Sitting of 22 July 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Masters' Jurisdiction in Equity; Inspection of Coal Mines; Copyright of Designs; Navy Pay; Municipal Corporations (Ireland) (No. 2).
2a Registrar of Judgments Office (Ireland).
3a Ecclesiastical Commission; Militia Pay; Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster).

MERCANTILE MARINE (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that there were inquiries out of doors as to the effect of this measure upon yachting, the season for which was beginning, and some persons were under the apprehension that not a yacht would be able to set sail. He wished for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to know whether he had had any communication on the subject from yacht owners, and whether he would object to receive suggestions from them?
MR. LABOUCHEREassured the hon. Gentleman that it never had been intended to include the Yacht Club in the provisions of this Bill, and he did not think the measure could prejudice them; but if it did affect them in any way, he should be happy to listen to any suggestions, and quite ready to make the necessary alterations on the third reading.
Clause 100.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the Bill made no provision for burying seamen and apprentices, although a peculiar course was proposed for taking care of them when they were dead. A mode was proposed, which had all the inconvenience of the existing law, while no securities were given for the distribution of the property of these deceased persons, but rather the reverse. He advised the right hon. Gen-

81
tleman to leave this part of the subject alone, and to strike out this clause.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the matter was not of very material consequence. This clause and the next had been well considered, and, in fact, only re-enactments of former provisions, and applying them to these shipping offices. The substance of the provision was scattered over two or three different Acts, and it was thought that the most convenient course would be to condense them all in one Act. However, if the Committee thought these clauses no improvement, or unnecessary parts of the Bill, he had no objection to postpone them.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman undertook a great responsibility for the Board of Trade in this clause. How could the machinery be arranged that no such difficulties would arise as those now existing with respect to savings banks? If there was a deficiency in these sums it must be made good, and if so, was it to be made good out of the Consolidated Fund? The claim should not fall upon the shipowner. If the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy the Committee that his machinery was correct upon this point, he would be satisfied.
MR. LABOUCHEREshould be glad to hear any suggestion from gentlemen of the shipping interest. He could have no motive for throwing such claims upon them.
MR. CARDWELLsuggested that the point be postponed to the bringing up of the report. The question was, when there was a defalcation, what course would the Government take when parties arose who made a claim upon this fund?
MR. HENLEYsaid, they had recently extended legislation upon this subject so much that the probable amount they would have to deal with had been greatly increased. He could understand that when the amount of wages left was very small, it might be given to the Seamen's Fund for the general advantage; but he I protested against including all effects whatever to be given to the Seamen's Fund.
MR. LABOUCHERE, upon the whole, approved of the suggestion of the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken last, and he would strike out the clauses; but upon the understanding, of course, that if found necessary on further consideration, they were to be restored on the report, or on the third reading.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it must he understood that if the clauses were again proposed, ample time must be given for their consideration. If not, he would rather strike them out at once.
Clauses 100 to 107, inclusive, struck out.
Clauses 108 and 109 agreed to.
Clause 110.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that no provision was made in the clause that the evidence before the inspectors should be taken in the presence of the parties concerned. The clause conferred a vast power, which he hoped would never be given to a local marine board. Moreover, the difficulty might arise of the inquiry being held before an examiner who was unacquainted with the proper mode of conducting it, relating as it might to a man's seamanship or ability to command a ship. The inspector might also be ignorant of the rules of evidence, and the result might seriously prejudice any man about to be put upon his trial. In section 20 great power had been taken for inquiry into the conduct of masters and mates; but in the present clause additional power was taken of inquiring into matters of misconduct and gross violation of the law, but there was no provision that the, party whose conduct was to be inquired into should be present. Also in collisions, or what were called "running down cases," there was no power to secure the presence of both parties at the inquiry. The sort of evidence given in such cases should be recollected: and was it just and fair that evidence given in such cases should be taken on oath; and a report made grounded upon that evidence that would prejudice the rights of parties not present at the examination, and perhaps had no opporunity of knowing anything about it?
MR. BAINESsaid, that the report would be no more binding than the verdict of a coroner's jury.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the same witnesses who were examined before the Commissioners would also appear at the criminal court afterwards. He doubted the expediency of the provision.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Gentlemen must reconcile themselves to applying somewhat different principles to eases occurring at sea to those on terra firma. He advocated the principle of this preliminary inquiry, which might operate beneficially to the accused party, inasmuch as, for example, there might be a primâ facie case for pro-

83
secuting the captain, which that inquiry might disprove. Powers stronger than those usually granted were necessary in these cases; they had hitherto worked satisfactorily, and might he safely left in the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his objection.
MR. HENLEYsaid, if the inquiry was to he limited, as the right hon. Gentleman described, he would not object to it. There was, however, abundant power in the 20th section, and this clause related to matter of a personal character, the evidence on which ought not to be taken behind a man's back. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words referring to the misconduct of the master or mate, "or that any master or mate has been guilty of serious misconduct of any kind, or has shown gross negligence or want of skill." The omission of those words would reduce the application of the clause to a general inquiry, which he thought just and fair, and exclude inquiry into individual eases.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 111 and 112.
Clause 113.
MR. BAINESsaid, this was an important clause as part of the machinery to effect the objects of the Bill, and he proposed, in addition to the words "fine and imprisonment," to add the words "with or without hard labour." The Bill could not deal properly with some of the most flagrant offences without the addition of these words, and he proposed to add the same words with respect to costs.
MR. HENLEYthought the first Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman an improvement, but objected to the proposal as regarded costs, and called his attention to the 1 and 12 Vic, by which common informers had been much restrained. He did not think it right that these penalties should fall into the hands of common informers who might bring forward the cases. That ought to be guarded against, or the parties, even if they had committed no offence, would be liable to heavy penalties at the mercy of common informers. The hard labour provision might be right and proper, but the question of costs should he kept out.
MR. BAINESadmitted the necessity of placing a check upon common informers. The Committee would decide whether the power of prosecution should be left to the Board of Trade, or to the parties. He
84
thought it had better rest with the Board of Trade, who would take care that no temptation was held out to common informers, whose object was part of the penalty.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it was a question whether the powers could not be most safely trusted to a public board.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was a serious thing to inflict upon the Board of Trade the exclusive conduct of the prosecutions.
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 114 to 122 inclusive.
Clause 123.
MR. HENLEYobjected to the clause altogether. It was most unusual to give costs in summary cases. The expenses of witnesses and fees to the clerk were granted; but he did not know a case in which costs to the attorney were given in a summary case, and he should move that the clause be struck out.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the object of the clause, requiring the costs to be certified as proper, was to prevent the low bloodsucking attorneys who loitered about the courts from cheating the sailors. Whether the objection of the hon. Gentleman had weight or not, that purpose must be effected.
Clause postponed. Clauses 124 to 126 agreed to. Clause 127.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that some definite security should be taken for the expense of the machinery of this clause. Here they proposed to put the wages they might be holding as trustees, with all the other receipts, in one common fund, out of which they proposed to pay all salaries and other expenses, as thereinafter authorised. That he thought was not a convenient form. It was more desirable that the salaries should appear in a distinct form, and that the wages for which the Board of Trade was responsible as trustees should be a separate fund. They had no right to mix up those wages with the common fund without giving distinct and responsible security for them.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the amount of wages the board would receive as trustees would be so small that it would be better to place them in the common fund; for it was not worth while, and at the same time very inconvenient, to constitute this trifling sum into a separate fund. There would be no danger in thus dealing with them, for the money would be as secure

85
as any deposited in the public departments.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the salaries of the persons paid by the Board of Trade would be submitted to the House.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that when so many officers were appointed it was desirable to know the particulars of their salaries. Were the clerks separate for separate purposes, and was there to be a specific statement for each?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the principal expense was incurred for the East Indian officer. The others would be appointed by the local boards, but the salaries would be paid by the Board of Trade. He did not wish to give these local boards the temptation of appointing officers, although he consented that the local authorities should fix the amount of salaries.
MR. HENLEYwould be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would have the accounts kept separate. Bui, if all were thrown into one general fund, how would the public know in what proportions these various sources of income arose, and be able to judge whether it was fair those salaries should be continued, and how much ought to be handed over to the merchant seamen's fund? He throw this out as a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the accounts would be kept separate, and would be separately stated to Parliament. But it was really not worth while to keep the wages first alluded to by the hon. Gentleman as a separate fund. The items would be given separately, and when the accounts were on the table the Louse would be able to see from what source of income the payments were made.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that in the case of income arising from fees, it was right to appropriate that fund to office expenses. But those funds for which the board was trustee should go to the parties to whom they belonged, and if kept in the common fund the accounts would be more complicated. Besides, there might be interest accruing on those wages, and the board had no right to appropriate that interest in any other way than giving it to the owner of the wages. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might devise some simpler mode of settling this matter.
MR. LABOUCHEREquite agreed with that principle, but the whole object might be attained without making special provision for amounts so small.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 132 agreed to; as were also the schedules to the Bill.
MR. LABOUCHEREproposed to add a clause, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liverpool concerning encouraging sailors' homes. He (Mr. Labouchere) was most desirous to promote them, with the sanction of that House, and he hoped that one of the consequences of this Bill would be, that those who would be connected with the shipping offices would be connected also with the sailors' homes. The Board of Trade would encourage them in every way; but the voluntary exertions of the shipowners themselves would do more for the establishment of sailors' homes than this clause, or any Act of Parliament whatever. The object, of the clause was to enable corporations to purchase land for sailors' homes.
Clause agreed to.
MR. LABOUCHEREthen brought up the Amendments in the clauses that had been postponed. Several new clauses were added.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.

INCUMBERED ESTATES COMMISSION.
MR. FRENCHbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Vice. Chancellor, or any other officer whose peculiar duty it should he to allocate the fund accumulated under the incumbered Estates Commission to the different persons having claims upon it; or whether they proposed taking any steps in order to secure the distribution of moneys received under the Act for the sale of incumbered estates in Ireland?
SIR W. SOMERVILLE, in reply, said, that on a former occasion he had understood his hon. Friend to ask whether the Court of Chancery had declined to distribute the proceeds of sales under the Act for the sale of incumbered estates. If he was light in supposing that to be the question, he begged to say that there was no foundation whatever for the report that the Court of Chancery had declined to distribute the money, because by the Act of Parliament they were bound to take charge of the money. He suspected that the report to which his hon. Friend had alluded on a former occasion owed its origin to the following circumstance, as described by Baron Richards:—
"The Court of Chancery, I apprehend, has no power to refuse to receive moneys transferred

87
there by our order. The report alluded to has its origin, I make no doubt, on account of the Master of the Rolls having objected that moneys should be transferred from our court to the Court of Chancery by what is called 'a side bar rule,' instead of by an order in court on counsel's motion. The former mode of procedure would induce an expense of a few shillings merely, and the latter something about 5l. for each order. The Lord Chancellor approved of this object being effected by a side bar rule, but the Master of the Rolls refusing to concur, a counsel's motion will be necessary in all such cases, although in the Exchequer the same thing may be done by a side bar rule, but hitherto we have lodged no money in that court."
In reference to the distribution of the money by the commissioners, he would read to the House a statement forwarded to him by Baron Richards, the chief commissioner, and Dr. Longfield, which was as follows:—
"But, in fact, the practice of the commissioners is not to lodge money in the Court of Chancery in any case in which it can be avoided. They will have sold more than half a million of property before they separate for the vacation, and of that sum they hope to distribute the entire, with the exception of about 25,000 l., or 5 per cent on the whole; about 100,000 l. has been already distributed; only two sums have been lodged as yet in the Court of Chancery. The commissioners hope, without any assistance from any court of equity, to distribute 200,000 l. before the vacation, and 200,000 l. more in the month of October. There is no part of their practice which gives the public such satisfaction as the readiness with which payments are made when the rights of the parties are correctly ascertained."

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
In answer to Mr. STAFFORD,
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid: I propose to take the Lords' Amendments on the Irish Franchise Bill into consideration on Tuesday se'nnight. I propose on Friday, at Twelve o'clock, to take into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Australian Colonies Bill. After the report upon the Mercantile Marine Bill, on Thursday, I propose to consider the Lords' Amendments upon the Metropolitan Interments Bill. I believe that they are not of very great importance, and it is desirable to complete that Bill as soon as possible. There is another Bill with respect to which a question was put to me on Friday last—I mean the Oaths Abjuration Bill, which has reference to the oaths taken by Members of Parliament. I was in hopes of being able to bring on the consideration of that Bill next week; but I find that there is still a considerable quantity of business in the Committee of Supply, which will probably take four or five nights, I could
88
not, on this account, hope successfully to carry that Bill through this House in time to secure for it that consideration in the House of Lords which it would deserve; and I therefore do not intend to proceed with it in the present Session, but I shall go on with it at the earliest period next Session. I may also state that to-night, after Supply, I shall propose to proceed with the third reading of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill.

POST OFFICE—MR. ROWLAND HILL.
On the Question for going into Committee of Supply,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that he had received a letter from Mr. Rowland Hill, with reference to certain statements which had been made in that House by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal on Friday last, in which Mr. Rowland Hill desired him to say that he gave the most distinct and unequivocal denial to any imputations that had been made against him.
MR. C. ANSTEYsaid, it was due to himself to say that for the statement he made upon that occasion he had documentary evidence—some of it in the handwriting of Mr. Rowland Hill himself; and that if he had been allowed the Committee he had asked for, he should have been able to prove infinitely worse cases of oppression against that gentleman than anything he had stated the other night.

