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I agree with the noble Lord the First Minister that this proposition ought to be considered upon its own merits, and that we ought not to mix it up with any arrangements formerly made as to His Majesty the King of Hanover. I think the noble Lord was quite correct in stating, that when the Committee is called upon to consider a message from the Crown with regard to a subject of this character, there are, in fact, two considerations before us: first, whether any provision should be made for the illustrious individual whose name is recommended to the consideration of Parliament; and, if that question is answered in the affirmative, what would be a provision that, in the language of the Message, would be considered "suitable?" There are not certainly two opinions upon the question that the illustrious individual to whom our attention is called is one for whom some provision should be made. The Committee will consider the position in which an English Prince of the blood is placed. It is one which gives him very peculiar claims upon the favourable consideration of Parliament. The House of Commons should recollect that it is the constitutional jealousy of Parliament that has virtually deprived the Sovereigns of this realm of the power of making charges upon their estates in favour of Princes of the blood; and, therefore, when a Prince of the blood comes before us, under the circumstances of the Duke of Cambridge, we must always remember it is the consequence in great part of the conduct of the House of Commons. There is another consideration which ought never to be omitted from the consideration of a proposition of this nature, namely, that the House of Commons was a party to the passing of an Act which prevents any Prince of the blood in England from assisting or increasing his fortune by means which are open to all other subjects. When we consider how much the House of Commons has been concerned,

21
first, with the settlement of the civil list, which has prevailed now for a long period of time, and, secondly, with the passing of the Royal Marriage Act, I am sure the House will remember that English Princes of the blood are in a peculiar position, which permits their claims to be urged with no little effect. But, with regard to the Duke of Cambridge, there are other considerations. The House should not forget that the marriage of the late lamented Duke was a marriage which was very much desired by the country at large. It was the general wish of the country, from a lamentable catastrophe in the Royal Family, that the sons of George 111. should lose no time in forming alliances which would ensure the permanence of that Royal Family, with which the pen pie of this country associated their best feelings. That is a consideration peculiar to the case of the present Duke of Cambridge. Nor is it possible to be insensible to the personal character and claims of His Royal Highness; and I think I am only expressing what every one feels, that his conduct has endeared him to the country. He has shown that he possesses many of those qualities which are popular and esteemed, and he leads a life which is, at the same time, spirited and decorous. I think, therefore, there can be no want of unanimity upon the first question before us. The sec and proposition, as to the amount, is a much more important question. It is quite impossible that any Gentleman who sits on this side of the House should not be sensible of the great distress that prevails in the country, especially among those classes whom it is our fortune to represent; although I am rather surprised that an acknowledgment of complaint and distress should come from the other side of the House. Whatever might be my general feelings upon the subject under other circumstances, I cannot consider the pre-sent proposition without some relation to I the state of our constituents. The proposition of the Government is founded upon the precedent of the case of the Duke of Gloucester; and, upon the whole, a more just and apt precedent could not be cited, But I cannot but observe that Her Majesty's Ministers, with discretion, prudence, and wisdom, have proposed an amount much reduced from that granted to His late Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. I assume that reduction to have been made in consequence of the altera-
22
tions in the times. I see no other reason why the reduction should be made; and I think, in consequence of the alteration in the times, the reduction should be made. I am of opinion, under all the circumstances of the case, taking every point into consideration, duly considering the state of the country, and especially of those classes with whom we are particularly connected on this side, it is a just, and fair, and by no means an immoderate proposition; and I trust, therefore, although the hon. Member for Montrose, faithful to his traditional office, has suggested an Amendment, that, upon due consideration, he will not feel it his duty to press it to a division, but will agree with the majority that the proposition is, under all the circumstances, a just and fair provision for the illustrious Prince.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had felt rather disappointed in hearing the statement of the noble Lord. In one of the proposals to which he directed the attention of the Committee, the noble Lord had, if he understood him aright, stated that the late Duke of Cambridge had divided his property equally among his three children, but had attached to the share he had left to his son certain annuities which for some time would eat up the whole of that son's share—that, in fact, those annuities amounting to 1,600 l. a year, would take away the whole amount. Now, if that was the case, he thought it a very unfortunate circumstance. A daughter who had been married some years since received an allowance of 3,000 l. a year from that House—["No!"]—Yes, commencing from the death of her father. He thought it unfortunate then, that the property of the late Duke of Cambridge should have been left in such a manner, as that the whole share left to the son should be taken away by annuities, thus in point of fact binding up that property, leaving him without provision, and throwing him entirely for support upon that House. When a provision was made for the Duchess of Mecklenburg, there was some objection taken on the ground that the provision that had been made for the Duke of Cambridge was sufficient to allow him to provide for his children; but it was argued by the Government, that it would not be fair to make any deductions from such provision, and that they were bound to pass a separate vote for the daughter. Well, if that vote for the daughter was considered sufficient, he thought it unfortunate that the bulk of the property should be left in the same

23
direction, leaving the whole future provision for the son to a vote of that House. He was not going to say a word against the late Duke of Cambridge: he believed that no man in that House would do it; but looking at the statement of the noble Lord, it appeared that the late Duke's receipts commenced so far back as 1778, that for a long period that sum was a share of 60,000 l. per annum, that it afterwards was 15,000 l., afterwards 21,000 l., and for many years 27,000 l. He was not aware of the precise amount of his receipts as Viceroy of Hanover; but he did think that Parliament, considering the sources which his Royal Highness's emoluments came from, was entitled to expect the same care in providing for a family, which was the duty of its head, whether in a cottage or a palace, and that it would have been much more satisfactory, if, after having so great an income for so long a period, some provision had been made in this case, which would have rendered it unnecessary for Parliament to vote such an income for the children as it was now proposed to confer. However, what was passed could not be remedied, He was not about to contend that some provision should not be made for the children of the late Duke of Cambridge, provided the property was as had been stated to the House; but there was one point which, in considering whether the sum should be 12,000 l. or 8,000 l., as proposed by his hon. Friend, should not be lost sight of. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that there was no institution, however valuable, which might not be bought too dear; and there could not be a doubt but that all friends of the monarchy—as he trusted they all were, should endeavour so to arrange affairs of this nature, as that the circumstances connected with the Royal Family should not come before the people in an aspect calculated to make unpleasant impressions as regarded monarchical institutions. Now, the point he wished to put to the Committee was this. The present Sovereign had a numerous family, and the time would come when it would be necessary to make provision for the Queen's children. He asked the House then to look forward to the time when such a proposition would be made by the Prime Minister of the day. Would the House propose to give to every son and daughter of the Queen, when of age, a sum equal to 12,000 l. a year? He very much doubted whether it would be in the power of the
24
Minister of the day to propose any such provision for the whole of the family. But the present Duke of Cambridge was the first cousin of the Queen; and he doubted whether they were justified in proposing for the first cousin of the Queen 12,000 l. a year, if they were not able to convince themselves that Parliament and the country would not consent at a future day to a larger provision for the children of the Queen. His opinion was, that by that time such a proposal would not be satisfactory to the House or the country, and he thought they might with great propriety take that into consideration in fixing the present vote; and if, as he believed, 12,000 l. a year for all the children of the reigning Sovereign would be too large a sum, then it would be an unfortunate precedent to vote 12,000 l. for the Duke of Cambridge, who was but the cousin of the Queen. There might be those who attributed to himself and to others who took a similar view of the question, feelings as regarded the Sovereign different from what they themselves entertained. He would make no answer to such persons. He believed it might fairly be taken for granted that every one shared in attachment to the Sovereign, and wished that the various members of Her family should preserve such dignity as was necessary to the institutions of the country. But he thought that that Minister was no friend to the Sovereign, nor a friend to the monarchical principle, who proposed a vote of this nature, which should not by its moderation and reasonableness, recommend itself to the intelligent population of the united kingdom. He greatly feared that this large vote would make an unfavourable impression, and that it would be anything but favourable to monarchical institutions, which would be infinitely better preserved in the minds of the people of this country, if the necessary burdens should be made as small as possible, and not, as he took this vote to be, extravagant, and such a one as he had not expected the noble Lord to propose. He did not think this a question for precedent, but still, that cited by his hon. Friend was an important one. The Duke of Gloucester had 8,000 l. a year, to which 6,000 l. was added, he believed, for party purposes, by the Whig Government of the time. The noble Lord was not responsible for that—he had enough to be responsible for; but if there was the least truth in the assertion, he thought that the noble Lord should be the

25
last to bring it forward and say, that having given 14,000 l. to the Duke of Gloucester, 12,000 l. would be moderate now. He did not mean to say, in discussing this question, one word unpalatable either to the Court or to the masses of the people out of doors; but he believed that 8,000 l. was an ample provision, and that it was the most that Parliament ought to consent to. If after a man had received many thousands of pounds for thirty, forty, or fifty years, he made no provision for his sons, and that Parliament stepped in and voted the enormous income of 12,000 l. a year, it would not only be holding out no example to parents in these elevated positions, but would be holding out inducements in a contrary line, in the expectation that Parliament, with a generous disregard to public interests, might step in and make up their deficiencies. For these reasons, and especially considering that a provision must be made for the children of the Queen, he considered that they would be prejudicing their interests in future, and the monarchy, in the estimation of the people by granting the sum proposed by the noble Lord.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYwas sure that every Member of the House was anxious to do honour to the name of the Duke of Cambridge; and it seemed to him that the most obvious and natural way to do honour to that name, was to grant to his son the allowance which the dignity of his position and his high station in life rendered necessary. He thought there was no difference of opinion in the House that some provision should be granted; the only difference was, as to what should be the amount of that provision. The hem. Member for Manchester had said that he understood the noble Lord to state that the annuities with which the income left to the present Duke of Cambridge was burdened, would entirely counterbalance that income. He (the Marquess of Granby) believed that the total income of his Royal Highness would only be about 900 l. a year, so that it would be more than counterbalanced by the annuities. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that the allowance to the Duke of Gloucester was at first only 8,000 l. a year; but the hon. Gentleman had not shown that that sum was sufficient in that case. In fact, the reason why it was raised to 14,000 l. was that it was found inadequate.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that the hon. Member for Montrose had regretted that
26
the bargain with the Crown had been made for life. The bargain, however, had been made, but it was a bargain which had been disadvantageous to the Crown of England. Prom a return on the table of the House, it appeared that from the time the bargain was first made, namely, from the accession of George III. up to the close of the reign of William IV., the sum formerly receivable by the Sovereigns of England amounted in the aggregate to 116,000,000 l. sterling, while the sum actually granted to the Crown by Parliament in the same period amounted to only 69,000,000 l.—leaving a clear balance of 47,000,000 l. in favour of Parliament. Now, had that sum been in the hands of the Crown, there would have been no occasion for any appeal to Parliament for aid in making provision for any member of the Royal Family.
COLONEL RAWDONsaid, that from his earliest years he had had the honour of calling the Duke of Cambridge his friend, and that for several years he bad been in intimate relations with him, which afforded him ample opportunities of knowing his liberal and extensive charities; and these, he believed, would account for the fact that he had left so small a sum behind him for his family.
COLONEL CHATTERTON: Sir, I trust I may not be thought intrusive in offering a few remarks upon the proposition of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, particularly as I do not agree in all that has been advanced by the noble Lord. Sir, I beg to say that no person is more desirous than I am for the most rigid enonomy in every branch of the public service; but there are some cases, in my mind, when it should give way to a dignified liberality; and the fault I find with the noble Lord is, that he seems to have forgotten that word. Called upon as we have been by Her Most Gracious Majesty's 'Message to make competent provision and support for his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and his illustrious sister the Princess Mary, caused by their melancholy bereavement, and the loss the Royal Family and the country have sustained by the death of the illustrious Prince, whose character needs no eulogy from me, we are bound to attend to such recommendation; and, Sir, in my opinion, no person has more claims upon the generosity and kindness of this House than the illustrious Person to whoso comforts we are called upon to minister. Born as his Royal Highness has been in England,

27
educated in England, he has lived all his life in England, and is thoroughly English in his tastes, his habits, and ideas; and these alone should make us provide for him liberally—I had almost said profusely. Actuated, no doubt, by a desire to be of service to his country, this illustrious Prince entered the honourable profession of arms at an early period of life, and has acquired so complete a knowledge of it in all its branches as to deserve to be named the Decus et tutamen of the profession. Sir, as long as we are blessed with a monarchical government, so long, in my mind, are we bound by every feeling of loyalty and honour to provide liberally for the children of that family, appointed to govern us, as children of the State. Sir, with these views and ideas I need scarcely assure the noble Lord how cordially and warmly I offer him my humble support, which I beg to say would be much more warmly and cordially given if his proposal were made on a more liberal scale; and if the noble Lord would grant me his support, I would move that the annual income of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge should be raised to a similar amount as the late Duke of Gloucester's, namely, 14,000 l. per annum. As regards Her Royal Highness the Princess Mary, I should say what the noble Lord has proposed, namely, 3,000 l. per annum, May be sufficient as long as she remains under the care and guardianship of her Royal Mother.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 206: Majority 153.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutchins, E. J.

