Sitting of 14 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Poor Relief Act Continuance; Sale of Beer (No. 2).
2° Copyhold and Inclosure Commisioners; Victoria Park; Constabulary Force (Ireland).

DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
On Question that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply,
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that as the forms of the House prevented more than one Motion being brought forward as an Amendment upon going into Committee of Supply, he would waive the series of Resolutions which stood in his name on the Notice Paper, and bring forward, with the concurrence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien), the Motion which stood in that hon. Member's name on the Paper with respect to the Dublin hospitals. He understood that the determination of the Government to reduce the grant formerly allowed, was founded on the report of a person who was formerly an officer in the Chief Secretary for Ireland's
650
office, had betrayed his trust and fled to America, and was now published in the Hue and Cry. Yet it was on the evidence of such a person alone that the charitable institutions of Dublin were to be destroyed by the withdrawal of the grants. The Irish Members were almost unanimous on this subject; and he himself that day had had the honour of attending as a member of a deputation which waited upon the Premier to represent the evil of withdrawing these grants; and an address to the same effect, signed by ninety-four Irish Members of Parliament, and by twelve English Members connected by property in Ireland, was presented by the deputation to the noble Lord. Yet not a particle of attention was paid to their remonstrance; but they were drily told by the Premier that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain in Committee of Supply what the Government intended to do. Not only the Irish Members, but all the public boards in Dublin, including the Dublin Corporation, had petitioned against the withdrawal of this grant. It was said it was to be withdrawn, because there were no such grants to hospitals in England. The hospitals in Dublin were differently situated from those in England, the latter having Royal grants and munificent endowments, which stood to them in the place of the Parliamentary grants which were hitherto enjoyed by the hospitals of Dublin. These hospitals were very useful to classes which received no relief under the Poor Law Act; and industrious artisans and labourers, reduced to destitution from temporary sickness, derived succour from them without undergoing the degradation of becoming inmates of the workhouse. But if the present grants were withdrawn, Dublin would not be able to bear the additional charge, being already too distressed by the withdrawal of the Irish nobility and gentry from that capital on account of the Act of Union; and therefore the hospitals would have to be closed. The Richmond and the Hardwicke Hospital, he understood, were to be spared, on the ground that they were important schools of surgery and medicine, and were, in fact, a kind of nursery for providing the Army and Navy with some of the best medical practitioners of whom the country boasts. But all the Dublin hospitals were valuable schools of medicine, and they were all, without exception, nurseries for supplying these services; and therefore they ought not to draw any distinction

651
between them. The Lying-in Hospital more than fifteen years ago derived 1,000 l. from a promenade on its grounds, used by the public on Sundays; but on a representation from the Government against what they viewed as a profanation of the Sabbath, the governors discontinued the promenade, almost on the pledge that the grant from Parliament would be continued. Their income had also been diminished 300 l. by discontinuing the use of their vaults for the storing of East India sugar, which was now sent to the Custom House. Looking at these things, he doubted whether Ireland, generally, had derived any benefit from the Act of Union; at all events, it had seriously injured Dublin, where the Irish Legislature held its sittings. Of this benefit it had been deprived, while increased numbers of poor sought relief in its hospitals. Not a year passed but the Government did something to impoverish Ireland; this, he conceived, was the last thing of which they could deprive that unhappy country. The Irish representatives were unanimous in favour of his Resolution; all but six, who were not in London, and four who held office, had signed the memorial he had referred to. But for the unfortunate Act of Union, that vote would have been granted by the Irish Legislature without a dissentient voice. But now, after all these diminutions, the Government must deal a finishing stroke at this excellent charity by bleeding it to death, at the rate of an annual reduction of ten per cent from the grant. A breach of faith had been committed; and if this reduction went on, it would require very few years to extinguish these charities altogether. He hoped the House, however, would pause in such an impolitic and inhuman career, and that it would agree to the Motion which he had to propose.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'considering the public importance of maintaining as National Institutions the very valuable Schools of Medicine in Ireland, which have derived their chief efficiency from the instruction afforded by the Dublin Hospitals, to the support of which for a long series of years Parliament has contributed, it is unjust and impolitic to reduce the amount of the annual Grant which was allowed in 1848 and the preceding years to those Hospitals,' instead thereof."
SIR LUCIUS O'BRIENseconded the Motion, having been made the organ of a great number of the Irish Members, who were unanimous in strongly deprecating
652
the abolition of these grants. At the Dublin hospitals no fewer than 250 students were educated at one time; and these students were sent out to the colonies, to the Army and Navy, and, in fact, to every part of the world; and not only did students come to Dublin from England and Scotland, but they came even from America and the Continental countries, so far and wide had the fame of Dublin as a school of medical science extended. It had also contributed 600 most valuable works to the medical literature of the empire; and not only were these hospitals invaluable as affording relief to the afflicted poor, but many of them had interesting museums and collections connected with them, forming a school of science and art in Dublin, which must inevitably fall into decay if their resources were abridged by Parliament. Upwards of 3,000 beds were provided in these hospitals open to the poor of all nations. The case of Dublin ought not altogether to be treated as that of an ordinary provincial town; because the former resident gentry of Ireland, who previously supported its charities, now took up their abode chiefly in London, and many of them subscribed liberally to the hospitals there; and therefore he thought it was no great claim to make upon the Parliament of this country to ask them to continue those grants which in the aggregate only amounted to 16,000 l. Why, they spent as much as that upon one of their parks, and double that amount was voted for the British Museum; and although it was alleged that the poor who were accustomed to be relieved by these charities would be assisted from the poor-rates, yet it was clear that that could not be the fact, because the patients at these hospitals were of an entirely distinct class from absolute paupers. In conclusion, he appealed to the House with confidence, whether it was Worth while for so small a sum as 16,000 l., to break up institutions of such inestimable advantage to the nation as he had stated.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had thought this question had been decided; but as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Reynolds) had thought proper to raise it again, he would state the grounds why he could not accede to the proposal. If there were any reasons for acceding to it, they were not those the hon. Gentleman had offered to the House. The inference from his speech and Resolution was, that large grants had been made by the Irish Parliament to these hopitals,

653
and that their withdrawal was an act of injustice. The case was not so. Of eighteen of these establishments now receiving Votes of money from the Imperial Parliament, five only received any Votes at all before the Union, for the other thirteen had been subsequently established. He had been reproached with want of readiness in attending to the wishes of Irish Members; but when he found them perfectly unanimous with regard to a Vote of money for Ireland, it did not necessarily follow that the grant should be made. The Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates had recommended, by a large majority, the discontinuance of these Votes. The Irishmen on that Committee were for retaining them; but every other Member of the Committee was in favour of their discontinuance, as no grounds were alleged in their favour which did not equally apply to the hospitals of Edinburgh, Liverpool, and other places, where a very large proportion of Irish patients would be found, far more than the number of English patients in the hospitals of Dublin. So early as 1817 a Committee had objected to the continuance of these grants. One ground adverted to by the hon. Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien) was of considerable weight, that it was desirable to maintain a school of medicine in Dublin. With a view to maintain that school, the grant to the two large hospitals which constituted it would not be diminished, nor had any diminution whatever taken place in the grants to the Richmond and the Hardwicke Hospitals. Since the Estimates had been prepared, circumstances had occurred which rendered it probable that the grant to another of these institutions might be favourably considered. As similar grants were not made to the hospitals in other towns, he had not the slightest reason for differing from the opinion of the Committee which recommended their total abolition; but in reference to those which were valuable as a school of medicine, that was a reason for abstaining from further reduction.
MR. ROCHEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given the strangest reason in the world for withdrawing these grants. First, he said he would not grant what Irishmen asked because they were united; and then he said that the majority of the grants had been made by the Imperial Parliament,
adding, however, a very good reason why it could not be otherwise, the hospitals did not exist before the Union. Of all times the present was the
654
most inopportune to withdraw the grants from these hospitals. Ruin was staring the people of Ireland on all sides, and, consequently, voluntary contributions were out of the question.
MR. GROGANsaid, it was true that grants were not made to similar institutions in this country, but he had ascertained that five of the great London hospitals had a revenue of 142,900 l, but of that sum they only received 31,000 l. in annual subscriptions, the remainder arising from the grants of the Crown in former times, and the gifts of private donors. If they refused the grant to the Dublin hospitals, they must either close them and shut up the medical schools, or support them by voluntary contribution amongst the citizens. The citizens of Dublin were already overburdened. Of 1,447 persons under medical treatment in the North Dublin Union, from the first of May to the first June, 688 were only connected with the county and city—the rest were strangers. He spoke upon public grounds, and for the purpose of maintaining the high character of the Dublin Medical School, and to prevent what he believed would be an unmitigated evil. Let there be an inquiry by a tribunal impartially selected, and he and the Irish Members would abide by the result of that inquiry, whatever it might be.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that, as he presided over the Committee to which reference had been made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should say that, in curtailing these Votes, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was only acting in accordance with the views and opinions of that Committee. The Committee was of opinion that, in proportion as the grants from Government were increased, so did the voluntary subscriptions decline. He (Mr. V. Smith) could see nothing in the condition of Dublin different from that of Liverpool, or many other places, to justify them in granting these Votes. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir L. O'Brien) would have the House believe that the withdrawal of these grants would be destructive to medical science; but it was an abuse of public money to vote it for the purpose of propping up any particular charity, the necessity of which, moreover, had not been proved.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTconcurred in the general principle that annual votes of money for the support of charitable institutions were indefensible; but he asked

655
the House to consider whether this case might not form an exception to the general rule. Although the sums hitherto voted might have been extremely small, the evils that would result from the withdrawal of such Votes might be very great. They must remember that the circumstances of Ireland differed materially from those of England; for in the former country there was not the law of settlement or the power of removal which existed here. It must also be recollected that within the last few years they had applied to Ireland, for the first time, the principle of the Poor Law, and had imposed upon that country, at a period of great distress, a very heavy burden of local taxation. It might, therefore, be a question whether the present time was well chosen for the withdrawal of these grants. He hoped that, at least, it would remain open to the Government to consider whether, instead of entirely withdrawing these Votes, a certain sum might not be given to the same institutions, and vested in the hands of trustees, which might be funded, the income continuing for ever after a portion of the funds of those hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to make an exception in favour of hospitals serving as schools of surgery; and on the same ground he (Mr. S. Herbert) would recommend the maintenance of fever hospitals, which were especially necessary as schools of medicine in Ireland, fever being the national disease in that country. He was also strongly of opinion that it would be expedient to convert the annual grant into a permanent fund at ten or twelve years' purchase.
COLONEL DUNNEprotested against the withdrawal of the grants as an injustice to Ireland, and denied that the Committee which recommended it represented the sense of the Irish Members. The question was whether the Irish were to be allowed, out of the enormous sums that arose from the Irish woods and forests, and from the surplus revenue that was transmitted to England, to contribute a certain sum from what was therefore their own money, to maintain medical schools in Ireland. He thought that they were very unfairly treated in this matter; for while this small Vote was refused to the medical establishments in Ireland, he found that the Government were about to propose a vote of 10,000 l. for a medical museum in London. He hoped that his hon. Friend would bring this subject forward again as a specific question.
656
The Government might depend upon it that the matter would not be allowed to rest until Ireland had obtained that justice which she had a right to demand.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that he should not call upon the House to divide, but should reserve to himself the right to bring the whole question again under the notice of the House at the early part of next Session.
[Notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Mover of the Amendment, there were some "Noes" from the Opposition benches.]
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 43: Majority 63.
Question again proposed.

THE HORFIELD MANOR ESTATE.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must refer to the subject of the charges which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) against the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, with reference to the leasing of the Horfield Manor estate. The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth had, in support of his charges, quoted certain documents and papers which
were on the table of the House, but that nevertheless the subject had been taken from that House, and some explanations had been made in another place, and where those documents were not forthcoming. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. P. Miles) had written a letter to one of the newspapers on this subject; and he (Mr. Hume) thought it would be desirable, if he or any other hon. Member could give any explanation on this subject, that they should do so. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Bristol whether it was his intention to make any statement to the House in explanation of the charges which had been made against the right rev. Prelate?
MR. P. MILESsaid, that his object in writing the letter to which reference had been made, was to ask the House and the public to suspend their judgment until a reply to these charges should have been obtained from the right rev. Prelate. That reply had been obtained from him, and had been published in the newspapers. Hon. Gentlemen would form their own opinion as to whether that was or was not a sufficient reply to the charges which had been brought forward. He (Mr. Miles) had his own view of that question. He had stated to the hon.