SUPPLY—BRITISH GUIANA.
Order for Committee read.
Estimates, Civil Services (Class 8) [presented 17th July], referred.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. HUME, although reluctant to detain the Committee, wished for a few moments to call the attention of the Government and the House to the state of affairs in British Guiana; and in order to show the improper and harsh treatment which that colony had received, it would be necessary to state that he had during the present year presented a petition, setting forth the unfortunate state of the colony, and praying for a reform in its institutions. In 1849 the hon. Member for Inverness had obtained a Committee to inquire into the affairs of British Guiana and Ceylon; and British Guiana being taken first, the Committee came to the conclusion that the present state of the colonial institutions was

89
most objectionable, and led to serious interruption and injury in public business. They refrained from giving any opinion as to the mode in which alterations should be carried out, but strongly recommended that they should be decided on in friendly concert with the inhabitants, and should proceed on the basis of greatly extending tin-franchise. He must say that after the speech of the noble Lord at the commencement of the Session he had some hopes that efficient remedies would be adopted: but he was sorry to say that those hopes had been disappointed, and that Governor Barkly, himself professedly a colonial reformer, instead of carrying out the principles which he had stated before the Committee, had acted as badly, if not worse, than any of his predecessors. The House might not be aware that there were two legislative institutions in British Guiana. One of them contained ten Members—five elective, and five nominated by the Crown; and the result was that the Governor having the casting vote, could, and did, render nugatory the votes of the five elected Members. This was in direct contradiction to the report of a Committee of that House. The colonists had petitioned Parliament, the Government, and the Queen in Council, in short had adopted every means open to them, within the constitution, to obtain re dress; but no attention whatever had been paid to their complaints, or their discontent. That discontent still existed, and was increasing. It was only by the last packet he had received the account of a large meeting renewing the agitation, which had been for some time suppressed, trusting to the promises of Government, but which was now likely to assume an aggravated form. It was melancholy to think that the Colonial Office would not listen to the moderate complaints of the colonists. The Cape had got free institutions by resistance, and Canada by revolution, and unless the noble Lord interfered, he feared that the same game would be played in other places. He should like to know what would the people of England say to a legislative assembly constructed like the Court of Policy, in which the Prime Minister should have the casting voice on all questions. [The hon. Member then read the proceedings of the meeting to which he had before alluded.] The people complained that they were governed from Downing-street, and not in accordance with their own wishes or feelings, and asked for institutions similar to those of Bar-
90
badoes, Jamaica, or Canada. Several re solutions embodying those opinions were agreed to and forwarded to Governor Barkly. He (Mr. Hume) did not wish to detain the House with lengthened details, but would merely express his hope that the House would not let the colony be ruined by the policy of this country. They wished to have the management of their pecuniary affairs, and it did appear extremely hard that such control should be refused to them.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there he laid before this House, Copies of all Despatches which have been received from British Guiana;—instead thereof."
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that no despatches had been received from Guiana since May last that would answer the description given by the hon. Member for Montrose; and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had not as yet had time time to read those which had been received. He feared, however, that his hon. Friend bad not made the House acquainted with the real facts of the case, or difficulties with which the Governor had to contend. The party who were clamouring were not a popular reform party, but a close oligarchy, and their real grievance was that the franchise had been extended by the Governor. It was quite true that this party, finding themselves obliged to resort to open election, were now asking for a constitution similar to that possessed by other colonies. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that the Governor, having the casting voice, was enabled to cushion any attempt made at reform in the Court of Policy; but the case in point bore completely in the opposite direction. It appeared that a Motion was made for a new form of Legislative Council; and the Governor, the Chief Justice, and the Colonial Secretary declined to vote, thus enabling the gentleman who made the Motion to carry it. It was not true, therefore, that the Governor, by his casting vote, was in the habit of defeating all Motions for reform. With respect to the general question, it was, whether the colony was prepared to receive extended political institutions. Governor Barkly had stated that it was not yet ripe for such institutions, and that it would be better in the first instance to extend the franchise to the

91
small proprietors, instead of leaving it to the narrow, and, he (Lord J. Russell) must add, selfish party who now monopolised it. That had been done, and whether the franchise could be more extended was a question depending on the state of the colony, and which he should be much better able to answer after the receipt of the despatches. He did not believe there was any one in this country who would contend that all our colonies should at once get representative institutions; but they would be introduced whenever it was prudent; and when the people were prepared, they would he gradually extended. With regard to the statement he had made early in the Session, he was still prepared to say that he should he glad to see the franchise of British Guiana extended; and he looked forward to an early future when the colony would be governed by a locally-elected House of Assembly.
MR. HUMEsaid, that as the despatches had not as yet arrived, and after what had fallen from the noble Lord, he was willing to withdraw his Motion.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it must be negatived, not withdrawn.
Question, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Question again put, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the chair."

CASE OF MR. REDMAN—PORTENDIC.
MR. HUTTrose to call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. G. C. Redman, presented the 12th of April last. In the year 1833–34, Mr. Redman, in conjunction with other merchants, was anxious to open the trade with Portendic, on the coast of Africa, in conformity with the treaty of Paris of 1783, which specially secured the right of commerce there to British subjects, which right had, notwithstanding, been monopolised by Prance. Mr. Redman accordingly in that year sent a cargo to Portendic for that purpose, and the Governor of the French colony of Senegal seized and detained the British ships engaged in the enterprise; but the outrage did not end there. The following year the French Government, as if to close for ever the territory of Portendic against British commerce, in defiance of the faith of treaties, declared that port in a state of blockade, and again seized the British vessels that had been sent out. The consequence was that great loss and almost ruin fell upon the parties who had undertaken to
92
engage in the trade. For the portion of those losses which Mr. Redman sustained he had been utterly incapable to obtain any redress whatever, and it was under those circumstances that he made an appeal to the House. He (Mr. Hutt) should further state, that pending the experiment of opening the trade with Portendic, Mr. Redman had, in reply to an application which he had made on the subject to the Foreign Office, received an assurance, dated the 12th of December, 1834, that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to extend to British subjects at Portendic every protection, and to secure to them every right guaranteed to them by treaty. Mr. Redman and his friends were thus encouraged, as the Earl of Aberdeen expressed it, to engage in the trade which they were entitled by treaty to enjoy; and a second time they sent out vessels to Portendic. The vessels, however, had scarcely left British waters when Mr. Redman obtained information from private sources that the French Government meant to place Portendic in a state of blockade, and he applied to the Foreign Office for protection. At the interview which Mr. Redman had on the occasion with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary the late Earl of Auckland was present, and the noble Lord assured Mr. Redman, that he might implicity rely upon the protection of the British Government, and that a British naval force should be sent out to enforce the right of treaty. A British naval force was accordingly sent out to Portendic, but it arrived too late—Mr. Redman's vessels had a second time fallen into the hands of the French authorities. Thus those British subjects who had engaged in the most lawful trade, under the special promise of protection from the British Government, became thereby involved in losses of a most ruinous character. Mr. Redman then applied to his own Government for redress, and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary immediately preferred demands for losses against the French Government. The French Government offered 10,000 l. as indemnity for the losses sustained by British subjects in the affair—an offer which was rejected, and the matter was then referred for arbitation to the King of Prussia. Up to that point Mr. Redman was supported by his Government, but here arose some little point of difference. The case laid before the King of Prussia was a very ambiguous one. Whilst the Earl of Aberdeen and the British Government contend-

93
ed that the illegality of the blockade was made the subject of reference, the French Government had always maintained that no such reference had been made to the King of Prussia, and that, on the contrary, the French Government had never submitted to having that subject called in question. However that might be, it was certain that Mr. Redman was no party whatever to the reference: on the contrary, when he applied to the British Government, as to whether the grounds of reference were in every degree satisfactory on the subject of the losses, he was told that the question at issue was one between the French and English Governments, with which he as an individual bad nothing whatever to do. The King of Prussia, however, made his award, granting 1,700 l. as a sufficient indemnity in a case in which the British Government had refused 10,000 l. Mr. Redman having then applied to his Government to obtain reparation for his losses, was referred to the award of the King of Prussia, and was offered some small share of the 1,700 l. That was the case which he wished to submit to the House, and he should make no comment on the injustice and hardships, which were most palpably evident. The hon. Gentleman was about to submit a Motion for an address, when.
MR. SPEAKERintimated that as one Motion had been already disposed of on going into Supply, it was not competent for the hon. Member to submit a second.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as by the rules of the House his hon. Friend could not make a Motion on the subject, he need only say a few words on the matter. He agreed that the case was one of those in which no doubt British subjects had sustained considerable loss; but he could not admit that there was, therefore, any claim against Her Majesty's Government in the matter. They had endeavoured to get reparation as much as they possibly could for the aggrieved parties; and Mr. Redman was, practically, in the situation of a man who, having gone to law to obtain damages, and obtained them, found that the amount he received was not sufficient to cover his losses. The amount awarded to him by the King of Prussia had been given to Mr. Redman: and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not see on what grounds he asked the whole case to be reopened.
MR. AGLIOKBYhoped his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, though pre-
94
vented by the forms of the House from bringing forward the question now, would do so on a future occasion. He considered that a Committee would be the only tribunal by which a satisfactory investigation of the facts could be obtained, and he hoped in the next Session Government would not oppose a Motion for an inquiry by that means.
MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved if Mr. Redman had the opportunity afforded him he could establish his ease before a Committee of that House, and he could scarcely suppose that a Government that had assumed so strong a position in the maintenance of his rights and interests abroad, would endeavour to preclude him from a hearing before the House of Commons.
Subject dropped.

SUPPLY—NEW ZEALAND.
House in Committee.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding 41,730 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March. 1851."
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the vote, for he was aware of tin circumstances under which the money was required; but he wished not to be thereby precluded from calling attention to other matters connected with Now Zealand. His object now was to ask his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether the grants for the bishop and clergy contained in this vote were to be permanent?
MR. HAWESsaid, that, as the matter stood at present, the grants for the bishop, chaplains, and schools, were permanent; but as there was a prospect of representative institutions being established in the colony, he could not say how far this country would remain responsible for these charges.
MR. HUMEconsidered that this country had enough to do to maintain its own ecclesiastical establishments, and that to begin paying for the colonial establishments was most objectionable. Where was the system to end, if once admitted—were we to pay for the clergy and schools of all the colonies? He had nothing to say against the efficiency of the bishop; but he contended that, as the House had had nothing to do with his appointment, they had no right to be called upon to pay his salary. He would move that the vote be reduced by 600 l., the amount of the bishop's allowance.

95
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding 41,130 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
SIR R. H. INGLISbore testimony to the high character of the bishop for piety, zeal, and general efficiency, and urged that while the mother country administered the affairs of a colony, she was bound to provide the means of religious instruction.
MR. AGLIONBYshould regret very much if the Committee assented to the Amendment. Dr. Selwyn was receiving a very small salary, while his duties were most onerous and arduous—he having to superintend several settlements, extending over a country as large as Great Britain. [Mr. BRIGHT: That is no reason why he should be paid by this country.] The Bishop of New Zealand had more important and onerous duties entrusted to him than perhaps any other colonial bishop; and though he thought Dr. Selwyn had been occasionally mistaken, and had taken a course hostile to the views and interests of the New Zealand Company, he believed a more zealous, honourable, and conscientious man could not be found; and the trouble he had taken, and the good he had done in assisting in the civilisation of the natives, could not be too highly commended. He had great pleasure in supporting this vote, which was a very inadequate payment for the services rendered, though, he admitted, as much as could be expected from this country. He was glad to hear that representative institutions were likely to be extended to the colony; and he could assure his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies that nothing would give more satisfaction to the colonists than an assurance that a Bill would be introduced next Session for establishing such institutions on a just and firm basis. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would not divide on his Amendment.
MR. HUMEobjected to the principle of voting money for the support of the ecclesiastical establishments of the colonies. The revenue of the colony was estimated at 36,000 l. a year; and if the Governor told them that their expenditure must be limited to that sum, it would be so limited, and there would be no necessity to come to Parliament for grants of this description.
LORD J. RUSSELLcontended that if the hon. Member for Montrose opposed the vote on the ground that they were now be-
96
ginning for the first time to support a Church Establishment in the colonies, it was not tenable; for from the year 1842 until the present time a vote had been taken every year for this purpose. This was a case wholly different from that of the North American colonies, where having been in existence for many years, and having the advantage of popular institutions, they were able to support their own Church Establishment; but in the case of New Zealand it had been represented to him by the New Zealand Company and others that it would tend to the settlement of the colony if the missionaries and Church ministers were under the superintendence of a proper and efficient ruler appointed by the Government; and the Government concurring in that view, Dr. Selwyn had been appointed. And without going into the question of whether the duty was worth 600 l. a year or not, he thought the cause of civilisation had been much promoted by having a bishop there, and he thought it was better to pay that amount for a bishop than a considerably larger sum for the salaries of a number of police magistrates.
MR. HUMEsuggested that it might be better to adopt at once the old Catholic rule of the Spanish and Portuguese, to which we seemed fast approaching, of appointing a bishop as the first act of colonisation.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 90: Majority 66.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—HONG KONG.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding 20,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
MR. SCOTTobjected that this vote, though 5,000 l. less than that of last year, was still wholly disproportionate to the wants of the colony. He admitted that Hong Kong was of some importance as a military station, but the ground of keeping up this expensive establishment was, that it was necessary for the purposes of trade. The fact was that there was no trade at Hong Kong; the great trading stations being Whampoa and Shanghae, the former being 70 and the other 900 miles distant. The population of Hong Kong was only 20,000 generally, though in consequence of the late disturbances in the Portuguese colony it had recently increased to 28,000. The salary of the governor was wholly dis-