Alcock, T.

Jackson, W.

Anderson, A.

Keating, R.

Blewitt, R. J.

Kershaw, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lacy, H, C.

Brown, W.

Locke, J.

Carter, J. B.

Lushington, C.

Clay, J.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Cobden, R.

Meagher, T.

Collins, W.

Martin, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Duncan, G.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Duncuft, J.

Morris, D.

Forster, M.

Mowatt, F.

Fox, W. J.

Muntz, G. F.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Glyn, G. C,

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Greene, J.

Pilkington, J.

Hall, Sir B.

Ricardo, O.

Harris, R.

Salwey, Col.

Hastie, A.

Scholefield, W.

Headlam, T. E.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Henry, A.

Smith, J. B.

Heyworth, L.

Thicknesse, R. A.

28

Thompson, Col.

Williams, J.

Thornely, T.

TELLER

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hume, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Bright, J.

Original Question again proposed.
MR. HUMEthen moved that the sum should be 10,000 l. a year. This was still twice the amount of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had the whole business of the country to attend to. For many years the sons of George III. did not receive so much. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had alleged that the Crown would have been better with the Woods and Forests at its disposal than with the present arrangement of the civil list. He (Mr. Hume) begged to refer the hon. Baronet to the debtor and creditor side of the account of the Woods and Forests, as contained in the report of the Committee of which the noble Lord the Member for Bath was chairman, from which it appeared that, for the last twenty-five years, the country had derived little or nothing from that source. He was not so hardhearted as the hon. Baronet. He was not at all disposed to place the Royal Family on so precarious a fund.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty he enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of ten thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge."
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, that, before the noble Lord replied to the hon. Member, perhaps he would state to the Committee whether, in the event of the marriage of the Duke of Cambridge, he should propose any addition to the 12,000 l.?
LORD J. RUSSELLwould rather not answer (he question at present; he would observe, however, that the allowance to the Duke of Gloucester, upon his marriage, was 14,000 l., and he did not at present contemplate, under any circumstances, a greater allowance than 14,000 l. per annum to the Duke of Cambridge. With reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, he had already stated the reasons which induced him to consider that 12,000 l. per annum was not more than a proper allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, and he would not detain the Committee by a repetition of his views. He would, however, take the opportunity

29
of expressing his appreciation of the temper and moderation with which his hon. Friend had put forward the views which he entertained on this subject.
MR. V. SMITHthought it would he highly satisfactory to the country if the noble Lord would insert a clause in the Act granting the 12,000 l. per annum to the Duke of Cambridge, providing that, in the event of the Illustrious Duke acceding at any time to the Crown of Hanover, the allowance should cease. The large sum which the present King of Hanover drew every year from the public revenue of England was a source of much dissatisfaction to the country.
MR. HEYWOOD: If hon. Gentlemen were dealing with their own funds, of course they might make the allowance as high as they please; but, remembering that this money would come out of the pockets of the labouring classes, he could not support the larger amount.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that if the Royal Family had not consented to an arrangement by which Parliament had robbed them of their estates—if Parliament had not taken possession of the Woods and Forests, which had been badly managed because they had been in their hands—and if those estates had been as well managed as any private estate would be, there would have been no reason for this application, for the Royal Duke would have been in 'possession of an enormous fortune.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 177: Majority 122.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
"Resolved—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty he enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for Her Royal Highness the Princess Mary of Cambridge."
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

POST OFFICE—APPOINTMENTS.
MR. C. ANSTEYbegged to call the attention of the House to the petition of 138 clerks in the Money-order Department of the Post Office, presented on the 7th June, and to move that an inquiry should be made into the grounds upon which the appointment of chief clerk of that department bad been withheld from the officer, who, as it was alleged by the petitioners, would, in official order, have succeeded to
30
it. The petitioners did not come to the House to ask it to increase their miserable salaries, although 100 of them received only 70 l. a year, from which there was deducted two per cent to form a superannuation fund. All they asked was, that the preferments in the office, to which they were entitled, should not he taken from them by the arbitrary and unauthorised act of the Postmaster General, or rather of his secretary, Mr. Rowland Hill. The principle on which promotions were made in the Colonial Office was, seniority combined with fitness. The rule worked well in two ways: it secured a certain degree of fitness in the clerk, and it contributed to make him satisfied, while in an humbler condition, by the hope of arriving at a better. The same rule was adopted in the Treasury and in the Foreign Office, and in that House itself, and there was no reason why it should not be universally employed. The circumstances of the case to which he wished to draw the attention of the House were these: In the year 1844, when the Earl of Lonsdale was Postmaster General, an attempt was made to place a gentleman, who was thirteenth in rotation, over the heads of those who were above him. The Earl of Lonsdale appointed a committee of the officers to inquire into his claims, and it appeared that his pretensions were rejected after that inquiry. That very gentleman had been appointed to the office of chief clerk over the heads of others. In the month of August 1848, a rule was established, by the order of Mr. Rowland Hill, by which three days in the year were allowed to the clerks in the Money-order Department of the Post Office for absence, on the ground of business or ill health; and a certain fine was imposed for every additional day's absence beyond that number. A memorial was addressed to the Postmaster General, signed by all the officers of the department, the object of which was to procure the removal of this unjust rule. The Postmaster General found a difficulty in altering the order, and the memorial did not produce any result. A second memorial was presented in September 1849, on the terms of which Mr. Rowland Hill had severely animadverted, and stated that it contained several expressions which were not true. He (Mr. Anstey) had read the memorial, and he could assure the House that there was nothing in it whatever disrespectful towards Mr. Rowland Hill, or any other officer in the Post Office. In October 1849, the

31
gentlemen who had signed the second memorial addressed a letter to the Postmaster General, in which they disclaimed the charge of having made use of disrespectful language. To this letter they received no answer, and they naturally concluded that the matter was at an end; but six months afterwards, on the decease of the president of the Money-order Office, and the chief clerk of the Edinburgh money-order office to the vacancy, when those gentlemen complained that the order of seniority was not followed, they were informed that their claims could not be attended to unless they would make another apology for their memorial, and further degrade themselves by stating that that document contained falsehoods. Under these circumstances, not being able conscientiously to comply with the conditions, they came before the House. There were also two of the senior clerks of those who had been passed over, who had not signed the memorial; and the only reason that could be conjectured—for he only gave it as a supposition—why their claims had not been recognised, was, that they had been invited to volunteer for Sunday labour in the Post Office, but had declined. If the inquiry which he (Mr. Anstey) now asked for into this matter were granted, he pledged himself to prove the truth of every thing that he had stated; and with these observations he would leave the matter in the hands of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House is of opinion, that inquiry ought to be made into the grounds upon which the appointment of Chief Clerk of the Money-order Department of the Post Office has been withheld from the officer who, as it is alleged by the Petitioners, in their Petition presented to the House on the 7th day of June last, would, in in official order, have succeeded to it."
MR. MOWATTseconded the Motion.
MR. J. WILLIAMSexpressed his belief, that if there was one office more than another that required investigation, it was the Money-order Office of the Post Office. Some two years since he had presented petitions to the House praying for inquiry to he instituted, in consequence of the gross mismanagement of that office. He had afterwards presented a memorial to Mr. Rowland Hill, calling for a simplification of the accounts of that establishment, because two years had elapsed without those accounts being audited; and he believed that any merchant would be a bankrupt very speedily who conducted business in such a manner. The Government not having had a single person in their employ
32
who could audit the accounts, a gentleman from the City was at length procured for the purpose. That gentleman was at the Money-order Office for three or four months, and he stated that he had never seen books kept in so slovenly a manner; that so far as he could make out, there was a sum of between 3,000 l. and 4,000 l. due by the country postmasters, and that although upwards of 220 clerks were employed in the department, the business, under proper management, could be better executed by 150 clerks. Mr. Rowland Hill had promised to make the necessary improvements and alterations; but, in the meantime, an inquiry ought to be instituted with the view of seeing whether the allegations made against the department could be substantiated.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was really a grievance which Her Majesty's Government had much reason to lament, that there was no officer in that House connected with the Post Office to answer such statements as that which had just been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, or to meet any inquiries that might be made in relation to the affairs of that department generally. For his own part, he really wished that when any hon. Member had any case of this kind, on which complaints and interrogatories were to be founded, to bring forward, that he would have the courtesy to give notice of the fact, and of his intention to his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury, to whose province, perhaps, rather than to his own, it more particularly devolved to supply, if possible, the desired information. Of course, in the absence of any official representative of the department in question, it was almost impossible for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be prepared with answers to questions or statements made in that place, without previous notice. But he might remark that there was one fallacy which pervaded the whole of the statement advanced by the hon. and learned Member. It was not true, as he assumed, that seniority of standing alone was the principle on which the rule of promotion in these Government establishments proceeded. This was not true of the Treasury, nor—so far as he knew—of any other of the Government departments. Indeed, he would ask the House how it could be possible for the business of Government to be conducted on any sound or efficient system were the principle that which the hon. and

33
learned Member for Youghal supposed? The inconvenience of such an interposition as the hon. and learned Member desired at the hands of that House, would be incalculable to the public service. If the House had confidence in the Government, they must allow the responsible head of every branch of a great department to be the best judge how its management should be administered with the best results to that service. As to the grievance set forth by the petitioners, it should be observed that the person promoted over their beads by the Marquess of Clanricarde had been selected many years ago by the Earl of Lonsdale, when Postmaster General, on account of the ability be had shown in the discbarge of his duties, to go to Dublin for the purpose of reorganising and superintending a branch of the Post Office there: afterwards, by another Postmaster, removed from Dublin to undertake an analogous charge in the Post Office department of Edinburgh; and, finally, called from Edinburgh to be placed at the head of the Money-order department in London. On these facts he apprehended that the House would hold such an individual had been very properly selected for the promotion now complained of.
MR. MOWATTconceived that this case might be shortly stated thus—that, whilst these thirteen gentlemen, who not only stood, in the rotation of their seniority, in a preferable position, but had been, after examination, declared duly and properly qualified for this post, had been passed over, a party who was not of equal standing with themselves, and who had been expressly reported, in 1844, by Colonel Maberly, not to be qualified for it, had been elevated to it over their heads. Now, this was an allegation of injustice to, of unwarrantable hardship upon, the petitioners, too grave and too important to go forth to the public uncontradicted or unexplained, without being calculated to produce a very prejudicial impression against the management of the Post Office. He did hope, therefore, to hear some answer offered to the petition. It might be very true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, that seniority of standing was not the general rule of promotion in the public offices, which the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had supposed. But the right hon. Gentleman had not quite fairly stated the hon. and learned Member for Yougbal's assertion, which took for this principle
34
seniority armed with fitness; and this surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not prepared to deny was the true principle that regulated promotion in the public departments. He must say that no answer had been given to the complaint, on its face so reasonable, of the wrong which had been done to gentlemen who were paid so inadequately for their services, that throughout the country great disapprobation had been expressed at such miserable salaries, and whose only inducement to content themselves with such a scale of remuneration consisted in the hope they might reasonably indulge of succeeding, in virtue of seniority, good conduct, and adequate qualification, to the post from which they seemed to have been so arbitrarily excluded, between the resentments of Mr. Rowland Hill and the act of the Postmaster General.
MR. FORSTERthought, if the salaries of these parties were really so inadequate, they had the remedy in their own hands, by declining to retain their appointments. But he rose to protest against the House being made a court of appeal against grievances arising out of the administration of a public department, with the details of which they were not supplied, and could not by possibility know anything. The House, in short, was a tribunal utterly unfit to entertain such a case as this.
MR. AGLIONBYwould not have offered any remark upon the present occasion but for the singular and unconstitutional language which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had employed in declaring that the House ought on no occasion to listen to complaints against a public department, coming before it in this manner. He (Mr. Aglionby) was perhaps sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal should have felt it his duty to bring forward this petition on the present occasion, seeing that on a former occasion, when the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for certain papers connected with the case of the petitioners, it appeared that, though the Marquess of Clanricarde himself had no objection to their production, Her Majesty's Government, as a body, had refused them. That refusal proceeded on a ground which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tonight stated fairly enough, namely, the grave inconvenience of entertaining the prayer of the petition, or meeting the observations elicited by it, when there was no person present officially connected with the department referred to. On this account,

35
and in the defect, so far as the House was concerned, of further necessary information on the subject-matter of the allegations which had been read, he did hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not attempt to press his Motion to a division. All must allow that so serious a charge of mismanagement in such a great department as the Post Office, was too grave a matter for discussion to be raised thus incidentally on the presentation of a petition. If the learned Member persisted, he would have Her Majesty's Government arrayed against his Motion, and he would find himself in a very poor minority. He (Mr. Aglionby) could not support the Motion in the absence of further papers. He must, however, concur in holding with a preceding speaker, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not fairly stated the hon. and learned Member for Youghal's principle of promotion, which was not seniority alone, but seniority combined with qualification. And the gravamen of the petitioners' case was, that they had been passed over in the appointment finally made to the office in question, not because they were not senior to the party appointed—not because they were not duly qualified—but because of some ill-feeling towards them on the part of Mr. Rowland Hill, by reason of some offence they had given to that individual on some previous occasion.
MR. HUMEwished to ask one question of Her Majesty's Ministers, on their answer to which would depend the vote he should give that night. It had been alleged that the person who had been placed over the heads of these petitioners was, at no very remote period, reported by Colonel Maberly to be unqualified for the situation he held. Was this the fact or not? Although he (Mr. Hume) might agree with those who deprecated as most mischievous, on general principles, the interference of this House with the internal administration of executive departments, there might yet be cases in which the extent of oppression charged against officers in the public service might well warrant such interference. The Government must not wonder if he felt some suspicions that the complaints of these parties must be well grounded, when he reminded them that they had refused him the documents for which he had formerly moved with a view to elucidate the facts. Could they or could they not deny that the individual who had been promoted out of his turn to be the president of a
36
certain branch of the Post Office over the heads of these gentlemen, was, in 1844, formerly reported to be incapable and unqualified for his appointment?
MR. C. ANSTEYbegged to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Montrose had fallen. The complaint was not as to the incompetency of the person who was put over the head of these petitioners, but of that person, who, having been formerly chief clerk, had just been promoted to be president of a department in the Post Office "as next in rotation," although he had been the junior of these petitioners at the time he was reported as incompetent to discharge the duties of his situation.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas glad that the hon. and learned Member had shown that the impression of the hon. Member for Montrose was a wrong one; and he hoped it would be sufficient for him now only to add that the gentleman whose promotion had given rise to this petition, was the Mr. Palmer who had been successively selected for promotion to the Dublin, the Edinburgh, and the London Money Order Departments, on account of the high opinion entertained by the Earl of Lonsdale and the Marquess of Clanricarde of his merits.
Motion negatived.