657
Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman), that if he brought the subject before the House, as he stated that he would on Wednesday last, he should be prepared to reply to any charges he might bring forward; and whenever that hon. Member did so, he (Mr. Miles) should be prepared to reply. But if the House considered that, after what had passed upon the subject, any explanation was due from him, he was quite prepared to give it them.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that he had made a statement in that House as publicly as he could, of circumstances which were to be found detailed in evidence given before a Committee of that House, and which was in the possession of that House. He had made that statement in the presence of various members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. There had been, as far as he aware, no answer or explanation whatever given of those charges. That House knew nothing of any letter written by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, or of any other explanation which had been given elsewhere, on any part of the subject. When he saw the letter which was written by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. P. Miles), whose reasons for writing it in the absence of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and before any communication could be had with him, were to his (Mr. Horsman's) mind quite satisfactory, he immediately saw the hon. Gentleman, and stated to him that, with his views, he felt he was quite justified in the course that he was taking, and that he (Mr. Horsman) would give him every facility for that course. He also said that it was unnecessary for him (Mr. Horsman) to repeat the statement which he had made, but that he thought it would be satisfactory to him (Mr. P. Miles) if he pointed out the specific part of the evidence from which he had drawn his statement. It was unnecessary for him to repeat that statement, but he wished to give the hon. Member and that House the fullest knowledge of the source from whence he drew his inference. They agreed, if possible, to bring the question before the House on Monday before the public business; but it was found impossible to do so, as it was inconvenient to the Government in the first instance, and besides that, there were Members on each side of the House who had Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and who would have been obliged to postpone them
658
had this question been brought forward. It was found equally difficult to bring it on in Committee of Supply, as there were ten or a dozen Motions that had precedence before the Committee; and further than that, every notice day up to the 29th of July was filled up, so that it was impossible for him, however anxious he might be, to bring forward this question any more. He might, no doubt, on going into Committee of Supply, have made a statement, but that was already before the public. It had not been answered, and he should have put himself in a wrong position with the House if he had reiterated a statement of which no explanation and to which no answer had been attempted. The hon. Member for Bristol said that as soon as a letter had been received from the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, he felt that the responsibility was taken from his shoulders, and that unless he (Mr. Horsman) made a move on the subject, it was not his intention to bring the question forward. He must say, that he heard with surprise that when a statement was made in that House on evidence before the House, it was not considered expedient to give any answer to it there, but that a right rev. Prelate should be set up to give an explanation elsewhere to an assembly which had never heard the statement, and had not before them the evidence on which it was founded. It appeared to him that the friends of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had chosen the most unintelligible and inconsistent course which they could have pursued. If they had chosen, they might have said that the statement made by an hon. Member of that House was so improbable that it was not worth answering, or that an answer had been given by the letter of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol in the public newspapers, and that that settled the question. That would be intelligible; but the course which was not intelligible was, that they should say that further explanation was necessary, and that another answer was required; but that the explanation should be given and the answer should be afforded, not in the place where the statement was made, and where the evidence was in existence in order to substantiate that statement, but in another place, where any one who chose to make an answer to that statement could make it before an assembly who were necessarily ignorant of the circumstances, and where he might speak

659
with all the fearlessness of a man who knew that he could not be contradicted. As far as he was concerned, he thought the public would draw their own conclusions. He had expressed himself ready and anxious to substantiate the accuracy of the statement which he had made; and not only that, but in some points the circumstances turned out stronger than what he had stated. If, when he stated that publicly, and when he had no opportunity of going into that subject, no answer was to be given and no explanation was to be afforded, but the question and the discussion were removed to another assembly, which was necessarily ignorant of the circumstances, all he could say was, that the public might draw their own conclusions; but at any rate he (Mr. Horsman) was in this position, that he had brought before the House an abuse of a very serious character, and if the House did not think it necessary that any further explanation or answer should be given, he did not feel that he was called upon to endeavour to enforce it. The hon. Member for Bristol had told him very fairly, that his motive in writing his letter was to ask the public to suspend their judgment until some further answer was given; and also that he was not aware, and was not a party to any such proceeding as that of which he complained—the removal of the explanation from that to another House. He (Mr. Horsman) was sure that the hon. Member for Bristol was not a party to, and was not aware of that proceeding, but he must say, that a more evasive or unsatisfactory retiring from a charge, or a more full and complete acknowledgement of the correctness of that charge, it was difficult for him to conceive.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had intimated that the answer given, in the fullest manner, by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol to the charges made against him, and which had appeared in the public prints, was no answer to those charges. The hon. Gentleman had also expressed his great surprise that a further answer was attempted to be given, not in that House, but in some other place. Now, if the hon. Gentleman was so very strict in his observance of the rules of that House, he (Lord John Manners) thought he should in consistency decline to take notice of any debate that might be going on in another place. For his own part, he
660
(Lord J. Manners) regarded the answer which had appeared in the columns of the public papers as an answer to the charges made against the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol by the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth; and he thought the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. P. Miles) was fully justified in considering that the charges were satisfactorily disposed of by the right rev. Prelate himself. If the forms of the House had permitted it, no doubt it might have been convenient to the hon. Member for Cockermouth to have supported the charges which he had made, and to have afforded his (Lord J. Manners's) hon. Friend (Mr. P. Miles) to reply to the charges in detail; but he considered that, under the circumstances, the convenience of the House and of the public was best consulted by the course his hon. Friend proposed to take. He (Lord J. Manners) would only say further that he regretted the hon. Member for Cockermouth should have taken that opportunity of again repeating in very strong, emphatic, and elaborately prepared terms, the charges in which he had before indulged against the right rev. Prelate.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he thought it was not desirable that the House should enter on a question of this kind at that moment. In saying this he was not blaming the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsman), but was rather excusing himself for not entering upon it, upon this ground, that no notice having been given of the discussion, it would therefore be irregular and improper. Without meaning to go into the discussion, he must say that he thought the hon. Member was quite right in expressing his readiness to enter upon the further discussion of the question, because he was bound to say that his statements of facts had been most seriously impugned on most material points; and for his own sake therefore, as well as for that of other parties, he thought there should be some further discussion on this subject whenever a suitable occasion should arise. It was with great surprise and pain that he heard the detail of the circumstance that was given, he was sure without any intentional error, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, because he had a very strong recollection that, being much accustomed to hear of the dealings and transactions of different bishops in regard to charitable and eleemosynary objects, there was no man, so far as he was aware, on the episcopal bench who bore

661
a more distinguished character for liberality than the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. He (Mr. Gladstone) had no friendship or acquaintance with him, but he must confess that, under these circumstances, it came upon him with great surprise that he should be considered to have been implicated in misconduct of so grave a kind. He would state fairly his own opinion of the vindication of the right reverend Prelate, which, in his opinion, was complete—in some points indeed more than complete, because it established not only innocence, but liberality and high merit on his part. At the same time he admitted the fairness of the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman in challenging further discussion; for he thought it would be for the advantage of all parties that that should take place.
Subject dropped.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
(1.) 4,049 l., Bermudas; Vote agreed to.
(2.) 1,500 l., Prince Edward's Island.
MR. HUMEsaid, that this was a small island with a responsible government for the management of their own affairs; he did not object to the amount of the Vote, but he wished to know what course the Government intended to pursue with respect to the payment of the salaries of the Colonial Governors.
MR. HAWESsaid, that the Government had not yet fully decided upon the course which it might be desirable eventually to take upon this point; but that in his opinion under present circumstances it was inexpedient to reduce or discontinue the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, that there must be some link of communication between the mother country and the colonies, and he did not know how this could be better maintained than by our paying the salary of the Governor. At the same time he thought that that salary should be in some degree commensurate to the other appointments left at the disposal of the local Government, so that the Governor should not, by his possession of a very large salary, he removed from associating with those who were employed in the government of the colony. He should not press a Motion on this subject until the Government should have decided what course they should pursue on this point.
Vote agreed to; as were the following;.—
(3.) 7,677 l., Clergy, North America.
(4.) 13,660 l., Indian Department, Canada.
(5.) 70 l., Bahama Islands.
(6.) 18,028 l., Governors and others, West Indies.
(7.) 36,075 l., Justices in West Indies and Mauritius.
(8.) 13,780 l., Western Coast of Africa.
(9.) 10,875 l., St. Helena.
(10.) 6,359 l., Western Australia.
(11.) 1,103 l., Port Essington.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 20,000 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. VERNON SMITHwould take that opportunity of asking an explanation with respect to the position in which they stood with reference to the New Zealand Company. By the Act passed three years ago, the company were empowered, on giving three months' notice, to throw up the whole of the concern to the Government, if they found it was less profitable than they bad anticipated. After that notice the Government were bound to take upon themselves all the liabilities of the New Zealand Company. Since that time they had heard nothing of the transaction, except that it was publicly known that the New Zealand Company had given that notice. A Commissioner had been appointed to investigate the transaction; but in that House they were ignorant of what had been done. Before Parliament separated, he should be glad to know what was the state of the transactions between the Government and the Company. It was known that the Company were liable to serious liabilities—there were serious disputes respecting those liabilities; the Government might have involved themselves to a greater extent than was known, and might hereafter have to come to Parliament for a Vote for the purpose. He begged, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, was it likely that he would call upon Parliament for any further sum than was specified by the Act to meet the liabilities of the New Zealand Company? He would also ask him to lay upon the table the correspondence between the Government and the Company under that Act, to which he (Mr. V. Smith) had objected at the time of its being passed.
MR. HAWESsaid, the Company had given the necessary notice on the 5th of July; but the Government did not then as-

663
sume all the liabilities—they merely assumed all the legal liabilities with the sanction of Commissioners appointed under the Act of Parliament. That would be rather an inconvenient time to go into a lengthened explanation of the arrangements; but it was his intention in the course of a few days to lay upon the table papers connected with the subject.
MR. COBDENcould not understand why the people of England should be called upon year after year to defray these charges for the benefit of people at the Antipodes, who were far better able to pay them than we were. This Vote was but a specimen of our colonial system; it afforded an illustration of the folly this country was perpetrating in all parts of the globe. Here was a charge of 2,500 l. for the salary of a governor, 800 l. for a lieutenant-governor, and, not content with that, we must support their chief justice, at an expense of 1,000 l. a year; and this, be it remembered, for a population of some 20,000 or 30,000 emigrants. Then there were charges of 535 l. for law-officers and clerks, 600 l. for the salary of a bishop, 590 l. for chaplains and schools. Here we had to pay for the Army, the Church, the Judicial establishments, and the Governor's salary; and it would appear we had to pay for their Naval establishments also, for he found in the Vote an item of 1,500 l. for building a vessel for this colony. Then, again, there was a charge for public works and roads, employment of natives, and miscellaneous expenditure, 1,235 l. Why did not these people pay for these things themselves? Why were we always to be called upon to pay for their roads and public works, and for the employment of the natives for their benefit? To call upon the public here to pay these charges was indefensible and unjust. What return were the people of this country ever likely to get for this money? Was it in contemplation to bring New Zealand within the range of their taxing power? Did they ever expect to get one farthing from New Zealand? He could understand the course taken in the case of a territory where they were going to plant their custom-houses and tax gatherers. But he could not imagine that of New Zealand. They could not possibly have any return, even of the exclusive trade by which they used to pretend they were compensated. He predicted that the people of this country, when they had some voice in the representation of that House, or Members of that House
664
when they did their duty, would have these items struck out. He protested against the payment of the money.
MR. PLUMPTREthought there was no colony more deserving of support from the mother country than New Zealand. There was no more beautiful instance of the influence of the Christian religion than in the change which had taken place in New Zealand, which, but a few years ago, was inhabited by cannibals. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) had referred to the charge of 600 l. for the bishop. That was wholly insufficient as the allowance for a bishop whose responsibilities were so great and duties so extensive, and he was allowed another 600 l. from a religious society. He firmly believed the people of England did not object to this charge.
MR. W. WILLIAMSconsidered it would be well if the religious society referred to paid the whole of the salary of the bishop; if not, some deduction should be made for its payment from the enormous salaries of the bishops of this country. He believed the Bishop of New Zealand was a very distinguished person, and he was glad to find that he had a larger amount of salary than was stated in the Vote. He did not think, however, that the people of this country should pay for the maintenance of the bishop, and therefore proposed that the amount of his salary (600 l.) should be deducted from the amount of the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, there was great complaints made in the public journals and otherwise of excessive taxation in New Zealand. Instead of increasing, the population were flying from the colony. [An Hon. MEMBER: To California.] Yes, to California. In Wellington the expense of public buildings amounted to 14,000 l., but there were no persons to occupy them. He proposed to reduce the public works, which were stated in letters and in the newspapers to be preposterous and uncalled for. He thought the inhabitants ought to have a voice in the elections; but though they had passed a Bill giving them a constitution, they afterwards superseded it, and they could not know what their condition is now, except that the Governor expended what sum he liked, and he got whatever he asked. He proposed to take the sense of the Committee as to granting any more money for public works in that colony; and in making that proposition, he would remind the Committee, that the local revenue amounted to

665
52,969 l. He proposed to reduce the amount of the Vote by deducting a sum of 10,935 l.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 9,065 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. M'GREGORobjected to this country being still called upon to pay these charges for New Zealand. He thought the colony should pay all the costs of Government except the Governor's salary and the military establishment.
MR. HAWESsaid, the very last account that had been received from the colony showed that, whilst the expenditure of the local government there had been very largely reduced, the revenue of the colony had not suffered any diminution. But the exports and imports had increased, the former especially. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) apparently had not talc en into account the native population, which now amounted to between 150,000 and 200,000; and though that was a large number as compared with the European settlers, yet in the government of the colony no distinction could be made between those two classes. The Government must extend over all alike. The colony undoubtedly was now advancing at a very rapid rate, and a recent report of the Governor spoke of its being in a state of uninterrupted repose.
Mr. COBDENsaid, he must complain that hon. Members were taking up a new position with regard to our colonies. If they were honest, consistent, and logical, with respect to free trade, they should adhere to their original position, and not abandon the notion under which they had taken possession of them. Something had been said with reference to our trade with the colonies; but if anybody would serve them at a cheaper rate than we did, he would obtain their custom; and how was it possible that we could serve them cheaply if we were burdened with excessive taxation for the support of their government? The hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Plumptre) had set up a claim in favour of New Zealand, upon the ground that we ought to continue to maintain ecclesiastical establishments, abroad; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman to consult his constituents and inquire if the people of Kent were in a position to pay, not only for their ecclesiastical establishment in the city of
666
Canterbury, but for an ecclesiastical establishment in New Zealand? He objected to the principle of coming to that House and asking for money under the pretence of sending missionaries abroad. He honoured the men who subscribed voluntarily in order to propagate our Christian faith in other lands; but he objected to the principle of coming to that House for Votes of money under any such pretence, for it too often happened that we covered our misdeeds—bloody misdeeds in many cases—by saying that we had established a church or a chapel in such and such a place. The Spaniards and the Portuguese had planted their cross in South America and elsewhere, and their spiritual devotions had in some respects been carried on amid the screams of those they had massacred. He objected to any imitation upon our part of their conduct, and to the introduction into that House of any question touching the spread of the doctrines of the Christian faith abroad. Let our missionary labours be voluntary labours. It was not the province of that House to promote Christianity either by the force of our arms or by the appointment of bishops to New Zealand. The fact was that, taking all our disbursements into consideration, we were expending far more than 100,000 l. annually in New Zealand. It was stated the year before last in the Committee, by the late Lord Auckland, that three ships of war would be required on that station. We had a large military establishment there which must be fed and clothed. There had been upwards of 2,000,000 l. spent there by England since the bequest of a portion of the territory had been made. He did not think the island would ever pay 5 per cent upon what we had laid out on it, for we could never have a large commerce with it. It was not a tropical country; on the contrary, its climate was very similar to our own, and therefore it was not in the nature of things that we could have an extensive interchange of commodities with it. Then, had we not been expending too much upon it? Let the Committee look at the question in a rational point of view. Individual merchants might profit by carrying on trade there; but he wanted the people of England to see how this matter should really be regarded. We ought not to be expending money unless there was some prospect of our obtaining a return; and therefore he protested against the present Vote.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must

