The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-20 00:00:00

THE STN, LQNDON,__SATILTRDAY E,Vj47,NING-, APRIL 2©,
`_lB4&.

changes which had taken place in the government of
that colony.
Lord' STANLEY would have no objection to lay be-
fore the House such papers as were calculated to throw
a light on the transaction to which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had alluded, but he thought it better that
they should.wait until all the papers could be laid before
them, so that they might consider the transaction as a
whole.
Mr. ROEBUCK did not want the papers to raise any
dispute on the subject, but merely for information.
IRISH POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. F. FRENCH, in reference to the postponed reso-
lutions in the Committee of Supply, wished to know
when it was likely that the vote for the salary of the
Poor-law Commissioner in Ireland would be proposed,
as he intended to oppose it ?
Sir G. •CLERK'S answer was inaudible in the gallery.

Mr. Blake was a magistrate of the county for 12 years
preceding his dismissal. He once more entreated the
Government to consider that which he had brought
under their notice, with a hope that they would direct
the necessary inquiries to be made, and if the facts were
such as he represented, that they would no longer conti-
nue to, retain these gentlemen in the Commission of, the
peace.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord ELIOT did not complain of the tone or manner
of the Hon. -Gentleman, who had just sat down, in
bringing forward this motion. The llon. Gentleman
was not, however, quite correct in his statement of the
facts. There were only seven stipendiary magistrates
struck off by the present Government; and there were
yet as many stipendiary magistrates in Ireland as
there were during the last three years of the
late Government. The House should recollect that the
stipendiary magistracy were paid out of the Consoli-
dated Fund, and appointments should not be made un-
less necessity required them. With regard to. Mr.
Brereton, that gentleman had been long a magistrate,
and on his appointment had received addresseS from the
magistrates of petty sessions with whom he sat, of dif-
ferent religious and political opinions, and from 106 in-
habitants of the town of Nenagh, which were couched
in terms the most complimentary. One of the ad-
dresses was signed by two. Peers—Lord Dunally, and
Lord Lismore. In fact, up to the time of the occur-
rence at the Nenagh assizes, mentioned by the Hon.
Gentleman, the manner in which Mr. Brereton dis •
charged his duty was most satisfactory, as he (Lord
Eliot) was informed by men of all parties. The Irish
Government was in possession of all the facts regarding
the affair at the Nenagh assizes, and the Judge's re-
marks, and all the papers had been handed over to the
Lord Chancellor for his advice.—(Hear, hear.) Re-
garding Mr. O'Brien, it ought to be remembered that
at the time that foolish letter of his, quoted by the Hon.
Member, was written, he was only 24 years of age.
He was a gentleman of property and education.
He certainly had been at one time a most ardent
Repealer, being a member of the National Repeal As-
sociation, but seeing the manner in which that body was
soliciting foreign assistance and obtaining money from
America and other places, he began to suspect their
design, and finally resigned and denounced Mr. O'Con-
nell. lie wrote a letter to Mr. Sharman Crawford,
stating to him that his (Mr. O'Brien's) firm conviction
was, that a repeal of the union was impracticable. It
was not until NoveMber, in the year 1843, that Mr.
O'Brien was recommended to the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland as a fit person to be appointed as a stipendiary
magistrate. That recommendation was made by persons
who were well acquainted with Mr. O'Brien's integrity
and high honour, and upon that recommendation he
was appointed a stipendiary magistrate. His con-
tinuance in that office would, of course,: depend en-
tirely upon his own conduct. If a precedent were
wanting of a person being appointed to office who had
severed himself from the ranks of repeal. he (Lord
Eliot) need only point to the case of Mr. Fitzsimrnond,
which was a perfectly similar case to that of Mr.
O'Brien. He believed that Mr. O'Brien was a person of
high honour and character, and every way calculated for
the situation to which he had been appointed.
Captain BERNAL was willing-to admit that the ex-
planation of the Noble Lord, as far as it went, was
satisfactory. He knew, however, that Mr. Brereton
was looked upon in Ireland as a partisan, and therefore
his appointment had been looked at with suspicion. Mr.
O'Brien's appointment, however, was still more unsatis-
factcry to the people of Ireland than even that of Mr.
Brereton. The Noble Lord said that it was four years
ago since Mr. O'Brien wrote such violent letters re-
specting repeal, but the Noble Lord seemed to forget
that although Mr. O'Brien had arrived at the mature age
of twenty-eight, lie still wrote violent letters. But these
letters were different to those of four years ago—they
were now on the other side of the question.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) When Mr. O'Connell was Lord
Mayor of Dublin, Mr. O'Brien was summoned before
that Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman because ho had
not the wherewithal to pay his servant. Mr. O'Brien
disputed the jurisdiction of the Court, as he lived in
Kerry, but notwithstanding this the Lord Mayor de-
cided against him. From that time the eyes of Mr.
O'Brien became more open with respect to the question
of repeal, and he then all at once found out that he ought
to write as much against repeal as he had before written
in its favour.—(Laughter.) Now he (Capt. Bernal) was
ready to admit that lie believed that the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government wished to do