SUPPLY—BRITISH MUSEUM.
Order for Committee read.
(1.) 45,3292. British Museum.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that the duty devolved upon him of moving in this Committee the vote for the expenses of the British Museum. He felt that all which could be properly addressed to the attention of hon. Members in reference to the national importance of the objects embraced in the application of the annual grants to this establishment, had been so well and so often stated by others, that it was unnecessary for him to trespass on the time of the Committee by going over the same matters on this occasion.
MR. HUMEwished to ask the Members of Her Majesty's Government whether any definitive measures had yet been taken towards carrying out the recommendation of a Committee which had recently sat to inquire into the management and affairs of this important establishment? With regard to the defective condition of the catalogues, and the necessity for immediately remedying their deficiencies—one of the points embraced in that report—the

37
impatience of the public to know what had really been done was, as might be expected, extreme. What steps had the Government taken in relation to other parts of the report, and when would it be laid on the table?
SIR G. GREYbelieved that the report had already been brought before the Government, and it would undoubtedly receive all consideration. For himself he trusted the hon. Gentleman would for-give him for saying that his time had been so much occupied with other matters as to have precluded him as yet from devoting the necessary consideration to its contents.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—WESTERN COAST OF AFRICA, AND DANISH SETTLEMENTS ON THE GOLD COAST.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 24,080 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March. 1851; also, for the purchase of Stores, &c, on the Gold Coast, from the Danish Government."
MR. COBDENsaid, he should have thought it probably more in order if some Member of the Government had explained the grounds upon which the Committee were called upon to vote this sum. It was proposed to vote 10,000 l. for five settlements on the coast of Africa, If 10,000 l. were all, it might be passed over lightly, and no great harm would be done, for a vote of 10,000 l. was a small thing indeed. The question was, would they extend their territory on the Gold Coast of Africa? His opinion was that they had lately had too much of tropical possessions, and that they ought not to extend them. He asked himself what were the grounds on which they proposed to extend their territory on the coast of Africa? Why, they had had a correspondence passing between their Government and the Danish Government on the subject; and, so far as he could understand it, they were, first of all, to extend their operations on shore for the suppression of the slave trade—next, they were to extend their trade, and then there was a general plan for the diffusion of civilisation on the continent of Africa. Well, now, the first of these questions was, whether they were to go on, with increased outlay and exertion, to suppress the slave trade on the coast of Africa? He thought
38
there was a very great doubt in the country whether we should continue the operations we were now engaged in—whether we should carry on our operations at sea. But here wan a new plan for operations on shore; because the plan was, that we were to go on building forts and extending our territory, in order to put down singlehanded what we had failed to do in conjunction with France by sea. This plan was put before them by Governor Winniett, in evidence which he gave before a Committee of the House of Lords, which was laid before us last year. This was the evidence:—
"Have you any means of forming any judgment as to how far the system of the occupation of forts upon that coast might be extended?—Yes; I have on one or two occasions corresponded with the Secretary of State on that very subject; and it is my firm opinion that slavery will never be done away, excepting by blockading the Bight of Benin, and building forts along the line of coast. I do not mean simply blockading by not allowing Spanish or Portuguese vessels to go there; but I mean to say, that in two years, or two years and a half, by blockading the coast thoroughly, you must do away with slavery; because it would compel the King of Dahomey to come into our views; for they cannot do without English manufactured goods, and I think that in two or three years he would certainly come into our views in respect to the sum of money. But it must be such a blockade by steamers as not to allow anything to pass, and at the same time erecting forts every ten or twenty miles; something in the same shape as the forts on the coast of Sussex, the martello towers."
He was reminded that there would be many places out of the reach of our guns; and his answer was—
"Those forts would have twenty-five or thirty troops, with officers, and we should patrol the beach, just as you do in looking out for smugglers upon the coast of Kent, and we should always have a telescope on the top of those towers, watching for the approach of any vessel."
They had always some fresh plan for the suppression of the slave trade. First, they had steam vessels, then they had the Niger expedition, with its horrible loss of life, and now they were to have martello towers which were to put an end to the slave trade in two years and a half, according to Governor Winniett's opinion. Some persons might suppose he was exaggerating; but he had the advantage of hearing the evidence of Earl Grey, which was not yet printed, and that of itself was a good reason for deferring this vote. Earl Grey approved of the plan suggested by Governor Winniett, of extending forts along the coast. Such an opinion expressed by Earl Grey was rather alarming, because he was

39
a Cabinet Minister, and it was likely that his opinion was shared in by the rest of the Government. Why, if they could not abolish the slave trade—which was an export smuggling trade by means of steam vessels, it was futile to think of abolishing it by means of stationary forts on land. The next object for which these forts were to be purchased, was to extend their trade on the coast of Africa. Now he, as a freetrader, maintained that if they removed the obstacles on trade, it was not their business to purchase land for the promotion of agriculture or trade. They had petitions from Manchester and Liverpool in favour of the purchase of these forts; but he maintained that they should not vote the money of the taxpayers at large to promote the interest of particular traders in a particular locality. A Member of that House who was very largely connected with the trade on the African coast had been mentioned in connexion with this subject; but that individual had been offered the Danish forts for nothing if he would only hoist the Danish flag. They had been told that the growth of cotton would be promoted by buying these forts. If that were so, how was it, that with a large portion of the Gold coast under their influence for a long time, they had as yet heard of no importations of cotton from that quarter. The people of British Guiana stated, in a petition which had been presented to that House, that the soil and climate of that country was admirably adapted for the growth of cotton, and were it not for the obstacles thrown in their way by the Colonial Office, that they could grow enough for the entire consumption of the country. [Mr. HAWES: Hear, hear!] He did not mean to prefer any charge against the Colonial Office. What he wished to impress on the House was this, that it was not necessary to invest public money in the purchase of territory on the coast of Africa, with a view to the growth of cotton, when they had Guiana, Jamaica, and other West India Islands, for a length of time, without getting any cotton from them, although they were told these places were adapted for its growth. He maintained that they had no right to come to that House to ask for money in order to purchase territory on account of such a remote object. Let them remove the obstacles on trade—do away with their custom-house officers as far as possible—abolish the excise—and by these means they would help and encourage trade; but let them not ask that
40
House for money to buy territory in order to grow cotton. Then there were very magniloquent terms used with regard to the extension of civilisation and the promotion of Christianity on the coast of Africa. In a letter from Sir C. Trevelyan, dated the 12th of December, it is said—
"My Lords concur with your Lordship and Lord Palmerston as to the results of such an arrangement in the extinction of the slave trade and the improvement of the inhabitants which must be anticipated from such a measure."
And Mr. Merivale, in writing to Sir C. Trevelyan, says—
"It is unnecessary to point out the advantages which must result from the measure with regard to the diffusion of Christianity and the spread of civilisation on the coast of Africa in connexion with the increase of British commerce. The acquisition of the Danish forts and the spread of British influence will give efficiency to our policy in the territory subject to our jurisdiction."
That was embarking on a wide scheme indeed. That showed that he was right in viewing this not merely as a vote of 10,000 l. They aimed at nothing short of the civilising and Christianising the vast coast of Africa. But he held that they had a great deal to do at home within a stone's throw of where they were before they embarked on a scheme of redeeming from barbarism the whole coast of Africa. Well, then, the question arose—what forts were they going to buy from the Danes? Were they going to buy the forts merely with the territory within the command of their guns, or were they going to extend the dependencies? That was an important question, and it did not distinctly appear which was the object in view; but the House should bear in mind this fact, that they had never claimed the right of sovereignty beyond the reach of their guns over those parts of the Gold Coast, where they had established themselves; and the report of the Committee of 1843 declared that to be a sound principle. If they extended their, territory, they would involve themselves in endless obligations. But there was contained in the report an account of a tour of Governor Winniett, in which he speaks of the natives wishing to offer fealty to the Queen, by giving him the handle end of a spear, and presenting the point at themselves. He spoke of a tract of country one hundred miles in the interior, and bordering the territory of the king of Ashantee. A very formidable tribe possessed that country. They had engagements with them before; and if they were to occupy this country, who was to guaran-

41
tee that they would not find themselves embarked some fine morning in a war with the Ashantees, as they had been engaged with the Caffres some two or three years ago? This was an important question, and should be well considered by the House before they sanctioned the purchase of these forts. If they were not going to buy any territory, but merely the forts with the land under the range of their guns, what was to be the character of their relations with the native tribes? Were they to be dependent on this country? But they were told that there was a probability of raising a revenue from the natives. He never knew a case in which territory was to be purchased or acquired, in which they were not told that it would bring a revenue. But the result generally was, that it was a source of money going out, instead of coming in. If they succeeded in raising money by building custom-houses at the foot of these forts, he could only say that it would be the first time such a feat was performed. What was to prevent the people from landing goods elsewhere, than within the reach of their guns in these forts? But then the duty was to be moderate—3d. a pound on tobacco; and then they were to receive a small duty on 3,000,000 gallons of rum. If these duties were to be levied by means of custom-houses connected with the forts, the trade would be carried on by contraband—it would be like the slave trade, and smuggling would be carried on in spite of them. He exhorted the House not to trust in this revenue till they saw how it was to be raised. The estimate of expenditure on account of the purchase of these forts was most fallacious, and he would advise the House not to confide in it. He had been sitting for three years on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Committee, and if he was convinced of any one thing more than another, it was as to the fallaciousness of the estimated cost of their garrisons and establishments abroad. The Civil Estimates furnished no criterion of the vast expenditure which was going on; and in the Army Estimates for this year there was an estimate of 6,000 l. a year for a corps of blacks on the coast of Africa, in consequence of the purchase of these forts. This was but the beginning of the outlay. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would, perhaps, reply that the West Indian corps which was now there would be withdrawn. But Earl Grey told them that it would not be so. Stores and other items of expense would be required
42
in consequence of the purchase of these forts, and it was for the purpose of guarding against another outlet of expenditure that he exhorted the Committee to pause before they recognised the principle of extending their possessions in tropical climates. He said tropical climates, because there was a great difference between acquiring territory where the race might become indigenous, so as to extend commerce and to spread the principle of self-government over the world, and taking possession of tropical territory, where their own race was not indigenous, where Government must be upheld by force, and where there was no prospect of being able to disembarrass themselves of the responsibility of governing the people. When they formerly took possession of tropical countries, they endeavoured to compensate themselves for the expense of governing them by monopolising trade. But they had now abandoned the principle and entered on a now epoch. He recollected that Burke, in his speeches on the American revolution, assigned two motives for colonisation—one, that of having an exclusive trade with the colonies, and maintaining navigation—the other, that of deriving a revenue from them by means of taxation. The principle of monopolising trade had been abandoned, and the navigation had been thrown open to all the world. The present, therefore, was the moment when they ought to pause before they extended their dominion by one square yard of territory in tropical climates. Another consideration why they should pause before they sanctioned the purchase of these forts was, that the climate was most prejudicial and fatal to the health of white men. We should be told, perhaps, of the great benefits to civilisation and humanity in our taking steps to abolish the slave trade. But was there not some consideration due to our own race, to those whom we should be sending to the coast of Africa, "the white man's grave?" Mr. Lander stated before the Lords' Committee that the mortality among the whites on the Gold Coast was 25 per cent per annum. What did the examination of Governor Winniett show?—
"Do you find that the health of the white officers suffers very much from the climate?—Very much; seven died during the time I was out there upon the coast alone. Did your health suffer while you were there?—In the first instance; you are quite sure, on arriving at the Gold Coast, to have an attack of fever, what they call the 'seasoning,' and two out of five are the average that die. After you get through the seasoning, you are compare