667
say he did not think the hon. Member for the West Riding had made out a case which would induce the Committee to consent to the Vote being reduced. He (Lord John Russell) owned it did appear to him that this was a subject on which hon. Members might speak without reference to the immediate profit or loss of the transactions of the mother country with New Zealand. What was the general state of New Zealand when we first began to govern it? It was inhabited by a large
body of natives, overrun in many parts with a convict population of a most desperate character, who had gone thither from New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. Many bloody conflicts took place from time to time between the native tribes, which were encouraged by those convict settlers. It became a question with the people of this country whether they should attempt to colonise New Zealand, with a view to the comfort and civilisation of its people; and they were encouraged in the enterprise by missionaries who had been engaged in making voluntary efforts to instruct the inhabitants. But in the attempt to colonise it, the parties engaged in that enterprise proposed to do that which was against the law of the land—they proposed, without the authority of the Crown in this country to establish law in the colony, and to inflict punishment for criminal offences. He (Lord John Russell) was then in the Colonial Office, and he informed those parties that they could not act in that manner without infringing the law of the mother country; and the present Lord Chancellor, then Sir Thomas Wilde, who was consulted upon the point, confirmed his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion. It then became a question whether the Government should not aid that body of colonists, and whether they should not establish the authority of the Crown of this country in New Zealand? He believed that though we were incurring expense for some years in the colony, we were doing, at the same time, one of those noble and heroic works which became such a nation as this—that we were founding a colony which hereafter, when representative institutions should be given to it, would become a prosperous and civilised State; and that it was not unworthy of the people of England to relieve New Zealand from that state of barbarism on the one hand, and from convict incursions on the other, and to bring it into the condition of a civilised nation. It was with that view that the Government began, and I had since continued, to grant sums of mo-
668
ney from time to time in aid of that colony. He did not doubt that the colonists, when they obtained a Government of their own, and when their exports increased, would be able to defray the whole expense of the colony; and he thought it would not be matter of regret that we had been enabled to establish that colony. He was not ashamed to own that in the beginning of the colony he was a party to recommending the Crown to appoint the present Bishop of New Zealand; and he thought 600 l. was no extravagant stipend for a bishop. He (Lord John Russell) was not frightened by the name of a bishop—and if a man who was called a bishop would contribute to the civilisation of the country, and labour to unite the people in bonds of harmony and brotherly love, whatever might be the name by which he was called, he (Lord John Russell) thought it was desirable that such a man should be allowed to proceed in that course in the colony. With respect to the question of trade, those advantages were not given which were admitted in former years. But, according to the principles of free trade, that question had two sides; because, in former times, when this country had a colony, they gave it the advantage of their markets, paying a higher price for the productions of the colony. There was an end now to that; no produce of New Zealand had an advantage. It seemed to him that they should go on paying that sum to the colonists of New Zealand, and that the people of this country had reason to congratulate themselves that they had founded a flourishing State in that part of the world.
MR. HUMEsaid, this was the first time he had ever heard it stated by the Government that this country should be saddled with the expense of additional colonial bishops. Hitherto the Government had always evaded offering a justification. The question which he put to the Committee was this—whether, by agreeing to a vote of that kind, they were not spoiling the colony, and creating extravagance among the public officers there? The only complaint which he made was that echoed by the newspapers in the colony, namely, that the expenses of the Governor and the various establishments were quite disproportionate to the duties to be performed and the extent of the population. With a population of only 10,000 Europeans, they had here between 79,000 l. and 80,000 l. expended; and this was exclusive of the expenses for the Army and Navy and Ordnance.

669
He entirely disapproved of officers receiving overgrown and extravagant salaries, which had the effect of destroying rather than improving the general welfare of the colony. That was the ground, therefore, on which he wished the Vote to be reduced.
MR. PLUMPTREdefended the course the Government had taken in appointing a bishop to New Zealand, and bore testimony to the great and successful exertions which the Church Missionary Society had made in diffusing a knowledge of the truth of Christianity among the natives in the colony.
MR. EVELYN DENISONhad understood this Vote was to be defended on the ground that the colony was passing out of the hands of the New Zealand Company into those of the inhabitants themselves. He agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that the public works and roads of New Zealand were not items which ought to be defrayed out of the public funds of this country. He was not prepared to withhold his support to the Vote which was asked, under the peculiar circumstances of the colony; but, looking to the future, he thought it would not be improper in the Committee to express an opinion that such charges as public works and roads in New Zealand were not those that ought to be defrayed out of the public funds of this country.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 50: Majority 27.
Original Question put, and agreed to; as was also
(13.) 986 l. Heligoland.
(14.) 5,000 l. Falkland Islands.
MR. COBDENwished to know what was the actual population of those islands at the present moment, for the government of which the Committee wore asked to vote 5,000 l.
MR. HAWESsaid, the actual population was very small; from 100 to 200—probably 120.
MR. COBDENsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had rather exceeded the number, for he believed the population was about 100, so that the Committee were voting 5,000 l. for the government of 100 persons, which was 50 l. a head. Those who remembered Dr. Johnson's eloquent description of those islands at a time when we were threatened with a war respecting them, might be disposed to agree with him (Mr. Cobden) when he suggested that it would be as well to deal with the Falkland
670
Islands as the House had done with Port Essington.
MR. HUMEdid not think the population was so extensive as to justify their keeping a surveyor constantly employed, at a high salary. There was a reason for everything. He found among the officials enumerated in the list, a governor, a magistrate with a clerk, a chaplain, a surgeon, and a surveyor. He was sorry to do anything unpleasant or unsatisfactory, but they really ought not to go on voting in this manner.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know what were the duties of the first and second clerk to the acting secretary? Here 5,000 l. was taken annually out of the pockets of the people of this country; while 750 l. only was collected among the inhabitants of the island. He hoped they did not complain of being overtaxed.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYasked whether there were any troops there, and whether, in the 120 inhabitants, the governor, chaplain, and surveyor, wore included?
MR. HAWESsaid, hat this Vote was not for a colony in the true sense of the word. The Falkland Islands were, in point of fact, a naval station of great benefit and advantage to the power and general trade of this empire; and when we possessed a station of that sort, of course it was necessary we should have some kind of government, and proper officers to carry it into effect. It was always considered of great importance that England should possess this naval station; and he would undertake to say that if we gave it up, there would be twenty others ready to take it. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) would recollect that in the Committee on the Naval Estimates it was stated that it was a matter of dispute at one time between European nations as to who should possess the islands. An anxious desire had been manifested by the Colonial Office to reduce the expenditure, and during the last five or sis years it had been reduced considerably. In 1845 the vote for the Falkland Islands was 9,800 l.; next year, 7,400 l.; and now it was 5,000 l. The station was a very convenient one for ships coming round by Cape Horn; and in consequence of increased accommodation being provided in the port, it was now much more resorted to by them than formerly.
MR. SPOONER: There is a surveyor, costing 1,200 l. What are his duties?
MR. HAWES: A surveyor is necessary in every colony where the land is let out to immigrating settlers.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY: The hon. Gentleman has as yet avoided answering my question. What is the number of troops in the colony?
MR. HAWES: There are no troops whatever.
MR. EVELYN DENISON: I find the sum of 250 l. set down for "emigration." Of course, the population of 100 find it extremely dull, and must be in want of a little change of company. Are we to understand that the Colonial Office gives a bonus to the new comers?
MR. HAWES: The 250 l., I believe, is spent in paying the expenses of pensioners going out from this country.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I find that the local revenue in the islands is decreasing. Does this arise from a reduction in taxation, or from the impoverishment of the people?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid the falling off arises from reduction of taxation.
MR. COBDEN: The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies has used an argument in support of this Vote which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. He has stated that these islands are an important station for the resort of merchant vessels. Now I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how many merchant vessels touched at these islands in the course of last year. I have not seen the last report of the Governor, but I saw a report of his one or two years ago, in which he states that, although the people had imported cattle, and brought over from the main land herdsmen to take care of these cattle, and had prepared in vast quantities fresh meat for the merchant vessels which were expected, no merchant vessels whatever had put in at these islands. What we want to know distinctly from the hon. Gentleman is this—do vessels coming round the Horn ever touch at these islands? I have my own opinion, and my opinion is that merchant vessels do not.
MR. HAWESsaid, he found that in 1849 the number of English vessels that touched at these islands was twelve, and in 1850 they amounted to twenty-three, while the tonnage had increased from 9,200 to 13,672.
MR. HUME: I will not maintain that this station ought to be given up; but I do put it to the Government whether the station might not be kept up at a considerably less expense than at present. In my opinion, everything necessary could be effected for one-fourth of the present expense. Spain and Holland always make their colonies pay their expenses, and we ought to do the same.
MR. HAWES: I do not altogether oppose the general Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the expenditure in this colony is, indeed, rather large; and I may further state that the subject is at present under the consideration of my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies.
COLONEL SALWEY: I want to know what is the religious persuasion of the majority of the 100? I ask the question, because I find that 400 l. is given to a chaplain. I should think that there cannot be more than ten families in the island, and this is rather dear pay for the chaplain.
MR. HAWES: I can only again say, in reply to these comments, that the matter is under the consideration of the Colonial Office.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 15,500 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong-Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he must oppose this Vote. Hong-Kong was the dearest piece of ground in Her Majesty's possession. Hong-Kong was a place of an extent of only twenty miles, with not more than twenty acres cultivated. Its population did not exceed 33,000. Fifteen-sixteenths of this population were Chinese, only 450 being Europeans and Americans. And this 15,500 l. was not the only expense. In Hong-Kong there was paid besides 24,000 l. raised by the taxation of the people there; and thus altogether the place cost 39,000 l. There was no Chinese of character or education in Hong-Kong. Respectable Chinese altogether shunned the place, and while we were professing to suppress piracy in the Indian Archipelago, we were at Hong-Kong nurturing a population ready at any moment to man piratical vessels in the Chinese seas. A good criterion of the condition of the colony was to be found in the number of persons qualified to serve on juries. In 1848 the number of Europeans qualified to act as

673
common jurors was 186; in 1851 it was only 69; and the number of special jurors had diminished to an equal extent. There was no doubt that the place was fatally unhealthy; and that this would for ever prevent any progress in its population. The Governor and his aide-de-camp received 6,527 l. 10 s.; the Colonial Secretary and the Treasury Office received 5,955 l.; and the surveying department, for surveying about twenty acres of tillage, received 1,231 l. The trade had fallen off to such an extent that there were only ten English houses, one American, one German, and one Dutch house connected with trade in the island. The harbour-master received 1,116 l a year, and his duties were performed by a Lascar for 300 l. a year. The Governor stated in one of the papers laid before that House that this Vote had been greatly diminished. But there had been no diminution whatever in salaries. The decrease was owing entirely to the cessation of those public works, the prosecution of which might have been of some public advantage. He (Mr. Scott) had moved as an Amendment on this Vote last year, that it be reduced by 5,000 l., and he thought it his duty to urge the same Amendment this year.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 10,500 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. HAWESsaw in the speech and Motion of the hon. Gentleman but little encouragement to persevere in a rigid system of gradual economy. He (Mr. Hawes) had believed that the papers which had accompanied this Estimate would have satisfied every Member of the House that a safe gradual reduction was being yearly made in this Vote. It was quite true that last year the hon. Gentleman had proposed a reduction of 5,000 l. in that year's Estimate. But what was the Estimate now? It was 4,500 l. less than the Vote of last year, yet still the hon. Gentleman asked for a reduction of 5,000 l. Between the years 1845 and 1851 the salaries of the colonial establishment had been reduced by no less a sum than 6,700 l. It was not the fact that public works of any importance had been stopped; but of course the expenditure on that head was much less now than in former years. In 1845 the sum expended on account of Hong Kong was 49,000 l.; in 1846 it was 36,000 l.; in 1837 it was 31,000 l.; in 1848 it was 30,000 l.; in 1849 it was
674
25,000 l.; in 1850 it was 20,000 l., and this year (1851) it was 15,500 l. Of course, when the colony was first taken possession of, many public buildings were required, which had long since been completed; and, since 1845, there had been a natural decrease under the head of Public Works. He admitted that when we first occupied Hong Kong, we carried on the government of the colony in the most extravagant manner; but he denied altogether that there had not been economy since 1845, and that great economy was not practised at the present moment. In justification of the present expenditure, there had been a considerable increase in the trade of the colony. Comparing 1848 and 1851, the increase had been enormous. With the increase in the trade, the population had increased, since 1848, by at least 8,000; and, putting these facts together, and taking into consideration also that the expenditure had been considerably diminished, he thought the Committee would admit that there were no grounds whatever for pressing this Amendment. Beyond what he had suggested, it ought further to be remenbered that Hong Kong was of importance to us, affording securities to the English trade in the Chinese seas.
MR. HUMEdid not consider that the speech of the hon. Gentleman was consistent with the facts of the case. Facts which had come to his (Mr. Hume's) knowledge did not bear out the assertion as to the improvement in the position of the colony. He was altogether misinformed if the colony had not completely failed as respected the purpose for which it had been established. When Hong Kong was taken by us, it was with a view of making it a resort for Chinese merchants, and of removing the British trade from Canton. Nothing of the kind had been accomplished. No Chinese of any position or respectability had as yet settled at Hong Kong. Nothing, therefore, could be more preposterous than to continue this expensive establishment. The Governor, he understood, was coming home soon, and he hoped that the opportunity would be taken by the Government to consider carefully the actual circumstances and chances of this colony. An English Governor at Hong Kong had no more influence with the Chinese authorities than a Governor of the Philippine Islands. In Canton, where some influence for British interests might be obtained, we had no representative in the position to