97
proportionate to any services he could have to perform, and was equal to that of the Prime Minister of this country, and larger than that of almost any other governor, except that of Canada. Then there was a most expensive consular establishment in China, costing 33,000 l. per annum, while the whole of our consular establishments in all the rest of the world put together cost only 102,000 l. The Governor, in his double capacity of governor and superintendent of trade, received no less than 6,000 l. a year. It had been said the reason why this high salary was paid, was to en able him to maintain a high position in the eyes of the Chinese; but the truth was, there was no Chinese of any respectability residing within 100 miles of Hong-Kong, England was paying an immense amount, because of the want of respectability on the part of the Chinese. The amount we paid the Governor of Heligoland was 500 l. The amount we were now going to vote the Governor of Hong-Kong was 6,000 l. This was an enormous salary, considering that we only paid the Governor of New Zealand 2,000 l. Then we paid the aid-decamp of the Governor of Hong-Kong 300 l.; the colonial secretary and his department cost 3,654 l.; making in all 10,000 l. per annum, and this for the little miserable place of Hong-Kong, where only ten British merchants, one Danish merchant, two or three agents for American houses, and one German agent, resided. The revenue of the colony the year before last was 24,000 l.; this year it was 23,000 l.; so that the revenue was going on at a diminishing rate. The cost of collecting the 23,000 l. was 2,314 l., or about 10 per cent. Then we paid for the surveyor-general's department at Hong-Kong 1,458 l., or about 300 per cent, the whole of the money passing through that department last year being 500 l. The harbour-master and his department cost 1,167 l., and his duties were discharged by a Lascar who wrote clown the names of the few vessels that anchored at Hong-Kong, and who received 300 l. a year for discharging the duty. But there was a still more formidable amount. For law and justice in the colony, in which the European inhabitants numbered about 600, we paid 15,318 l. 6s. 8d. Was there ever anything more monstrous than this in the annals of justice, equity, or extravagance? The population amounted to 28,000; so that law and justice cost at the rate of 12 s. per head. Then, we paid the chief justice at Hong-Kong 3,000 l., and the
98
attorney general 1,500 l. The other departments cost 2,976 l.; the chief magistrate received 900 l.; making in all 7,376 l. This was totally independent of the cost of gaols and police; and the inefficiency of the gaols and police at Hong-Kong was matter of notoriety. So inefficient were they, that all the merchants were obliged to keep police of their own, and the roads at a short distance outside the town were unsafe. The police and the gaols cost 2,349 l. Then there was "ditto contingent," 3,446 l.; "ditto incidental," 1,626 l.; rent of police office, 450 l.; making in all 7,841 l., which, together with the judicial department, made 15,318 l. 6s. 8d. for justice alone. Mr. Jardine stated, in 1839, that in China persons were sufficiently protected, that life and property were watched by an excellent police, and that business was conducted with unexampled facility and singular good faith in general; but the reverse of all this was at present the case. He admitted that the estimate this year was 5,000 l. short of what it was last year; but he contended that the extravagance still remained comparatively untouched. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment that the estimate of 20,000 l. be reduced to 15,000 l.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding 15,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong-Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
COLONEL SIBTHORPexpressed a hope that his hon. Friend would take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment. The vote, he believed, included an office into which a late Member of that House, Dr. Bowring, had been pitched. [An Hon. MEMBKR said, that Dr. Bowring was consul at Canton.] Besides the vote of 20,000 l., to which the hon. Gentleman the Member I for Berwickshire had called attention, he found that in page 27 of the estimates there was a further vote of 4,675 l. for the salaries of different officers connected with establishments at Hong-Kong. He found also, in page 26, a vote of 21,000 l. for "consular contingencies," including a sum, as usual, for "miscellaneous expenses," classed under the heads of special services, journeys, postage, chapels, and other items of expenditure. Now, these were matters that ought to be looked into. The Government spread these items over the estimate; there was a vote on one page, and a few pages further on, another vote for the same purpose; and he hoped the hon.

99
Gentleman, by pressing his Amendment, would expose these proceedings. A little was put in one page, and a little in another, and in this way even the hon. Member for Montrose was sometimes, with all his vigilance, taken unawares.
MR. HAWESsaid, as the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had not specified in what particular items or offices he wished a reduction to be effected, he could only conclude that the hon. Gentleman's object was to enforce a general reduction of expenditure, on the ground that the Government had not exercised sufficient vigilance with regard to the cost of the settlement of Hong-Kong. Now, he would show the House the large reduction which had been gradually made in this vote for some years past. In 1845 the total vote for Hong-Kong was 49,000 l.; in 1846 it was reduced to 36,000 l.; in 1847 it was further reduced to 31,000 l.; in 1848 and 1849 it was 25,000 l.; and in the present year the vote was reduced to 20,000 l. The saving effected on this vote between 1845 and the present year, was, therefore, 29,000 l. But the internal administration of the colony had also been very carefully and vigilantly watched, and, in consequence of various reductions of expenditure, and the abolition of offices, a saving of 1,872 l. had been effected upon the expenditure of 1849. He thought, then, the hon. Gentleman was not justified in his opinion that the affairs of the colony had been carelessly and improvidently administered. The hon. Member for Berwickshire seemed to think that the colony of Hong-Kong was retrograding, that the respectable Chinese were not settling there, and that trade was declining. But Mr. Bon-ham, the Governor of Hong-Kong, stated, in his last report, that he believed the colony was improving in every respect, if he might judge from the increase of its inhabitants, and the numerous Chinese houses erected during the year, as well as the content which prevailed among the native inhabitants and the Europeans generally. He (Mr. Hawes) might be permitted to say that the Governor of Hong-Kong was a gentleman peculiarly deserving the confidence and consideration of that House. Mr. Bonham was entirely unknown to the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department; but the ability he displayed at Singapore having brought him under the notice of Earl Grey, that noble Earl, on the governorship of Hong-Kong becoming vacant, appointed him to the office. Mr. Bonham's repu-
100
tation was the sole ground of his appointment; and he (Mr. Hawes) considered that the statements of such a gentleman were entitled to some consideration from the House. The hon. Member for Berwickshire seemed to disparage the colony of Hong-Kong. He (Mr. Hawes) did not think, however, that the hon. Gentleman expressed the opinion of the commercial world, for in the report of the China Trade Committee, which sat some three years ago, there was not a tittle of evidence to justify such an opinion. Hong-Kong was deemed a settlement of considerable importance with reference to our trade on the coast of China. At that time many complaints were made with regard to the opium trade, and great abuses and grievances undoubtedly existed; but they had been entirely abolished by Mr. Bonham, who had established a system of individual licences which he believed had worked remarkably well. With regard to complaints that had been made as to the sale of lands, he believed that although Sir H. Pottinger had let the lands at a high rate, he had given leases for 75 years. The subject had, however, been brought under the notice of the Colonial Office, and, while the terms of letting had been retained, the leases had been converted into leases for perpetuity; and the Governor had appointed a local committee, consisting of merchants resident in the colony, by whom he hoped a useful and practical report would be made on this subject. The population of the colony had been increasing for some time past; the respectable class of Chinese were settling there to a considerable extent, and the condition of trade might be judged of from the fact that, in 1849, 826 British vessels, of 293,700 tons, arrived at Hong-Kong, being an increase on the previous year of 196 vessels, and 64,000 tons. He believed the reduction proposed in the vote would ultimately lead to a larger expenditure; and he thought he had shown enough to justify him in asking the Committee to adhere to the vote, assuring him that the Government entertained an earnest desire to reduce the expenditure as far as was practicable.
MR. MITCHELLconsidered the vote was so extravagant, that he hoped the hon. Member for Berwickshire would persevere in his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had asked what it was that required reduction. His reply was, that not one item, but every item, ought to be reduced. The

101
Governor of Hong-Kong, whose main duty was to give a dinner now and then to the merchants at Hong-Kong, had a salary of 6,000 l. This was higher than the sum given to similar appointments. He should propose this sum be reduced to 3,500 l. Then the chief secretary had a salary of 1,800 l.; 1,000 l. would be ample for that functionary. The chief justice had 3,000 l. a year; the amount might be reduced to 2,000 l., and this person would not then be underpaid. The attorney general had 1,500 l. a year, and that sum: might be reduced to 1,000 l. a year. The harbour-master had 600 l. a year. Reduce the amount to 200 l. a year, and the total reduction would amount to 5,000 l. This sum could be saved without inconvenience and without injustice. But there were also other items which might with equal propriety be reduced, and this would very much add to the sum he had named. Government had promised last year to consider the subject of reduction. Government met the request for economy now with the same excuse; and as no dependence was to be placed on Government promises, he hoped the House would see the necessity for interference. For it was the system of appointing individuals to these colonial offices that he objected to most. Why send out as governors lords and gentlemen, to whom the high salaries were a consideration, and indeed the main inducement? They had sent out a governor to Ceylon who was a lord, but a very bad governor. His advice to Government was, to pay proper salaries to governors, and to send out working, competent men to fill those posts. Such a system would be preferable to the present system of sending out some lord, who might want a little fresh air, and who might find the air and the salary of a colony very convenient. The vote was one of unexampled extravagance, and he should oppose it.
MR. H. DRUMMONDsaid, that besides the 20,000 l. asked for in this vote, there was a further vote of 32,000 l., at page 27 of the Estimates, for the expenses of the consular establishment in China. The' total amount expended upon this colony, and the Chinese consulates, was therefore 52,000 l. a year. He considered that a considerable reduction might be made in the salaries of some of the colonial officers without any injury to the public service.
MR. SPOONERobserved, that the cost of police and gaols in Hong-Kong appeared,
102
from the estimate now under consideration, to be 2,349 l. 10 s.; but, under the head of "contingencies," there was a further vote of 3,456 l. for the same purpose. He thought the Committee ought to have some explanation why the contingent charge exceeded the regular charge.
MR. HAWESsaid, that returns had been laid before the House, in which a detailed account of the expenditure would be found; but he could not say, without reference to those returns, what were the items of the incidental charges.
MR. PLOWDENsaid, he had been in China for ten years, and he could state that the East India Company's expenditure upon the Chinese establishment, for ten years before the renewal of their charter, had been from 80,000 l. to 90,000 l. a year. A table was kept, by their representative, for ail Englishmen and foreigners visiting China, at a cost of 10,000 l. or 11,000 l. a year. There were expenses incident to such appointments as those now under consideration, which rendered it necessary that those who held them should receive large salaries.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the establishment at Hong-Kong had been an experiment, and it had been expected to prove a great emporium. It had not turned out what was anticipated; and, while he did not blame the Government of the day for what they did at the time, he must submit that, under the changed circumstances, there ought to be a great reduction—he should say, by one-half. In a mere military post, such a civil establishment was not required.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONapprehended that it was a mistake to view this merely as a colony in the ordinary sense of that term; it was a post for the support and protection of our trade with China in general. When it was his lot to frame instructions to Sir Henry Pottinger, who went out to China with a view to the treaty which he was to conclude, and afterwards did (with verbal alterations) conclude, he (Lord Palmcrston) felt it his duty to endeavour to get information from every possible quarter, and he saw persons from all parts of the country who had any knowledge of China; among others, he derived most valuable assistance from his Friend the hon. Member for Portsmouth, whom he did not now see in the House. There were two things these persons pressed upon him as of the utmost importance. The one was, to obtain access to a larger number

103
of ports, and not to be confined to Canton; and the other was, to obtain some insular position on the coast of China as our headquarters, with a view to the support and protection of commerce. The first idea was, to take Chusan; but that was given up, as not accessible at all times, and not desirable, and Hong-Kong was chosen. But so strong was the opinion that an insular position was of the greatest importance, that many persons doubted whether it would not be fully equivalent to admission to any other port besides Canton. However, we obtained both. But Hong-Kong must be considered, not simply with a view to the amount of trade carried on in Hong-Kong—though it had just been mentioned that a vast and increasing amount of British tonnage went there—but it must be regarded as a place which, providing naval and military assistance at hand, was a support, moral and otherwise, to our merchants in the different Chinese ports. Those who knew what was going on in China must be aware that our position in Canton was by no means a satisfactory one, and that there was a great degree of hostility prevailing among the people there; and it was a matter of very considerable importance to merchants carrying on trade there that there should be a British force to which they could look for assistance in ease of need. Now, with regard to the amount of salaries—what was the average scale of salaries of the East India Company? It was said that they were actuated by a spirit of liberality more deserving of admiration than of imitation by the Government; but, though he could not charge his memory with the exact amount, he knew that the scale of expenditure was so much beyond that now proposed, that, compared with the salaries given by the Company, these were upon a very economical scale. But what was proposed now was only for this year; and the experience of what had been done in former years justified the statement, that the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was sedulously and constantly directed to the different heads of expenditure, with a view of reducing them whenever, and as far as, he should think it consistent with the interests of the public service to do so. It had been said that these salaries were kept high for the purpose of furnishing appointments for members of the aristocracy. That was a very unjust assertion to make upon this occasion. The hon. Member for Bridport
104
said we ought to take men of business: why, what was the choice made in this case? Here was a salary stated to be too high—a tempting bait, therefore, to some member of a noble family; but to whom did the Secretary of State offer it? To an individual whom he did not know, except by the high character he bore—not a member of an aristocratic family, but a man of business—a man who had raised himself to distinction by his own industry, his judgment, and the ability with which he discharged the duties of an important post—and who had no other recommendation but his merits. He referred, of course, to Mr. Bonham. Was this a single instance? He would just mention the names of some half-dozen colonial Governors occurring to his mind at the moment—gentlemen holding appointments of responsibility, and discharging their duty with great credit to themselves, and great advantage to the public service, but who did not fall under the description of being members of noble families, and could not have been appointed on account of family considerations. There was Mr. Anderson, now made Sir George Anderson, appointed to the Mauritius; not a member of an aristocratic family. There was Sir George Grey, appointed to New Zealand, no relation of the noble Lord. There was Mr. Gregory at the Bahama Islands, Sir W. Denison in Van Diemen's Land, Mr. Higginson at Antigua, Sir W. Colebrooke, in Barbadoes; and Mr. Bonham at Hong-Kong was another instance.
MR. COBDENsaid, that a good deal of what had been urged by the noble Lord was an argument in favour of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Berwickshire. It was said, that Hong-Kong was to be considered more as a military port, or sort of point d'appui, for the protection of trade, than as a place of commercial importance. But the noble Lord forgot that they were not voting the military, but the civil, estimates, and they would have to consider hereafter the military and commissariat departments, and the expenses of the fleet. Considering that the civil service had little work, on what they were told was a few years ago a barren rock, ought they to be called on to vote a civil establishment, amounting to 44,000 l., of which 24,000 l. was provided from the local revenue? They were bound to consider the amount as if they were voting the whole sum, for although they were charged on the local revenue, yet it was done by their