43
tively safe for five or seven years, with the exception of having an attack of fever and ague."
Were we justified, upon principles of humanity, in carrying on a system which involved the sacrifice of so many lives, after such repeated proof that it utterly failed in preventing the slave trade? It might he said, the victims went out voluntarily. But was not he particeps criminis who became party to the system—a system involving acts little short of suicide? He considered that he would be as much justified in taking part in a direct act of homicide as he would be in encouraging such an expedition as the Niger Expedition. He recollected that he denounced that expedition at a public meeting in Manchester as little short of murder, and he gave offence to many persons by doing so; but looking now at the consequences of that expedition, he should deeply reproach himself if he had not loudly protested against it. He called therefore on the philanthropists of the House to step in and prevent this wanton and unjustifiable sacrifice of human life. He called on those who professed the principle of humanity, as well as the political economist and the mere politician, on no ground to sanction the extension of this system to the coast of Africa.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 14,080 l, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March 1851; also, for the purchase of Stores, &c, on the Gold Coast, from the Danish Government."
MR. FORSTERfelt himself very incompetent to meet his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding as a speaker; but, on this occasion at all events, he had the advantage over his hon. Friend of knowing something of the matter before the House. In fact, his hon. Friend should endeavour to confine himself a little more to the subjects with which he was acquainted, such as the corn laws and financial reform, for he never departed a hair's breadth from them without involving himself in trouble and in unfounded statements. The hon. Member had said, the object of the purchase was the extension of our territory on the coast of Arica. It was no such thing. He also asserted it would tend to increase the mortality on the coast. Now, so far from that being the case, one of the great objects of the transaction was to lessen the mortality by enabling us to raise local black corps,
44
officered of course by white officers, who would, however, only remain on the coast for a very short time, and thus to diminish the mortality arising from the service of detachments of white regiments in a climate to which they were not accustomed. The hon. Member, in support of his allegations, had referred to Governor Winniett's journals. Now, he must say, he thought those journals were very silly, and regretted the Colonial Office had laid them on the table. [Oh!"] Well, he would withdraw the words "very silly," and merely say he thought they had been injurious. As to the arrangement itself, the hon. Member for the West Riding might be considered the author of the whole transaction, for it had been in consequence of the outcry raised by the financial and colonial reformers that Earl Grey was rendered anxious to decrease every possible expense, and, on coming to the Gold Coast, and finding there certain expenses without any revenue being raised to meet them, adopted the present arrangement as a means of raising some local revenue. Our settlements on the coast being situated between those of the Dutch and of the Danish, it was impossible to raise any revenue without coming to some arrangement with them. Denmark had sustained those forts for forty years at an annual expense of 3,000 l. or 4,000 l., without ever deriving the slightest benefit from them. [Laughter.] Yes, because Denmark had no trade whatever on the coast, but England had a trade, and that accounted for the anxiety of Denmark to get rid of these forts, and to sell them to England. She therefore made proposals on the subject, which were not accepted; France was anxious to obtain the forts; but Denmark having taken a great interest in the suppression of the slave trade, very properly wished to put them under the care of England; and Holland having agreed to come to an arrangement with us for enabling us to raise a revenue, the negotiation for the sale of the forts was finally arranged, and in this way it was now proposed to lessen the expenditure of the British establishment. In effect, the measure was one of economy, and on that ground he was prepared to defend it. It would at all events be the fault of the Colonial Office if it was not so. Whether as a measure of economy or of commerce, it was one which affected the Manchester district more than any portion of the country. The hon. Member for the West

45
Riding was mistaken if he supposed the Liverpool petitioners had any interest in the trade with the Gold Coast, for they did not possess any, and the petition set forth, that they approved of the acquisition of the forts for the sake of humanity, and as a stand against the monopoly established on the coast by the French. In order to show that the people of Manchester were also in favour of the purchase of the forts, he would mention a petition that had been presented from the Commercial Association of that town, to the effect, that the petitioners had observed with regret that a notice had been given by an hon. Member—alluding to the hon. Member for the West Riding—of his intention to oppose the grant, and that they were of opinion great advantages would accrue from the purchase to the handloom weavers in particular, to our trade with the Gold Coast in general, and to the natives of the country. The hon. Member for the West Riding was completely mistaken in supposing trade could be carried on without those forts, for then the French would get possession of them, and, in that case, we should soon be entirely excluded. At the present moment the export of cotton goods to the coast amounted to 120,000 l. annually; and, as the cost of the raw material did not amount to more than 20,000 l., it was evident the trade to that coast produced an annual gain of 100,000 l. The hon. Member might say, plausibly enough, that the Commercial Association had some peculiar interest in the question; but the Manchester Guardian, reflecting, as he believed, the opinions of the manufacturers more accurately than any other, had, in its last number, expressed its great surprise at the hon. Member for the West Riding's notice, and its still greater surprise that the hon. Members for Manchester should support him, although they had lately proposed the East India Company should send out at vast expense a commission to inquire into the growth of cotton in India, which would last for the next ten years, while here they opposed a paltry grant likely to effect a great increase in the supplies of cotton, thus showing the difference that existed between the crotchets of their own heads and the well-matured plans of Government. In his (Mr. Forster's) experience of forty years with respect to the coast of Africa, he must say this was the first vote he had ever seen which was likely to be attended with any beneficial effects to the trade and
46
commerce of this country. He could sum up millions that had been completely thrown away on the coast—thrown away by folly, There was the expedition of Major Rennie in 1815, which cost 400,000 l., which scarcely started from Senegal, and never did the least good. Then there was the expedition of Major Gray, which cost at least 100,000 l.; next there was the expedition of Mr. Laing from Sierra Leone, which cost 100,000 l. more, neither of which was of the least use; then followed the fatal expedition of Captain Tucker to Congo, which ended like the others, and cost a great deal of money; and, lastly, came the Niger expedition, which was in preparation when he (Mr. Forster) came into the House in 1841. Knowing that it would end like all the others, he had taken the trouble of speaking to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in order to dissuade him from entering upon it. He spoke to the noble Lord in the library, who had received his suggestions and warnings, he would not say with incivility, but a little coldly, perhaps as he sometimes received his friends. His advice was, at all events, rejected; the expedition started, and his predictions were, unfortunately, all fulfilled. After all these sums had been wasted in such expeditions, it was too bad that this small vote for 10,000 l., which was likely to be of real service, should be objected to The Colonial Office seldom did anything right; for thirty-five years he had opposed their proceedings on the coast of Africa, but he was glad to see they were ready lately to listen to reasonable advice, and he would support them fully on this vote. These forts had nothing at all to do with the acquisition of territory they were merely the jaws through which our commerce would flow. We did not injure the people. We merely advised the natives and assisted them in what they called their "palavers." All the control we exercised was by means of moral influence; but he was not surprised that the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding should have been directed against the acquisition of territory, for it was clear the hon. Gentleman would shut the doors of all our foreign embassies, cut all our colonies, and leave England to stand isolated in the world, if he had his own way. But the hon. Member ought to support the purchase of the forts, for in no other way could he fit the people there for self-

47
government, and in no other way could he reduce the local expenditure. The hon. Gentleman argued that nothing had been done towards putting down the slave trade; but the argument only showed how exceedingly ignorant he was on the subject, for by the influence of commerce alone a line of coast of 1,500 miles, from the Gambia to Whydah, had been cleared of the slave trade altogether.
MR. JACKSONexpressed his surprise that the Government had not at once explained the object and real intent of this vote. He had heard a petition from merchants of Liverpool read, declaring that it was necessary to expend this sum of money, and he could understand their doing so; and for this reason—so soon as the 10,000 l. should be voted, if it was to be voted, the Liverpool merchants would be on the alert to have a share of it. In order that it be paid, bills must be drawn on the different departments, and how were they to be cashed? By the manufacturers of this country trading from London and Liverpool. In that process the Liverpool merchants would take care of themselves, and receive their share of the profit. He could, therefore, understand their petitioning in favour of this vote. But before he gave his sanction to it, he wished to know from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or from the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether this 10,000 l. was to be spent in adding to our physical force, or in carrying forward that moral ascendancy through which they all wished to see the slave trade totally abolished? There was not in that House a man more anxious to see the slave trade abolished than he was, nor one less disposed to advocate the saving of money, if by a judicious expenditure of it they could achieve that glorious object. What was the history of that trade, briefly told? About 200 years ago the West Indies fell into our hands, and we went to the coast of Africa for the purpose of obtaining a population for those territories which would cultivate the soil. In accomplishing that object, every imaginable crime was committed, every species of rapine and murder resorted to. At the instance of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Buxton, and other such men, we as a nation changed our views and our tactics. We said that slavery should no longer exist, and we announced that money should be no obstacle in our endeavours to destroy it. But to whom did the 20,000,000 l.
48
which we voted go? Not to the black men whom we had so badly treated, and to obtain whom we had committed such crimes. No, we paid every shilling of it to ourselves. We paid it in the shape of compensation to the West Indies, our own possessions, which was like paying it from one pocket into another. He would just remind the House of what the Emperor of Morocco said to Cromwell when Cromwell threatened to bombard and destroy certain cities belonging to the emperor. "Give me," said he, "half the money it will cost you, and I'll do it for you." So if we had given to the African chiefs half the money we had spent in maintaining a squadron on the coast of Africa, those chiefs would have been to us tantamount to an efficient police, and would have long since completely eradicated the slave trade. If we compensated those chiefs, and showed them that by a useful commerce they would gain quite as much as they now did by this nefarious traffic, he was quite certain they would embrace the one and abandon the other. He wished, therefore, to know what was to be done with the 10,000 l.—whether it was to be employed in the commencement of a new policy, or in the continuance of the old system? If the latter, he would vote against it; but if it was for a fresh system, which would tend to the withdrawal of the squadron, he would vote for it. Let the Government change their course; let them spend but half the amount they were now spending, and say that they were prepared to compensate every chief from Sierra Leone to the farthest point at which the slave trade existed, and he was satisfied that in a few years they would accomplish what the country so much desired, and had already made, but in vain, such sacrifices to achieve. He hoped the Government would give some satisfactory explanation of the vote, and not leave its defence to an independent Member. It was not a question of 10,000 l., nor 15,000 l., nor 20,000 l., they had to deal with, but whether they were to begin a system of which they could not foresee the end.
MR. HAWESsaid, that if he had hesitated to rise earlier, it was because he had reason to expect, and the event had proved his expectation not to have been ill-founded, that two Gentlemen largely connected with the British trade on the coast of Africa would address to the House

49
observations more valuable than any which he had to offer. Upon this occasion he was very glad to hear the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick, and he had no doubt that the House was also glad to hear what had fallen from him; but he confessed that he did not quite understand the speech of another hon. Friend behind him, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. That hon. Gentleman told the House that if they voted the sum of money now proposed, the Liverpool merchants would not be slow to take advantage of such a proceeding; but what possible objection to the proposed vote could be founded on such a circumstance as that? If any two positions could be regarded as more clearly established than any others, they were these: first, that there prevailed in this country a very general opinion that the slave trade ought to be abolished as speedily as possible; and the second was, that the most effectual mode of putting an end to it would be the gradual extension of legitimate trade upon the coast of Africa. Now, experience had shown that every step which Great Britain took in the extension of commerce, had the effect of limiting and circumscribing the slave trade; and, bearing that truth in mind, he could not help expressing strong surprise at some of the speeches which the House had heard; and he confessed that no portion of those speeches struck his mind as more extraordinary than the complaint that the present vote did not comprehend the whole of the expenditure. It surely did not profess to do anything of the sort, inasmuch as it made no pretence to include the expenses of the Army and the Navy employed in that part of the public service. But, passing from considerations of this nature, he would come to the question before the House, and call their attention to the state of that question. There were certain forts belonging to the Danish Government placed along a portion of the African coast to the extent of 100 or 200 miles, and commanding one of the finest rivers in Africa, through which stream there might be derived the largest supplies of all varieties of produce that could be expected to exist in that part of the world; and now, in seeking fairly and legitimately to acquire possession of those forts, and when they were considering the proposition of a vote of money for that purpose, they were told that they were seeking to acquire the sovereignty of the districts in which
50
those forts were situated. But that was quite a mistake; and it was also a mistake to suppose that there existed any intention of imposing taxes of any kind. No doubt revenue, as in similar cases, would be derived from commerce; but it would be revenue in the nature of customs duties, and not at all in the form of taxes imposed by a ruling power upon subjects. Then, if he looked to authority and to the opinions of others upon this important question, he might remind the House of the petitions that had come before them from Manchester and from Liverpool. It might be reasonably supposed that the Gentlemen who signed these petitions were pretty good judges of the extent to which British commerce might be carried in that part of the world, and they well knew its condition. They knew it to be increasing, and they knew also the time at which it had begun to increase. Now if, as he believed no one could deny, our commerce was increasing on the coast of Africa, was it not the best possible policy to extend that trade to the utmost; for, he repeated that it was to the extension of that commerce and to the moral influence of England that the world must look for the extinction of the slave trade. It was hardly necessary for him to say much more with regard to the value and importance of that trade which Great Britain carried on with the west coast of Africa; and saying nothing with regard to the produce of cotton, for which that soil and climate were peculiarly adapted, he would remind the House that from the papers then on their table they might derive all the information that would be necessary for enabling them to form a sound judgment respecting our trade with the African coast; but he might nevertheless occupy a moment in stating that the value of our exports to the west coast of Africa in 1846 was 421,000 l.; in 1847, 518,000 l.; and in 1848, 571,000 l. Looking, then, at the present state and future prospects of our trade with Africa, he ventured to assert that the whole amount of our proposed expenditure would be covered by the revenue accruing from our commerce, and in. that opinion he did not stand alone, for it was one held and expressed by Governor Winniett. He had always confidently believed that the regular trade, when fairly and extensively introduced, would very speedily supersede the contraband; and there could be no doubt, if low duties were imposed upon goods legally entered, that