675
command Chinese respect. Dr. Bowring, our Consul at Canton, was possessed of no influence whatever, and had never yet been so recognised as to procure au interview with the Chinese Governor of Canton. When communications had to be made between the English and Chinese Governments, they had to go from Canton to Hong Kong, and back to Canton; and, of course, in such a case, the Governor at Hong Kong exercised no influence. It was, at any rate, impossible to defend the salaries given at Hong Kong. In a place of twenty miles extent, a surveyor got 1,200 l. a year. Why, the whole island could be surveyed in a year. For the collection of a revenue of 23,000 l. a treasurer got 1,300 l. Why, many an English exciseman collected ten times the sum for a fifth of the salary. Such a colony as Hong Kong ought to be made self-sustaining, and being anxious for a reduction in the Vote, he would willing go into the lobby with the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) that Hong Kong has failed in a commercial point of view; and I think the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies must show that, taking it simply as a commercial depot, it has answered to a great extent, not perhaps to the extent of which expectations had been entertained; still, even in a commercial point of view, there is a great deal of trade in Hong Kong. It is a place of resort for our merchant vessels frequenting the ports of China. There is, for instance, a very considerable trade between many parts of China and Hong Kong in sugar for exportation to this country. But you must not consider Hong Kong simply as a commercial station. You must consider it also in its political bearings with reference to your intercourse with China. I own I feel it my duty to take the opinion of persons conversant with the trade of China upon the subject, and I may state that there was no one point more pressed by them upon the Government than this, that we ought to obtain some British footing upon the coast of China—some spot, of whatever size it might be, in which British authority, British merchants, British vessels, and British goods might be secured from the capricious and arbitrary treatment which our fellow-subjects and their property have sustained at Canton. The first opinion was, that we ought to have taken possession of
676
Chusan, an island much larger, and, to some extent, better placed with regard to our intercourse with China, but to which there were several objections. The opinion of persons here in England and also in China determined—and Sir Henry Pottinger, in his communication, agreed with that opinion—that Hong Kong was the preferable point of retention. It is, I conceive, of immense importance with reference to our commercial intercourse with China, that there should be close upon the coast of China some place to which our merchants can resort in security without fearing any repetition of those barbarous proceedings that led to the rupture and war between this country and China a few years since. Now, what my hon. Friend has just stated with regard to the manner in which the Chinese authorities behave towards our Consul, is exactly an illustration of what might happen if we should cease to maintain any British authority in China. If our Consul at Canton were to be subject to the caprice and ill-usage of the individual who might happen to be the Chinese Governor in Canton, it is plain that our transactions, whether commercial or political, would be at the mercy, as they were before, of what we, in return for the compliment paid to us by the Chinese, may term the barbarians of Canton. I am not so well informed as the hon. Member for Montrose on many points that take place in China; but it is well known to individuals who have any transactions with China, that of late, and especially since the present Emperor came to the throne, there has been a reaction in Chinese policy against the intercourse with European countries; and that attempts, indeed, have been made to infringe some points in the treaty agreed to at Nankin, against which we have protested, but which we still hope may not be persevered in to the extent to require that any thing more than a remonstrance shall be addressed to a Chinese Government. But if our Consul at Canton has not been hitherto enabled to get over a question of etiquette which has prevented him from having intercourse with the Chinese authorities—and I hold him to be perfectly right in refusing to communicate with persons of an inferior position, and with whom the Chinese Government wished him to communicate—if all these difficulties and obstructions have been thrown in our way at Canton, I do say that it is of immense importance that we should have an official—free from all these inter-

677
ruptions and obstructions—who should be in a position to communicate safely with the Government at home, and with British residents in different parts of China. Now, Sir, the Governor of Hong Kong also possesses a criminal and eivil jurisdiction. It was also felt to be impossible that our subjects in China should be liable to Chinese jurisdiction. For a great length of time considerable difficulties arose as to what manner any jurisdiction could be established. An Act of Parliament was passed by which our authorities there were invested with criminal and civil jurisdiction, and by which a considerable portion of the duties were assigned to the Governor of Hong Kong. I really hope, therefore, that the Committee will see that this possession of Hong Kong is of very great importance, and it is not only as a commercial situation, but as a political centre for our relations with China; and I am sure I cannot think that the expense of it is greater than the various considerations, political and commercial, fully justify.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must object to the Vote. What a monstrous thing it was to propose a salary of 6,000 l. to the Governor of an insignificant colony like that of Hong Kong, whilst the Premier of this country had only 5,000 l. Dr. Bowring, the Consul at Canton, who was infinitely superior in point of talent to the Governor, only received 1,800 l. a year.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he must protest against the comparison of colonial salaries with those of the Secretary of State. For his own part, he considered that his right hon. Friend the Governor of Hong Kong was very much underpaid. They ought to remember that foreign climates were often very unhealthy, that governors were put to great expenses, that they held their offices for a limited period, that they were banished from their homes, and were separated from all their connexions. The China station was extremely unwholesome, and many deserving men had either fallen victims to the climate, or had been obliged to return home. Comparing the salaries paid to the public servants of this country with those paid by private mercantile firms to their agents in China, he did not think they would consider the former too high.
MR. CLAYsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Viscount, that it was unfair to compare the salaries of one office with those of another. He knew many gentlemen who would gladly accept the office of
678
a County Court Judge at a thousand a year, who would decline that of Lord Chief Justice at 3,000 l.
MR. HUMEconsidered, that to pay 3,000 l. a year for receiving and auditing 23,000 l., or to pay 1,200 l, to the Surveyor General of a rock only twenty miles in extent, was a most reckless expenditure.
MR. HAWESthought, that considering the climate, the salaries were not too large. Besides, they had already been much reduced.
MR. F. SCOTTcontended that the statements they had heard with respect to the trade with Hong Kong were fallacious. They might as well say that all the ships which called at Cowes traded with the Isle of Wight, as that all the ships which touched at Hong Kong carried on commerce with that port. The fact was, the real commerce with Hong Kong was exceedingly small; and 39,000 l. was therefore a much larger sum than ought to be spent upon it. As for the unhealthiness of the climate, the Governor of Sierra Leone only received 2,000 l.; and with respect to distance from home, the Governor of New Zealand, who was admitted to be extravagantly paid, had not more than a third of the sum allowed to the Governor of Hong Kong. The Governor of Western Australia had not more than one-tenth, Considering, then, that the colony of Hong Kong had a revenue of 24,000 l., this country ought not to be saddled with 15,000 l. in addition.
MR. MACGREGORthought the sum voted for the colony of Hong Kong was too large, but looking at what had been done in the way of reduction of colonial expenditure by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, he felt great confidence that he would go further and extend the principles of economy into all those departments where they were still needed. Viewed with respect to their intrinsic value, the Isle of Wight was worth ten times as much as Hong Kong; but considering the increased confidence with which our ships now went to China, compared with what used to be the case, he thought that hon. Gentlemen had treated the colony too lightly. He was sorry, therefore, that he could not vote with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scott) who had proposed this reduction. The Governor of Hong Kong had long been his (Mr. Mac Gregor's) friend, and he felt persuaded that no better appointment could possibly have been made.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the large

679
sums voted as salary had been defended on the ground of the unhealthiness of the climate; but they did not pay their troops more for serving there than at ordinary stations, and yet it was notorious that they had suffered severely. He was deeply impressed with the extravagance of the salary of the Governor, and if they agreed to pay it they would be spending public money to great disadvantage.
MR. HAWESexplained that the salary of 6,000 l. was paid not merely for services as Governor, but for duties as superintendent of the China trade, in which capacity the Governor was thrown into collision with the Chinese authorities, and with those merchants and other persons who resorted to Hong Kong.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 65; Majority 26.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(16.) 5,500 l., Labuan.
MR. HUMEwould be glad to know who the Governor of Labuan was? He understood the Governor and Deputy Governor were both in England.
MR. HAWESsaid, the Governor for the time being was a Mr. Scott, who was appointed Lieutenant Governor during the compulsory absence of the Governor, in consequence of ill health. The Vote on account of Labuan was decreasing every year. In 1849 it was 8,800 l.; in 1850, 6,900 l.; and in 1851, only 5,500 l. He might mention incidentally that a gentleman who was instrumental in urging the formation of the colony had calculated the expenditure of the establishment at 5,500 l., the precise sum which the Government now asked. Mr. Scott had been surveyor general.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that Sir James Brooke was described as Governor and Commander-in-Chief. What were his duties in the latter capacity?
MR. HAWESsaid, that Sir James Brooke was described as Governor and Commander-in-Chief in his patent; but, except in case of war, when he might share some of the responsibility, he had no military duties whatever to perform.
MR. URQUHARTsaid, that the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had been guilty of an inconsistency in having stated that the Governor was Mr. Scott, and in saying immediately afterwards that it was Sir James Brooke. Certainly if the Government could be carried on without the Governor, he did not see that it was much use to be at the expense of having a Go-
680
vernor. But his principal object in rising was to protest against this office and the consulate of Sarawak being held by one individual.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, if the duties were performed by the gentleman who received 800 l. a year, it was a waste of money to give Sir James Brooke 1,500 l. while he held other offices, and was now at a great distance from the colony.
MR. HAWESsaid, it was not fair argument to contend that because the duties were discharged by another gentleman in Sir James Brooke's absence, the office was therefore unnecessary. It should be remembered that out of the 1,500 l. Sir James Brooke paid one-half to the lieutenant-governor.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he had a strong objection to every item in the account. He regretted that the settlement at Labuan had ever been formed. More would have been done to promote commerce by the establishment of free ports. He wished to know whether it was a fact that Sir James Brooke had ever visited Labuan since his appointment as Governor, and how long he had stayed there? He suspected this money was voted him to eke out his salary as consul general at the court of Borneo.
MR. HAWESsaid, he could only repeat that Sir James Brooke, when absent, only drew half his salary, as was customary with Governors of colonies. He had been at Labuan frequently and for long periods, and had conducted the government in person. One long absence had been occasioned by his having an important mission to conduct at Siam.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) 25,331 l., Emigration.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, that looking at the actual number sent out under the auspices of the Colonial Land and Emigration Board, the subject seemed to be well worthy of the attention of Parliament. Of 280,000 emigrants last year, 223,000 went to the United States of America, 32,000 to British North America, and 16,600 to Australia. This board had been established, ton or twelve years ago, with a view to the colonisation of South Australia; the vote, at first 5,500 l., had been gradually increased to its present amount; and the expenses had risen from 1,000 l. to nearly 8,000 l. Just in proportion as this expense had increased, the percentage of persons emigrating to foreign countries had increased, and the number to our own

681
colonies had decreased. In 1838, the number who emigrated to the United States was 14,000, and to Australia 14,000. Last year the numbers had been, to the United States, 223,000; to Australia, 16,000; or only about 8 per cent of the whole. There were now four Commissioners, while at first there was but one; other salaries had been increased; and the expenses 'of the board had increased to about 50 per cent. It was most essential that a Committee should be appointed next year to inquire into the management of this board. The remittances from emigrants, who went out independently of the board, to their friends at home, resident principally in Ireland, were, last year, 957,000 l., whilst the remittances of those sent out by the board were less than 1,200 l. It was to be regretted that the Commissioners did not give greater publicity to their operations: they were buried in a cul-de-sac called Park-street, where few emigrants could find them out; were it otherwise, no doubt the emigration to our colonies would be largely increased. It might also be promoted by making communications to the municipalities of the different towns in the kingdom. The mode of collecting the emigrants, and maintaining them until their embarkation, was also very defective; and the contract, which was ostensibly put up for tender, was given so as practically to exclude competition. The moment he heard that it was put up to tender, he was certain as to who would receive the contract, although the party's charges were from 20 to 30 per cent higher than those of other competitors. It had been given to Mr. Cooper, who was to lay out 500 l. on improving the accommodation at the depôt at Deptford, although his contract was only for one year. He thought Mr. Cooper ought not to be allowed to lay out so large a sum for so short a contract, because that expenditure would be considered to give that gentleman an inchoate right to have the contract for another year. He hoped the Government would seriously consider whether the Emigration Board might not be made much more efficient for its object.
MR. HAWESsaid, that the hon. Member was under an erroneous impression in supposing that the increasing establishment at the Emigration Board was accompanied by a correspondent decrease in the emigration to our own colonies. The very reverse was the fact. If the hon. Member had taken the trouble to examine the
682
statistical reports on this question, he would have perceived that the emigration to the Australian colonies, during the last few years, had been steadily augmenting. He could assure the Committee with the most perfect sincerity, that there was not the least disposition, on the part of the Emigration Commission, to withhold from Parliament the fullest information that it was in their power to supply with respect to the proceedings of their department. The only funds at the disposal of the Commissioners were derived from the land sales in the colonies. They expended in emigration the whole amount supplied for that purpose from the colony, and, if that sum fell short, or increased from time to time, the Commissioners were not responsible for it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scott) said they might easily increase the tide of emigration; but he forgot that the present extent of emigration already absorbed all their funds, and that the result of the indiscriminate emigration which would ensue from' the communication with all the parishes and Boards of Guardians throughout the country, which the hon. Gentleman recommended, would create discontent, instead of satisfaction, in the colonies. What the colonies wanted was agricultural labourers in the prime of life; and a few years ago, when it was attempted to relieve Ireland of some portion of pauperism by Government emigration, the experiment was obliged to be abandoned. The reason why the accounts of the Commissioners did not come under the notice of that House, was because the funds were not voted by that House, but by the colonies, where the accounts were very jealously scrutinised. The Commissioners had to administer the funds supplied from the colonies, and generally to superintend the working of the Passengers' Act; and for the great amount of emigration to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, and which went to the United States of America, they were not at all responsible, because that was an entirely voluntary emigration. The hon. Gentleman also said the establishment of the Commissioners had largely increased; but there had been an enormous amount of emigration, and additional offices at different ports had been required to be opened. He believed no deduction could judiciously be made from the Vote. A proposal had been made to the Commissioners by the South Western Railway Company, for collecting the emigrants at the port of Southampton, instead of at the

683
port of London; but the Commissioners considered that that arrangement would have been attended with additional expense, and they felt hound in justice to the colonies to economise the funds. If, however, the hon. Gentleman was able to show that, by collecting the emigrants at Southampton instead of in London, the expense would he reduced, the Commissioners would be glad to adopt the proposal.
MR. F. SCOTTbegged to explain. He was not now going into details, because he would not make a second speech. But he was prepared to say that the emigrants could be collected, not only as cheaply, but more cheaply, at Southampton than at Deptford; and it was only by a fallacious estimate, excluding certain of the items, that a decision had been come to in favour of Deptford, and against Southampton.
MR. GOOLDrecommended Southampton in preference to Deptford as the port for the embarkation of the emigrants. The depot at Deptford was inconveniently situated as regarded both the railway station and the river; and on the other hand, Southampton would obviate the dangers of rounding the Forelands and passing the Goodwin Sands.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) 60,000 l., Captured Negroes, &c.
MR. HUMEsaid, he should be glad of some information from the Government in connexion with this Vote.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, it will he in the recollection of the Committee that last year promises were held out, on the part of the Government, that increased efforts would be made, in addition to those already in force, for the suppression of the slave trade, and in consequence thereof greater stringency has been employed, both on the coast of Africa and on the coast of Brazil. Those efforts have been attended with very great success, which has been even more rapid than could have been anticipated. On the coast of Africa the slave trade may be said to be almost extinguished, for the moment, north of the line, with the exception of Lagos and one or two other places, and there the people, who have hitherto devoted themselves entirely to the slave trade, have commenced to engage themselves in occupations of more lawful traffic, such as the collection of ivory and other products of their country, that European traders will purchase from them. Persons say, in fact, that the propensity to the slave trade exists only in the
684
minds of the chiefs, who get profit by the sale of the slaves; but that the bulk of the people, who are commercial in their turn of mind, are anxious for European commodities, and are willing to obtain them by whatever the European trader will take in exchange. For a long time they thought that nothing but slaves would do; but when they found that they could carry on a trade with Europeans by means of the produce of their country, they were even more willing than we are to do away with the trade in slaves, and endeavours are making to extend and organise a system for the interchange of commercial commodities. Specimens of cotton grown by them have been brought over and submitted for the inspection of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, which are reported to be of an extremely valuable kind, and to be likely to produce a good sale in the English market, and be of very great use to the Manchester manufacturers; therefore, as far as the line, the slave trade for the present has been almost extinguished. In the Portuguese settlements it has been very much diminished. The Portuguse Governors have very warmly, and I believe with great sincerity, supported the British admiral and the consular officers. There are at the same time amongst the inferior officers those who still lean to the temptation afforded them by the trader; but we are told that at Benguela and Loanda, and on the Portuguese coast generally, the slave trade is paralysed, and many who were engaged in it have stopped their transactions in the traffic, and are turning to trades of a different and more legitimate nature. On the eastern coast of Africa, the Imaum of Muscat has given facilities which he had not before granted, and the result has been that at the southern extremity of his dominions, where there is a great trade carried on to supply the Portuguese settlements, baracoons have been destroyed capable of holding several thousand slaves. A great blow has also been struck at the slave trade at Zanzibar. On the coast of Africa, therefore, by the great vigilance and activity of our cruisers, by the treaties we have formed with the native chiefs, which I am thankful to say have been observed in many cases with the greatest fidelity and exactitude, by the progress that has been made by Liberia, which has always occupied a considerable extent of coast, and by the co-operation of the authorities in the Portuguese settlements, great progress has been made with the

685
chiefs at Gallinas towards the suppression of the slave trade. I am happy, moreover, to be able to state that perfect and cordial co-operation prevails between the British cruisers and those of Prance and America. Our Commodore has expressed himself in the strongest terms with regard to the zealous and active support which he has received from the French and American officers employed on the service. Therefore, upon the coast of Africa, a very great impression has been made upon the slave trade. Now, the great place to which the trade was directed was the coast of Brazil, and the inquiries which were made before the Committee which sat upon that subject showed what an enormous amount of slaves were landed upon that coast. In the early part of last year the British cruisers that had for a long time been detained in the La Plata, in consequence of the unfortunate differences that existed-between the two Governments, were concentrated on the coast of Brazil, and there operations became more active. Communications took place between the Government of Brazil and the English authorities, and the result was that the Brazilian Government in September last passed an additional law preventing and punishing those engaged in the slave trade, declaring them guilty of piracy, and promulgated fresh regulations for the condemnation of ships employed in that traffic. They had at last exerted that vigilance and put forth that power which was all that was needed upon their part for the suppression of the trade, and the result has been that in the course of eight months, during which they have so acted, they have almost extinguished the slave trade of Brazil. The number of slaves brought into Brazil in 1850 was, I believe, not above one-half the number introduced in former years; of these the greater number were introduced in the early part of the year. But in the first quarter of the present year I believe that very few slaves indeed were brought into Brazil. The number has been estimated at only 200; and I can state that the Government of Brazil is now co-operating most sincerely and effectually with England in fulfilling the obligations of the treaty, and carrying into effect the laws. We have long laboured under a mistake in this country with regard to Brazil. We have imagined that the Brazilian nation was a nation which clung to the slave trade. The fact was, that there were a certain number of Portuguese factors who, by means of their
686
capital, kept up great influence over the minds of persons having authority in the country. But it was a factious opinion, not that of the Brazilians themselves. There has grown up within the last two years a very active anti-slave trade party in Brazil—a party freely expressing its opinion, reading the newspapers devoted to the cause, and pronouncing their sympathies in their Parliament. I believe you may now say that the large majority of the Brazilians are against the slave trade, and the party in favour of it form a very small minority of persons. The result has been that the Brazilian Government has employed several cruisers, co-operating with the British cruisers in seizing slave-trading vessels; they have destroyed their unoccupied baracoons along the whole extent of coast; they have brought to trial persons accused of the trade; they have seized the slaves that have been landed, and even those dispersed in the plantations, and have exercised, in one or two cases, the power of banishing foreigners nefariously engaged in that trade, but whom they were not able to bring within the jurisdiction of their courts. I have heard that a great number of Portuguese traders have quitted Brazil, and returned to Portugal. In the inquiries which I made upon the subject, I was informed by our consuls at Lisbon and Oporto that 140 traders who had been settled in Brazil had fled over to Portugal, and had invested their gains in lands and houses. I was also informed the other day by one of our naval officers, who had recently come from the coast of Brazil, that one man had lost eighty-five vessels, which were captured, and he was informed that they were reckoned at the value of 2,500 l. a piece. The Committee may therefore judge what has been the effect of the operations of our squadron, when one capitalist alone has lost upwards of 200,000 l. Another proof that Brazil has given up, to a great extent, the trade in slaves, is, that a large floating capital of 1,200,000 l. has recently been withdrawn from these pursuits, and has been invested in setting up a bank of discount at Lisbon. The other day, in the Brazilian Parliament, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other persons of note expressed themselves in the strongest terms, stating that they considered the slave trade to be for ever condemned and put an end to by the unanimous voice of all nations, and they declaimed on the demoralising effect which that trade had upon their own

687
country. They have had, indeed, a pretty good lesson upon that point; for everybody knows the degree to which that terrible pestilence which was imported two years ago from Africa swept along the coast of Brazil, carrying off persons of great weight and influence, and destroying vast numbers of the population; it is, therefore, extremely gratifying to me to be able to state to the Committee that both on the coast of Africa and Brazil—the origin of the traffic and its destination—we are enabled to say that there has been a most happy change, and that a greater result has been accomplished within the last eight months than could have been within the bounds of any one to anticipate. That this will be permanent, provided the pressure, watchfulness, and force of opinion is kept up for a time, I confidently anticipate. Because, on the one hand, those native chiefs will betake themselves to trade, finding it more profitable than slave traffic; and in the meantime civilisation will do its work. The influence of missionaries will unquestionably diffuse the light of Christianity to a much greater degree along the African coast. Other nations will discover what these nations are now discovering, that the slave trade and slave labour have been the ruin and destruction of any country that depends upon it. The Brazilians state, in their discussions in Parliament, that the production of slaves has been the ruin of agriculture in Brazil. The Brazilian Government has been in the habit of using slaves on the public works of the country. Well, what happened a month ago? A gunpowder mill blew up. I will not say whether it was because slaves were employed in it—but the Government came to the conviction that it was better to employ freemen than slaves in making their gunpowder. In the same way they found in the arsenals, fortresses, and docks, that the expense of employing slaves was infinitely greater than that of freemen; for not only a larger number of labourers was required to do the same work which could be performed by a less number of voluntary workmen, but, in addition to the keep of the slaves, they were obliged to employ watchers to keep the whip going and make the slaves exert themselves. It is really lamentable to read the annual reports laid upon the table of the Brazilian House of of Parliament respecting the state of that country. Neither law nor justice exists in any great degree amongst them; no education, indifferent roads, in fact, none of the
688
attributes of civilisation, and they themselves attribute it to the presence of the slave trade; therefore I say that there seems to have taken place a change of opinion which is most encouraging. I am convinced that, if the present system is carried on for some time longer, there will grow up in the minds of the Brazilians an aversion to the trade which will put it out of the power of the Government to relax in their efforts; and I believe 'it will appear that we have at last succeeded, if not in extinguishing the slave trade, at least in reducing it within the narrowest limits.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not feel so sanguine as the noble Lord seemed to be, that the slave trade would be permanently diminished so long as we continued to give it encouragement by admitting slave-labour produce into this country. The Queen's Speech, at the beginning of the Session, contained an announcement that the Brazilian Government had been taking important measures for the repression of the slave trade; the noble Lord had just given the first explanation they had heard of that passage in Her Majesty's Speech. He apprehended this was not the first time the Brazilian Government had declared the slave trade to be piracy, and without the declaration having produced the smallest effect. He thought after that declaration the House ought to be put in possession of all the papers relating to the subject. He would also observe that there was a strong impression that the slave trade with Cuba had increased.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am collecting papers on the subject, which shall be laid upon the table of the House; they will contain all the information the hon. Gentleman desires. I may add that, in 1826, the Brazilian Government concluded a treaty with Great Britain, by which they stipulated that the Brazilian slave trade should be piracy, and their subjects who engaged in it should be deemed and treated as pirates. It was upon that treaty the Act of Parliament was founded which was passed in 1845; but the Brazilian Legislature had never passed any law imposing the penalties of piracy upon the trade. The slave trade of Cuba has been reduced for many years to a very low amount as compared with Brazil. I believe, certainly, that in consequence of the great mortality in slaves by cholera, there have been symptoms of giving it a greater degree of activity. But the Spanish Go-

689
vernment have given an assurance that they will exert their influence to prevent it; and I have no reason to think that there has been a great increase of slaves in Cuba. It is pretty well known that it is from the coast of Africa, north of the line, that Cuba has been chiefly supplied, and it is exactly that quarter where our operations have been most successful.
MR. EVELYN DENISONexpressed the satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, that renewed and more stringent efforts for the suppression of the slave trade had been made both on the coast of Brazil and the coast of Africa. It was matter of gratification-to know that a change of opinion and conduct on this important question had taken place in Brazil.
MR. HUMEwas happy to hear from the noble Lord that the result of the exertions made was so favourable; but he thought the change in the sentiments of Brazil would have taken place long ago if our squadron had not been kept up in such strength. He hoped, therefore, that its speedy discontinuance would be the consequence, believing that this would do much towards the cessation of the slave trade.
MR. FORSTERwas glad to hear that legitimate commerce had taken the place of the slave trade on the coast of Africa. He had never known an instance where that had taken place of the slave trade growing up again. He thought that much of this good result was owing to the Brazilian Government.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he thought that, to whatever causes hon. Members might attribute the results that had been referred to, they all might be allowed to say—and to thank God for it—that a great change in the facts, and a great change in the judgment of that House on the facts, connected with this subject, had taken place since the discussion upon it last year. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his very interesting statement, had congratulated the House and the country upon the results to which he had adverted in the course of it; and he was sure that no one in that House or in the country would refuse to reciprocate those congratulations with the noble Lord. Those results would never have occurred, however, unless the course that had been pursued, and which
690
it was their duty to continue, had been supported by the naval force of England.
SIR EDWARD BUXTONcould not deny himself the pleasure of joining in the congratulations which had been given that evening to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, not only for his very interesting statement, but equally for his persevering endeavours to reduce, and, he trusted, eventually to put an end to, the horrible abomination of the slave trade. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had told them that all that had taken place might have happened long ago if the squadron had been removed from the coast of Africa; but it was very remarkable that the change in the feeling of Brazil on the subject had occurred when our cruisers were stimulated to renewed exertions. For his own part, he thought there was every reason to believe that that change had been produced principally, among other causes, by the conviction on the part of the Brazilians that the noble Lord at the head of the Government last year was determined that his Government should stand or fall by this question; and because his noble Friend and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had told to Brazil and to the world that the best endeavours of this great country should be used to put down this horrible traffic.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwished to say one word in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who advised the House to consent to the withdrawal of the African squadron, and thought that thereby the slave trade would be more surely suppressed. He must ask the Committee to believe that if that step were taken, the efforts which had been hitherto so successful would probably fail of ultimate and complete success; and we should then behold the horrors of the slave trade spreading again. In saying this, he was giving not merely his own opinion, but that of the gallant Admiral (Admiral Fanshawe) lately returned from the African coast, whose opinion was, that if we continued that squadron a few years more, it might be greatly diminished, and the cost thereby reduced, but that it would not be safe to make any reduction at present. It was true, as was observed by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that the slave trade to Cuba was showing systems of activity; but he thought that

691
the Committee which had given its support to the efforts made by the Government for its suppression on the Brazilian and African coast, would continue that support, with a view to its suppression on that of Cuba. That being the only considerable branch of it remaining, it afforded the greatest encouragement to persevere, in the hope of putting an end entirely to that accursed traffic.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLwas of opinion that, if the African squadron was not kept up in an efficient manner, we should not succeed in convincing France we were in earnest in our attempt to suppress the slave trade. It was owing to the power to take slave vessels from under the forts that we had brought the slave trade to its present mitigated form. If an efficient force were kept up, he was satisfied we should soon see the total annihilation of the slave trade. He thanked the noble Lord at the head of the Government for the constant support he had given to this question.
LORD HARRY VANEattributed, in a great degree, the suppression of the slave trade to the co-operation of the Brazils, rather than to the effects of the squadron. If we cultivated a good understanding with Brazil, we should be able to attain our object much earlier than by the adoption of the proposition for constructing new vessels. He was gratified at the good that had already been done; but he did not place entire reliance in the expectations entertained of suppressing the slave trade altogether, though certainly such a consummation would be most agreeable to him.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(19.) 14,650 l. Mixed Commissions.
On the Vote of 148,490 l. for the Consular Establishments abroad,
MR. URQUHARTmoved that the Chairman report progress.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhoped that the hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to proceed with the Votes.
MR. URQUHARTbelieved there was an old established rule that no estimates should be taken after twelve o'clock, and he should object to any further grants of money that night, not only for the purpose of maintaining that rule, but also because a few nights ago, just as the House was about to divide on a Motion of his, the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brothcrton) moved the adjournment of the House.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, the matter to which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) alluded, had been explained twice if not thrice by the right hon. Home Secretary to the apparent satisfaction of the House.
MR. URQUHARTsaid, the explanation had not satisfied him. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), backed by the Treasury benches, in a most unfair way defeated his (Mr. Urquhart's) Motion.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, the House, on the day in question, had sat twelve hours when he rose to move the adjournment, and they were to meet the following day at twelve o'clock. Mr. Speaker was not well; and as a relief to him and to the House, he thought he was justified in moving the adjournment of the House.
MR. HUMEsupported the Motion for reporting progress, because he thought that it was not right to vote away the public money after twelve o'clock at night, when many of the Members had retired from the House.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion for adjournment. At the rate at which they were proceeding with the Estimates, they would not be able to finish their Parliamentary labour till the middle of August, whereas it had been intended that the Session should be brought to an end at the beginning of the second week in August at the farthest.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would not oppose adjournment if the House had been in Committee for several hours, but inasmuch as two or three hours had been taken up in the debate on going into Supply, he would oppose the Motion for reporting progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 107: Majority 81.
The CHAIRMANthen put the question that the Vote be agreed to, when
MR. HUMEagain moved that the Chairman report progress, and obtain leave to sit again. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of the advanced period of the Session; but surely if the Government insisted on bringing in measures which a portion of the House opposed, and thus protracted the Session, that was no reason

693
why he should neglect his duty when the time arrived.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLreluctantly yielded to the wish of the minority, but stated that the Session would be considerably delayed if the Committee were not allowed to sit after twelve o'clock.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that in future so much time would not he occupied in preliminary Motions.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the time allotted to independent Members was now very limited, and that, as only one Motion could be disposed of before going into Committee of Supply, some delay must necessarily take place before gettiug the Votes passed.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that the discussion on his Motion might have been prevented if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a reasonable answer to a reasonable request. He (Mr. Reynolds) would take the opportunity of saying that neither he nor the parties with whom he acted had desired to divide the House on his Motion; at a meeting held in the morning they had resolved not to divide, and he had expressed his desire to withdraw his Motion. The division was called by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). If they had determined to divide, the minority would have been double forty-three; indeed, the Government would have been closely pinched.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not alluded to the debate on the Dublin charities. That was a pertinent Motion, but there were several Motions on the paper which were not.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsaid, he could confirm the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Reynolds), for he (Mr. O'Flaherty) had left the House early in the evening, not expecting a division on the Dublin charities; and nothing had surprised the Irish Members more than to find that in their absence an English Member had taken upon himself to divide the House.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONhad certainly thought it unadvisable to take a division on the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), as it omitted an important point.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths—The Lord Harris. Public Bills.—1a United Church of England and Ireland; Churches and Chapels (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Residences (Ireland); Militia Ballots Suspension; Woods, Forests, &c.; Court of Chancery and Judicial Committee.
2a Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Highway Rates; Loan Societies; General Board of Health.
3a Lodging Houses.

BUILDING FOR THE EXHIBITION OF THE WORKS OF INDUSTRY OF ALL NATIONS.
LORD CAMPBELLpresented a petition against the continuance of the Crystal Palace. His Lordship stated that the first name on the list was that of his learned Brother (Mr. Justice Cresswell), a lawyer, a scholar, and a gentleman who was an ornament to his profession and his country; and, amongst other names of the greatest respectability and distinction were those of the venerable mother of the Earl of Clarendon, and of the sister of Lord Auckland. The petitioners expressed a wish, which he believed was unanimous amongst persons of all classes, always excepting some publicans and keepers of beerhouses, who profited by the crowd of visitors, that at the termination of the Exhibition the Crystal Palace might appear only in history; and several clergymen joined in the prayer of the petition, who desired for the sake of morality, that the Commissioners should not be absolved from the solemn pledge which they had given that the building should be removed within a given time after it had fulfilled the purpose to which it was destined. An active agitation was going on upon this question at present, the ground of which, he believed, was that the health and enjoyment of the people would be promoted by allowing the Crystal Palace to remain in its place. But, upon this point, their Lordships might permit him to quote a passage from an article

627
in the last number of the Quarterly Review, which was evidently the composition of a gentleman who was profoundly versed in literature, as well as skilled in science. The writer said—
"Were the Crystal Palace to be kept up in spite of rather strong pledges, and, as some prophesy, to present us by and by with a wilderness of walks meandering through bowers of exotic bloom, it would be the most insalubrious promenade in London; the rather and choicer the Flora, the less entitled to rivet your admiration, young ladies! On a sultry summer's day, fairly divided between heavy showers and scorching sunshine, you have seen a bottle of claret—or the decanter to which it ought not to have been transferred—or a caraffe of water from the deep well—brought into your dear papa's comfortable dining room; before it stood long on the table the bright glass was dim, and soon down trickled the dew-drops, running races which should reach the bottom first; well, permit us paternal reviewers to whisper that after half an hour's walk through the frosty air you are the cool claret bottle, or the caraffe of spring water, when you enter the seductive orchid house. The dew does not run off your encasing integuments, but it saturates them. You might almost as wisely take a walk on the floor of the aquarium as here. If you doubt our word, go and stand before the nearest kitchen fire, and see how you will reek and steam. What would your mamma say—what would Sir—or Dr.—, who has taken such pains with you, think if you were to spend two or three hours in the laundry during the height of the engagement on a washing day? As you happen to have lungs and a skin, it matters not what you are looking at, as long as the atmosphere is the same—whether at the brightest of flowers or the most prismatic of soap bubbles. No indoor promenade should tell more forcibly on the hygrometer, or indicate the dew point with greater suddenness, than a common sitting room. But in this arid climate, oven the camellia casts off its blossom buds. It disinherits its own lovely offspring, and rejects them with as decided a scorn as if it had discovered that it was producing a crop of Hygeian pills instead of pure ornaments for innocent beauties. The climate of the orange, not that of the camellia, may do for a winter garden. If ever our admirable palace of glass becomes a showy, steamy, suffocating Jardin d'Hiver, it will be a capital thing for the apothecaries; such a vigorous crop of colds, coughs, and consumptions will be raised, that it will be the walk, if not the dance of death, to frequent it."
That was the testimony given by an impartial writer against the visionary scheme of Mr. Paxton, who talked of transferring to this country the sunny clime of Southern Italy. For his own part, if the Crystal Palace were to be retained at all, he (Lord Campbell) thought it would be best to convert it into an enormous shower bath; for, however admirably adapted it was to the purposes for which it was intended, it had now become essentially necessary to elevate umbrellas inside the building whenever
628
a shower of rain came on. That would probably be the last time that he should have the opportunity of raising his voice on the subject, for he should be obliged to leave town early to-morrow in the discharge of his duty to administer justice to Her Majesty's subjects; but he would leave the matter in their Lordships' hands without any fear, because he did not believe that the two Houses of Parliament would assume the functions of his Holiness the Pope, and absolve Governments and individuals from the solemn promises which they had given.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

BOOTY IN THE PUNJAB.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHrose to put a question to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control respect-in the booty taken in the Punjab, amounting, he believed, to 131,000 l. He wished to know what had been done with it? Had the Directors of the East India Company memoraliscd the Crown for the distribution of it among the army?
LORD BROUGHTONwas understood to reply that that was the course which had been pursued by the East India Company, except that the Directors had sent their memorial, in the first instance, to the Lords of the Treasury.

HORFIELD MANOR ESTATE.
The BISHOP of OXFORDrose to move for the production of certain papers containing the Correspondence which had passed between the Copyhold Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners touching the Horfield Manor Estate. His motive in calling for these papers was to avail himself of the opportunity of stating before their Lordships and before the country certain facts regarding recent transactions relating to the Horfield estate, which appeared to him to have been grievously misstated, in a manner to damage the character of a right rev. Friend of his who was now absent on the Continent, and was prevented from returning immediately in consequence of indisposition. He mentioned the fact of the illness of his right rev. Brother, not for the sake of predisposing their Lordships to a favourable judgment of his case, because he thought it needed no such partial view; he did it simply to bespeak their kind attention for himself, who was about to lay before their Lordships the case of an absent and calumniated brother. He should not trou-

629
ble the House with any remarks on the mode in which the charges to which he was about to refer had been made, the motives which dictated them, or the persons who had brought them forward. He believed that if he were to indulge in any such remarks, he should have to condemn himself for what he condemned in the authors of those charges, namely, that they had made them in a place and under circumstances which prevented the possibility of an answer. He should take it for granted, therefore, that every misstatement of which he should complain, had been accidental, and that the motives of the accuser had been of the purest and most unimpeachable character. He had to deal with facts, and to convince their Lordships, and through them the country, that those facts had been thus misstated. The shortest and simplest way in which the question could be treated was this:—He would first state what the charges were which had been preferred against his right rev. Friend; he would then put the House fully in possession of the facts by stating what he considered to be the true view of the case; and he would afterwards give the proofs which he had by him to show that his view was the correct one. Now, the charge was to this effect—that when the see of Bristol was united to the see of Gloucester, the property of the see of Bristol was, under power given by Acts of Parliament, made over to the new Bishop of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol; that one property, named Horfield Manor, stood, if not legally, yet equitably and morally, upon a different footing from any other property belonging to the see of Bristol; and that his right rev. Friend the present Bishop of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol, on taking possession of that see, was perhaps equitably, but certainly morally, bound not to deal with that estate in the same manner as with the rest of the property belonging to the see, but to deal with it on different principles altogether. The charge was, that under such obligations, his right rev. Friend, when he became bishop of the united sees, had first endeavoured to sell his right in that estate of Horfield to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—as it was suggested, in order to prevent a great scandal—consented to the bishop's proposal; that an agreement, which was at first intended to be private, was entered into for the transfer of that property for a fixed sum; that the solicitor
630
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners felt so ashamed of the transaction that he refused to incur the responsibility of carrying it out; that thereupon he was directed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to prepare a scheme for the purpose of procuring an Order in Council to sanction the transfer; that upon its being applied for, a Member of the other House, who had discovered this treachery, called the attention, first of the Attorney General, and afterwards of the First Lord of the Treasury, to the job which was about to be perpetrated; and that, owing to the watchfulness and readiness of that noble Lord to prevent it, it was defeated, and the right rev. Prelate lost his bargain; that then the bishop did nothing until the last life named in the lease dropped, and that he then granted a fresh lease, his own secretary being the lessee, and his own children being the three lives put into the lease; and that the right rev. Prelate by so doing had violated his implied, if not his express engagement. He (the Bishop of Oxford) begged their Lordships to remark the full amount of the imputation contained in those charges. It would not do to make imputations of the gravest possible nature, and then to ride off on another charge; but in this case it had been stated that "no man except a dignitary of the Church would dare to carry out such a transaction, and afterwards show his face in public as an honest man." Now, what he (the Bishop of Oxford) begged to state in answer to these charges was this, that the Bishop of Gloucester received that estate of Horfield upon precisely the same footing that he received the other estates belonging to the see of Bristol; that there was no understanding, direct or indirect, in reference to that estate; that in dealing with that estate he was not violating any honourable understanding made either by himself or his predecessor in the sec; that he did what the Legislature intended him to do with every property of the see over which he was placed; that he had entered into a negotiation with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners respecting the disposal of it of his own free will and accord; that his object, in wishing to carry out that negotiation, was, as he would show hereafter, a singularly liberal thing—that it had been defeated on a mere point of technicality by the law officers of the Crown—that he had never said to any man that he would not lease that estate—that he had always been ready to lease it on certain conditions bene-

631
ficial to the Church and to the estate itself—that he had now leased it for three lives to his own secretary as a means of retaining in his own hands the full and entire control and direction of it—and that he had thus taken measures to carry out his own liberal policy, although he would not state what the objects of that policy were, lest they should seem to be the effect of pressure from without, rather than of his own liberal and ingenuous disposition. That was his case. Whether his right rev. Friend had adopted the wisest and most prudent course in carrying out this liberal intention was another question, upon which he (the Bishop of Oxford) would not then pronounce an opinion. It might be the best, or it might not; but he thought he should be able to show their Lordships that it subjected his right rev. Friend to no possible just imputation upon his liberality of intention. Now for the proof. The statement was, that first of all his right rev. Friend was, as to this estate of Horfield, differently situated from other properties belonging to the see, because two of his predecessors had refused to renew the lease on the dropping in of the lives, with the view of allowing it to fall in for the benefit of the Church, and that therefore his right rev. Friend was bound in like manner to allow the lease to drop. The first of these was Bishop Gray. He (the Bishop of Oxford) stated advisedly that, amongst many cases of misrepresentation, he had never heard of one in which every single incident had been so misrepresented and twisted to a false issue as in the present instance. The first statement was, that when the first life of the lease dropped, Bishop Gray thought that he might renew, but that when two dropped in, he thought that he ought not to do so. Now, what was the fact? No negotiation took place between Bishop Gray and his lessee until after the second life had dropped. Next, there never was any breaking off of that negotiation, but Bishop Gray died while it was still going on; and there was the testimony of Dr. Shadwell to prove that all the difficulties attending the transaction had been cleared away, and that the renewal would have been completed if it had not been for the death of Bishop Gray. Well, his death then took place; and the next statement was, that Bishop Gray's determination having been made known to Lord Melbourne, he told it to his successor, Bishop Allen, on his appointment, and stipulated
632
with him that he should not renew, and that Bishop Allen gave a pledge to that effect. Now, in the first place, Bishop Allen himself stated—this he mentioned on the authority of the Bishop of Gloucester, who might be considered an interested party—but Bishop Allen himself told the Bishop of Gloucester that Lord Melbourne informed him that his attention had been called to the matter, but that he saw no reason for putting any impediment in the way of the renewal of the lease, and that he would leave him at liberty to act as he might think best; and in fact Bishop Allen was himself in treaty for a renewal of the lease when he was translated to the bishopric of Ely. What was the proof of this? In the first place, he had the statement of Mr. Charles Clarke, an eminent solicitor of Bristol, to prove that his father was the confidential agent of Bishop Allen, and was employed by him to renew the lease; and two of the witnesses before the Committee on Church Leases (1838) a witness (Mr. V. Stuckney) stated that—"The two late bishops (Gray and Allen) refused to renew because the lessee refused to give the fine they asked." And at pages 294 and 295 of the same report, another witness (Mr. J. P. Sturge) stated that—"There was a negotiation between the late Bishop of Bristol (Bishop Allen) and the lessee, but they could not agree." And, again, the same witness further stated that the renewal was one "in which the bishop and the lessee could not agree as to the amount (of fine), and consequently no renewal was made." Thus the declaration of his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Gloucester was corroborated by two witnesses of unimpeachable character. The next statement was, that in 1842 it began to be rumoured that the present bishop was about to renew the lease; and that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, upon hearing the rumours, desired their secretary to write to the bishop on the subject, expressing a hope that the reports were unfounded; that the bishop replied that he felt aggrieved by the supposition that he entertained thoughts of renewing; and that if he did so, he should be doing something unbecoming a bishop, and would be leaving a lasting reproach to his family. He (the Bishop of Oxford) believed that that quotation from the reply of the bishop had been one of the main things that had stamped disgrace and odium upon his right rev. Friend; and he would now assert, first, that after going through every document

633
in the Ecclesiastical Commission Office, no communication of any kind had passed between the Commissioners or their secretary and the Bishop of Gloucester, in the year 1842, or for five years afterwards; so misinformed were those who had put forward these statements. But that was not all; and now he begged their Lordships to notice what did happen. In 1847 new schemes were being carried out by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as to the sums to be charged upon future vacancies upon bishoprics, and amongst others upon the bishopric of Gloucester and Bristol. It was made to appear to them that the see of Bristol would bear a larger future charge than had been put upon it. They, therefore, passed an order putting that larger charge upon it, and resolved upon taking this estate of Horfield upon the next avoidance of the see to the Episcopal Fund of the Commission. Accordingly, this resolution was intimated to the bishop, and he felt considerable annoyance at it, because he thought the arrangement would be unfair, not to himself, because it did not affect him, but to his successors, who, he thought, would be left poorer than they ought to be. And then, in 1847, there did happen a communication between the solicitor of the bishop on the one side, and the solicitor of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the other, which related solely to the manner in which the arrangement could be satisfactorily carried out; but there was no hint in any one word, either on the side of the Commissioners or on the side of the Bishop, that there was anything like moral obligation one way or the other involved in the question of renewal. But there was an answer of the bishop upon which this misrepresentation had been based. The bishop, from the day that he had taken possession of the see, felt that the peculiar tenure of the Horfield estate was a most injurious tenure to the Church, because it prevented improvements being carried out; and therefore he stated that he never intended to renew the lease upon the terms upon which it had hitherto been granted; but he never gave the least hint in the world of not granting a different kind of lease. The ground of the words of which use had been made was this. The bishop addressed a letter to the Commissioners, in which, after having stated that he felt considerable annoyance at the Commissioners not communicating with himself, instead of sending their solicitor to his solicitor, he proceeded to say—
634
"I learn that a report of my intention to re-grant this lease for lives as heretofore has been several times matter of conversation at the board, and has been spoken of in terms of condemnation. Of the existence of the report I was aware, as well as of its origin; the authority being certain printed evidence given before the Ecclesiastical Leases Committee of the House of Commons some years ago, by a land surveyor of this neighbourhood, who stated that he understood such to be the intention of the bishop. [This person, to whom I never spoke, is notorious for his unfriendliness to the Church and Churchmen.] His assertion, as coming from an individual who could know nothing about me, I treated like a newspaper report, with silent contempt. To have noticed it publicly at the time would have been thought by some presumptuous, by other ridiculous. However, the manner in which I spoke of this evidence in conversation is at least a proof that I did not meditate acting the very part which he had assigned me."
It had been stated that there was a blank after the word "very," which was intended to be filled up with "disgraceful," or "shameful," or some word to that effect. Now he (the Bishop of Oxford) could assure their Lordships that there was neither blank, omission, nor erasure at the word "very;" that the words followed each other in the closest contact. It was this letter, written in 1847, which had been assigned by the accusers of the right rev. Prelate to the year 1842; and hence the obloquy thrown on his right rev. Friend by those who took it for granted that he had written, "I am sorry the Commissioners should suspect me of acting so very—a part," and hence the fine embellishments about blanks and erasures of Mr. Horsman. The sense was distinct, and it was clear that he did not meditate acting the part attributed to him. There was nothing like an intimation that the bishop thought it was a disgraceful thing to renew the three lives. The charge proceeded to state that—
"Under these circumstances the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were surprised, at the commencement of 1848, by reciving a communication from the Bishop of Gloucester, stating his intention to renew the lease, and giving them the refusal of it for the sum of 11,500 l. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners desired their Secretary to write to the Bishop, reminding him of the moral obligation he was under not to renew the lease. The Bishop answered that he knew nothing of any moral obligations; that he had a legal right; and if the Commissioners did not choose to pay him 11,500 l., he would renew the lease, and alienate the property from the Church."
Now no such letter was written by the Secretary, and no such answer was sent by the Bishop. But the case was still stronger, for instead of the Ecclesiastical Commis-

635
sioners having been surprised at hearing a rumour of the bishop's intention, the real fact was that they themselves received, in February, 1848, a communication from the Bishop of Gloucester, stating his intention to renew the lease, and opening a negotiation with them, offering to part to them his interest in this estate of Horfield Manor. The Commissioners having taken the property in reversion, and the bishop thinking it was for the good of the Church that they should have it at once, and carry out the improvement he had intended, offered to part with his interest to them. That letter was received on the 21st of February, and on the 24th it was referred to a select committee of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, not very likely either to perpetrate or connive at a job, as Sir J. Graham was its Chairman. On the 4th of March this letter was transmitted from that Committee to his right rev. Friend: "Your letter has just been brought before the Finance Committee, who felt strongly the liberality of your offer." This was the letter which was said to have been a gentle reminder from the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of the moral obligation which his right rev. Friend was ignoring. The negotiation then went on. They had been told that "the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had agreed most improperly to deal with the bishop, and to pay him 11,500 l.; that they endeavoured, not openly, but privately, to arrange the transfer; that the deed of transfer was submitted to their solicitor, who refused to incur the responsibility of being a party to it." Now, how stood the facts? The Commissioners being satisfied that there was neither legal, equitable, nor moral restraint, came to the unanimous resolution that the bishop was not bound to deal differently with this from any other property, and they drew a plan transferring it to themselves, and passed a resolution, and sent it, not to the solicitor, but to an eminent conveyancer, Mr. Dugmore, requesting him to advise by what legal document the conveyance of the Horfield Manor estate could be made from the Bishop to the Commissioners. His answer was that by the provisions of the statute of the 13th of Elizabeth, which had never been repealed, it would be necessary to do it, not by a simple conveyance, but by an Order in Council. And yet it was made an insinuation against the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and his right rev. Friend, that they were prevented from carrying out this
636
job by the watchfulness of a Member of the other House. The Order in Council, having been drawn out, was sent in May to the law officers of the Crown to be approved. It was considered by them for a month, and then they returned it, stating that they saw a legal difficulty, in consequence of the act of the Commissioners, in transferring the estate after the next avoidance, and on that ground the Order in Council was defeated. The bishop naturally felt that he might be maligned on the ground that the negotiation had failed, and he called upon the Commissioners to express their opinion upon the subject; and at a very large meeting of the Board, at which were present not only the late Archbishop of Canterbury and a great number of right rev. Prelates, but also the Earl of Harrowby, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Goulburn, a resolution was unanimously carried, of which he would read an extract from the minutes of a general meeting, held on Thursday, the 13th of July, 1848:—
"Present—the Archbishop of Canterbury (in the chair), the Earl of Harrowby, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Chichester, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, the Bishop of Oxford, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Right Hon. Henry Goulburn, the Right Hon. Sir James R. G. Graham. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol having pressed the Board to an early settlement of the pending negotiation concerning the Horfield estate, and expressed his desire to be set free from his agreement, unless it can be speedily arranged, it was, after full discussion and reference to the secretary, resolved, 'That the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, having been under no obligation, legal or equitable, to deal with the Horfield estate otherwise than with any other estate of his see, and having made with regard to it liberal offers to the Board, the Board are anxious to avoid all needless delay in bringing the negotiation to a close, and desire their secretary to communicate this wish to the law officers of the Crown."
The remaining charge was, that, on the dropping of the last life, the bishop had renewed the lease in the way he had said he would never renew it. Now, how was that? If his right rev. Friend had renewed that lease by selling it to a second party, as was commonly the case, allowing him to put three lives upon it, he would have done the thing he said he would not do; but he put in his secretary as a nominal lessee to represent himself, and he then filled up the lease with three lives in order to retain full power over it, so as to carry out the improvements which, from first to last, had been his object. He now possessed the power to determine that lease

637
whenever he thought proper, and was able to carry out all the improvements he desired. He had already laid out a large sum in enfranchising the copyhold. He had received nothing, but spent much, and to avoid the reproach of grasping, he gave up a living which he held in commendam of the same value as what he would have received from this estate. But it was said that his children would have the benefit of the estate for three lives, while he had only given up the commendam which he held for his own life. Now when the bishop was in negotiation with the Commissioners for selling his interest in the Horfield estate, the terms were 11,500 l. So fully was it believed that the scheme would be carried into effect, that the purposes of the bishop with regard to it became accidentally known, in consequence of which an official statement was made to his clergy as to the manner in which he intended to appropriate that sum. Some years before he lent, out of his own private fortune, 5,000 l. for
the purpose of establishing an educational institution in the neighbourhood of Bristol, which appeared to be very desirable. He had not given it, because he thought it would not be just to his children, but he advanced it on the condition that his children should receive it back again. Recent circumstances had made it very problematical whether it would ever be repaid, and he therefore arranged, that if his family did not receive back this sum of 5,000 l., 5,000 l. of the 11,500 l. he was to receive for the Horfield estate should go to repay his family, and the 6,500 l. should go to endow small livings in the diocese of Bristol. Now he would ask their Lordships, as honourable men, whether the man who intended so to appropriate the money, should be treated as if he were avariciously disposing of this estate for his own selfish advantage? And he would ask their Lordships one other question—whether, if this accusation of baseness had been brought against them, if they had been so pursued by the envenomed tooth of slander, he would ask, if they cared for their honour, would any of them have made public their liberal intentions when such false charges were made? That was the state of things. This was not an alienation from the Church. The property was in the power of his right rev. Friend, and, from his experience of the past, he was confident it might be safely left to his honourable intentions. His right rev. Friend stated that he had taken
638
this course because he knew of only three modes of dealing with the property. One was, that he might have let it during his incumbency, in which case it would have deteriorated in value every year, from the impossibility of carrying out the necessary improvements; secondly, if he had let it for twenty-one years, he would have been prevented by the copyholder from carrying out his improvements; and he said the only other thing was to fill it up in the way he had done for three lives, not taking a fine and alienating it from the Church, but putting in one who only represented him as a trustee, and so enabling him to carry out his intentions. He (the Bishop of Oxford) had told his right rev. Friend that if he would communicate to him in a written form what his intentions were, he would lay them before their Lordships; and what did their Lordships think was his reply? He would read it to them:—
"Those who know me will believe that the same feelings animate me now as before; but I will not at this time enter into any promises or engagements. Those who wish to know my particular views and intentions must infer them from what I have already done. Spectemur agendo. I have surrendered an equivalent church income. I have expended a good deal, and have committed myself to expend a good deal more in the permanent improvement of property to which the reversioners contribute nothing, and I have signified my intention to endow the living at the first avoidance with the rentcharge. It is true that I have ulterior views, should my life be spared long enough; but I will not specify them, nor will I at the present time make the least further promise or engagement. You know the bitter and unscrupulous warfare by which I am assailed. It is impossible for me to say or do anything, however disinterested, to which a bad colour would not be given; and were I to make any promise with regard to Horfield at the present moment, it would infallibly be attributed to fear of him who has determined, per fas atque nefas, to destroy my character."
His right rev. Friend called on their Lordships to judge from his past actions what his future would be, if he were left free from the venomous poison which had so long embittered his life. He (the Bishop of Oxford) thanked their Lordships for the indulgent kindness with which they had heard him. He could assure them that the expression of their sympathy would be dear to his right rev. Brother, who, without friends or patronage, had, by the force of his learning and ability, raised himself to eminence in the Church and in society; who had been, in his diocese and among those who had known him, remarkable for nothing more than his openhanded libe-

639
rality; who, absent from his country, sick in body and depressed in spirit—at an age almost reaching the period assigned to man, was unable to defend himself in person against the unrelenting persecution to which he had been so long exposed; and who, under the unexampled misrepresentation of which he had been made the victim, would feel it one of his highest gratifications to know that this statement had been made openly before the country, and to find that he still retained the love and admiration of their Lordships.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that, after the able and feeling address of his right rev. Friend, he would only add that, from a long and intimate acquaintance of more than five-and-forty years with the right rev. Prelate, the subject of this discussion, he felt justified in asserting, without fear of being contradicted, that their Lordships and the country might safely leave the interests of the Church, so far as they were connected with this question, in the hands of the right rev. Prelate, with the assurance that he would do that which was just and true; and that as informer years a deserved reproach had never been cast upon him, so in the remainder of his days he would do nothing to discredit the character of a well-spent and virtuous life.
LORD CAMPBELLcould not refrain from expressing his satisfaction at the well-proved statement of his right rev. Friend, which must remove from the minds of their Lordships and of the public every particle of suspicion that might have been supposed to exist. He had enjoyed the friendship of the Bishop of Gloucester for a great many years. He had always considered him one of the most kindhearted and generous of men, and it would have surprised him indeed if on this occasion his right rev. Friend had forfeited the character he had hitherto sustained. It turned out that there was not the smallest ground for the imputation which had been cast upon him. It all rested on this false statement—that his right rev. Friend had received the estate of Horfield under different circumstances from that relating to any other property belonging to the see. His right rev. Friend had demonstrated that there was not the smallest pretence for such a statement, and that his right rev. Friend had as much right to grant a lease for three lives of this property as their Lordships had to grant a lease of any other property. That being so, it appeared that a most cruel and unfounded
640
attack had been made on his right rev. Friend, arising from his generosity in undertaking to give more than one-half of the premium he was entitled to receive, for the purpose of ecclesiastical endowment. It happened, too, that the present Bishop of Gloucester had consecrated more churches in his diocese than had been consecrated within that diocese from the dawn of the Reformation until his appointment; and had contributed most liberally to all charitable purposes. He would transmit to his children the fair fame which he now enjoyed, and which they would consider a richer inheritance than any wealth which he might bequeath to them.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, he would bear witness to the perfect correctness of all the facts connected with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to which the right rev. Prelate had referred. The Bishop of Gloucester was under no obligation, legal or equitable, in any way to deal with this property otherwise than with other parts of the property in this see; and he was much surprised to hear the statement that the Bishop had in this instance departed from that line of conduct by which he had hitherto been distinguished. Having had the happiness of living in his diocese, he could bear testimony to the right rev. Prelate's acts of kindness and liberality. He was content to leave the matter entirely in his hands, being fully conscious that he would use this property in the most advantageous way for the interests of the Church. He could not understand the conduct of Gentlemen professing themselves attached members of the Church, whilst they were doing all in their power on every occasion to assume everything evil in the conduct of the heads of that Church. He considered the whole matter perfectly clear, and that the right rev. Prelate had been actuated by no other motive than a desire to promote the interests of the Church.
On Question, agreed to.

COURT OF CHANCERY AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANDOWNE, having moved the First Reading of this Bill,
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that as he should not have an opportunity of again addressing their Lordships during the present Session, he would take this occasion to state his approval of this Bill. It was certainly unusual to make any statement on the first reading of a Bill, but he had

641
had occasion to deviate from that practice more than once with respect to Law Bills, in order to obtain a discussion, and, as the result of that discussion, the opinion and assistance of professional men in various parts of the country. He approved of the Bill as far as it went, and considered it a step in the right direction; but in Committee he trusted some changes would be made; and there was one change to which he wished particularly to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, namely, with respect to the branch of the Bill that referred to the administration of justice in the appellate tribunal of the Privy Council. There were two matters which ought to be carefully considered respecting the Judicial Committee, before passing this Bill into a law. The first was whether the quorum ought to be reduced, as this Bill proposed, from four to three. He entertained a very strong opinion in favour of four. All the experience of Westminster Hall was strongly and clearly, and upon the soundest reasons of practice as well as of principle, in favour of four Judges, in preference to three; and the reason was this, that on all great occasions, where there was a decision at all, there was the great authority of a majority of three to one. If that was reckoned essential in Courts of the first instance, how much more material was it to clothe with authority the decisions of the Court of Appellate Jurisdiction, deciding in the last resort the most important questions, and whose decisions nothing short of an Act of Parliament could affect? The other point, which he hoped would not fail to receive attentive consideration, was the propriety, not to say necessity, of giving a constant President or presiding Judge to that Judicial Committee. A lay President of the Council, although admirably discharging his functions where no very nice or difficult question of law arose, could not be expected to feel any confidence in his own opinion, or take any part in discussions of that description. That there should be a President answerable, more or less, for the regulation of the proceedings, the attendance of the Court, and the distribution of the business, had been admitted from the first time that he proposed this measure, and obtained the concurrence of their Lordships and the other House to its passing. A Vice-President of the Council, or some such officer, had been more than once recommended, but the recommendation had not been carried
642
into effect. His noble and learned Friend who succeeded him (Lord Lyndhurst), had been so clearly of this opinion, that he and the noble and gallant Duke, in 1841, had done him the honour to press the acceptance of this place upon him, which he had declined merely for reasons personal to himself, as indeed both Lord Lyndhurst and himself had formerly stated to their Lordships. With regard to the former point he had omitted one subject, namely, that when the Court consisted of an even number, the decision might be two against two; but during a sitting of eighteen years in the Judicial Committee, that accident had happened only once, and nothing would be easier to prevent such an accident than by calling in of one or more other members, a facility not enjoyed by the Courts of Westminster Hall. With respect to the other parts of the Bill, he generally approved of them. There might be some difficulty with respect to the Court of Chancery. When only two Judges sat on an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor or the Master of the Rolls, the decision might be formed in such a manner as to lead to an appeal. There were some other difficulties, such as taking the Chancellor away from his court for the purpose of attending the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee; but these defects might be remedied in Committee. There was one defect in the Judicial Committee still unsupplied, to which he begged the attention of his noble Friend. No provision whatever was made with respect to cases which indeed rarely occur, but which have occurred, and which he feared were likely to be more numerous than they had hitherto been—he meant cases involving spiritual questions of a highly important nature, of an exceedingly difficult kind, and, without speaking irreverently, he might add, of an exceedingly obscure nature. The members of the Judicial Committee were admirably adapted to deal with questions of Common Law; well conversant on others with the doctrines of the Consistorial Courts and with the learning of the Civil Law; well adapted to deal with questions of evidence, whether that which was deserving of the name, the evidence taken at Common Law, or that which passed under the name which was taken, or which appeared to be taken, in courts of another description. But with regard to those other matters to which he had adverted, which his noble Friend opposite, the Lord High Commissioner of the

643
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (Lord Belhaven), would admit were spiritually difficult questions, the Judicial Committee had a great authority, no doubt, but moderate sources of information; and his brethren of that Committee had authorised him to confess that with those subjects they felt themselves little fitted to deal. Upon this class of subjects they desiderated not control, but help. Their Lordships did not want a body established which should dictate to them; but they wished to have, what it was right they should have, the aid, the inestimable benefit, of the assistance of men learned in that branch of learning. He hoped, in the further progress of the Bill, or afterwards by a separate measure, the Judicial Committee would be furnished with some such assistant tribunal in spiritual matters, some such aid as Courts of Equity found in the Courts of Law; and that as the Courts of Law were ancillary to those of Equity in this respect, so some Spiritual Court would be ancillary to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in their province. When he said that the present measure was a step in the right direction, he must add that it was not a very long step—it was not at all a stride: but if any man thought that this, or any other structural alteration in the Court of Chancery—if any man dreamed that such a measure laid the axe to the root of the greatest and most grievous of the many crying evils that afflicted the subjects of this country, as regarded the administration of justice, not the Judges or the practitioners, but the unhappy suitors of the court, although he admitted that it would, nevertheless, do justice to the suitor, and enable him to obtain that which he had a right to obtain at a reasonable cost of money, of trouble, and of time—if any dreamer, he repeated, believed that any structural alteration of the Court of Chancery would do all that was wanted, such dreamer was in a fool's paradise, and would awaken to a sad reality that would belie all he had fancied in his slumbers. Why, it would alarm their Lordships to hear some of the proofs which the Committee over which he presided had lately been receiving, of the state of things in all the Courts of Equity, and in all the branches of these Courts. Their Lordships had victims among themselves; and he saw a noble Friend of his then present on the cross benches, who went into Chancery to recover a sum of 500 l., and who had the
644
misfortune to deal with an insolvent party and his professional adviser. There being fraud connected with the case, he had to go into Chancery, and 1,200 l. for costs were expended in obtaining that 500 l.! The noble Lord succeeded, and perhaps on tolerably cheap terms, considering what the Court of Chancery was—certainly he had heard of cases where the rate of charge was far higher. But the noble Lord would have been better off by 700 l., had he put up with the loss of the 500 l., and declared that he would not, in order to recover it from the fraud-monger, resort to the law-monger, who had thus turned out far the worse of the two, taking 700 l., when the other had been content with five. In another case, 38,000 l. had to be distributed—merely distributed. There was not a single debt, and there was no dispute; and nineteen out of twenty of the claimants would have been alarmed at the very idea of going into Chancery. It was requisite to take an account; and they said, "Let it be taken by a common accountant, and on no account go into Chancery." But, unhappily, one of the number became bankrupt, and his assignees insisted upon carrying the case into Chancery, It lasted eleven years, from 1840 till 1851, and the costs were 2,827 l.! The system was not confined to great cases—it was equally oppressive in the smallest. An infant was entitled to an income of 155 l. a year. Four years were consumed in Chancery without any opposition or contest, simply in the infant obtaining the income which was his own; and in getting paid out to him those four years' income, 68 l. a year, on an average, was expended in the costs of "common orders, and motions of course." Thus altogether, 270 l. had been expended in costs in a case in which there was no contest, in order to get 620 l. In another case, 10,000 l. were claimed. It went into Chancery in 1835. In 1840, after it had been there five years, a respectable solicitor found it in the Rolls, "set down to be heard," in some way, at some stage or other. It had actually, in five years, by the "forcing process" of the Court of Chancery, ripened so prematurely, that it was "set down for a hearing," in 1841; and the solicitor gave evidence of the case in that year, before the Committee of Lord Cottenham. Well, their Lordships would scarcely credit it, that same solicitor was, last Tuesday, examined before the Committee, over which he (Lord Brougham) had the ho-

645
nour to preside, about that same suit; and stated that it was "in the Rolls;" just set down again for a hearing—another hearing of some other sort! And it would take at least five years more before it was "ripe" for final settlement. Why, just conceive the claimant to have been a young man wanting the money to start in life—unable to obtain it—obliged to start without it; suppose for India. In 1840, let it be supposed, the man starts for India, having learnt that the cause, after five years, has just been "set down for hearing in the Rolls." Eleven or twelve years elapse, the man comes home, after much service, and having escaped the risks of sea, and of climate, and of war, and inquires about his 1,000 l. and the cause. "Oh, it is just set down for hearing in the Rolls!" "In the Rolls!" he might exclaim; "why, I left it there twelve years ago." "Well, at all events, I hope it is ripe for final decision now?" "Not at all; it will take at least five years further to settle it!" "Oh, I may as well go back to India again!" might the poor claimant exclaim. And nearly 2,000 l. had already been expended in recovering that 1.000 l.—rabout200 percent. Why, well might the man exclaim, "Let me go back to India! They have cobra de capello there, they have boa constrictors, they have tigers and jungle fevers, and all sorts of horrid chances, but, at all events, they have not this dreadful place, which, as he dared not name, should be nameless. In another instance, stated by one of the taxing masters, Mr. Follett, breather to his late loved and lamented friend, Sir William Follett, there had been 90 l. costs incurred about a question whether 10 l. should be expended in repairing part of a house—a certain necessary place which he would no more name than he would the Court to which he referred. In another instance there had been a reference to the Master for impertinence, that is to say, for the insertion of matter wholly unnecessary to be set out in the proceedings, which, of course, increased the expense. It was a gross and glaring case, and the Master allowed 20 l. to the party complaining, in order to compensate him for the needless costs. The other party appealed to the Vice-Chancellor; the order, after sending the matter back to the Master, and annulling reports, was affirmed. The appellant carried his appeal to the Chancellor; the decree was affirmed. But the matter had now been carried on nearly three
646
years, and at an expense to the respondent, the original complainant, of 800 l., of which he only got allowed by the taxing officers, as against the opposite party, 750 l., leaving 50 l. to be paid by himself; so that, deducting the 20 l. allowed by the Court for the impertinence from the 50 l. the party had to pay who had complained of the impertinence, it appeared that he was 30 l. out of pocket, and had better have left the matter alone, to say nothing of the delay and the heavy costs to the other party found to be in the wrong. These were the sort of cases constantly occurring. He need not remind their Lordships of the case mentioned by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), in which that able Judge, Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, had held up the voluminous affidavits in a case—nineteen-twentieths of which were superfluous—to the execration of all honest, right-minded men. Nor need he remind them of the case of Day and Martin, in which, out of a fortune of 400,000 l., from 70,000 l. to 80,000 l. had been spent in costs! Was it possible that their Lordships could longer resist the conclusion to which the people had already arrived, that the axe must be laid to the root of these crying and intolerable evils, and that if, to use the words of Lord Chatham as to reforms of another description, "you do not consent to reform yourselves, the people will come in upon you and reform you with a vengeance?" He was not, however, one of those rash and unreflecting reformers to whoso outcries he had often adverted. He had constantly maintained that to make reform salutary you must make it safe, and that to make it safe you must leave it to men of skill, and to men well informed and experienced, and not allow the ill-informed to interfere. But of this he was certain, that in proportion as you delayed reforms which were wanted, and delayed the execution of the duty of looking to the administration of the relief and redress required, the result would be, that by rash and wholesale changes the good would be swept away with the bad, and there would be realised, in respect to our jurisprudence and judicature, not only the vanity and instability of human institutions, but the ruinous folly of those who, from fear of granting a moderate and safe reformation, risk the hazard of rapid and reckless demolition. He would not then consider in what direction the knife should be used, or indicate the measures which he might

647
deem necessary, or describe those which were before their Lordships, of some of which he approved (as the Bill now before them, and another before a Select Committee), and as to which he was sanguine in the hope that they would apply a great though not sufficient remedy to the evil. He hoped, however, that instead of stopping there, much time would not elapse before, in addition to those most valuable measures which had been sent from that House during the present Session, and were now passing, he trusted successfully, through the Commons (the Registry Bill, one of the most important ever proposed, the County Courts Extension Bill, and the Law of Evidence Bill)—all of them measures which would greatly diminish the evils to which he had adverted—he hoped that in addition to those the public mind would be directed—as the attention of the most learned in the profession was pointed towards its adoption as far as possible—to the fusion or combination of the systems of law and equity. His hope was, that those who were younger would live, without living very long, to have the happiness of seeing, among others, this great improvement in our jurisprudence, and to find real progress made in the amendment of the law. He apologised for speaking at such length on this stage of the Bill. Nothing should have tempted him to take so unusual a course as to address their Lordships on the Motion that this Bill be read a first time, but that during the last five or six weeks he had with very great difficulty, and against the opinions of his medical advisers, attended the service of their Lordships' House. During the last week or ten days this difficulty had increased, and become more insurmountable. In the hope of assisting in the passing these measures in a cause to which his life had been devoted, he had struggled to the last, until he found that he could struggle no longer. It was with great pain that he was compelled to withdraw himself from their Lordships' House before the close of the Session, when he considered that the great cause of religious liberty, in more shapes than one, was in danger, and when he desired to co-operate in the philanthropic measures of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury). It was a great pain to him to leave the service of the House at such a time, but it was his bounden duty no longer to incur the risk which he had not hesitated to run when he thought it absolute-
648
ly necessary. The Bills which he had brought in for amending the law had either passed their Lordships' House, or been, from circumstances unconnected with himself, postponed of necessity till next Session. He now had nothing more to do than to thank their Lordships for having heard him so attentively, and respectfully to take his leave of them for this Session.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas extremely glad to find that the Bill now on their Lordships' table met with the approbation of the noble and learned Lord. He would not follow the noble and learned Lord through the statements he had made on other important matters, because the present was not quite the proper occasion for doing so; but he wished to observe, that as he was aware of the many defects in the Court over which he presided—defects which were the growth of time, and which had existed during the period when his noble and learned Friend and others had held the great seal—immediately upon his entering upon the duties of his present office, a selection was made of gentlemen among the most informed at the Chancery Bar, the most alive to the defects in the court, and the most fitted to suggest a remedy; and those gentlemen were called upon to act as a Commission to review the whole system of Chancery practice. They had since been most diligently employed; and his noble and learned Friend being aware of the character and ability of those gentlemen would doubtless derive considerable comfort from the confidence he must entertain, that an inquiry conducted by such gentlemen must be followed by some effective measure of reformation. There was already a report on the table from the Commission, which had reviewed the whole proceedings at Common Law; and a Bill, which he hoped to present to their Lordships before the close of the Session, was being prepared from the materials of that report. It was not likely that a report from the Chancery Commission could be so far advanced as to allow of a similar step being taken with respect to it in the present Session; but it would, so far as it might receive their Lordships' approbation, be most carefully carried into effect. The noble and learned Lord's suggestions with respect to the present Bill, would receive the most careful attention. They had principal reference to the Judical Committee of the Privy Council; but the present Bill addressed itself to the remedy of a particular evil, namely, to prevent the

649
recurrence of the inconvenience which was felt to arise last year from the absence of several of the learned Judges in the Courts of Equity in consequence of illness. It did not profess to go further, because, as the commission to which he had alluded was in actual operation, it was thought better to wait for the report with a view of then applying a general remedy for existing defects. Considering that the noble and learned Lord had presided over a Court such as he had described, the details which he had given certainly entitled him to great sympathy.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that be had endeavoured to apply as much remedy as he could to the defects which were justly complained of. He should like to know when steps would be taken to turn to public account the Criminal Law Digest. It was thirteen months since that he received a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stating that no time would be lost in doing so. Were proceedings in respect to that to be conducted with the same snaillike pace as business in the court to which he had just directed their Lordships' attention?
Bill read 1a.
House adjourned till To-morrow.