justice to Ireland. It was, however, impossible for him
to do so while, as was truly remarked by the Hon Mem-
ber for Bath some time ago, the present subordinates
remained in power to hamper him.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet might rest assured that those subor-
dinates would ultimately sink his Government in Ire-
land.—(Hear, hear.) He (Capt. Bernal) well recollected
being at the dinner in Ballinasloe, at which Mr. O'Brien
was present, and he recollected that at dinner Mr.
O'Brien struck out the name of Lord Ebrington from
the list of toasts because that Noble Lord was not fa-
vourable to repeal. He would ask the Noble Lord
(Lord Eliot) whether he believed that Mr. O'Brien was
a person calculated to administer justice with impar-
tiality, with coolness, and with temper ?—(Hear, hear.)
If such appointments as these were made by the
Irish Government he (Captain Bernal) thought
that Government ought to be subjected to supervision
with respect to all appointments they might hereafter
make. It was generally believed in Ireland that the ap-
pointments which were made by Lord de Grey were
very much influenced by marriage connections. Be
(Captain Bernal) stated this fearlessly in that House,
for he knew it to be the fact. In consequence of this,
great disappointment and dissatisfaction was felt in
Ireland. Ile (Captain Bernal), in conclusion, must say
that the appointment of Mr. O'Brien appeared to him,
to use the mildest term, a most unwise proceeding.
Lord ELIOT said, he had had the statement dis-
tinctly from Mr. O'Brien himself that the name of Lord
Ebrington was not in the list of toasts at the Ballinasloe
dinner.

After a few wordi from Mr. F. FRENCH, the subjec
dropped.

Mr. GREENE (Chairman of 'the ComMittee) said a
vote could not be postponed.
Mr. HUME doubted that decision very much. How-
ever, it certainly could be postponed by consent of both
parties ; and if the Government withheld its consent
from so reasonable a proposition he would oppose the
vote altogether. and divide the House upon it.
Ministers still declining to postpone the vote, Mr.
HUME was understood to move that it be reduced by
the sum of 2,0001 Strangers were ordered to withdraw,
and the House proceeded to divide upon the amendment,
when there appeared—
For the vote
Against it
Majority for the vote —4s
On the gallery being re-opened, we found
b Mr. lIUME addressing the Committee, having, as we
understood, previously moved that the Chairman do re-
port progress. No Ministry that ever sat on the Trea-
sury benches had got the estimates voted with so little
opposition as the present one—(Hear, hear)—and there-
fore it had no excuse for the course it had thought
proper to pursue. They were called on to vote between
2,000/. and 3.0001 for the expense of the custom-house
on the island, and yet there was not one of the gentle-
men who could state what were the items of the revenue
derived either from the customs or the excise. He
thought they were bound to give the Committee some
explanation.
Dr. BOWRING thought the pressing the vote
through the Committee was acting without ordinary
courtesy. They had no means of judging of the neces-
sity of the vote at all. He should feel bound to support
the motion for reporting progress.
Lord STANLEY said he would undertake that every
detail and information should be laid before the Commit-
tee to the fullest extent. _ _

Mr. WILLIAMS thought the Committee was entitled
to some information. The promise of the noble Lord
only referred to a future time, while the point was to
ascertain now whether the vote was necessary.
Sir G. CLERK said the vote was accompanied with
more details this year than on any other occasion, as he
had had the claims classified. He would be prepared on
Monday to furnish Hon. Gentlemen with both the gross
and net amount of the increase of the revenue of the
island for the last three years.
Sir C. NAPIER asked what was the use of a salary
of between three and four hundred a year to a harbour
master ? He hoped the Hon. Member for Montrose
would divide the Committee. _ _ _

SUPPLY.

„....._.
Mr. HUME said it was on principle that he objected
to proceeding ; he objected, on the principle that they
ought to have the information before going to a vote.
The Government might carry everything if they chose
by their majority, but where there was a reasonable re-
quest made for information, he thought it ought to be
granted.
Dr. BOWRING observed that so many Hon. Gentle-
men had entered the House ready to vote who bad not
heard a word of the discussion, that he would not now
press the Hon. Member to divide the Committee.
Mr. AGLIONBY also trusted that the Hon. Member
would withdraw the motion, on the promiSe that the
Government would afford the information.
After a short conversation, Mr. HUME withdrew his
motion.
On 7,2191. being proposed in aid of the Western Aus-
tralian Fund,
Mr. HUME asked what was the present state of the
colony ?
Lord STANLEY referred the Hon. Gentleman to the
annual statistical report of the colony ; if he wished to
have any other details which the journals of the House
would furnish, they should be produced. The Blue-book
contained the items of revenue and expenditure under
every head, and it was also accompanied by an annual
report from the Governor.
Dr. BOWRING said some of the Blue-books con-
tained items which were continued the same year after
year. Some of them were drawn up in an admirable
manner, and others very inefficiently.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that as some of the reports
and returns furnished to the House were so voluminous
as to be perfectly use!ess, this information might be
given in a very small compass.
Dr. BOWRING thought a colonial budget would be a
great advantage. Such a system existed in France,
where all the receipts and disbursements with respect to
the colonies were accounted for.

The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 3,7751., to defray expenses incurred in
the colony of South Australia,
Mr. HUME asked what was the present state of that
colony ?
Lord STANLEY said that Governor Grey, who had
conducted himself, since he came to the government of
the colony, with great zeal and ability, had stated, in
his last accounts, that, he had not overdrawn the sum
allowed him by the Government for the service of the
colony, and that the revenue and expenditure of the
colony were now equal.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote,, of 4,2241., in aid of the settlement of
Port Essington, was agreed to after a short discussion.
The next vote proposed was for 9,8127., to defray the
expenses of the establishment at the Falkland Islands.
Mr. ROEBUCK believed that there was some ques-
tion as to our right to these islands at all, and he thought
they had better be at once given up. The climate was
very inhospitable, and they were not•of , any use. He
doubted whether they ever could become a colony, and
yet the Government had here a regular establishment,
with, as usual, a chaplain, and they were now called upon
to vote 9,0001. for their support.
Lord STANLEY said the islands had been taken
possession of by the late Government, and it was thought
desirable to assert our right to them. A small estab •
lishment had been sent out there, which, of course, was

an expense to the country, as the colony produced no-
thing. It was, however, desirable to maintain it as a
station to afford assistance to ships, and to furnish them
with fresh meat and provisions. The estimate was on
the lowest possible scale, and there was every desire to

On the Order of the Day for going into Committee of
Supply being read,
Mr. HUME rose and said, he wished, before they
went into Committee, to make a few observations
with respect to the vote of 397,0001. for Colonial
purposes, • which was the first on the estimates.
Some years ago, when he used to call the atten-
tion of the House to the large estimates which
were voted for -colonial purposes, with a view to
their reduction, he was always told that, owing
to the slave establishment in our colonies, and owing to
the peculiar circumstances under which the colonies were
p!aced, it was impossible to reduce the estimates. Now,
the slave establishments in the colonies, and the peculiar
circumstances under which the colonies used to be placed
were abolished, and ho thought, therefore, that it
was high time that some reduction should be made in this
large estimate for colonial purposes. He did not wish at
all to injuriously restrict the public expenditure, but still
he thought that this vote was one which required inquiry.
There was no country in the world which could compete
with England in manufacturing enterprise, but then that
was completely shackled by the various prohibitory
duties which were exacted 'for the yrotection of class
interests. _ _

Lord STANLEY could assure the House and the
Hon. Member for Montrose that the Government were
most anxious to observe the strictest economy with re-
spect to the expenses of the colonies. He was also
anxious to take the present opportunity of stating to, the
House that all the grievances under which the colonies
were alleged to be labouring, would be most carefully in-
vestigated by the Government, the Secretary of State
for the Colonies at the same time reserving to himself
the right of placing the Governor of the particular
colony in a position to render any explanation in his
power. It was likely that the subject of the colony of
New Zealand would be brought before the house, when
the Government would afford every information in their
power.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the New Zealand Com-
pany had sent out 10,000 emigrants to the colony, and
be agreed with the Hon. Memer for Montrose, that this
was a subject which required a thorough and searching
parliamentary inquiry. With respect to the New Zealand
Company he was most desirous that a searching and full
inquiry into the particulars of the case should be entered
upon, because he felt sure that by no means could that
company suffer by it. It was also a colony of that im-
portance which should demand every attention, for in
one year oil to the value of noless than 175,0001. had
been shipped from the port of Wellington alone.
Lord STANLEY again said he was ready to render
any information which was available to the Government.
Mr. ROEBUCK was strongly in favour of a Parlia-
mentary Committee of Inquiry, because he thought that
when the interests of so many persons were concerned
it was right to see whether any fraud existed.
Sir R. PEEL protested that the Government were
quite as anxious as the Hon. Member for Montrose to
observe the strictest economy in the expenditure upon
the colonies. _ _

Mr. MANGLES thought that many of the local
grievances in the colonies, arose from the lavish expendi-
ture of the revenues derived from them.
Mr. WILLIAMS agreed with the Hon. Member who
had just sat down. They were required to pay 49,7001.
for magistrates for the West India colonies. On what
ground were they charged with that item ? He wished
that the, labourers of this country required as few magis-
trates to administer justice as the negro population.
With respect to education, there was no branch of ex-
penditure to which he would have less objection, but
considering the condition of the negroes he thought the
item on that account, totally unnecessary. 11,0001. was
asked for the clergy of Canada, notwithstanding that the
Crown had surrendered to them a large proportion of
its land resources. This item also was open to great
objection.
The House then went into Committee.
3,480/. was voted- fix.' the civil establishments in the
Bahama Islands.
400/. was voted for the civil establishment of Sable
Island, Nova Scotia. "
13,680/. was propOsed to be granted for the civil esta-
blishments or the western coast of Africa.
On the vote that the sum of 13,5001. be granted to de-,
fray the civil charges of St. Helena,
Mr. HUME objected to the charge as being excessive,
and beyond the worth of the colony.
Sir G. .CLERIC defended the grant. The duties of
civil officers were far more onerous, and important than
Hon. Gentlemen opposite were aware of.
Sir C. NAPIER could not help referring with some
feeling of ridicule to the appointment of a harbour-
master to such a place as the port at St. Helena.
Mr. HUME concurred with the Gallant Commodore,
in thinking that it was very absurd to appoint a harbour-
master for such a port.
Mr. WILLIAMS also opposed the vote.

keep down the expenditure.
Mr. ROEBUCK complained that the Noble Lcrd had
not given any assurance that this would ever be a co-
lony. He stated, in the first place, that it produced no-
thing; and, in the second place, that it was kept up to
furnish fresh provisions to ships. Now, what did they
want with- a governor, government clerk, and chaplain,
with an expenditure of 9,0001. a year, to furnish fresh
provisions for ships?
Lord STANLEY said that the island produced rough
grass, and there were cattle there which supplied the
ships with fresh meat.
Dr. BOWRING drew the attention of the House to
the manner in which this estimate had increased. In
1842 it was 2,000/.; the next year it had increased one
hundred per cent. ; it was 4,000/. ; and now, in 1844, it
was 9,8001.
Mr. HUME protested against maintaining this esta-
blishment when it had been first proposed, and he had
then been told that it was never to exceed 2,000/. It ap-
peared from the returns that, during the last half year,
the amount received for beef and hides was 981. 10s. 11d.,
and the expense of looking after the cattle was 1,000/.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN supported the vote; which,
After a few words from Lord STANLEY,was agreed to.
On the proposal of a vote of 7,565/. for the expense of
the colony of New Zealand.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that in this case he found. they
had a governor, a chief justice, and a bishop. Now this
was a colony founded upon what was called the grandest
discovery of modern times—a self-supporting colony—
and here they were called upon, now, to pay for it. He
found here, as in other instances, a great desire to push
forward the Church.. What did,they want to do with a
bishop? They could not be content with sending out an
honest, poor parson, but they must send out a bishop.
What could they want with a bishop in New Zealand? It
was an outrage on the country to be making these estab-
lishments for bishops who were maintained out of the
sweat of the English people.
Lord STANLEY had no desire to discuss the pro-
priety of furnishing religious instruction to those who
emigrated to our colonies.—(Cheers.) The present Go-
vernment was not responsible for the appointment of the
Bishop. It had taken place under the late Government.
Dr. Selwyn, the present Bishop, had given up all his
hopes of preferment here to undertake the office of
Bishop, in the colony on the faith that he should have the
salary. The faith of the Government was pledged to
the Bishop and he hoped the House would not break the
faith which the Government had pledged to him.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, it might have been that the
Bishop of New Zealand gave up his expectations in this
country to be promoted to the Bishopric of New Zealand,
but that was no reason why this country should be taxed
for such useless dignity. The Noble Lord made an ad
misericordiam appeal to the House, but why should this
country be obliged to maintain expensive Church esta-
blishments in all our colonies ? He could suggest a
reason, but it might be unpalateable.
Mr. HUME said, the Government had distinctly
pledged itself not to introduce this charge among the
estimates—a pledge distinctly made to this House' and
through this House to the country. The Noble Lord
told them the Government was pledged to the Bishop.
Which was the pledge, to the House or to the country,
to be first redeemed ?—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
to the country. Half the people of England did not go
to church, yet they were obliged to pay not only for the
Church in this country, but for a Church among a
people whom they knew nothing of. The next thing
the Government would do would be to send out a Bishop
to the Falkland Isles, and to every other habitable
colony that a handful of people could exist upon.
Lord STANLEY said the vote had been sanctioned
by the House for the last three years, and he now saw
no reason why they should depart oin their former
practice.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said the Noble Lord was
mistaken in stating that the late Government had intro-
duced the vote to the Bishop of New Zealand among
the estimates. It was not so. The Noble Lord
was the first Colonial Secretary who introduced
this vote among the estimates. lie thought the ap-
pointment of a Bishop to New Zealand was inappropriate
and inexpedient, and calculated to bring ridicule on the
Bishop himself.
Lord STANLEY said he was incorrect in saying that
the late Government had introduced the vote to the
Bishop of New Zealand among the estimates, but it
had been sanctioned by the Treasury, and the Bishop
had gone out on the faith that the vote would be granted
by Government.
Mr. A GLIONBY spoke in favour of the apppintment.
Lord SANDON said the New Zealand Company had
offered great inducements for a bishop to go out to New
Zealand. They were most anxious for the appointment.
Mr. lIUME—Then let them pay for it.
After some furtistr observations from Dr. BOWRING
and Mr. WiLuksis,
Mr. HUME moved that the vote of 7,657/. be reduced
to 6,9751.—that was minus the vote to the bishop.
After a short conversation the Committee divided,
when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it . 80
Majority

Mr. HUME said he must insist on the vote being
postponed until some further information was given to
the House upon it.