51
the whole of those duties would be easily collected. There was one other point upon which he should like to touch before he concluded. The King of Dahomey, who was one of the principal chiefs on that coast, stated—and the statement was contained in papers on the table of the House—that he found the revenue which he derived from the slave trade was rapidly falling away, in proportion as the legitimate trade increased; that his subjects, since factories for the purchase of palm oil had been established, did not pay their tribute with their former regularity; that they set him at defiance; that they cheated him; and he wished the British Government would remove those factories. Could there possibly be a stronger testimony borne to the effect which the extension of British commerce had upon the slave trade? Then, he begged the House to remember that these forts were not to be obtained with the view of making them military stations, but for the purpose of securing the protection of the British flag to the fair trader. He did not overlook the fact that the great loss of life on the African coast had often been made matter of complaint; but his answer to that was, that it arose from the employment of white men upon that station, and that it was now proposed to establish a local force. Further, there was a point to which he desired to advert, and that was the stress that had been laid on the cultivation of cotton in Guiana and other places; but they had by their own policy brought the cultivation of cotton there to its present state; and the fact of Guiana being adapted by soil and climate for the cultivation of cotton, formed no reason why they might not promote its cultivation in other parts of the world. A sum of 10,000 l. applied in the manner now proposed, would do more service to the interests of commerce than in any other mode in which an equal amount could possibly be expended. Upon these general grounds he asked the House to consent to that which he fully believed to be the wisest and most economical mode of contributing to the great work of putting down the slave trade—namely, that of promoting the legitimate commerce of Great Britain with the coast of Africa.
COLONEL THOMPSONagreed with the hon. Member for Berwick in everything but the very stringent condemnation he had passed on the Colonial Office; for he thought, never to do right, must exceed
52
the powers of that Office or any other. But on a question like the present, he must look to his constituents. Now, he could imagine one of his constituents saying, "We are in alarm at Bradford at hearing the Government is going to give ten thousand pounds for forts on the coast of Africa. We are afraid there is a plan for increasing our trade, and we know the danger there is in increasing our trade. We have had our trade increased before, and the result is, that there is not a beggar in Bradford, nor scarcely a man who would accept of sixpence if he was to be put to the trouble of asking for it. We have seen quite enough of that kind of thing, and we beg there may be no more." He had said he could imagine one of his constituents saying this, but he could not imagine any more; because individuals were subject to aberrations of intellect, but communities were not. He would, therefore, vote for any reasonable expenditure which might tend to the development of the trade by which his constituents were to flourish. But he saw further reasons why Great Britain must lose no opportunity of increasing her commercial power. He had some time ago had occasion to represent to that House, that there was a quarter in which a spirit intensely hostile to Great Britain was arising. He had no wish to speak unjustly of America; but there were two seeds struggling there, the seed of the men who went out from us and of whom the old world was not worthy, before whom he should rejoice to see all heads bared and all standards bowed in reverence; and there was the seed of our negro-drivers—men who had given, and were every day giving, proof of the incompatibility of slavery with all political and social morality—men who had said, "Evil be thou our good," to a greater extent than had been elsewhere witnessed in the world—and who hated England as the mother and patroness of the freedom which was their enemy, and had sworn in their own inflated language—the proof of the animus which moved them, whatever might be the chances of its execution—within the life of children now born, to substitute "the modest stars and stripes" for the "flaunting bunting that floats over Windsor Castle." And it was clear enough, that within the time specified, strength would not be wanted for the trial, if England did not use the time in increasing her own strength by the means which nature or Providence put within her reach. The plan of America,

53
at this moment going on unchecked, was to cover the western world with slave States to be component parts of her own power. If England, therefore, did not play off free Asia and free Africa against slavish America, the time would come when the American would spit in her palaces. Meanwhile the chances were in favour of England; for there was an English principle at work as well as an American. The English principle was to unite all races and bloods under the name of Englishman. Read Do Foe's description of a True-born Englishman, and see whether any harm could be done by the introduction of black Englishmen. The Horse Guards Blue did not object to a a horse because he was black; and why should a citizen be objected to on the same account? In Africa, as in Asia, we had men impervious to the influences of climate, ready to amalgamate with us and to do our behests; and if we did not find the men able for our purposes ready made, we must make them. Forty years ago he had endeavoured to lay the foundation of a Cadets' school, in Africa, where the sons of Africans of influence should receive such an education as is given to midshipmen in the gun-room of a line-of-battle ship; it was very likely his successor put it down, but it was not difficult to see the uses that might be made of such a system. He had often wondered how long it was before Tubal Cain, who was stated to be the first blacksmith, found out he could use an intervening material to hold his metal, and so save his own fingers from being burnt. Just as imperfect policy was it, for a European nation desiring to exert itself in Africa, not to find out that there was an instrument ready made, God's tropical man, who had only to be employed, or if not now fit for the employment, made so. The time was over when people pretended to doubt of the capacity of the African. If the European, the Jew, and the Arab, were the best stocks of the human family, the African undoubtedly came next, and wanted nothing but trying, to prove the goodness of his blood. Africa, in fact, appeared to be stretching out her hands to Great Britain, for there were few or feeble prejudices there to oppose a junction; and a general feeling among the natives of that country was, that the highest honour and good fortune which could befall them, would be to become English citizens. For all these reasons, he would run the risk of
54
what might betide him from his constituents, for voting for the 100,00 l.
MR. M. GIBSONsaid, there was one part of the explanation of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies which was not clear to his mind, and which he thought had an important bearing on the matter in hand. It was said that a large revenue was to be derived. Now, somebody must pay this large revenue. It was said also that the tariff of duties which was to be enforced had been submitted to somebody who had approved of it, and this "somebody" was said to be a merchant connected with that trade. Now he did not think that the tariff of duties was to be approved by a particular merchant interested in that trade. But the question was who were they going to tax? Why, these very negroes for whom they expressed so much sympathy. His hon. Friend the Member for Berwick said these ports were the inlets to that part of Africa. Then what were they going to do? They were going to place themselves at these ports, without any right, and to collect a tribute on the articles that were brought into that country for that population, and this tribute they told them was for the benefit of that population. And then the hon. Gentleman told them they were going to christianise the population. They were always told that was the object. He doubted very much whether they would. The only thing they would do would be to make these negroes pay more for their rum and tobacco, and all for the benefit of the British Exchequer. He did not like economy at the expense of those whom they had no right to tax. He wanted to know from what source this right sprung, it was said that it was all for the benefit of our merchants trading with Africa; but would imposing a duty on British manufactures going into Africa extend our trade? He must say, if we were to have these ports it would be more creditable for us to pay the expense of them, than to defray it by taxing the negroes. On these grounds he should vote for the Amendment.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that no doubt any duties which could be raised upon the import of rum or other articles would go in aid of the annual expense of the ordinary establishments; and if any new establishments were required, it would then be applied in aid of the additional expense thereby incurred. But the question now was, whether they would apply a sum of 10,000 l. once for all, for the purchase of

55
certain guns and other munitions of the full value of 10,000 l., now lying and being in certain Danish forts on the western coast of Africa, the surrender of these forts being made to us, at the same time, entirely gratuitous; and would they be doing a wise, or an unwise thing, in accepting that jurisdiction? He had before him a map of the forts in question, from which it would be seen that down to the Equator the slave trade existed only in the Bight of Benin; in other words that the impediment to the legitimate trade of Great Britain, namely, the slave trade, existed only in the Bight of Benin. Along the Gold Coast we had had a succession of forts from time immemorial; and immediately adjoining the Danish forts, at the furthest east, was a lagune, an internal navigation, which was a great focus of the slave trade. The King of Dahomey, who derived a considerable revenue from the slave trade, had actually invited us to establish a fort at the point intervening between this lagune and the Danish forts. Now, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, would say, "Abolish the whole of the cost of African expenditure, spend nothing upon the forts on the Gold Coast, and do not spend anything upon forts in the territory of the King of Dahomey," although that advice would be contrary to the report of the Committee of 1842, it would at least be consistent in itself, and have the semblance of common sense. But the Amendment said, "Keep up your expenditure upon the Gold Coast, though it offers no impediment to the slave trade, but do not fill up the hiatus between those establishments and the Danish forts; and although the Danish Government is willing to give them up for nothing, do not spend 10,000 l. once for all upon a purchase which will make your territory complete, and your operations effectual." But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester objected to placing a tax upon imports from the interior of Africa. On this point, he could only say he was surprised to hear such a doctrine from Gentlemen who were peculiarly the advocates of financial economy, and who objected to every item, however unimportant, in the miscellaneous estimates. Giving them the benefit of the argument—"do not tax the natives of Africa," they should not forget that the Government would have provided for the necessary expenditure of the establishment by a moderate tax on the na-
56
tives; but that, in order to please the financial economists, they insisted upon having 6,000 l. for that purpose left in the estimates. Let him, however, call attention to another consideration—the effect of the slave trade upon the legitimate trade, which, the commercial representatives of England were bound to promote. A fertile country and a large population, not upon the coast but in the interior—how was it they did not consume Manchester goods? Because in the interior the country was a scene of war and rapine, in order to keep up the slave trade. It could not on that account be a seat of industry. It was in evidence, however, that the people looked upon the English as their friends, and the persons with whom they most desired to trade; but if there was only a slave trade, they must live by the slave trade, because they could not cultivate along with it those products which were legitimate objects of commerce. Manchester could not manufacture for them, nor Liverpool carry for them, unless the slave trade were put down. But if we carried our jurisdiction along the coast, there could be no slave trade in that large and fertile internal region, because there would be no facilities for export. The same effects would follow there as had taken place in the Bight of Biafra. There, since the slave trade had been abolished, 22,000 tons of British shipping were employed last year, though previously when the traffic was carried on, not a single British vessel could be found there. Such being the state of the case, was it extraordinary that the commercial Association of Manchester and the African Association of Liverpool should have presented petitions to the House that this money should be expended? If Liverpool merchants were not slow in taking advantage of this trade, whose articles, he would ask, were they exporting? Why, those very articles which the constituents of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester were so usefully employed in manufacturing. The question, too had been adverted to, whether we could not obtain from that part of Africa a supply of cotton for our own manufactures? He had often heard in that House descriptions of the extreme importance of finding new sources of supply for our cotton manufactories; indeed, the English language could hardly go too far in expressing the extreme importance of finding a new and independent supply of cotton. The Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, in a memorial to the Government,

