The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-23 00:00:00

were once withdrawn they could not he easily replaced
—all these circumstances contributed to make it desir-
able for us to pause before we decided in favour of their
nbolition. The question had, however, occupied our at-
tention daring the laat two years. It was fully diseusiod
by us last year, and he had stated then that he would
ewer into communication with Mr. Bonham and other
competent persons in China with the view of seeing
whether any other ports could be obtained
from the Chinese Government as a substitute for
these two ports. These communications had been
since going on, but they had not been as yet attended
by any satisfactory results. He had this very month
receivad from the Chinese Aszociation of London a
letter reporting a communication from the Chamber of
Commerce of Canton, in which it was stated that they
thought it would be most unadvisable ferns to abandon
Foo-chow-Foo, invmuch as a.ttempts were being made by
the gentlemen that had goer to Foo-chow-Foo to esta-
blish a commercial intercourse with us, or to obtain
from the Chinese Government permission to establish
some other ports in lieu of them, and they pointed to a
certain northern port as one that would in every respect
be most advantageous. He immediately sent out instruc-

tions to Mr. Bonham to see whether arrangements
could be made to bring about so desirable a result. It
wrs no doubt a great disappointment that communica-
tions with Fo-chow-Foo could not be secured, far there
could be no difference of opinion as to the importance of
the place. ' Its immediate proximity to the black tea
countries rendered it a most important port. Under
these circumstances he thought it worth while to retain
there est iblisbnients for the present.—(hear, hear.)
M'. SCOTT hoped that the lion. Member for the
West Riding of Yorkshire would take the sense of the
Committee upon his amendment. Canton and Shanghae
were the two principal seats of onr commerco in China,
but Ningpo and Foo-chow-Foo were not places for our
trade at all.
Mr. HUME asked the Noble Lord to state what was
the na'ure cf those commercial restrictions to our trade

at Foo-chow-Foo, and whether they were likely to be re
moved.

Lord PALUERSTON said he apprehended that
these restrictions must bo restrictions in the interior, of
which we have every reason to complain. The autho-
rities of the place had imposed a heavy duty on our im-
ports, which seriously affected our commerce there. We
made representations against this proce?ding, but with-
out receiving env satibfaction.
Mr. SPOONER said it was admitted that Hong-Kong
was given up by our Government as a place ot trade.
There was therefore no reason forkeeping up our expen-
sive establishments in these ports, and he had no hesi-
tation in egreeing with the amendment proposed by the
Hon. Member for the West Riding. _ _

Lord PALMERSTON said that the Honourable

Member had misunderstood him if he supposed that he
(Lord Palmerston) had said that Kong-Kong was without
any trade. He had said that its chief value was cer-
tainly not in its being a _trading place, although there
was a larga shipping trade carried on there. Last year
293,000 tons of shipping entered Hong-Kong.
Mr. HUME hoped his Hoe. Friend the Member for
the W,st Riding of Yorkshire would not press his
amendment to a division.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that the consuls in China4ore
no proportion in point of expense to consuls in other
rams of the world. In tie two cases immediately under
consi.leration they were absolutely sinecure:.
Mr. V. SIIITH said that the Hon. Baronet was much
a istaken. Our consuls in China wore not paid higher
salaries there than in any other parts of the world. The
salaries were exactly on the same scale, and were regu-
lated in proportion to Oe difference of living in the se-
veral countries.

Mr. CAYLEY was understood to say he thought that

the opinion of the Noble Lord was satisfactory.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to ask what was the
meaning of having an assistant when there was nothing
to do for the principal?
Mr. V. SMITH said that the assistant was of as much
use as the prineiral.—(Loud laughter.)
Mr. COBDEN said, after the explanation of the Noble
Lord he would not press his amendment.
Mr. SPOONER objected to the withdrawal of the
amendment.

The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For Cie amendment ... 34
Against it ... .. ... 166
Majority against the amendment —132
Mr. BRIGHT asked for some explanation respecting
the item of 5,0001., the moiety of the charges for churches
and burial-,tround:4.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that under the Consular
Acts, when the English community in any place abroad
subscribed a certain sum for those purposes, the Go-
vernment granted a corresponding sum.
The vote was then agreed to, es also was the vote of
16,8001., charges and expenses of foreign missions.

The next votes were-
-108,768t for superannuations and allowances, and com-
pensation to the families of persons employed in the public

service.
3,7501. for the relief of Corsican emigrants.
2,000/, for the Vaccine Establishment.

1,0004 for the Refuge for the Destitute.

On the vote 5,3461. for the Polish refugees,
Mr. B. COCHRANE considered this a most absurd
vote, and wished to know whether it was decreasing in
amount?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
vote had been reduced gradually to the amount of 5,0001.
in the course of a few years.

Lord PALMERSTON trusted the Hon. Member
would not oppose the grant, as the parties receiving these
allowances were objects of great sympathy, and it had
been paid for a very long time.
After a few words from Sir W. JOLLIFFE, the vote
was agreed to.
The next vote was 3,6181., being miscellaneous allow-
ances, formerly paid out of the civil list and hereditary
revenues of the Crown, and not otherwise provided for
by Parliament.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON, pursuant to notice, moved
that the voted be reduced by the amount of 1,695/.,
being the amount proposed to be paid to Dissenting
ministers. The Dissenter 3 looked upon the ♦ote as an
insult. It was a miserable dole, amounting in some in.
stances to not above 203. a bead.

Mr. Alderman KERSHAW supported the amendment,
and trusted the Government would withdraw a grant that
was most offensive and insulting to the feelings of the
Dissenters. The Dissenters of England contributed
among themselves for the relief of their distressed
ministers 8,1001. a year, therefore they did not need or
desire the paltry grant under consideration., He hoped
the Noble Lord would take the subject into his consider-
ation before the next session of Parliament, and endea-
vour to relieve the Dissenters from this degradation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
grant had gone on since the reign of George III.; and
though it was not perhaps needed in large manufac-
turing towns, it was needed elsewhere. Dr. Reece's evi-
dence showed that there were a great number of appli-
cants for relief; and that its withdrawal would be a great
calamity.
Mr. BRIGHT said the statement of the Chaneellor of
the Exchequer was calculated to mislead the House. So
far as he (Ur. Bright) was aware, there was not a single
congregation in the kingdom which desired its minister
to be in receipt of this grant. It was a grant of " secret
service money," distributed by some gentlemen of
"average respectability"—(Laughter)—who returned
no names, and gave no account to the public of the ex-
penditure. The grant was calculated to create dupli-
city among Dissenting ministers and suspicion of their
ministers among Dissenting congregations. The Dissent.
ing bodies would willingly supply the amount of the
grant to each minister, if they only knew the individuals
to be in want; the secrecy of the distribution, however,
pres sated them from acquiring that knowledge. On the
part of the Dissenters of England, he called on the Go-
vernment to withdraw this grant, and, on the ground of
economy, he asked Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of
the House to support the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said,tit was to be recollected that
about 300 dissenting ministers received this money,
which was of great assistance to them, and therefore the
vote could not be withdrawn without injury to those in-
dividuals. It did seem extraordinary that since 1723 the
grant had been made up to the present time, and ho could
not therefore consider it contrary to the principles of the
Dissenters. He could understand how those who argued
that the State should pay no clergymen would consider
it an additional argument; but, in his opinion, it was an
act of charity, and he could not surrender it to give
force to their arguments. The Treasury trusted the
distribution to nine dissenting ministers, and he could
not consider that they discharged their trust otherwise
than fairly.

Mr. WYLD said the Dissenters required no charity;
they supported their own ministers all over the country
without the aid of any one.
Mr. BRIGHT said the Government ought to consent
not to vote Pie grant this year, and they would then see
if these 300 gentlemen would petition for its renewal.
If the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would
give the nameP, he would recommend the Committee not
to divide. If not, he hoped the Committee would re-
fuse the grant.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he knew that if he did so
t`ie names of these gentlemen would be hell up to
o imiumr.
N
*R—(Hear,
offered
r.)
to take the 1,7001. for the
hospitals in Dublin, which these gentlemen were so
anxious to reject, and this would get rid of the difficulty.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 72
Against it... ..• ••• ••• 147
Majority ••• ••• ••• —75
The vote was then agreed to, the CHAIRMAN re-
ported progress, and the House resumed.
The report of the Committee on the Queen's Message
for making a provision for the Duke of Cambridge and
the Princess Mary was brought up.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY expressed his doubts as to
the propriety of having a Commissioner sitting in that
House, and wished to have some explanation from the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government on that
point, and also as to the freedom of action in the Estates
Committee, and their power to appoint officers.
Sir G. GREY said with respect to the firtt ques ion,
the Archbishop was to hav's power to nominate one
Commissioner, who might sit in Parliament. The
other Commissioner would not have a seat in Parlia-
ment (as understood), and the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, one of the Commissioners, would of course bu in
Parliament. With reference to the appointment of offi-
cers, it was not intended to alter the powers in that
hlrse.ais.v,phe ercega
respect which
to ichthe previous Commission exercised ; and
general rules. the Commissioners would
s t e theGt hoPeouvwiwe:Bo uoulfdi
Nei 'o framing
have
a said, miingt"thse them,he but in particular in-
epower to interfere
Mcouldn otobt obtain
amendments
opportunity of stating his obr. s
jectin s
to the
which had been introduced,
ohe must leave them to be
dealt with by the House of Lords.
Mr. J. A. SMITH put a question relative to the opc-