105
order. Those charges appeared to be fixed under a delusion which prevailed with regard to new colonies, that they should have their establishments and society upon the same plan as old countries; and establishments were framed for Labuan and Hong-Kong as they would be for Liverpool and Hull. There was an auditor at Hong-Kong, with a salary of 1,800 l. a year; and what had he to do? He might be a valuable officer if there was a large expenditure—(he supposed all that was voted passed through his bauds, the governor's salary and his own included)—but the whole revenue was only 44,000 l. But this was not all: there was a treasurer and registrar-general, with 900 l. a year, and a treasurer's department, with an expenditure of 1,292 l. 10 s. a year, and all this for a revenue of 44,000 l. There were 29,000 inhabitants, of whom some hundreds only were Europeans, and only ten merchants; and what sort of judicial establishment was there for this population? The soldiers and sailors, no doubt, were taken care of by the discipline of their own services, and therefore the establishment was for about 1,000 Europeans and 27,000 Chinese. There was a chief justice with 3,000 l. a year—about the salary given to one of our dignified Scotch Judges. There was an Attorney General in England, and therefore there must be an attorney general there with 1,500 l. a year. In this country there were police magistrates, and there must, therefore, be one there at 900 l. a year. Why, a police magistrate with 1,000 l. a year, and a clerk at 500 l., both superabundant salaries, would be ample for all that was required; and the chief justice and attorney general were quite supererogatory. He thought a case had been made out for a reduction of 5,000 l. a year, and the House would stultify itself if it did not agree to it.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the chief justice and attorney general were confined to Hong-Kong; but the courts of justice had jurisdiction over every part of the Chinese seas.
MR. COBDEN: That was perfectly true. The head-quarters of the judicial establishment was at Hong-Kong; but look how differently matters were managed by the United States, who had nearly as extensive a trade with China as ourselves. They had a consul at each port, with a salary of 1,000 dollars a year, who administered justice to all American subjects, and thus they
106
got done for 200 l. a year what we paid a chief justice 3,000 l. and a police magistrate 900 l. a year for.
MR. SCOTTsaid, we had consuls at each Chinese port, for discharging the same duties as the American consuls, for which we paid 32,000 l. a year. Some of them were at Shanghai, 900 miles from the place where the chief justice resided, and where he had no duties to perform. Of the 29,000 inhabitants of Hong-Kong, 27,000 were Chinese, none of whom were allowed to act as jurymen, although trial by jury was in force. This was, therefore, not only a case of extravagance, but cruel injustice.
MR. PLOWDENdenied that a police magistrate and his clerk would be found equal to the discharge of the judicial functions of a judge.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYcould find nothing like the Hong-Kong charges in any of the other colonies. In Western Australia there were six resident magistrates with salaries of 100 l. each, while the chief magistrates in Hong-Kong received 900 l. While the salary of the judges in other countries varied from 300 l. to 1,000 l., that of the judge in Hong-Kong was 3,000 l. It was quite startling to think of such a sum as 15,800 l. for the expenses of adjudication in Hong-Kong. The only colonies in which such large salaries were paid to the governors, were the important colonies of Canada, Jamaica, Ceylon, and the Mauritius.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 53: Majority 12.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—LABUAN.
(3.) 6,914 l. to defray the expenses of Labuan.
MR. HUMEsaid, he should object to the vote for sundry reasons, one of which was the conduct pursued by Sir James Brooke to Mr. Wise, his partner. It had been asserted by an hon. Gentleman that Mr. Wise had never been a partner of Sir James Brooke. But he thought he would be able to show that Mr. Wise stood in that relation to Sir James Brooke; and that it was not until after the massacre of 1,500 individuals—which, by the way, had never been published in the Gazette, or the orders directing which never laid on the table of that House—that Mr. Wise changed his opinion of, as well as dissolved his connexion with, Sir James Brooke, as

107
the following letter to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would show:—
"London, 31st October, 1848.
"To the Right Hon. Viscount Palmerston, &c,
&c., Foreign Office.
"My Lord—I have received advices by the last Overland Mail, announcing the departure from Singapore of the Government establishment of Labuan. The foundation of that (if properly managed) important colony, the object of my unceasing efforts since 1842, being at length accomplished, I cannot conclude my voluminous correspondence with Her Majesty's Government on the subject of Borneo, without tendering my grateful acknowledgments to your Lordship, and to the Gentlemen of your Lordship's department of the Government, for much kindness and patient attention to details, throughout the progress of my communications. I therefore avail myself of this opportunity of acquainting your Lordship, that I have terminated the political relationship hitherto existing between Sir James Brooke and myself.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's faithful servant,
(Signed) "HENRY WISE."
The following was the answer of the noble Lord:—
"Foreign Office, November 3rd, 1848.
"Sir—I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, announcing the termination of your connexion with Sir James Brooke, and thanking his Lordship for the attention paid to your several communications relative to Borneo; and to the new settlement of Labuan. In reply, I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to thank you for the information which you have at various times transmitted to this office with reference to these matters, which in his Lordship's opinion contributed in no small degree to their final satisfactory arrangement.—I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, (Signed) "H. U. ADDINGTON."
Another allegation was, that Mr. Wise had instigated all the agitation that took place in that country, and that he had been urging Sir James Brooke to form a partnership with him. But he (Mr. Hume) had in his possession a letter dated the 14th of March, 1843, in which Sir James Brooke invited Mr. Wise to join him in a buccaneering company, and as partner to share in the profits. The letter was as follows:—
"Singapore, March 14,1843.
"My dear Wise—I will explain to you now my own ideas on this subject, and you may consider them at your leisure. When we consider the numerous companies which are formed (if properly introduced) I cannot doubt that Sarawak would offer temptations to capitalists which few other fields present, and that the outlay of sufficient capital in mining and agricultural pursuits would repay sufficient interest for money until the country was developed enough to afford direct revenue. A company of three to five hundred thousand pounds capital, in shares (as may seem best to the projectors), would be sufficiently powerful to protect itself, even supposing the Government refused their countenance in direct assistance. The recognition
108
of Government, of course, with such interests at stake, would probably be gained; but it would not be absolutely necessary in the first instance. If recognised, the arrangement would be easier. If they resolved to embark without British recognition, their prospects would be as follows. As a preliminary, the country must be made over to them in perpetuity, under the Borneo crown, with all its revenues, present or future, and the yearly sum I now pay (and in case of success to increase), might be bought out and out for a moderate sum—say 2,500 l. or a fixed sum yearly might be substituted. The company would then have the entire territorial right, which might be extended at pleasure. The modes of raising the interest of the money after three years are as follows: 1st, The diamond mines in the river Suntah, which river I have reserved entirely from the encroachments of the natives. I will not dwell on this topic, as it must become a matter of inquiry, further than to say, that there can be no doubt of the existence of diamonds in considerable numbers, both in the pebbly strata and in the bed of the river. The lower part of the river has only been worked; but I am sanguine that the higher you advance towards its source the greater will be the quantity, and on the present ground the endless holes show how the Landak diamond workers find it worth their while to travel so great a distance. I may mention two facts as the ground of my belief in the value of this river. The first is, the statement of a native of consideration and a man of veracity, that in three days' time taking the pebbles out of the bed of the river, he (with ten others) got a quantity of diamonds, which sold at Sambas (at half their value) for 5,000 Java rupees. The next fact is, that at present both Chinese Kunsi's Companies offer to work under European superintendence, and free of all expense, provided I would give them half the profits. The working is easy, and the expense slight, and the mines would come into operation in six months. 2nd, Agriculture—Coffee, nutmeg, sugar, or cotton, one or all, might be chosen on the finest ground, the clearing of which by the Dyaks would cost but trifling sums. This would be an outlay in the first place, but must repay largely in the course of two, three, and seven years, as the various crops came into bearing. Trade—The monopoly of antimony ore, held without expense, may be reckoned at 5,000 l. a year. Opium, which, as the Chinese advanced, would form a steady monopoly, and from the rest free trade would be considerable, if prices of goods were kept at the same rates as at Singapore. Other sources, such as veins of gold and other ores in the mountains, might be found; but as they are uncertain I need not dwell on them. I may here mention, that neither the existence of tin or copper has yet been fully ascertained. The ultimate advantages on a large scale to be looked to are, the settlement of English planters, the certain increase of the Chinese and native population, and the advancement of the Dyaks, from which sources a permanent revenue would be derived. On my own part, the cession of Sarawak could be made on easy terms, such as a moderate salary as governor, on the same terms as any other governor—the employment of the few persons who have followed my fortunes at fair salaries—the purchase of whatever stock in trade may be on my hands, and the present of a certain sum in the shares of the company, which would

109
make my success dependent in a great measure on theirs, and enable me to reward the gentlemen with me. I do not myself see why this opening should not lead to results similar to India itself.
(Signed) "J. BROOKE."
Here was the temptation held out by Sir James Brooke, who nevertheless declared that he never was influenced by mercantile speculations. It had also been asserted that Sir James Brooke was not at present, nor at any former period, a merchant. But he had a letter in his possession, written by Sir James Brooke in September 1841, from Sarawak. It was as follows:
"Having returned to Singapore, I bought another vessel, and filled her with merchandise, and returned here once more."
But here was a letter to the Rev. Mr. Johnson:—
"Sarawak, 24th Sept., 1841.—Oh, if the echoes of Exeter Hall could catch this news; if some of her big-mouthed orators could only hear it, how would they ding it into the ears, the 'long ears' of the public; but philanthropy, like other I things, is a fashion, and I do not think they care much about Borneo yet."
"Sarawak, 7th Dec., 1841.—The religious community must help us. My great working friend is Templer."
"Sarawak, 16th March, 1842.—You speak of having me made a knight, or even a baronet. I am not sanguine. The former title I am not ambitious of; but hero, in this distant corner of the world, it would be very useful, both with natives and Europeans. In England a knight may be elbowed in every street; here you may seek for and not meet with one, and therefore it is, desirable. If I am a baronet, I will be Vyner and not Brooke—the old title shall be revived."
"Sarawak, 25th Aug., 1842.—The great advantage to me personally by this reconciliation of; the parties in Borneo is, that Muda Hassim and his rascally train will remove to the capital, and we shall be rid of the great impediment to trade; for these Borneo rajahs are the terror of the trader, and, like other great people, run into debt for thousands without hundreds to pay."
Now, he wanted to show that, from first 'to last, Sir James Brooke had been an impostor; and that self-gain and self-aggrandisement were the motives that swayed him, and not philanthropic feelings for the unfortunativc natives. It had been stated by hon. Gentlemen that there never was a desire on the, part of Sir James Brooke to speculate as a merchant or trader; but let them hearken to the following-letter:—
"Singapore, 15th Jan., 1844.—After nearly three years, then, I could close my accounts at Sarawak without being a loser; and this when I have built houses, boats, &c, and purchased guns and many other things. At the same time, I have not exported above one-third the amount required of antimony ore. I should like much to have our family baronetcy, but I know not that I would
110
solicit it, for a refusal is too painful to be risked. Everything looks well at present, but still I do not allow myself to be sanguine."
That showed that the gentleman had not been unmindful of personal distinction. It had been stated that Mr. Wise pestered Sir James Brooke to get him into partnership with him; but the following letters might explain the matter:—
"J. Brooke to H. Wise.
"Sarawak, Feb. 20, 1845.
"My dear Wise—I have the pleasure to communicate to you an arrangement that I have determined upon regarding my future trading concerns in this country, viz. 1. In consideration of your services during the last two or three years, whereby the Government recognition of my proceedings in Borneo has at length been obtained, I hereby consent to your joint participation with myself in all profits arising from my several transactions here, after the payment of the annual expenses of my establishment (an estimate of which I have already given you) and of Mr. Ruppell's allowances. 2. In order to afford Mr. Ruppell sufficient time to close the present accounts, I propose that this arrangement commences on the 1st of April next. 3. The antimony ore, and all other shipments of produce from hence on my account, will be consigned to your London firm for realisation, and account sales thereof rendered to mo direct. 4. The establishment by you of another house at Singapore—the propositions of the Sultan of Saniboa—and the continuance or otherwise of my present arrangements with Messrs. Boustead, Schwade, and Co., I leave, with all matters of detail, entirely to yourself and to your London firm for decision. 5. Duration of this agreement our mutual convenience.
(Signed) "J. BROOKE.
"Henry Wise, Esq., H.M.S. Driver, Sarawak River."
"Singapore, May 8, 1845.
"What is ultimately to be looked to is the development of the country, and you may rest assured I will not draw back from our arrangement of dividing whatever may turn up. I trust you will not touch the money left in Cameron's hands, is I much wish to leave it entire as a nest egg on which I can fall back.
(Signed) "J. BROOKE."
"Cheltenham, January 10, 1848.
"In the second count, granting an opium farm monopoly, a clause should be inserted that if the renters do not fully satisfy the demand for the drug, that I am at liberty to do so myself."
The following correspondence between Sir James Brooke and Mr. Ruppell would further show that Sir James Brooke had been engaged in mercantile speculations:—
"Sarawak, March 17, 1845.
"Mr. George Ruppell, Sarawak.—Hear Sir,—I take this opportunity of acquainting you with the terms upon which 'I am willing to continue your services as manager and superintendent of all my trading operations in Borneo—namely, a salary of 100 dollars per month, and a commission of 10 per cent upon the annual net profits derived from the transactions referred to. Your undivided attention to my business matters will of course be required; and this arrangement, you must also

111
understand, precludes your having any mercantile dealings whatever on your account. I have instructed Mr. Wise to agree with you upon the mode of keeping the requisite accounts, and I propose the 1st proximo as the date of commencing this agreement. You will correspond regularly with Mr. Wise, and attend to his instructions as to the management of the antimony ore, &c., and also render to him as well as to myself an annual statement, closed to the 31st of March, exhibiting the result of each year's transactions. Six months' notice in writing should be given to prevent inconvenience, if you at any time wish to relinquish your appointment, and some arrangement with reference to your mess will be requisite, which you can regulate. Oblige me with your reply to this communication previous to the departure of Mr. Wise from Sarawak.—I am, dear sir, yours sincerely,
(Signed) "J. BROOKE."
"Sarawak, 17th March, 1845.
"James Brooke, Esq., Sarawak.—Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this day's date, communicating the terms upon which you are willing to continue my services as manager and superintendent of all your trading operations in Borneo, and which terms I hereby cordially assent to. With reference to the future management of your trading operations at Sarawak, I have agreed with Mr. Wise that the following system for keeping the annual accounts should be adopted from the 1st proximo, the date upon which the new arrangements commence. The whole of the trading operations to be debited with the following items and accounts, namely—Annual payment to the Sultan; house account, including all salaries; 'Julia's' account (annual disbursements); payments for ore in goods or wages; expenses attending transhipment of antimony ore, &c, at Singapore. On the other hand, the transactions in question are to be credited with the following results, namely—Net proceeds of antimony ore, as rendered by London agents; net proceeds of goods sold, namely—vegetables, tallow, birds' nests, rice, opium, Ac.; net proceeds of revenue receipts; and the difference between these amounts is to form the annual profit and loss account, from which my commission of 10 per cent upon the net profits is to be calculated. Assuring you of my continued exertions in the discharge of the duties I have undertaken, to the best of my abilities, I beg to subscribe myself, dear sir, very thankfully and sincerely yours,
(Signed) "GEORGE RUPPELL."
Now, there were also the accounts current, as kept by Ruppell, which were forwarded regularly: and yet there were gentlemen who would assert in the face of them that Sir James Brooke had never been engaged in trade or speculation. He hoped he had satisfied the House of the truth of his assertions, as also that the difference that occurred between Mr. Wise and Sir James Brooke arose from the duplicity of the latter gentleman. He asserted that the conduct of Sir James Brooke throughout had been mean and mercenary in the highest degree and that his object in attacking neighbouring settlements was that he might
112
render them subservient to Sarawak, for his own objects and purposes. He (Mr. Hume) considered the Government acted wrongly in placing Sir James Brooke in that settlement, in which, by the way, he was not often to be found. Labuan should have a resident governor. But Sir J. Brooke and his lieutenant-governor had been and were at Singapore, not Labuan; and therefore he did not see why that House should vote him 1,500 l. for filling an office the duties of which he did not perform. Here was another letter with which he would trouble the House:—
"August 22, 1842.—Your design upon Mrs. Fry is most laudable, and I trust she will lead all the religious world. Oxford and Cambridge I have no hopes from, because they are not interested parties, and, as a body, they are bigots and bookworms, who think more of their own squabbles than anything that is going on abroad. Don't forget Sir Fowell Buxton, although Sir F. must be disheartened. You do not say anything about the press, though of course you will not neglect it; and the mercantile body, though never moved by generous or disinterested motives, are alive to their own interests, and, if they see an opening likely to increase trade, they will assuredly pour in and help with money. When the vagabonds are laying out millions in mining speculations in the mountains of South America, cannot we get them to supply our exchequer with some dirty thousands? The press—the press—agitate—agitate—ding-dong, knock it into their ears, and perhaps after a time they will awake, like an alderman after a surfeit, and, with a few grunts, think that a penny may be turned."
In short, he was sorry to say the general character of Sir James Brooke had not been such as to entitle him to the encomiums he had received. When he (Sir J. Brooke) attacked a man who had been his friend for many years, it was impossible for him (Mr. Hume) to pass it over. He thought he had shown that all the allegations brought against Mr. Wise were unfounded, and he would leave the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey to say what he chose in reply.
MR. AGLIONBYappealed to the House whether this painful discussion ought to continue? They had to view men in their public capacity, and that House was not the place for reading and discussing all the private letters that had passed between old friends ten years ago. He hoped the House would go on with the public business of the night.
MR. J. STUARTthought the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth rather late in his interference. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought to stop the discussion at the close of such a speech

113
as had just been made by the hon. Member for Montrose, he could only say the hon. and learned Member must have notions of fair play rather different from the great body of the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to have the discussion cut short, he should not have allowed the hon. Member for Montrose to have proceeded so quietly.
MR. AGLIONBYwished to explain. He did not think he deserved all the ponderous and virtuous indignation of the hon. and learned Member for Newark. He could not have interrupted the hon. Member for Montrose while he was speaking. Besides, private letters on the other side had been introduced before; and to-night the hon. Member for Montrose had been meeting charges with an answer. He wished such a subject had never been introduced at all into that House, and he now trusted that the matter would go no further.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he very much regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth was not in the House during the early part of the speech which they had heard from the hon. Member for Montrose, because he would probably not have made the observations which had just fallen from him—he would probably not have made them, if he had been present when the hon. Member for Montrose declared that he had never heard such a tissue of falsehood as the statements made on behalf of Sir James Brooke. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would not have recommended the House to drop the present discussion, if he remembered that throughout the whole of the Session, from its very commencement, the hon. Member for Montrose had been insinuating charges of various kinds, without the least possibility of Sir James Brooke, or any one who thought him injured, being able to meet those charges: that was surely not fair on the part of the hon. Member for Montrose. The first notice of that hon. Gentleman was of a Motion for the production of letters addressed to the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary; and then he came forward with a statement that the marauders on whom Sir James Brooke had inflicted well-merited chastisement were not at the time engaged in a piratical expedition; at another time, that Sir James Brooke had no authority for the steps that he had taken; and, finally, he brought a charge against Sir James Brooke of being a trader, as if there was something unworthy in that character. He might fur-
114
ther add, that though the hon. Member for Montrose had read several private letters, and had gone into several details repecting the private character and conduct of Sir James Brooke, yet that he had not arraigned his public conduct; and, notwithstanding the various loose accusations which he made, the hon. Gentleman had preferred no charge that it would be at all possible for any one fairly to grapple with. There were three lines of George Colman which, on the present occasion, might serve well to describe him; they were these:—
"Although he had a tolerable notion
Of aiming at progressive motion,
'Twasn't direct, but serpentine."
Being able to find no real ground on which to rest a charge against Sir James Brooke, he had recourse to the indirect process of dealing in vague accusations; and when information was demanded, not a word of information was supplied; nothing but the wicked and infamous libel written by Mr. Wise, which had been put into the hands of every Member of that House; they were informed of nothing, except what Mr. Wise told them. The charge of piracy had been established in the clearest manner not only by all travellers, but by the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, by the testimony also of the merchants of Glasgow, and even of London—by the Sultan of Borneo, by Mr. Rawlings, and by the Singapore merchants; and now would the twenty-nine Gentlemen opposite say that there had been no piracy; would they not allow the parties themselves to declare that they were pirates? As evidence of the prevalence of piracy on those coasts, he might mention the treaties into which the chiefs of those piratical communities entered, and the letters which they wrote, and in which they plainly stated with regard to their former evil acts (acts of piracy) that they would never do them in future; they engaged, in truth, that they would never plunder or pirate again. He would, with the permission of the House, read the following passage from one of the engagements into which they entered:—
"This is an engagement made by Orang Kaya Pamancha, together with the head men and elders, Dyaks, now inhabiting the country of Padih, with the Rajah Sir James Brooke, who rules the country of Sarawak and its dependencies. Now, the Orang Kaya Pamancha, the head men and elders, Dyaks, swear before God, and God is the witness of the Orang Kaya Pamancha, the head men and elders, Dyaks, that truly, without falsehood or treachery, or any evil courses, but in all sincerity, and with clean heart without spot, with regard to the former ovil acts, we will never do them in

115
future. Article 1. The Orang Kaya Pamaneha, the head men and elders, Dyaks, of Padih, engage in truth that they will never plunder or pirate again hereafter, and that they will never again send out men to plunder and pirate from Padih river."
Then he held in his hand an important letter from one of the oldest merchants in Singapore—the oldest surviving British merchant who had visited that coast. Sixteen years ago, when he visited the coast of Borneo, he witnessed the terror produced by the atrocities of those tribes, which the energy of Sir James Brooke had checked. The entire population of the towns along the coast and at the mouths of the rivers regarded these marauders with the utmost alarm and abhorrence. These were the words in which he wrote:—
"As one of the oldest, indeed, I believe the oldest, surviving British vistor to the western coasts of Borneo, I feel myself called upon to offer my testimony as to the state of those coasts sixteen years ago. I have a lively recollection, even at this distant date, of the terror in which the coast was kept by the very tribe which you have been instrumental in checking. Scarcely more than a year before my arrival, the entire population of the town of Slaku, a few miles to the south of Sambas, was cut off by a marauding expedition of Dyaks from the north-west coast; and I found all the smaller rivers that I wished to enter so barricaded with wooden piles that I found it difficult to obtain an entrance even for my small boat. I see that in my work on the Eastern Seas (page 269) I have alluded to these Dyaks as coming from 'Serassan' instead of 'Sekaran'—an error which I discovered soon after publication, and which I intended to rectify if another edition had been called for before I left England. I feel convinced that the blow you have struck against the disturbers of the peace on the coast of Borneo will do more towards the general pacification of the tribes of the Indian Archipelago than any event that has occurred since the earliest period of our intercourse with this part of the world."
Now if men would go on saying, after such accumulated evidence to the contrary, that these men were not pirates, they were not fit to be believed in any court. The charge against Sir James Brooke originally was, that he was a merchant, and that his mercantile speculations were incompatible with his duties as governor. Now, he had read a score of letters to show that attempts had been made to draw him into mercantile transactions, and twenty more letters to show that Sir James Brooke would have nothing to do with trade, and that he urged these parties to get rid of their mercantile speculations. And he believed there was not one person in the House, when he read those letters, who was not convinced that he had made good these points. It was
116
necessary for him to refute the false assertions made. The hon. Member for Montrose had read a letter from Sir James Brooke; and he (Mr. Drummond) asked him how he got it? Now he would tell the House. He had before stated that Mr. Wise had chosen to falsify Captain Keppel's journal. When Captain Keppel was writing that journal, Sir James Brooke sent him his own journal, in order that he might make it correct. In the box that contained this journal were the private letters of Sir James Brooke to Captain Keppel, which were never intended for the eyes of Mr. Wise. But Mr. Wise got access to them, and detained these letters and took copies of them, and said he would keep them until the opportunity should occur when he might use them to Sir James Brooke's detriment. Why, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had made himself the common cesspool, into which every slander against Sir James Brooke might be poured. That was the way he had got these documents; and he (Mr. Drummond) said it was a disgrace that they should be so obtained. Sir James Brooke had offered to give up Sarawak to the Government, if they would accept it; and how did this tally with the statement that he wanted to turn this territory to his own advantage? The hon. Member for Montrose talked of Sir James Brooke having got this territory upon a bucaneering expedition. Now, Sir James Brooke left this country, in his yacht, in 1838; he arrived at Borneo in 1839, when a quarrel was waging between the Sultan and some neighbouring State. He was asked to assist the Sultan, who gave him, in return, the land of Sarawak. With regard to one of the letters read by the hon. Member for Montrose, he (Mr. Drummond) was informed the history of it was, that Mr. Wise went out to see Sir James Brooke at Singapore. The night before he sailed he brought Sir James Brooke a letter in his (Mr. Wise's) own handwriting, to which he wished Sir James Brooke to put his signature. That was the letter read by the hon. Member. [Mr. HUME: No, no!] He told the hon. Member it was. It began "My dear Wise," being, as he said, in Mr. Wise's handwriting. [The hon. Member proceeded to read the letter, which related to the terms of the joint partnership between Sir James Brooke and Mr. Wise.] This letter was dated February 20, and on the 8th of May following, Sir James Brooke, suspecting that all was not

117
right, wrote home to put an end to the agreement. The hon. Member for Montrose said that Sir James Brooke was never at the seat of his government. The truth was, however, that during the last twelve months Sir James Brooke had been sixty days in boats, 160 days on board ships and steamers in the tropics, all in the discharge of public duties; and during eighty-nine days he bad suffered dangerous illness from fever. Sir James Brooke's last letter was dated from Labuan, and not from Singapore, and was dated the 18th of February, 1850. It was addressed to Captain Rodney Mundy, and was as follows:—
"I can send you rather a favourable account of myself. I caught a bad ague, watching for the pirate fleet night after night, in hard rain, and it brought me near unto death's door. I felt the springs of life collapsing, the desire of life to be weakened; but care and a good constitution have enabled me to rally this time, and, with the advantage of Labuan air, I have got comparatively strong—not as strong as a hon. yet stronger than I was some weeks ago. The medical men, however, still urge me to try change to a cooler climate; and, though with some reluctance, I shall proceed, when an opportunity occurs, to Penang, and perch myself on the hill-top. Labuan, like myself, is rallying. The climate for six months is charming, and for the other six months much the same as Singapore. Fever will disappear before drainage, and is limited to the plain which bounds the harbour. Health insured we shall advance. The Chinese merchants will also move from Bourne in another two months, and we shall then be the centre of trade for the coast; and I have not the shadow of a doubt the settlement will pay its expenses within a reasonable time. That laggard Eastern Archipelago Company keeps us back. It does nothing itself, and deters others from coming here; and one of our elements of success is at present our poison and hindrance. We shall do, however. Sarawak, when I heard not long ago, was quite quiet and flourishing as usual."
When Sir James Brooke went to Sarawak it had a population of 800 persons; the population was now 15,000. It exported little or nothing under native rule, and the work done was by slaves. It now exported 2,000 tons, and the work was done by free labour, and not by slaves. There was no situation in the world requiring such a combination of the qualities that made up a great character as for a single individual to go into a savage country and there plant a colony. Sir James Brooke was a willing, fit, and excellent servant, and the whole of the outcry made in that House and in the country came from that one dishonourable source: and as the activity and vengeance of that man would remain, be warned the Government against allowing similar clamours to influ-
118
ence them in withdrawing their support from this excellent public servant. Ever since he knew the House, and long before he had a seat in it, there were always to he found in it mock patriots—men who were always ready to listen to and to propagate every calumny against a public servant, especially in those countries which were most distant from our own—and before an assembly which was not always disposed to listen to those who sought to point out the discrepancies of these statements.
MR. LUSHINGTONsaid, it was understood that the Governor of Labuan had made charges against the Lieutenant Governor (Mr. Napier.) He wished to know whether the Colonial Office had come to any decision upon the merits of that dispute?
MR. HAWESsaid, the circumstances of the case to which his hon. Friend referred, were still under consideration, and he was unable to communicate any decision upon it. He was very sorry for the delay; but the cause of it would be perfectly intelligible when he stated that the case was one of considerable extent, and of considerable difficulty.
MR. HUMEadmitted, that in applying the term "falsehood," of which the bon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey had complained, he had used an expression which was too strong. The hon. Gentleman, however, had admitted all the facts he had stated; he had done more, for he added that Mr. Wise was to give Sir James Brooke half the profits upon his concern. As to the existence of pirates, he was content with the authority of Sir Edward Belcher on that point. At the same time, he wished the hon. Gentleman to understand that he had never seen Mr. Wise, or even heard of his name until after he had given his notice for some returns upon the subject, believing that Government could not have consented to such an awful sacrifice of life without authority. The instructions had never been produced under which the attack was made; and the Government had never ventured to publish the disgraceful proceedings in the Gazette. They were ashamed of them.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, nothing he had hitherto beard had convinced him that Sir James Brooke had been concerned in a mercantile transaction, or that he had ever been engaged in anything to his detriment as a public officer. From pri-

119
vate information, as well as from public documents, he had arrived at the conclusion that Sir James Brooke was a most zealous, energetic, and useful public officer, and also that the parties he had been the means of attacking were pirates and robbers.
MR. COBDENthought there ought to be an assurance given to the Committee by the Secretary for the Colonies, that if they voted a salary to Sir James Brooke as Governor of Labuan, he should reside at Labuan. He objected to the vote last year before those events occurred which had complicated this question, and made it a personal one. He objected to the vote of 2,000 l. a year if Sir James Brooke was not to reside at Labuan. There would be no difference in the Committee on the subject if there was not such a confusion in Members' heads as to the geography of the country. He did not think, for example, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey had made any distinction between Sarawak and Labuan. [Mr. H. DRUMMOHD: Yes, I have.] Did the hon. Gentleman know that Labuan was 300 miles from Sarawak? Had he a map? [Mr. H. DRUMMOND: Yes, here it is.] Then would the hon. Gentleman lay it upon the table, so that other hon. Members might have an opportunity of seeing it? The distance between the two places being understood, he begged to say that the intervening space was a barbarous country, inhabited by a variety of tribes of the Bornean population. [Mr. H. DRUMMOND: Labuan is an island.] He was aware of that, but it was only seven miles from Borneo. Here, however, the House was called upon to vote a salary to the Governor of Labuan, who was residing three hundred miles away from it, at a place with which there was no means of communication, except by a ship of war, or a hired vessel, and was about as difficult as between London and St. Petersburgh. When they first passed this vote in 1848, they had laid before the House instructions from Earl Grey to Governor Brooke, directing him what to do in founding the territory of Labuan. Labuan belonged to England. Sarawak was not our territory—we had never recognised it, but we voted Sir James Brooke 2,000 l. a year for governing Labuan while he resided on his own territory of Sarawak. What had been the consequence? The Committee upstairs had obtained some information on the subject. Earl Grey was
120
examined, and Mr. Crawford, the author of the Indian Archipelago. The affair of Labuan had fallen into confusion. The books of Mr. Napier, the Lieutenant Governor, were in such a state that Sir James Brooke could make nothing of them. At the present moment Mr. Napier was suspended, and taken to Singapore. All he wanted was, that Sir James Brooke, if he was paid as Governor of Labuan, should reside at Labuan. He believed that he would be a very competent man for the office. It was folly to select the best man they could find, and then let him reside somewhere else, and do similar work for himself. Let the Government give an assurance that if this salary was voted, the governor should not be a sinecurist.
MR. HAWESsaid, the hon. Member for the West Riding had asked him to give the House an assurance that Sir James Brooke should in future reside in the island of Labuan. He also understood him to say, that he would not object to the salary given to Sir James Brooke, provided he resided at Labuan; and he likewise understood him to refer to the instructions laid down for his guidance when he took office. Now, he (Mr. Hawes) begged to state that Sir James Brooke had of his own accord reduced his own salary 500 l. a year, namely from 2,000 l. to 1,500 l.; and, with reference to the request of the hon. Member for the West Biding, that he should reside in the island of Labuan, he would refer the House to the very instructions given to Sir James Brooke, and to which the hon. Member himself had drawn the attention of the House. According to those instructions it was never contemplated that Sir James Brooke should reside entirely at Labuan. It was always intended that he should have special regard to his consular office, with a view to the protection and extension of our trade in those parts. [The hon. Gentleman here read a passage from the instructions given to Sir James Brooke to the above effect.] It would, in fact, be injurious to the public interest to confine the residence of Sir James Brooke to the island of Labuan. Mr. Crawford, whose authority had that night been referred to, stated that Labuan was the most convenient place to fix upon for the suppression of the pirates of the Indian Archipelago, the most desperate and active of whom lay close to the northern shore of Borneo, and had of late years been extremely trouble

121
some, both to the English and Dutch trade. Mr. Crawford then added—
"From Labuan these pirates might certainly be intercepted by armed steamers far more conveniently and cheaply than by any other means that could be pointed out."
[Mr. COBDEN: Hear, hear!] What, did the hon. Gentleman cheer the employment of armed steamers against these poor miserable savages, as they had been called? Mr. Crawford was the gentleman who recommended the purchase of the island of Singapore, which had been one of the most important contributions to the support and extension of our trade in that part of the world. He (Mr. Hawes) had shown that Sir James Brooke was only acting upon his instructions when he was engaged in suppressing piracy and protecting our trade, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman had no right to call upon him to reside constantly at Labuan.
MR. DRUMMONDhad been attacked on account of his geography', but he thought the hon. Member for the West Riding would not have ventured to do so if he had been aware of a document that now lay before him. On a former evening-it was said that an English ship had never been attacked by pirates in these waters. A return, however, had been moved for and obtained on the subject, and he had made a mark with ink on every place where English ships had been attacked; and if they placed one point of the compasses on Labuan, and drew a very small circle, it would be found that every one of those places was within the circle. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be perfectly ignorant of the real condition of that part of the world. He held in his hand a classification by Sir James Brooke of the inhabitants living upon the various rivers, and from that statement it appeared that though there were many unwarlike tribes who would be very glad to trade with us, they had been prevented from doing so on account of the piracy that prevailed.
MR. COBDENsaid, he had never objected to the occupation of Labuan. What he contended was, that the pirates were not in the neighbourhood of Sarawak, but of Labuan; consequently the governor, who received 2,000 l. a year to put down pirates, ought to reside at Labuan. Mr. Crawford had distinctly stated before the Committee, that there were no pirates near Sarawak, and that Sir James Brooke had been putting to death innocent men. He must contend that Sir James Brooke was
122
residing at Sarawak to look after his own business, and not in execution of his duties as Governor of Labuan.
MR. J. STUARTsaid, it was plain that the hon. Members for the West Biding and Montrose had made a run against Sir James Brooke. [Mr. HUME: No, no!] he was glad to hear it, because, if that had been sooner stated, it might have saved much useless discussion. What, however, was the complaint against Sir James Brooke? That he had put down pirates. The hon. Member for the West Riding said, however, that he (Sir James Brooke) could not put down pirates, because be did not reside at Labuan. But he had effectually put them down, and thereby brought upon himself the enmity of the hon. Gentlemen.
MR. HUMEdenied that he had made a run at Sir James Brooke. He had only made a run at the murderers upon a coast where there were no pirates.
MR. J. STUART: Then the hon. Member accuses Sir James Brooke of committing murder, and says he does not make a run at him.
SIR R. H. INGLISregretted that any Member of that House should have so far forgot Parliamentary usage as to characterise a person intrusted with high office by the Crown, at a great distance from England, as one who from first to last had acted as an impostor, and then to think it enough, as the hon. Member for Montrose had done, to say that he had made no run at him. A charge had been made against Sir James Brooke that he threatened to sell the territory he had become connected with to the French or the Dutch. It was sufficiently well known that he first offered it to his own Government. But he asked hon. Members to consider whether by such treatment as had been awarded to that gentleman, they were not doing much to cut asunder those ties that bound a gallant and honourable man to his country, and making a poor return for the services of one who had sacrificed the blessings of social life to promote the best interests of his species.
Vote agreed to; also the folowing:—
(4.) 30,000 l., Captured Negroes and Liberated Africans.
(5.) 16,350 l., Commissions for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.

SUPPLY—CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed—

123
"That a sum, not exceeding 155,486 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
MR. COBDENsaid, he wished to call attention to two of these establishments in China, Ningpo and Foo-Chow-Foo, where it appeared there was no trade for British vessels. The half-yearly reports of the consuls there stated that in some periods not a single British vessel had visited the ports. The consular establishments on the coast of China were altogether on an extravagant scale; and these two might well be discontinued, there being no trade. Altogether the consular establishments in China cost 32,096 l.; they had been formed on the expectation of a very large increase of trade consequent on the opening of the five ports; and we had little reason to congratulate ourselves on the results of that war, discreditable to us as it was in all other respects. Our export trade to China had increased very little; in 1848 it amounted to 1,445,000 l.; while in 1838, before our aggressive inroad there, it was 1,204,000 l. This should be a lesson to the commercial community how they encouraged any war, conquest, or aggressive operation, for the purpose of opening up trade. He believed that our trade with China would have been more extensive had it been confined to Canton; and if, instead of the war, we had reduced our duty on tea one-half, our exports to China would have been much larger than they were at present. Our expenses there had been immensely increased, and we ought to take every possible means of reducing them. It was not merely the consuls; there were large military and naval establishments at Hong-Kong, and a ship of war was kept at each of the ports. In fact, the Earl of Auckland had stated before the Select Committee on the Navy Estimates last year, that eight ships of war were required in China, one at each of the ports, and three or four at Hong-Kong. This, with the military establishment at Hong-Kong, and the increased consular establishment, made an increase of our expenditure on the coast of China consequent on that war of something approaching to 200,000 l. Yet in the face of all that, our exports had hardly increased at all. Seeing that to the two ports of Ningpo and Foo-Chow-Foo, no English ships resorted, he should move that the sums put down for those two consular establishments—2,142 l. and 2,180 l., together 4,322 l.—be struck
124
out of the vote. It was probable there were other items which ought to be disallowed for the same reason, but at present he would confine his Amendment to those two sums.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 151,164 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
MR. CAYLEYseconded the Amendment, on the ground that where there were no duties to perform, and where there was no trade, there could be no necessity for consuls.
LORD J. MANNERSwished to ask the hon. Member for the West Riding whether he intended to propose to reduce the salary of Dr. Bowring?
MR. COBDENreplied that Dr. Bowring was at Canton, not at one of those ports where there was no trade.
LORD J. MANNERSwished, however, distinctly to know whether the hon. Member was prepared to propose to reduce the salary of Dr. Bowring?
MR. COBDENsaid: No. Dr. Bowring was stationed at Canton, the chief seat of our commerce in those parts.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, when he heard the hon. Member for the West Riding propose reductions, he very much doubted his sincerity. The hon. Member cavilled and pretended to attack the Government, while all the time he was the cause of great expenditure. The hon. Member would strain at a gnat, but was perfectly ready to swallow a camel. He (Colonel Sibthorp) did not like such underhand proceedings. The present Motion was a mere flash in the pan—it was blank cartridge, which would only make a noise. The hon. Member was only tickling on the raw, and barking where he was afraid to bite. If the hon. Member was sincere, he would join him in raising the Government fore and aft, for their mean, cunning, and underhand proceedings.
MR. PLOWDENwished to observe, that when the East India Company had the monopoly of the trade with China, it endeavoured to obtain tea direct from Foo-Chow-Foo, as that was the nearest port to the black tea-growing countries. They were in hopes of being able to induce the Chinese black tea merchants to send their tea down to Foo-Chow-Foo, to be shipped thence for Canton, and they hoped by this means they should be able to get

125
it unadulterated, and altogether of better quality. The result was, that when the plan was adopted, they obtained their tea by Chinese junks in sixteen days, whereas it took forty-eight to procure it by land carriage, as it had to be carried for a great portion of the distance by men. Hon. Gentlemen must be aware of the difficulties Sir Henry Pottinger had to contend with before he could induce the Chinese Government to give way on the point of opening certain ports to British ships. Great importance was attached at the time by those connected with the trade with China to have Foo-Chow-Foo as one of those ports. At present it unfortunately happened that there was no trade with that port; but he trusted, when restrictions which at present existed there were overcome, that merchants would send ships there, when no doubt a large trade would grow up. He trusted the House would persist in keeping up the consular establishments at these two ports.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, if it happened at any other ports in the world that there were consuls and no trade, he should have no objection to abolish the establishments there. It was very true, as had been said by the hon. Member for the West Riding, that no one attended to transact business at the consular offices in these ports, but they must take into their consideration the very peculiar circumstances connected with our trade with China. As was stated by the hon. Gentleman who just addressed the House, the consular establishments at these ports were formed by treaty, which made it most desirable to pause before any steps were taken to get rid of them. The whole subject, however, had occupied the attention of the Government during the last two years, and, as he had already stated, he had entered into correspondence with Mr. Bonham, and other persons able to form a sound judgement on the subject, as to whether other ports might not be obtained as substitutes for these two. These communications had not led hitherto to any satisfactory result; but in that very month he had received a letter from the Chinese Association at Liverpool, enclosing a very important document from the Chamber of Commerce at Canton, in which it was clearly shown that it would be unwise to abandon at present the consular establishment at Foo-Chow-Foo, as it was probable that before long persons would go there to establish themselves in trade.
126
Sir Henry pottinger might have taken some other port than Foo Chow-Foo, but he had been strongly urged to accept it by persons best acquainted with trade in China. He might add, that he had sent instructions to Mr. Bonham to see whether such arrangements could not be entered into with the Chinese authorities as would get rid of any restrictions which impeded the trade of that port. In the great number of communications which he had received from gentlemen connected with the trade with China, he found no difference of opinion as to the desirableness of having Foo-Chow-Foo as one of the parts open to the trade of this country. Its proximity to the black-tea country was considered a matter of the greatest importance.
MR. SCOTTagreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding as to this vote. He should have been glad to have seen a reduction in the consular expenditure at Canton and Shanghai; but still there was a large trade carried on with these ports, but there was no trade with Foo-Chow-Foo and Ningpo. Therefore, keeping consuls there was a mere waste of money.
MR. HUMEwished to ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary whether in these two ports commercial restrictions did not exist which were not in force in the two other China ports? He wished to know whether they could not get these restrictions removed? If they once gave up their relations with these two ports, they would find it very difficult to get them restored.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONapprehended the restrictions of which this country had reason to complain were imposed some distance in the interior of the country. An additional duty was imposed on the importation of our produce into these districts. Representations had been made the Chinese Government on this subject, but Mr. Bonham in his last despatch stated he had not then received an answer.
MR. SPOONERthought it was unnecessary to keep up a large establishment at Hong-Kong, as there was very little trade there. The noble Lord had himself admitted that it was useless as a place of trade.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He had not said that Hong-Kong was useless as a place of trade, but that its chief value was not as a place of trade.

127
He might mention, however, that the tonnage of the shipping which entered that port last year was 293,000 tons.
MR. HUMEtrusted, after the explanation they had heard from the noble Lord, his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEwished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact, that the consuls in China received salaries out of proportion to those paid to that class of officers in the other ports of the world. In these two places there was absolutely not the least necessity to retain consuls.
MR. V. SMITHurged the House to pause before they adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for the West Riding till they got two other ports. The hon. Baronet complained of the amount of the salaries paid to the consuls in China; but they were on the same scale as those paid in other distant places, where the cost of living was high. They must not compare the expense of living at a European port with that of residing in China.
MR. CAYLEYthought the explanation of the noble Lord was satisfactory, and therefore would withdraw his opposition to the vote.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYasked what necessity there was to have assistant consuls in those ports where there was nothing to do?
MR. V. SMITHreplied, that there was as much necessity for having assistants in such cases as there was for having principals.
MR. SPOONERwished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the estimate of the sum required for the payment of the consular establishment at Hong-Kong, namely, 4,261 l. There was a chief superintendent, a secretary and registrar, a first assistant and keeper of records, and a second assistant, third assistant, and fourth assistant, a Chinese secretary, an assistant secretary, and four Chinese writers or linguists. It might be necessary to have a Chinese secretary, but there could not be any necessity for three or four assistants.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that Hong-Kong had communication with all the five ports that were open, and the chief superintendent obtained regular periodical reports from these five ports, and communicated them to the Foreign Office.
MR. COBDENsaid, that it appeared, from the evidence taken before the Com-
128
mittee of the House of Lords, that our consular arrangements put our merchants to great disadvantage in competition with American and other shipowners. They could not go out of port so easily; and he thought the consular establishment should be reduced.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 166: Majority 132.
Vote agreed to, as were the following:—
(7.)16,800 l.,Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses.
(8.) 108,768 l., Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
(9.) 3,750 l., Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants and American Loyalists.
(10.) 2,000 l., Vaccine Establishment.
(11.) 1,000 l., Refuge for the Destitute.
(12.) 5,346 l., Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ALLOWANCES —REGIUM DONUM.
(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 6,318 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1851, Miscellaneous Allowances formerly defrayed from the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenue, &c, for which no permanent provision has been made by Parliament."
MR. LUSHINGTONproposed, as an Amendment, that this vote should be reduced by the sum of 1,695 l., being the amount of the grant to Protestant Dissenting Ministers; and in doing so, he would take the liberty of reminding the Committee that he brought forward a Motion similar to the present in the year 1848. He adopted that course in compliance with the urgent applications of most, if not all, of the principal dissenting bodies, who through the channel of petitions conveyed the remonstrances against this grant of 4,000 or 5,000 ministers, representing above 1,000,000 persons. Again, last year he made objection to the grant; but the Dissenters, disgusted at the manner in which their representations had been disregarded, abstained from petitioning on that occasion; and, mistaking their dissatisfaction for indifference, he (Dr. Lushington) did not press the case on the part of the Dissenters with the energy which they had not ceased to feel, and which they continued to entertain in all its original intense-ness. In fact, he declined to press the matter to a division. His friends around him, however, thought it expedient to take a division; and the majority of 32 in 1848

129
was reduced to 19. Now, he would assure the Committee that the repugnance of the great mass of Dissenters to this grant existed in undiminished strength, and they implored the House of Commons not to force upon their body a donation which, from its eleemosynary character, humiliates and degrades them, inflicting upon the whole Congregational Dissenters an annual insult, and violating their religious prepossessions. The circumstances of the Dissenters had greatly changed since this grant was first made. It was originally given by George I. from the Privy purse to the widows of poor Dissenting ministers, the amount being 500 l. It was in time increased to the present sum of 1,695 l.; and on the transfer of the hereditary revenues to the State, this sum became the subject of an annual vote from the Consolidated Fund. In those days the Dissenters were few and poor, and possessed no status in society. They were now numerous, wealthy, and influential; and they employed their wealth in the most noble manner. They had expended it in the erection of places of worship, colleges, and schools; in the dissemination of education, and in the support of their ministers and of missions. They had constructed fifteen years ago 265 chapels in the metropolis, and had covered the country with 8,000 places of worship. They declined State aid; and any infringement on this principle was so painful and humiliating to them, that one of their leading Committees had designated the grant of the Regium Donum as affixing on them "the broad seal of infamy." It was contrary to their principles to make any stipulation for a direct substitute for this grant, which they pronounced it tyranny to force upon them in violation of their religious scruples, and which is secretly distributed among individuals whom they cannot recognise as associates. The dole is cast to those persons in secret as mendicants, and in such miserable proportions as to reduce the recipients to the level of workhouse paupers. A return was furnished to the House in 1847, which showed that in three years the sum of 5,085 l. was distributed among 1,070 ministers, or so-called ministers, making an average of about 22 s. per head. What would the Church of England Hierarchy say if the Dissenters were empowered to force upon 300 clergymen annually a sum of 22 s. each? What right had the noble Lord to incumber the Dissenters with his offensive
130
charity? Why cast a stigma on the whole body by giving State aid to a few mendicants who are ashamed to acknowledge the obligation, and their departure from the principles of their brethren? Petitions had been presented against the grant, hut none in favour, because the recipients blush to avow their deviation from the general refusal to receive State assistance. The hon. Gentleman said he was satisfied that the Dissenters would make up the sum if the grant were withdrawn, though they declined any express stipulation. His hon. Friend the Member for Stockport had engaged fin' the money being forthcoming. The time was now arrived for the cessation of this annual offence to a most worthy portion of the community, and he accordingly begged leave to move the Amendment which was in the Chairman's hands.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding' 4,623 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1851, Miscellaneous Allowances formerly defrayed from the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenue, &c., for which no permanent provision has been made by Parliament."
MR. KERSHAWseconded the Amendment. He was very anxious that this grant should be cut off. It was so singular in its character, and was so opposed to the feelings of Dissenters both in England and Scotland, that he had hoped that the Government would consent to withdraw it. The Dissenters regarded it as at once inconsistent with their principles, and derogatory to their character. The boards connected with the several denominations had expressed their disapprobation of it. It was distributed amongst the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Baptists, and neither of these bodies was in a position to require such assistance. [Loud cries of "Divide!" "Oh, oh!"] He had the honour to represent a much larger constituency than many hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh!" and therefore considered that he had a light to address the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that however much the Gentleman who moved the Amendment represented the opinion of certain sects of the Dissenters, the evidence of Dr. Rees was opposed to their views, inasmuch as Dr. Rees affirmed that the distribution of the Regiuin Donum was attended with great satisfaction, and that the withhold-

131
ing of it would give serious ground of offence to the Dissenters.
MR. BRIGHTthought that, though the question had been discussed on several occasions, the House was not aware of the nature of the grant. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was calculated to mislead the Committee with regard to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the evidence of Dr. Rees to prove that it gave great satisfaction. Now, it was probable that not a single congregation was aware of the fact that its minister was a recipient of the fund, All congregations repudiated the grant; and if it were known by any that its minister was a recipient, it would become a question between the minister and the congregation, and a stop would be put to it. It was, in fact, a sort of secret service money; as, at the Treasury, nothing was known of the recipients. At the Treasury it was handed to three individuals of average respectability to distribute; but no names were returned as those of the recipients, and consequently nothing was known of the necessities of those for whom that House voted money. His great objection to the grant was this—he thought it calculated to cause duplicity amongst the Dissenting clergymen, which was most dangerous to their characters as ministers. The amount was 5l., and there could be no doubt but that the Dissenting congregations, who provided salaries varying from 5l. to 100 l a year for their ministers, could find the other 5l. if they thought it necessary, or that their ministers were starving. But it was asked, were they ready to provide a substitute? How could they provide a substitute when they did not know who received the money? They knew nothing about it, and, therefore, they were totally powerless to get rid of this result. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had now an opportunity to be economical, and in a way which would do no harm to anybody. They could get rid of near 1,700 l. a year with the consent of the Member for Westminster and the hon. Member for Stockport, himself a leading member of the Dissenting body. He (Mr. Bright) could also give his opinion, having been in intimate communication with the Dissenters in various parts of the kingdom, while the congregational unions, in fact, the various representatives of the Dissenters, were all in favour of the abolition of the grant. If all the Dissenters in the country could appear at the bar, he did
132
not think they could have more conclusive testimony on the subject. He, therefore, asked the noble Lord not to press this grant at a time like this, when economy was a public object, and all the parties concerned were anxious to get rid of the money. There was nobody but Dr. Rees who asked them to continue it; and, therefore, on behalf of the country, and the House, he begged the noble Lord to consent that the vote should be given up, and that, if not, the House should express an opinion to which the noble Lord and his Colleagues must bow.
LORD J. RUSSELLdid not believe the House could refuse this vote without, as was represented, doing injury to anybody, because it must be recollected that at least 300 Dissenting ministers received assistance in very small sums from the grant; and it was stated by those who distributed the money, that it was given to persons who, from their pecuniary circumstances, were in great need of such assistance. It had been said, now and on former occasions, that it was entirely against the principles of Dissenters to receive this money; but if that were the case, it seemed very extraordinary that from 1723 to 1850 this grant had been made every year. It appeared to him that this fact contradicted the assumption of hon. Gentlemen, and that it could not be contrary to the principles of Dissenters to receive such assistance. He could, however, very well understand that those who did not wish to see any ministers of religion receiving money from the public funds or from the State might feel that this grant made against their argument, and might, therefore, wish that it should be discontinued; but he could not consent, for the sake of giving some additional force to that argument, to deprive 300 Protestant Dissenting ministers of the sums they had hitherto been receiving. It appeared to him that this was a matter of charity, and as a matter of charity only he would ask the Committee to assent to the vote. The hon. Member for Manchester had said that this was a species of secret service money. He (Lord J. Russell) would admit that if this were a sum for which the Dissenting ministers applied directly to the Treasury, and the Treasury chose the persons to whom the grant should he made, it might have the appearance of giving the Treasury some influence over those who received it. But the parties who distributed the grant were Dr. Rees and eight other ministers, who re-

133
presented the Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist denominations; and the Treasury exercised no sort of supervision over the persons who disposed of the money. The distribution of the grant was left entirely to those nine ministers of the three denominations; and he could not conceive that those respectable gentlemen would consent to distribute to others money which they knew it was contrary to their principles to receive.
MR. WYLDregretted that the noble Lord should have treated this grant as a matter of charity towards Dissenters, he could assure the noble Lord that the Dissenters of England required charity neither from that House nor from any other body. He would remind the Committee that the most numerous body of Dissenters, the Wesleyans, were not participants in this grant.
MR. BRIGHTwished to ask the noble Lord whether he would lay on the table the names of the recipients of this grant; or whether he would consent not to press the vote this year, and it would then be seen whether the 300 ministers who were said to participate in the grant would petition for its renewal?
LORD J. RUSSELLcould not comply with the hon. Gentleman's request. If be did so the names of the recipients would he held up to odium all over the kingdom.
MR. REYNOLDSthought the noble Lord ought to adopt the suggestions of the hon. Member for Manchester. He was surprised that the Government should force such a grant upon people who were unwilling to receive it, especially as they proposed to reduce by a considerable amount the grants to the charitable hospitals of Dublin. As the representative of those who were anxious to support the Dublin hospitals, he could only say that he would willingly accept the 1,700 l. which it appeared from the statements of the hon. Member for Manchester and other hon. Gentlemen the Dissenters were so unwilling to receive.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 147: Majority 75.
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed.
The Committee report progress.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL
Order for Third Reading read.
LORD J. RUSSELL LORD J. RUSSELL moved, that this Bill be read a Third Time.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he ob-
134
served that it was provided by the Bill that one of the Commissioners should have a seat in the House of Commons. He should like to hear some reason assigned for that arrangement. It appeared to him to be a dangerous precedent. Again, he should wish to know, whether the Estates Committee was to have the appointment of its own counsel? whether, in point of fact, it was to name its own secretary? He also observed that the Commissioners were to lay down general rules as to the course the Estates Committee was to pursue—would the noble Lord define what was meant by general rules, and whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as a general body, were to control the Estates Committee?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that with respect to one of the Commissioners sitting in Parliament, it was thought that as the Archbishop of Canterbury, being one of the ex-officio Commissioners, had a seat in Parliament, it would be proper that one of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown should have the same privilege.; Vs to the other points, it was intended that the board should have the power of defining general rules, but should not interfere in particular cases. The board I was also to have the power of appointing a secretary, as the last Commission had.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that, not having had the opportunity of taking part in the discussion mi this Bill, he should, bad it been an earlier hour, have made some observations upon it; but as it was, he should, leave it to the other House to deal as it thought fit with the Amendments which had been introduced into it since it came down, and which had so much changed its character.
MR. J. A. SMITHasked whether the Government intended that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should deal with the property of the Church in accordance with the recommendations recently issued?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that no doubt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would deal justly by the property placed in their charge.
MR. AGLIONBYcomplained that the lessees had hitherto been sacrificed, and he recommended that the Bill should be postponed.
Bill read°.
MR. SPEAKERthen called on Mr. Hume, who had given notice of a clause.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that as the hon. Member for Montrose had left the House,

135
not supposing the Bill would he brought on after one o'clock, he should move the adjournment of the debate. Besides, he intended to propose a clause which he knew would be objected to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and would lead to much discussion. It was a clause to put prebendaries and canons on the same footing with regard to livings as was done by deans in the present Bill.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that he had stated early in the evening that he would proceed with the Bill to-night, and the hon. Member for Montrose must have left the House knowing it would come on. As to the clause to be proposed by the hon. Baronet, the principle had been much discussed already, and no notice had been given of his intention to bring it on, and he hoped he would not press it.
SIR B. HALLthen moved a clause to the effect that prebendaries and canons should not be allowed to hold livings beyond three miles from the cathedral town in which their prebends or canonries were situate, nor above the value of 500 l. a year. His desire, he said, was that the canons should be placed on the same footing as the deans.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, this clause was discussed in the Committee, and there was a great deal of argument upon it. It seemed to him the case was quite different from that of the dean. The dean was required to reside eight months in the cathedral city, and he could therefore reside only four months in his parish; whereas the canon was only required to reside three months in the cathedral city, and he could reside at his parish nine months. The case was, therefore, entirely different. He did not see any evil, but, on the contrary, much good in a rural clergyman receiving a canonry; and he believed the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet would do serious harm.
Clause withdrawn.
On Clause 8,
MR. J. E. DENISON MR. J. E. DENISON moved an Amendment, giving to the Estates Committee power to appoint their own surveyor.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 37, after the word "expedient," to insert the words "and to employ such Surveyors and Actuaries as may seem fit to them."
SIR C. GREYsaid, he did not think the Amendment of much importance. If a representation were made to the Estates Committee that any officer was inefficient, they would make a change.
SIR B. HALLsaid, then if the right hon. Gentleman did not attach much importance to the question, he might take the common-sense view of it, which was that those who had the management of the estates should have the appointment of their own servants.
MR. GOULBURNcould speak from personal knowledge of the respectability and ability of Messrs. Dalton; and the same might be said of Messrs. Smith and Pickering.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 142: Majority 69.
Amendments made; Bill passed, with Amendments.

ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE BILL.
LORD R. GROSVENOR LORD R. GROSVENOR moved that the Bill be read a Third Time on Thursday.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Third Time upon Thursday next."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the words 'Thursday next,' and insert the words 'this day three months,' instead thereof."
Question put, "That the words 'Thursday next' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 112: Majority 24.
The Amendment thus became a substantive Motion; upon which an Amendment was moved to the effect that the Bill be read a third time on Friday.
Question proposed, "That the words 'this day three months' be there inserted."
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the words 'this day three months,' and insert the words 'Friday next,' instead thereof."
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 84: Majority 29.
Question, "That the words 'this day three months' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for three months.
The House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Bills of Exchange; Stock in Trade.
2a Borough Courts of Record (Ireland); Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
Reported.—Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation (No. 2); Population; Population (Ireland); Loan Societies; Militia Ballots Suspension; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Linen, &c, Manufactures (Ireland).
3a County Court Extension.

MARRIAGES BILL.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYpresented petitions against this Bill, and after expressing a strong opinion against the policy of the measure, asked the Government if it was their intention to proceed further with it in the course of the present Session? Many noble Lords who intended to oppose the Bill were now absent, and among others the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, that he saw no reason for not proceeding with it in the present Session.
LORD BROUGHAMthought that this was rather too short a notice for the second reading of such a Bill; at the same time, he intimated it to be his opinion that it would not he expedient to postpone the decision on the Bill till next Session. He trusted that the noble Earl would consider

73
the propriety of fixing a later day than I Thursday next for the second reading.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH, though he thought that this Bill was a bad one, was nevertheless favourable to the object of it. He therefore hoped that his noble Friend would not bring it forward during the present Session, but would let it be remodelled during the recess. Thursday was too early a day for the second reading. As a sincere friend to the object of the Bill, he recommended the noble Earl to take no further step with regard to it during the present year.
LORD STANLEYdeclared himself to he an opponent, not only of the Bill itself, hut also of its object. Still he thought that every great measure should have the advantage of a full, free, and impartial discussion. He had previously entered his protest, on many occasions, against the mode in which their Lordships (perhaps inevitably) were compelled to deal with important Bills towards the close of a Session, and he repeated his protest upon this occasion. He reminded his noble Friend (the Earl of St. Germans) that there was at the present moment a decreasing feeling in favour of this Bill, and an increasing; feeling in opposition to it. It had now lain upon the table for a week or ten days, without a single step being made in its progress. It was a Bill which might originate in that House at the commencement of the next Session. If it were then negatived it would be disposed of for the next Session; and if it were carried, it would go down to the House of Commons with the recommendation of their Lordships in its favour, and might then undergo a fair discussion in the other House of Parliament. If he recollected rightly, it had only been carried this year in the House of Commons by a hare majority of ten voices.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, he would take till to-morrow to consider of the course he ought to pursue with regard to the measure.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
The Order of the Day being read, for the attendance of Joseph Byrne, law writer, Joseph Hinde, warehouseman, and Duncan M'Arthur, book-keeper, all of Liverpool, at the bar of this House at five o'clock, in reference to their conduct with regard to the signatures to the petition of
74
ratepayers of Liverpool (presented to the House on the 17th of June last) praying to be heard by counsel against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill: The Yeoman Usher informed the House that they were in attendance; they were called in: Then William Kent Fletcher, the short-hand writer who took the evidence given by the said Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur before the Select Committee of this House on the said petition, was sworn to the correctness of the transcript of the said evidence given before the said Select Committee; and, having identified the said Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur, the evidence was read to them.
After the evidence given by Joseph Byrne had been read over to him,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid—Joseph Byrne, you have heard the evidence which you gave before the Select Committee read over to you. Have you any explanation to give of your conduct, or of your reasons for attaching fictitious names to that petition, and for signing the names of other persons who gave you no authority to do so?
Joseph Byrne.—My Lord, when I was first engaged upon this business I went out with the intention of soliciting names as signatures to the petition. It was then my intention to obtain none but legitimate signatures. I got a few persons to sign the petition on the first day. On the next day I went out at eight o'clock in the morning upon the same business; and after 11 hours' great exertion in the one street, I was only able to procure about 80 signatures. When I went to the confederation shop in the evening I saw one gentleman with nine sheets, and another with six sheets of signatures, which purported to have been honestly obtained. I then thought upon the way petitions were got up, and I said to myself "I don't see why I should not adopt the same plan of obtaining signatures." I have no other explanation to give.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: You may withdraw.
The LORD CHANCELLORput the same question to Joseph Hinde.
Joseph Hinde.—The explanation I have to offer is, that Mr. Graves told me that if I could get persons to sign the petition, it would be all right.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Have you any further explanation to make?
Hinde.—No, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: You may withdraw.
His Lordship then repeated the question to Duncan M'Arthur.
Duncan M'Arthur.—My Lord, a friend induced me to come here and to tell your Lordship the system under which petitions of this kind were got up. It is much against my inclination that I should have connnected myself with such a system. When I came to your Lordships' bar to he solemnly sworn as I thought, I did not expect that you would have turned round and have read the evidence given before the Committee against me. As regards my Conduct in this matter, I am just the same as every other person similarly engaged to impose upon your Lordships.
He was then ordered to withdraw.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that their Lordships now had before them the evidence given by these three individuals before the Select Committee, and the statements which they had made at the bar in explanation of it. The effect of that evidence and of those statements was, that each of them had been employed, and paid for their labour, in procuring the signatures of ratepayers adverse to a Bill before Parliament; but that, instead of acting honestly in their employment, they had adjourned to a public-house, and there put down names at random, in some eases attaching to the petition the names of actual persons, who had not given them any authority so to act. They had resorted to various other courses to deceive the persons by whom they were employed. In one case, one of the individuals who had just been removed from the bar had absolutely wetted himself with water forced from a pump, in order to induce his employers to believe that he had been out all day in the rain canvassing for signatures. It was a serious offence to endeavour to impose on their Lordships in such a way, and to procure attention to their petition by the number of names falsely attached to it. It was of importance that their Lordships should he satisfied of the genuineness of the petitions presented to them, and that the parties who practised any deception upon them in that respect should be severely punished. He therefore moved, "That Joseph Byrne, law writer, of Liverpool, in having subscribed the names of certain persons without their authority to the petition, purporting to be a petition of ratepayers of Liverpool against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill (pre-
76
sented to this House on the 17th of June last), and in having signed many fictitious names to the said petition, is guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House."
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, Resolved in the Affirmative, Nemine Dissemtente.
The LORD CHANCELLORthen moved that Joseph Byrne be committed forthwith to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod for the offence which he had committed.
Agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLORnext moved that Joseph Byrne he committed to Newgate.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNsaid, that he had brought this matter before their Lordships, because he felt, as the Lord Chancellor had stated, that a very serious offence had been committed against their Lordships. Many of the signatures which were now admitted to be forged had been verified by other witnesses, and those who had been guilty of such misconduct ought also to be punished. If these three men had not voluntarily come forward to give evidence, this deception would never have come to light. It ought to be taken as some extenuation of their guilt that they had come forward voluntarily to discover this most unworthy trick. They ought not to be punished more severely than those who had suggested to them this crime, for crime undoubtedly it was.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEfelt that, to a certain extent, there was some extenuation in the circumstance which the noble Earl had just stated. Still, he thought that these men ought to be committed to Newgate. They then might state their contrition in a petition, and afterwards be discharged.
LORD BROUGHAMthought that that was the right course to adopt. These men, after they were sent to Newgate, could pursue the usual course of expressing their contrition in a petition, and might then be discharged.
EARL GREYobserved, that if this system of forging names to petitions were general, the parties who employed these men could not be innocent. He therefore thought that their Lordships were hound to appoint another Committee for the purpose of seeing whether evidence could not be obtained to prove either that certain parties had been guilty of wilfully deceiving the House, or that they had been guilty of the most

77
culpable negligence in not discovering that many of the names were known forgeries.
The EAHL of MINTOwas led by the evidence to believe that some of the employers of these men were cognisant of the practices resorted to; for it appeared that some of them had ordered the men to put crosses opposite to the names they had attached to the petition.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNsaid, that the two gentlemen who had got up the petition were then in the House, and most anxious to be heard at the bar.
Similar Motions were then put and agreed to, in respect of the custody of Joseph Hinde and Duncan M'Arthur.
EARL GREYthen moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the employment of these parties in procuring signatures to the said petition, and into the cireumstances attending the presentation of the said petition to the House.
On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PROVISION FOR HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE AND THE PRINCESS MARY OF CAMBRIDGE.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthen announced to the House, that he had a Message from the Queen to communicate to their Lordships. His Lordship then placed the Message in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who read it to their Lord ships:—
VICTORIA REGINA.—Her Majesty being desirous, upon the decease of her late Uncle, of making competent provision for the support and maintenance of his Royal Highness the Duke of Can bridge and of the Princess Mary, relies on the attachment of the House of Lords to adopt such measures as may be necessary."
Ordered to he considered To-morrow.

COUNTY COURT EXTENSION BILL.
Bill read 3a, according to order, with, the Amendments.
LORD BEAUMONTthen moved the in troduction of a clause, the object of which, was to provide that nine of the existing clerks of County Courts who had given up freehold offices to accept their present situations should not be removable.
LORD BROUGHAMfelt it necessary to object to this proposition. The result of adopting the clause would be that none of these nine gentlemen could be removed from office on the ground of incompetence,
78
misconduct, or insolvency. Such a regulation might lead to great public inconvenience. He hail much rather that a Bill should be brought in to secure them compensation.
LORD STANLEYreminded the noble and learned Lord that the gentlemen referred to, could not at present be removed for those causes; and it appeared unfair to place them in a worse position than that in which they now stood, merely because the Legisture determined on extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts.
LORD BEAUMONTadmitted that public inconvenience might result from the adoption of the clause; but, after fully considering the matter, he thought it better to run the risk of that inconvenience than to commit an act of injustice.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to express an opinion, that the clerks ought to hold their offices for the future subject to removal for cause assigned, provided that were not inconsistent with the conditions on which they had accepted their situations.
On Question, that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Their Lordships divided:—Content 19; Not-Content 13: Majority 6.
Clause agreed to.
LORD BROUGHAMthen proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to give a concurrent jurisdiction to the Superior Courts in actions for sums above 20 l. As the Bill now stood, plaintiffs recovering in the Superior Courts sums not exceeding 50 l. in actions of contract, over which the County Courts had jurisdiction, unless the Judge presiding at the trial in the Superior Court should certify that the cause of action was one for which a plaint could not have been entered in any County Court, or that it appeared to him that there was a sufficient reason for bringing the action in the Superior Court, could not recover costs. It was not fair to the Judges in; the Superior Courts to throw on them the responsibility of giving or withholding costs in such cases. It was better to establish a fixed ride at once. The alteration now proposed was called for by the great traders of London, Liverpool, and Manchester. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the Amendment.
LORD BEAUMONTobjected to the Amendment. He thought the question of costs ought to be left to the discretion of the Judges, and did not doubt that they would righteously exercise the discretion

79
intrusted to them. There could not be used stronger arguments against the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, than those which he himself had brought forward in the Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that this was the consequence of his having had the candour to state, as every Member of a Select Committee ought to do, the whole of the arguments on either side; and he was surprised at the boldness of the noble Lord in setting himself against the legal authorities on one of the most important changes that had ever taken place in his experience in the jurisprudence of the country.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that looking to the advantages of going to the County Court, if that tribunal was attended with all the advantages that some anticipated from it, it must be a strong and powerful motive to induce a party to go to the Superior Court; and if he had such a motive he should be allowed to go there. He did not believe that any attorney would, for the sake of increased costs, advise going to the Superior Court, as he would run the risk of afterwards losing his client. Influenced by the result of long experience, and of many circumstances which it would be difficult for him to explain to their Lordships, he undoubtedly thought the discretion now proposed by his hon. and learned Friend should be left to the party suing.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEconsidered the opinions of two noble and learned Lords of such experience as his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack should have great weight with their Lordships; and he therefore supported the Amendment.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, that after the statements of the two noble and learned Lords, he felt that he could with propriety vote for the Amendment; and he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) would now take the same course.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that his objections to the Amendment had not been removed; but, after the opinions which had been expressed, he felt it would be useless to divide the House on the question, although, on the question being put, he should record his opposition by saving "Not-Content."
Motion agreed to.
LORD LANGDALEthen proposed a clause, giving a Judge sitting at chambers
80
in the vacations the same power of issuing writs of prohibition as was now possessed by the full courts sitting in banco. The County Courts would sit during the entire year, and great inconvenience would be felt during vacation if the power of issuing writs of prohibition was not given, as proposed, by a single Judge sitting at chambers.
Clause agreed to; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.