57
dated January 10, 1850, speaking of the late Mr. Duncan's visit to Dahomey, said, "An increase in the sources of supply of raw cotton is a matter of importance." It yielded not, they said, in importance to the importance of a plentiful supply of food, and he agreed with them. Now, lie had been informed that already there had been an import of cotton into this country of a most encouraging quality. There was great reason to expect the highest advantages from this cause; and this experiment alone justified him, in the position he had the honour to hold, in voting that the sum of 10,000 l., in the circumstances under which it was asked, should be voted by the House. Mr. Duncan added, said the Chamber of Commerce, that there were then twelve ships taking in palm oil, where, only three years ago it was rare to see three vessels, two of which would be slavers. Then it was said that through the influence of their talented and persevering Member, a charter could easily be procured for a company under the title of the African Agricultural Company. He must of course leave the African Company and its prospectus in the hands of the hon. Gentleman; but he hoped he had amply justified the vote he was about to give. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the policy of an armed squadron upon the coast of Africa, and to putting down the slave trade by an armed force at sea. He (Mr. Cardwell) would not enter upon that question, but he would remind the House that we had had forts upon the coast for fifty years, and that for fifty years there had been no slave trade there. It had been said that the British name was hated. But the king of Dahomey would not give a passport to any but English, and he implored us to send him missionaries. If we wished to extend our commerce with the interior of the continent of Africa, and to promote objects which it was said could not be effected by armed force but only by pacific means; if we wanted to suppress the slave trade, and to diffuse Christianity, he could see no possible objection to the vote.
MR. V. SMITHwas glad that the Government had made their treaty for the purchase of these ports conditional on a vote of that House; he only regretted that the question had not been submitted in a larger form, namely, whether we should, by either purchase or conquest, extend our colonies to the very utmost. We were not to lay down a rule of establishing a crusade in every quarter of the globe, and
58
expending a vast amount of money, for the sake of extending Christianity—the principle laid down in the report. It was remarkable that most of our attempts to spread Christianity in Africa had failed; even at the Cape of Good Hope the Governor stated such to be the case. It was said this would extend the. moral influence of England; but nothing more was meant than impressing the natives with an idea of our great prowess. Fear was expressed that the French would get hold of these forts, and he saw no reason why they should not. The arguments in favour of their purchase by England, would equally apply to all the forts, Dutch, and others, upon the African coast. He should be glad to hear whether the possession of these forts would diminish the cost of the African squadron; if so, he would support the vote; but on this point the report gave no information. It was said this purchase would make our territory complete; but that could not be, unless we possessed the whole coast. The Dutch and the French were equally anxious with ourselves to put down the slave trade, and perhaps the Danes were not less so. Thence the purchase could not be justified on the ground of its being necessary for the suppression of the slave trade. The idea seemed to have originated with the hon. Member for Berwick, who had thereupon put himself in communication with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary and the Danish Government.
MR. FORSTERsaid, it was quite incorrect to say that he had made any offer to the Danish Government; they had applied to him in the first instance.
MR. V. SMITHsaid, we might as well be asked to purchase the French and Dutch forts, if we were not content with the co-operation of those nations in suppressing the slave trade. He was entirely opposed to the projects of extending our colonies by any means; and he hoped the Government would not attend to every suggestion from the manufacturing districts for the extension of colonies with the view of extending trade. He hoped they would be warned by what had taken place in Labuan. The greatest difficulties arose from the unlimited extension of our colonies in all parts of the world—the Cape of Good Hope was a notorious instance of this; and in all those distant colonies the military expenditure in particular was most excessive. It was no doubt a very flattering notion to be continually adding little

59
portions to our territory, with the view of making it complete; but he must protest against such unwarranted extensions, and should vote against the Motion.
SIR E. BUXTONconcurred in the impropriety of extending our possessions all over the world; but the effect of the proposed purchase would be, not to increase, but to diminish, our expenditure on the coast of Africa. A revenue would be raised by taxing the inhabitants; and he was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, and others near him, object to a colony defraying its own cost. If, by a moderate outlay, we could increase our commerce in Africa, the money would be well spent. Our present colonies there were very near those of the Danes and the Dutch; so much so, that it had been impossible to raise revenue from them, or to give security to the trade. By adding the forts in question, both objects would be accomplished. As to the supply of cotton, it was surely worth 10,00 l. to try the experiment whether it could not be obtained from that coast.
MR. C. ANSTEYsaid, the object of this vote had been very differently stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, and by other authorities as competent on the other side. The hon. Gentleman said it was merely to form a nucleus for the spread of Christianity and civilisation in Africa; the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for South Essex said it was to form a new colony which should produce a revenue. He wished to know whether this vote would be taken as a substitute for that most objectionable one in support of the African squadron. So long as we had settlements on the coast of Africa we must have a squadron there for their protection; but the idea of putting down the slave trade by the acquisition of these forts was most vain and illusory. Their possession of these territories was but temporary, and the time would come when the civilised African would be able, without the interference of the white man, to administer the affairs of his own ports. He, on this ground, objected to the extension of such possessions, and to the establishment of even pacific factories, when they were conducted by the Government.
MR. BRIGHTwould oppose the vote on behalf of the trading community which he was supposed to represent. He doubted whether there was, in the history of any country in the world, anything to be found so contrary to the dictates of Christianity,
60
as their conduct with regard to their colonies. With regard to the trade, they were assured that they were now going to take a step which would very likely afford a new source of supply in cotton to the Lancashire merchants, and an increased number of customers for the produce of the manufacturers. Now he would not have the merits of this vote to be judged by any wish that the Commercial Association might have expressed in its favour. The Chamber of Commerce in Manchester did not support it. Mr. Duncan had been furnished by that chamber with cotton seeds of various kinds to take out to Africa; but he believed that the chamber had received a very small amount of cotton in return. He protested against the Chamber of Commerce being quoted in favour of the proposition before the House. If that proposition was placed before them for a decision, it would be rejected by a large majority. The proposition put him in mind of the English raising factories in India about two centuries since. It was then pretended that their intercourse was to be of a mere pacific nature; but since that they had discovered that India had been conquered by the natives themselves under the dictation and the pay of the English Government. He understood that it was the intention of the Government to establish a black corps; now he would not be astonished if they were, after the example of the King of Dahomey, to raise an army of black women. The Government were seeking to establish the principle that it was necessary for them to possess a large portion of the west coast of Africa, in order to keep down the slave trade. Was it not the wish of the Government to become possessed, in the course of the next ten years, of a large portion of the continent of Africa? If such was their intention, it was a pity that they did not state it more fully to the House. This question involved a much higher consideration than the gain of some thousands of pounds to be procured as duty on rum and tobacco. The Government had not always shown themselves so exceedingly anxious to procure cotton for the Lancashire manufacturers. When a Motion was made, some time ago, for a commission to inquire into the state of the growth of cotton in India, the Government opposed the Motion. The fact was, that they did not care one straw about the growth of cotton in India or Africa. It was always with them a poli-

61
tical question, and the squadron now maintained at the expense of the country, and in spite almost of Parliament, was kept up by repeated threats of resignation on the part of the Government, and, what was worse, a dissolution of Parliament. The interests of the Government in the growth of cotton was never seen until they had in hand a project of that kind; but when any proposition was made for the benefit of the Manchester and Liverpool merchants, the Government pooh-poohed it, and allowed the Directors of the East India Company to dictate to them the course which they were to pursue. He repudiated, on the part of those whom he represented, any connexion between the cotton trade and its interests, and the project before the House. He rose for the purpose of remonstrating against the supposition that the cotton trade had anything to do with it; and, as there was not the slightest probability of their getting fifty bales of cotton for the next fifty years if such a measure were agreed to, he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire.
SIR DE L. EVANSbelieved that the cotton merchants were in favour of it. He believed also that they had a great deal of culpability to redeem, as also complicity to atone for; and therefore, for his own part, though this question were connected with the question of the African squadron, which it was not, he was prepared to take any degree of odium that might result from voting in favour of it. He believed that the acceptance of this small territory would be highly beneficial to commerce, whilst the whole expense of maintaining it would not exceed some 1,150 l. per annum, to be paid by a small duty upon rum, He believed the result would be, by increased commercial intercourse, to lessen the necessity of maintaining the expense of the African squadron; and on these grounds he was prepared to support the vote.
MR. HUTTagreed with the views expressed by the hon. Member for the West Riding, and looked upon this proposal to purchase these forts as another of those costly and abortive experiments by which the people of this country had been so long deluded into the imagination that they were magnanimously suppressing the slave trade. For 30 years together they had pursued the game by no other means. They had made treaties enough, and had undergone sacrifices enough, to have secured the most perfect success to their
62
policy, if success by such means could by possibility be obtained; but what was the result they had arrived at? They had arrived at that conclusion which the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Canning arrived at in 1822—that it would have been well for the cause of humanity if none of those experiments had been undertaken. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies told them, that although they had failed on other occasions, yet upon this they were about to be successful. He had no doubt his hon. Friend was sincere in his belief; but there had been persons who were as honest as himself, and not less sagacious, who predicted success on every one of those experiments. They had, however, failed, and he could perceive no reason why they should think that this would succeed, it was said, that on a certain portion of the coast of Africa they had put down the slave trade. But had they diminished the slave trade itself? Was it not now as large as it ever had been? And was it not carried on under circumstances of as great horror as ever it was? It was not six weeks ago when a most eminent merchant of Liverpool informed him, and produced a letter in corroboration of his statement, that the slave trade of Brazil was now as active as on any former occasion, and that never till now were slaves valued at so low a price in the markets of Brazil. What, then, was the value of their blockading policy? After 30 years of great exertions, all they had done was to force the slave trade to shift its quarters, and to break out with greater violence elsewhere. They were going to purchase these forts; were they prepared to erect martello towers along the whole coastline of the continent of Africa? His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies was too sagacious to undertake any such proceeding. Then he begged to tell his hon. Friend, that unless he was prepared to hermetically seal the whole coast of Africa, it was of no use to occupy one or two more points on that immense line of coast. He was himself thoroughly convinced, that if the House passed this vote, they would not put down the slave trade; but that they would embark upon a system of territorial aggrandisement and national expense of which no man living could foresee the extent.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot but think that this question has risen in the course of the discussion to a magnitude very much disproportioned to its real im-

63
portance. We are told that this is the he-ginning of a great and extensive system of increasing our colonial possessions; my hon. Friend who has just spoken entertains that apprehension. Another Gentleman thinks that this is the commencement of establishing in Africa a dominion commensurate with that which we have obtained in India. I cannot partake in these apprehensions. The only person, as it appears to me, who has really stated any practical views on the subject, is my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, who has just spoken; and who, avowing—I believe I am not misrepresenting my hon. Friend—that he is not an enemy to the slave trade—[Mr. HUTT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord.] Allow me to explain. What my hon. Friend thinks ought to be done is, that there should be an agreement between this country and Brazil, by which we should consent to a regulated and limited system of slavery. I hope I do not misrepresent my hon. Friend.
MR. HUTT: The noble Lord does misrepresent me; but I have already made one speech, and I am afraid the House would not have patience to hear a second.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I thought I was borne out in saying that my hon. Friend maintained that we ought to cease all forcible attempts at putting down the slave trade. I am sure his arguments in public, and I venture to say he won't contradict me when I state that his private opinion is, that the best policy this country could adopt was to consent to a limited and well-regulated amount of slave trade on the coast of Africa. [Mr. HUTT: Hear, hear!] If my hon. Friend does not intend that, I beg his pardon, and I retract it. My hon. Friend, at all events, has stated that our attempts have failed; that after a long course of endeavours to put down the slave trade, we have utterly failed in that attempt; and that the slave trade is just where it was when we began in 1815. But what was the attempt made in 1815 for the purpose of putting down that trade? What was the utmost endeavour which the Powers of Europe would make for that purpose? They thought that at the outset the best plan was to put an end to the slave trade as far as the south of the line. Well, the slave trade, with the exception of a small portion of the coast between Whydah and Lagos, has practically been put down. Therefore it is contrary to the fact to assert that England—in conjunction with, and not in opposition to, all the
64
other Powers of Europe—it is a misrepresentation to say that we have not to a great degree succeeded. My hon. Friend has stated that the slave trade of Brazil is as extensive now as it ever was before our attempts to suppress it. I beg to assure my hon. Friend that he is mistaken as to that fact. The account of the importations of slaves into Brazil in 1849 show that the numbers fell short of the importations in 1848. My hon. Friend, also, is quite mistaken as to the price of slaves having fallen in the markets of Brazil; on the contrary, the price has been considerably augmented. But any one who knows not what is really going on, would suppose from what has been said during this discussion that the question is whether this country should acquire some vast extent of territory in Africa, to be obtained at some enormous amount. Why, the whole question is this—whether we should accept from Denmark a trading post, or fort, as it is called, on the coast of Africa, occupied by a few black soldiers, for the purpose of supporting the interests of commerce, and of affording security to our merchants, and by the possession of these forts protecting that commerce from the jealousy and activity of rivals? If Parliament were to refuse to sanction this acquisition, there is no doubt the acquisition will pass into other hands. I am sure those who know the details of the African trade must be well aware of the inconvenience and prejudices arising to our merchants from the too close a neighbourhood of jealous commercial rivals. The way in which this question arose is this—the Danish Government stated to the British Government, through its Minister in this country, that they had a certain station, or certain forts, on the coast of Africa, which were of no use to them, inasmuch as they had no commerce of any magnitude for which those forts might serve as channels; that they were anxious to hand them over to some friendly Power; and that, knowing the interest which England, in common with Denmark, has taken in the suppression of the slave trade, and knowing also the increasing commerce we are carrying on in Africa, they were willing te make over these stations to England, provided only that we would pay for the materials which were there at the time, and which were valued at 10,000 l. A more friendly and handsome offer on the part of another country wag never made; and a more unwise refusal never could be made to a handsome offer than the refusal which this

65
House is now called upon to make to an offer so made. We all know that it is very difficult to please everybody. One day we are told that it is of the utmost importance to the manufacturing interest of the country to obtain a supply of cotton; and we are asked, at great expense, to send a commission to India, which could not report for a great length of time, and which would very possibly end in no useful result whatever; and now, here, when we are offered three or four trading stations upon a coast infinitely nearer, where a supply of cotton is known to exist, and where, with ordinary care and good management, we would be sure to obtain a large supply, the House is called upon not to accept the offer, and thereby to forego what appears to be a most likely method of obtaining a supply of cotton. The hon. Member for Manchester seems to treat this prospect of a supply as a matter not likely to turn out advantageously; but the specimens which Mr. Duncan sent home, were, I understand, found to be exceedingly good. I may mention also, that Mr. Beecroft has gone out to Dahomey for the double purpose of endeavouring to conclude an arrangement, such as my hon. Friend behind me thought one of the best modes of suppressing the slave trade, by which pecuniary allowances for a limited period were to be offered to the chiefs, on condition that they should abstain from carrying on the trade; and also for the purpose of collecting specimens of cotton, and procuring a large supply for this country. Now all these objects, whether you are anxious to put down the slave trade without that cost which certain persons grudge, or to form additional openings to the commerce of this country with the interior of Africa—a territory which offers inexhaustible resources for commerce; or whether you are anxious to secure the extension of Christianity and civilisation amongst the natives of Africa—an object to which surely the utmost importance may be attached—all these ends, I maintain, will be promoted by the acquisition of these trading stations, which fill up the gap in the line of communications we already possess, and which may be obtained at a very trifling expense.
MR. HUTT: The noble Lord below me, in defence of his own case, has thought it necessary to state that I have, at some place and time, advocated a qualified system of slave trade. Now, I distinctly deny that either here or anywhere else, either now or at any former time, I ever held such
66
an opinion; and I have only to request that the noble Lord, if ever he should be advised to repeat such a statement, will be prepared to mention the time and the place. There is no person in this House who looks on the slave trade with greater heartfelt horror than I do. It is because I look upon the slave trade as one of the greatest of all human crimes that I am most anxious to repress it; and although I do not doubt the honest sincerity with which the noble Lord is carrying forward his views, I must tell him, since he has challenged me on the subject, that I do look upon him as one of the most practical promoters of the slave trade now existing. I have only one remark further to make. The noble Lord stated that I was entirely mistaken in saying that slaves had fallen in price in the markets of Brazil. The acquaintance which circumstances enable me to have with the singular information which the noble Lord obtained on this subject, and the extraordinary correspondence he receives, have caused me to listen to that statement without much surprise; but I wish to state to the House that it was not without reason that I made the assertion. A gentleman, who is one of the first merchants of Liverpool, and who gave me permission to make use of his name when I repeated the statement, assured me not six weeks ago, in London—and he held the letters in his hand which he had just received by the last Rio packet confirming his statement—that at no previous period had slaves been offered for sale at a lower price in the markets of Brazil, and that was after thirty years of attempts to put down the slave trade, when we had a force on the coast of Africa and in the West Indies employed on this service greater than at any former period.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: If my hon. Friend wishes me to state time and place, I can only say I was under the impression that at an interview I had with him in the Foreign Office, he stated to me that in his opinion there was a natural tendency for labour to flow from Africa to America, and he wished me to consider and weigh well in my mind whether it would not be possible to come to an arrangement by which a certain limited amount of slave trade might be carried on with Brazil, subject to arrangements which might render the passage less prejudicial and injurious. If he says I was mistaken, I will at once admit that I was so, but that was my impression.
MR. HUTT: I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord had not the least intention of misrepresenting me when he rose a second time to repeat his statement. I deny that I made the statement which the noble Lord has now imputed to me; he utterly mistook me. He granted me the honour of an interview with him at the Foreign Office, when we had some discussion on the subject, and I then pointed out to him my opinion, that, inasmuch as it was almost impossible, under existing circumstances, to prevent the influx of slaves into Brazil, it would be advisable that, in concert with Brazil, we should adopt some system similar to that by which we are now supplying our own West Indian colonies with free labour; and that if Brazil could be supplied with free labour, it would more effectually put down the slave trade than all the efforts we are now making. Sir, that was my statement, and no other.
MR. HUMEsaid, a more extraordinary discussion had not taken place within his recollection. Of the advocates of the measure no two had agreed as to the grounds on which it deserved support. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary said, that from the year 1815, the efforts made to put down the slave trade had been completely successful. Why, if the evidence taken before the two Houses was to be relied upon, so far from that being the case, the number of slaves transported to America had been doubled and even trebled. The noble Lord's reasoning was very singular. He said, "The Danish Government have made a very liberal and handsome offer, and will you refuse it?" Why, what was the fact? The Danish Government, after keeping up these forts at an expense of from 3,000 l. to 5,000 l. a year, had offered them to an individual merchant, on the condition that he should hoist the Danish flag—an offer which he was too prudent to accept. As to expecting a supply of cotton from a district where their power would not extend beyond the range of their guns, it would be madness. Had hon. Members considered what they were asked to purchase? They were asked to buy six forts. Of these, the first, Christianburg, was a place of considerable extent, mounting forty guns. This was represented as a factory. Along with it was a martello tower and a burial-ground. The other forts were nearly all in ruins, and they would no doubt be asked for grants of money to repair them. In fact, the country was asked to take upon
68
itself an enormous and interminable expense. The intermediate distances were to be so studded with forts, that it would be impossible for a native to land without permission. Though 6,000 l. was put down as the pay of the men, it must be recollected that that sum did not include either the commissariat or the stores; 1,500 l. had, it appeared, already been expended for other purposes.
MR. MUNTZwould like to know what a stranger in the gallery would think they had been about all night. Instead of 10,000 l., he must have thought they were discussing the merits of 10,000,000 l. at least. Why, the sum they had been talking about was beneath their consideration. It was not merely the question of laying out 10,000 l. that was before them; it was the buying of a property, and if this country had not obtained possession of that property, some other undoubtedly would. With respect to the taxes derived from the natives, about which the right hon. Member for Manchester was so anxious, he (Mr. Muntz) thought that that was only carrying out the principle of the Gentlemen of the Manchester school themselves, that every colony should pay its own expenses. When they recollected the petitions from Manchester and Liverpool and other places in favour of these settlements, whether they were called forts or commercial stations, they could not but be satisfied that for a small amount they were meeting the wishes of a large portion of the population of the country by their maintenance.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaid, that this was not a question of 10,000 l., but a question of the extension of a certain system that was being carried on on the coast of Africa. The arguments in favour of that course were chiefly drawn from the memorials of certain merchants in Liverpool and Manchester, asking the Government to extend the trade and commerce from which they derived their profits, by an increase of expenditure out of the pockets of the people of this country. Now, what had been the amount of this trade and commerce as compared with the annual expenditure to the country on account of it? The papers on the table of the House showed that the civil and military expenditure on Sierra Leone, Cape Coast Castle, and Gambia, was 55,000 l. in 1846; and the same year the imports from Great Britain amounted to 176,000 l.

69
Therefore, for every 176,000 l. worth of goods sent to Africa by these merchants, the people of England were to have to pay 55,000 l. He had objected to the corn laws on the ground that they took money out of the pockets of the people to put it into the pockets of the landlords; and on the same principle lie objected to put 17 l. into the pockets of Manchester merchants at the expense of 5l. 10 s. to the people of England. For these reasons, without reference to the question of slavery, he should give his cordial opposition to this Motion, Three years ago he had proved to the House that our establishments on tin-coast of Africa ought to be reduced; and if any hon. Gentleman proposed to stop the vote on account of these establishments, he should be ready to support him.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 138: Majority 96.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, C.

Alcock, T.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Anstey, T. C.

Monsell, W.

Arkwright, G.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Cocks, T. S.

O'Connor, F.

Crawford, W. S.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Duncan, Visct.

Pilkington, J.

Evelyn, W. J.

Salwey, Col.

Fox, W. J.

Simeon, J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Smith, J. B.

Greene, J.

Smythe, hon. G.

Hall, Sir B.

Stafford, A.

Hastie, A.

Stuart, Lord D.

Headlam, T. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Henry, A.

Wakley, T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Heyworth, L.

Williams, J.

Hume, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Hutt, W.

Jackson, W.

TELLERS.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cobden, R.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Bright, J.

Original Question put, and agreed to; as were also Votes—
(3.) 10,875 l., St. Helena.
(4.) 7,579 l., Western Australia.
(5.) 1,284 l., Port Essington.
(6.) 1,486 l., Heligoland.
(7.) 5.000 l., Falkland Islands.
(8.) 13,296 l., Colonial Land and Emigration Board, &c.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday.

EXCISE SUGAR AND LICENSES.
House in Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of the resolutions
70
was, to place home produce on the same looting as colonial produce, and to produce such a duty on sugar used in brewing as would render it equivalent to the malt tax.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"1. That the Duty of Excise on Sugar manufactured in the United Kingdom, shall, until and upon the 5th day of July, 1851, be at and after the reduced rate of eleven shillings per hundred weight, and from and after the said 5th day of July, at and after the rate of ten shillings per hundred weight.
"2. That a Duty of Excise of 1s. 1d. shall be charged on every hundred weight of Sugar used by any Brewer of Beer for sale."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been informed that certain parties which had some time ago attempted to establish in the county Down a manufactory of sugar from beet-root, had been so much thwarted by excise restrictions, that they had been compelled to give up the undertaking. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he could give any explanation upon that point?
MR. C. ANSTEYinquired, if it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for regulating the period at which, and the manner in which, the gauging of syrup should take place, so as to make it conform to the method adopted in the manufacture of sugar.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had never heard any complaints of the kind alluded to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and therefore he was not prepared to give any answer to the question that had been put to him.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had received several communications from Ireland, which clearly proved that the amount of the excise that was levied operated as a prohibition.
Resolutions agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to he reported on Monday next.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL,
Order for Third Reading read.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the Third Reading of this Bill.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEopposed the Motion on the ground that sufficient time was not allowed for considering the report of the Commissioners on the subject.
The ATTORNEY GENERALdepre-

71
cated any further delay. The principle of the Bill had never been opposed, and a Bill similar in character had already passed the House of Lords. The present measure had received considerable discussion, and the report of the Commissioners did not touch its principle.
MR. SPOONERwished the Bill not to be pressed this Session. The county courts objected to the operation of the Bill, which would place increased duties on those courts without a proportionate increase of remuneration. He must move that the Bill be postponed.
SIR G. GREYhad stated distinctly that the Bill would he brought forward, so that there was not any reason to complain that it came upon the House by surprise. The measure related to matters on which great and almost personal alarm existed, and a delay at that period would amount to a rejection of the Bill. With respect to the judges of the county courts, who would be affected by its operation, it should be remembered that power was placed in the hands of Government to increase the salaries of those officers; but he objected to those gentlemen coming to the House, through the medium of Members, to stipulate for an increase of salary, and he hoped that that would not be made a ground for delaying the Bill.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought fair ground had been alleged to call on Government to postpone the consideration of this Bill.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, the question now raised was, as to additional remuneration to persons connected with the county courts. That was no valid reason for postponing the measure. The present was not a time to stop an important public measure on an incidental question of an increase of salaries to county court judges.
MR. HENLEYsaid, many hon. Members on his side of the House wished to have time to consider the report which had been recently placed in their hands. There certainly ought to be further time allowed for the consideration of this Bill; to afford which, he should now move that the House do adjourn.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 74: Majority 58.
MR. NEWDEGATEagain moved that the debate be adjourned.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the report in question contained nothing that ought to obstruct the progress of the Bill. It would
72
materially affect the interest of those charities if there was to be an indefinite delay; which would be the case if the Motion for adjournment was carried.
MR. HENLEYsaid, Government had no right to say any unfair delay was contemplated. Some further information had come out recently, which ought to be considered before the Bill went forward. No opposition would be offered to the Bill on Monday next.
Third Reading postponed till Monday next.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation (No. 2); Militia Ballots Suspension; Population; Population (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Linen, &c, Manufactures (Ireland); Loan Societies.
3a Inspection of Coal Mines; Factories.

THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
LORD STANLEYpresented a petition signed by upwards of 16,000 landowners, occupiers of land, manufacturers, traders, and artisans of the County Palatine of Lancaster, complaining of the injurious effects of free trade, and praying for a restoration of protection. The noble Lord stated that the petition would has been signed by a much larger number of persons, had it not been for a system of intimidation which had been carried on to a most disgraceful extent, for the purpose of preventing persons signing the petition, under the threat of withdrawal of custom. He had seen a number of letters written by persons who had signed the petition, requesting that their names might be erased
2
upon that account. He also held in his hand a printed declaration of a farmer, who had lost a great number of his customers for milk, in consequence of its being supposed that he had signed the petition, in which he most solemnly delared that he had not done so. Their Lordships would judge from this, of the extent of the intimidation which had been brought to bear upon these subjects, and which, in his opinion, afforded a sure indication of a consciousness of a losing cause on the part of; those who resorted to such conduct. He had also a petition to present to the same effect, from the owners and occupiers of; land in the hundred of Rochford, in Essex.
LORD BROUGHAMcordially joined with his noble Friend in expressing his clear and unhesitating disapproval of any attempt to interfere with the most perfect freedom of the right of petitioning; he hoped that there was some exaggeration as to the extent of the interference complained of by his noble Friend.
EARL GREYconcurred in the opinion just expressed, as to the impropriety of; any such proceeding as that of interfering

3
with the right of petitioning. He could not, however, help remarking that, when the noble Lord stated that he saw in such conduct an evidence of a losing cause, it? was quite possible that it might also he evidence of something else. When they found that the farmer referred to by the noble Lord, whose sale of milk was obviously most to the working classes, they being the greatest consumers of that article, had sustained a falling-off in his custom, it might be that the working classes in his neighbourhood, in common with those of the whole country, felt fully convinced of the inestimable advantages which they had derived from free trade, and had resented by the withdrawal of their custom any attempt to reimpose restrictions upon their industry and comforts.
The DUKE of RICHMONDcomplained that this system of intimidation had been at work for a long period, but that they had not been able to obtain complete proofs of it until recently. He joined in the opinion expressed by his noble Friend, that no persons would resort to such conduct who did not feel that their cause was getting weaker and weaker every day.
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

INSPECTION OF COAL MINES BILL.
Bill read 3a, according to Order.
On Question, "That the Bill do now pass,"
LORD BROUGHAMobjected to the Bill on the ground that it would be an unjustifiable interference with the rights of labour and of property. He conceived that Parliament was not justified in interfering in the regulations of master and employer, unless the protection of certain classes of the people imperatively required it. In the case of interference in the labour of children and women in factories, some case might possibly have been made out for interference; but no such case had been made with respect to coal mines. As to prevention of accidents, there were no parties so much interested in preventing them as the owners of the mines themselves; and the appointments of inspectors of these mines would be both unnecessary and injurious. His Lordship concluded by moving to insert "this day three months," instead of "now."
The EARL of CARLISLEtrusted their Lordships would think that the principle of tins Bill was justified by the special nature of the case, the appalling number of accidents that had occurred, and the numerous
4
recommendations in its favour from all parties who had inquired into the subject.
The EARL of LONSDALEopposed the Bill, considering that it would prove a great annoyance to coalowners.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion; Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATER WORKS BILL.
Order made on Tuesday last, for the attendance of Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur, at the bar of the House this day read.
The EARL of EGLINTONstated, that only two of the persons charged with the offence were in custody, and begged, therefore, to postpone the calling of the parties to the bar until Monday.
The LORD CHANCELLLORsaid, he had suggested to the noble Earl, and also begged to suggest to their Lordships, that a question might arise as to how far they could act upon the evidence given in this case. They had only the evidence of the parties themselves, and it would be expedient to have some persons in attendance to prove the handwriting of the parties.
LORD BROUGHAM: We always act upon the person's own answer. It is not necessary to call witnesses to prove the handwriting. The party charged is called to the bar, and is made aware of the charge against him, and he either confesses or denies. If he confess, we then deal with him upon his confession. If he denies, then evidence is called; but it is not necessary to call evidence before the party has been placed at the bar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Lord says is correct in one view—where the offence is found by a Committee, or where the offence is apparent on unobjectionable evidence. Then the course is to let the party hear the evidence read, and then ask him for an explanation. But the point in this case is—there is no evidence to affect the party except his own. It appears that there are many names to the petition, all in one handwriting, and when proof of that handwriting is given, there is little occasion to refer to the evidence of the parties.
The EARL of EGLINTON: There are two gentlemen who tender their evidence if called upon, who were instrumental in getting up the petition.
LORD BROUGHAM: That would be

5
altering the whole course of practice. We must not alter our proceedings now, when we have examined the parties who have confessed before the Committee.
The EARL of EGLINTON: I now move that the order be discharged.
The EARL of MINTOhaving said a few words,
LORD BROUGHAMproceeded to add: I must say I cannot at all consent to this total innovation on our ordinary course of proceeding. That ordinary course of proceeding is that the parties themselves should be called to be bar, and if they denied tin-charge made against them, to call witnesses, but not till then. If they admitted the charge, of course no evidence was required.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: What my noble and learned Friend has suggested relates to the course of proceeding generally adopted where there has been a report of a Committee that has fixed a charge. In that case you tell the party what he is charged with, and ask him what he has to say; but where there is no report charging any individual, the case is totally different. If your Lordships read the report in this case, you will find no names are mentioned, no particular individuals are described.
LORD BROUGHAM: The report does not state the names of persons, but it states that certain individuals committed a certain act, which is a gross breach of privilege, and the parties having been ordered to attend before the Committee, were examined. One of the parties (Duncan M'Arthur) had those questions put to him and gave the following answers: "You say you brought in four or five sheets?"—"Yes." "Were any of those names written by yourself?"—"A good many of them." That is a breach of privilege.
The EARL of EGLINTON: I now move that the parties be ordered to attend on Monday next.
Motion agreed to, and previous Order discharged.

FACTORIES BILL.
EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved that the Bill be now read 3a, and said, that it had been so amply discussed the other evening, that he would not trouble their Lordships with any further observations on it.
The DUKE of RICHMOND The DUKE of RICHMOND moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. No doubt the Ten Hours Act had been productive of very great benefit,
6
and that the compromise now proposed would in a great degree preserve the advantages of that Act; still it increased the period of labour during the week by two hours and a-half, and it also materially interfered with the half-holiday on the Saturday. One effect of that would be, to postpone the dinner-hour to a later period on that day, by which the men would become exhausted, and would be driven to the beershops to get some stimulant, and when once they were there, they would remain. Although, upon principle, he was prepared to go further than the present Bill, still he could not bring himself to vote for the clause which his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) intended to propose respecting young children, because that would require a great many other alterations. It was, however, a fit subject for consideration; and in the course of next Session he should move for a Committee, to inquire into the working of the relay system. He would not divide the House on the present occasion, but would content himself with entering his protest against the Bill as it at present stood; because he considered the people would be very ill treated by an extension of the hours of labour. Those who thought this would be a final measure, would find, to their astonishment, that the factory operatives would not allow the matter to rest until full justice had been done both to them and their children.
LORD KINNAIRDdenied that the working classes would be ill treated by this Bill, and was of opinion that the petitions which had been presented by the noble Duke against it, should not be considered as a proof of the general feeling of the operatives. He believed that if the clause intended to be proposed respecting young children should be inserted in the Bill, a vast majority, both of the manufacturers and of the operatives, would be satisfied with the measure.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that this measure had been called a compromise, I but it had not been explained with whom it was that this compromise had been entered into. It was distinctly stated that the operatives had not made it; and it had been as firmly said, on the part of the manufacturing body, that they had not.
EARL GRANVILLEreminded their Lordships that, on a former occasion, he had stated that he did not consider this measure to be a compromise. There existed a very general objection to the shift system, and it was to remedy the evils

7
arising from that system that the Bill had been introduced.
On Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Motion; Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a.
The EARL of HARROWBYthen brought up a clause, to the effect that the female children employed in factories should work from six in the morning to one in the afternoon, including half an hour for meals; and that the male children should be employed from two in the afternoon to half-past eight, also including half an hour for meals. The effect of this Amendment would be to obviate the evil of leaving the female children to work, as the Bill at present proposed they should, two hours and a half later at night than the women and young persons, who were to work from six to six; so that these young females, at their tender age, would be left behind by their natural protectors, their brothers and sisters, and would have to work until half-past eight with the adult males. It would be quite impossible that such a state of things should continue; and if they wished to have a final settlement of this question, it could only be obtained by assenting to his Amendment, which, whilst it would prevent the interruption of the family arrangements that must ensue by the junior members of the household being kept in the mills behind their relatives, would practically be no new restriction on the employment of the male adults. The noble Lord concluded by moving the adoption of his clause.
A NOBLE LORDbelieved the Government did not oppose this Amendment from any want of sympathy with the children, and he thought the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) had better bring in a separate Bill to effect his object.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it was very much upon the ground stated by the noble Lord that the Government had opposed the proposition now again brought forward. He had been informed that if this Amendment were adopted by their Lordships, there would be considerable danger of the Bill being rejected altogether when sent down to another place. It should be remembered that all the evils which had been described as arising out of the want of such a clause as this in the Bill, were hypothetical evils. There was no evidence that any such evils had happened, or were likely to happen. Last year both the manufacturers and the oper-
8
atives were of opinion that it would be better not to have any new legislation in regard to children. But if any of the hypothetical cases which had been stated should become verified, it would then become the duty of the Legislature to consider whether some distinct measure as to the employment of children might not be introduced. But he hoped the noble Earl would not, at this stage of the measure, attempt to introduce fresh matter into the discussion.
LORD KINNAIRDwas afraid that the postponement of the question until next Session would tend to increase agitation during the recess. At a large meeting of delegates from the different operatives, the question was mooted how children would be employed under the new Bill; and it was then stated that they would be employed in lieu of young persons. It was also alleged that there were several manufacturers who were already preparing to work their mills in that manner. What the better class of manufacturers desired was such an uniformity as would prevent the less scrupulous from evading the law.
The BISHOP of MANCHESTERwas compelled, by an imperative sense of duty, to support the Amendment. It had been objected that the time for bringing it forward was inexpedient. It was because he believed that this Bill would be a final settlement of this long-agitated question that he supported the Amendment. The noble Earl at the head of the Board of Trade said, that the evil contemplated was hypothetical. On that subject he differed from the noble Earl. The state of things which the Bill would introduce, in its present shape, was no less certain than lamentable. By the Bill as it stood, the mills would be open from half-past 5 in the morning until half-past 8 in the evening. Female children would be compelled to go to work without the protection of their mothers and elder sisters at half-past 5 in the morning; while, if they commenced work after dinner, they might be kept at the mill with adult males until half-past 8 in the evening—the definition of "adult male" being any person above 18 years of age. Could a right-minded mother or elder sister be happy or comfortable when the younger daughter or sister was left to seek a home in the company of adult males, with whom, perhaps, she had to walk home for a considerable distance? If the Amendment of the noble Earl were carried, there would be scarcely any altera-

9
tion in the existing practice of the mills; and he hoped their Lordships would rescue female children from the perilous danger with which they were threatened, and leave the work after 6 o'clock to be performed by those who were, by their constitution, the best fitted to endure both that and the inclemency of the winter evenings. There were one or two minor considerations which led him to support the Amendment. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) said, that if the anticipated evils should arise, it would be time enough to remedy them in the next Session. He (the Bishop of Manchester) asked their Lordships to prevent them. He believed that in every step which they had taken with regard to the questions, except this most unhappy one, Her Majesty's Government had been influenced by an earnest desire to consult the interests of all parties; and in this Bill they were merely carrying out the principle on which the Legislature had heretofore acted of protecting those who were unable to protect themselves. Whether he turned to the inspectors, or to the more intelligent of the employers and the employed, he believed they were for the most part in favour of the Amendment; the clergy were, he was convinced, unanimously in favour of it, and if but few persons had petitioned in favour of it, it was only for lack of time. He did not imagine that they were then dealing with hypothetical cases. They were legislating then because in a large portion of the county of Lancaster there were a number of persons who, being influenced more by a desire of individual gain than by considerations of public policy or advantage, had carried to the utmost legal limits the powers which they possessed under the Act of 1847. What had their Lordships to expect but that the very same class of persons would follow the same course with regard to the Bill now on the table, unless Parliament stopped up every avenue by which they could do so, one such avenue being the employment of children from half-past 5 in the morning until half-past 8 in the evening? He had been told, that in some branches of work it was desirable that there should be some female children at work as well as boys. He did not believe it; but even if it were desirable, be should still be perfectly prepared to refuse the demand of the millowner in that particular. If it were true that the work of female children was especially required for fine spinning, it would still be his duty to en-
10
treat their Lordships not to expose young females of tender ago to the consequences of going to a heated mill, through the cold air, at half-past 5 in the morning, and of returning home at half-past 8 at night. This was, he knew, a question of reason rather than of feeling. Still lie must say, that it was with deep pain that he had heard the representatives of a Sovereign, whose brightest jewel was her domestic virtues, refuse the required concession to the happiness of factory homes. He would appeal to their Lordships, what must be the feeling of mothers and elder sisters who night after night had to wait for the younger female children of the family, well knowing the temptations and dangers to which they were exposed.
LORD MONTEAGLEhad opposed the Amendment of the noble Lord on the cross bench on a former occasion; but, after the discussion that had since taken place, he bad been convinced that, on the grounds of policy and good sense, the advantages of avoiding a dangerous agitation among the operatives far more than counterbalanced any sacrifice that this Amendment could entail upon the millowner. For that reason be thought the noble Earl's Amendment ought to be acceded to.
EARL GRANVILLEexplained.
On Question, that the clause stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Content 14; Not-Content 30: Majority 16.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Leitrim

DUKES.

Minto

Devonshire

Morley

Leinster

Scarborough

Norfolk

Shaftesbury

MARQUESSES.

Strafford

Anglesey

BISHOP.

Breadalbane

Hereford

Donegal

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Bateman

EARLS.

Beaumont

Bruce

Camoys

Carlisle

Dinorben

Clarendon

Foley

Fingall

Overstone

Fitzhardinge

Sudeley

Granville

Wrottesley

Grey

Resolved in the Negative.
Amendments made.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow,