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

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1850.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 2:2.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
Lor3 BROUGHAM po.tponed his motion on the
Civil List unto Friday.

THE LIVERPOOL PETITION.
Tho Earl of EG LINTON moved that Byrne,
M'Arthur, and Hinde be called to the bar of the Iluuse.
Agreed to.
The parties having been placed at the bar,
The NotLE EARL then moved that the short-hand
writer be called on to read his notes of the evidence
taken before the Select Committee.
The short-hand writer having read the evidence given
by Joseph Byrne, by Duncan M'Arthur, and by Joshua
Hinde, before the Select Committee, in the coarse of
which they respectively confessed that they had them-
selves fabricated a very large number of signatures to a
petition presented to that House against the Liverpool
Waterworks Bill, _

The LORD CHANCELLOR having called upon
Joseph Byrne for an explanation, he explained that his
intention was to get none but genuine signatures, and on
the first day, when he found others giving in nine or ten
sheets, he thought there was nothing to be done but to
place signatures on his sheet, so as to make his
sheets equal to the others. Hinde and MgArthur made
nearly similar explanations, M'Arthur adding that he
had been induced to do so by a friend, and he believed
every person engaged in procuring signatures to petitions
had been guilty of the same conduct.
They were then ordered t') withdraw.
The LORD CHANCELLOR sad it was evident
that these parties, having been employed to procure
genuine signatures, had adjourned to a public-house,
and had fabricated signatures, and had employed means
to deceive those by whom they bad been employed.
They had therefore attempted to deceive their Lordships,
which was a very serious offence, as it was of extreme
importance that their Lordships should be satisfied of
the genuineness of petitions, and that persons attempting
to deceive their Lordships should be punished. He there-
fore moved that Joseph Byrne bad been guilty of a great
contempt of their Lordships' House.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM the mo-
tim was agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved that Joseph
Byrne be committed to the custody of the Black Rod
for the offence which he had ccitamitted.—Agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that he be com-
mitted to Newgate.
The Earl of EGLINTON reminded the House that
45 persona were employed by the Committee, and if
these three men had not come forward to give evidence
this trick would not have been discovered; and be
thought that fact should be taken into consideration.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that it
would be better they should be committed to Newgate,
and the facts all ged by the Noble Esrl should be
brought forward in a petition.
Lord BROUGHAM thought it would be best to
adopt the curse proposed by the Noble Marquis.
Earl GREY agreed in the course proposed, but he
would suggest that the employers of these men could
not be altogether innocent, and he suggestei the
appointment of a Committee to investigate the conduct
of the employers of these men.
The Earl of MIN TO believed that it appeared that
some cf the employers of these men were cognizant of
the practices resorted to, for it appeared that some of
these persons had ordered the men to put crosses to the
petition opposite names they had signed.
After a tew words from the Earl of EGLINTON,
Joseph Byrne was ordered to be committed to New-
gate.
Duncan M'Arthur and Joshua Hinde were also or-
dered to be committed to Newgato on the motion of the
LORD CHANCELLOR.
Byrne, M'Arthur, and Hinde were than removed in
custody.
Earl GREY then moved for a Select Committee to
inquire into the circumstances under which the persons
now committed were employed to obtain signatures to
the petition.—Agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY—PROVISION
FOR THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.

The LORD CIIANt_3ELLOR read a messa,re from
her Majesty, recommending the House to make some
provision lor the family of the late Duke of Cambridge.
The Margais of LANSDOWNE gave notice that he
should call the attention of their Lordships to this mes-
sage to-morrow. •
MARRIAGE BILL

The Bishop of SALISBURY, in presenting several
petitions against this Bill, asked whether it was the in-
tention of those who had charge of this Bill to proceed
with it during the present session ?
The Earl ef ST. GERMANS proposed to move the
second reading of the Bill on Thursday next, and he
saw no reason why it should not be proceeded with this
session, as it had been fully discussed in the other House,
and so lulls, considered in the country.
Lord BROUGHAM thought it would be most expe-
dient to dispose of the Bill this session, but he thought
the notice too short. He was unfavourable to the Bill.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII was favourable V)
the Bill, and therefore he regretted to hear that it was
intended to bring it forward this session, because he was
certain that they would not obtain a lair discussion of it
at this period of the session.
Lord STANLEY was opposed to the Bill,
but lie was certain it would not be fairly
discussed at this period of the session. The
third reading had been carried in the other House
by a majority of 10 only. There was no reason why a
Bill of this nature should not originate in their Lordships'
House at the come:lei:cement of the next session, when
there would be ample time to discuss it.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS would to-morrow state
what were his intention, with regard to the Bill.—(Hear.)

PETITIONS.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented several
petitions against the Marriages Bill.
The Earl of CARLISLE' presented a petition in
favour of the emancipation of the Jews.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from cer•
tain landowners praying fir protction to agriculture.
MILITIA SUSPENSIONS BALLOT BILL.
This Bail passed through Committee.
LINEN MANUFACTURES &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
COUNTY COUR I'S. BILL. _ .

Lord BE AUMON 1' moved the-third reading of the
County Courts Extension Bill, and moved the introduc-
tiongiving the clerks of the county
courts of
aapnerammaennedmnt amendment,
tnre of office.
Lord BROUGHAM objected to the amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the power of
removal should be retained in all cases where it could be
exercised consistently with justice.
Lord STANLEY supported the amendment, and
thought the extension of the jurisdiction should not be
seized on as an opportunity for removing individuals
without compensation.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment .., lg
Against it 13
Majority for the amendment —6
Lord BROUGHAM moved the iniertion of a provi-
sion conferring on the superior courts a concurrent juris-
diction with respect to sums between 201. and '5Ol. It
might be said, perhaps, that the judge had already a
discretion to allow the costs of proceeding in the supe-
rior courts in such cases; but he was averse to leav-
ing the delicate question as to whether an action ought
to have been brought in a superior court or not to the
e()r one thisth
e point
more
ore at
b hisou bound
(Lordto
urgeßr Brougham's)
it ghoa nm' thes)
discretion of a judge, knowing that it had not worked
satisfectorily. The great traders in the City, and of
Mawchestsr and Liverpool, were not heard before the
Select
instance, because he did not wish to delay the measure,
and h Committeeefel t t erf
attention of their Lordships on the present occasion. It
might be urged that the Select Committee were opposed
to him on this question, but it was too late to urge this
argument when they had ,just shown how easily they
could disregard its decision.
Lord BEAUMONT opposed the amendment. It was
a mistake to suppose that, by refusing to agree with the
jurisdiction
might
pof
oa
adoption
theloyf
superior
neentohtu,er
ttdshi, es yea
discretion
ieohrnee
thought
gj
tuhtdhegeem.3
.the amendment would create an anomaly at variance
with the principle of the Bill. There could not be a
better answer to the Noble Lord's amendment than the
Noble Lord's own arguments in the Select Committee.
Lord BROUGHAM said this was the consequence of
having the candour to state, as every member of a Select
Committee ought, the arguments en both sides. He
certainly had not the courage of the Noble Lord, who
had stood up against all -the highest legal authorities
upon a question involving one of the most important
changes in the jurisprudence of the country which had
token place within his experince.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be im-
possible for the plaintiff to make apparent the grounds
on which he preferred a superior court. He could not
help thinking, .looking at the great advantages which
were anticipated from the operation of the county
courts, that these ought to constitute a sufficiently
powerful motive to induce men to resort to them. lie
did not by any means agree with those who thought that
parties would be induced to select the superior courts,
acting under the influt nee of attorneys who were anxious
to increase the costs Such practitioners might be em-
ployed once, but their clients would not be apt to return,
and they would be killing the goose that laid the golden
eggs. Influenced by the result of long experience, and
by many considerations which he could not then eeter
iut at length, he was undoubtedly of opinion that the
proposed cle;creion should be given.
Lord NV HARNCLIF.FE supported the amendment.
He thought that the opiuion of the two Noble and
Learned Lords who had just addressed the House ought
to have great weight with their Lordships.
The Earl of CARLISLE said he did not think he
could, with propriety; oppose the amendment after the
opinions they had heard expressed by the highest autho-
rities in the House upon such subjects,
Lord BEAU moNT said that nothing he bad heard
had removed his objections to the amendment; but as he
found that he could not successfully resist its adoption
he should not press his opposition to it to a division.
The amendment was then agreed to.
Lord LANGDALE proposed an amendment, giving
a judge sitting in chambers the same power of issuing
writs of prohibition which was at present possessed by
the judges sitting in banco.
The clause was agreed to. and the Bill passed.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
Borough Courts of Record (Ireland) Bill and the Court
of Exchequer (Ireland) Bill were read a second time.
The remaining Bins on the table were forwarded
a stage, and their Lordships adjourced.
he

Clause
ROUSE OF CO4II MONS, July 22.
MERCANTILE MARINE (No. 2) BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Offecces committed against the Act abroad by persons
72, which pruvides for the mode of trying

discharged or entered into her Majesty's service, end for
the payment of Vie fines ialicted on the offenders, was
sg:e:d te, Mr. La.benehere having inserted an aniervi-
trent to satisfy objections formerly existing with respeci-,
0 it.

O clausa 73, pr6viding f naval conrti abroad,

Mr. LABOU6HERE TstatA that he had come to the
determination that it would not 6o advisable to allow
any court to be held abroad without the presence of a
naval officer commanding one of her Majesty's ships, or
of a consular officer.— (Hear, hear,)
The claive was agreed to with some modification.
Clause 96, providing for a report to be given by the
master of a ship on discharge, on the character and con-
duct of each of his man, was agreed to without dis-
cussion.
These were the whole of the reserved clauses.
Mr. CARDWELL then proposed several clauses of
which he had given notice, providing for the constitu-
tion of local boards, and the number of tons requisite
for a vote on these boards, which were ail agreed to with-
out discussion.
The House then resumed, and the Bill was ordered
to ho reprinted with all the amendments.
Tie House then adjourned until Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.
Mr. BROTHER ON presentel a petition from
Towee,tor against the increase of beer houses.
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY presented a petition
from a metropolitan savings bank against the Savings
Banks 1111.

.
Mr. S I HART presulted a petition againd the Rail-
way Abandonment Bill.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH presented two petitions from
Van Diemen's Land, one signed by 2,000 and the other
by 1,700 persons, praying for the abolition of transporta-
tion to that colony. The Hon. Baronet gave notice that
nex: session he should bring the important question of
transportation under the consideration of the House.
Mr. SCOTT presented a petition from Now South
Wales, complaining of the quit rent system which pre-

vails in that colony.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that on and after Thurs-

day, the lstAugust, orders of the day have precedence

of notices of motion.

Mr. O'CONNOR wished to know whether or not the

motion was intended to appply to orders standing for the
Ist of. August?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to reply in the
affirmative.

- SEWERS IN WESTMINSTER.
Mr. BANKES asked whether the General Board of
Health had been made acquainted with the fact of the

disturbance of graves for the formation of a sewer
through the churchyard of Christchurch, Westminster,

and whether they have made any inquiries upon it.
Lord SEYMOUR had been informed there had been
as yet no disturoance of graces in the churchyard to which
the lion. Member referred. The Board of Health, how

ever, had receivei a communication from a gentleman]

connv.cted with property in that locality, expressing his
surprise that such a disturbance was in contemplation,
which letter had been by them forwarded to the Com-

misAioners of Sewers.

Sir DE LACY EVANS asked if any plan had been
fixed upon with regard to the sewage of the metropolis;
and if so, when the general outline of such plan would
be made known? His reason for putting this question
was the extremely alarming condition of two of the prin-
cipal parishes of Westminster at the present jiincture—
namely, St. James's and St. John's.
14,-)rd EBIUNGTON—It was early announced by the
Commissioners of Sewers, at one of their courts held se-
veral months ago, that as soon as they had sufficiently
matured their plans to be enabled to present them to the
public, they would take care to do so before any large
works were begun for the general drainage of the metro-
polis, in order that the public might have the opprtu-
nity of knowing what the works might be. The subject
of the drainage of the southern parts of the metropolis
especially, on account of the ravages which cholera had
committed there, had been under their consideration, and
was in an advanced state, but was not sufficiently com•

pleted to render it advisable in the opinion of the Com-
missioners to make a statement to the public with regard
to the full details of the plan.
THE IRISH ENCUMBERED ESTATES COM-
MISSION.
Mr. F. FRENCH rose to ask the Secretary for Ire-
land (Sir W. Somerville) a question which the Right
Hon. Baronet had undertaken to answer in the absence
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. F.
French) stated the other day in the House that a sum
amounting to nearly half a million of money had beets
received tor sales under the Encumbered Estates Com-
mission, about 60,0001. of which had been paid into
the bank of Ireland. It appeared that it was impossible
fur the Commissioners to allocate, and some steps should
be taken to get the money out of the Bank of IrelanO,
where it was lying unproductive. He (Mr. F. French)
had now to ask whether it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to appoint a Vice-Chancellor or any
other officer whose particular duty it should be to alio-
cate that money to the different parties having claims
to it ?

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said there was no foundation
whatever for the report that the Court of Chancery had
declined to distribute the money. With reference to the
distribution of the money, the Right Hon. Gentleman
quoted the report of the Commissioners, who stated that
they hoped to distribute 200,0004 before the vocation,
and 200,000/. more before the beginning of October.
Mr. J. S fIIART wished to know whether the Right
Honourable Baronet had any objection to lay the report
of the Commissioners on the table?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said ho would consider by to-
morrow whether he could do so, but he thought there
would be no objection to lay the document i❑ question,
or at least some extracts from it, on the table.

merchants, was anxious to open the trade with
Pertendic, on the coast of Africa, in confirmity with
the treaty of Paris ot 1733, which ap, ciaay un cured the
right of commerce there to Brdish subjects, which riwis
had, notwithstanding', been monopolised by Franee.
Redman accordingly in that year seat a cargo to
Port,ruhe for that purpose, and the governor of the
French colony of Senegal seized and detained the
Btiti4l ships engaged in the enterprise ; but the
outrage did not eau there. The following year the
French Government, as if to close for ever the territory
of Portendic against British commerce, in defiance of
the faith of treaties, declared that port in a state of
blockade, and again seized the British vessels that had
been sent out. The consequence was, that great loss.
and almost ruin fell upon the parties who had under-
taken to engage in the trade. For the portion of those
losses which Mr. Redman sustained he had been utterly
incapable to obtain any redress whatever, and it was
under those circumstances that lie made an appeal to the
House. He (Mr. Hutt) should further state, that pend-
ing the experiment of opening the trade with Portendic,
Mr. Redman had, in reply to an application which ho
had made on the subject to the Foreign-office, received
an assurance, dated the 12th of December, 1834, that his

:ejesty's Government would be prepared to extend to
British subjects at Portendic every protection, and to
secure to them every light guaranteed to them by treaty.
Me: Redman and his friends were thus encouraged, as
Lord Aberdeen expressed it, to engage in the trade
hich they were entitled by treaty to enjoy; and a
second time they sent out vessels to Portendic. The
vessels, however, had scarcely left British waters when
Mr. Redman obtained information from private sources
that the French Government meant to place Portendic
in a state of blockade. and he applied to the Fort ign-
office for protectio-. At the interview which Mr. Red-
man had on the occasion with the Noble Lord (Palmer-
ston) Lord Auckland was present, and the Noble Lord
(Palmrston) assured him that he might implicitly rely
upon the protection of the British Government, and
that a British naval force should be sent out to enforce
the right of treaty. A British naval force was
accordingly sent' out to Portendic, but it arrived too
late—Mr. Redman's vessels had a second time fallen
into the hauds of the French authorities. Thus
those British subjects who had engaged in the most
lawful trade, under the special promise of protection
from the British Government, beoeme thereby
involved in losses of a most ruinous character. Mr.
Redman then applied to his own Government for redress,
and the Noble Lurd (Palmerston) immediately preferred
demands for losses against the French Government.
The French Government offered 10,000/. as indemnity
for the losses sustained by British subjects in the affair—
an effer which was rejected, and the matter was then
referred for arbitration to the King cf Prussia. Up to
that point Mr. Redman was supported by his Govern-
ment, hut here arose some little point of difference. The
case laid before the King of Prussia was a very umbigu-
ous one. Whilst Lord Aberdeen and the British Go-
vernment contended that the illegality of the blockade
was made the subject of reference, the Ft each Govern-
ment bad always maintained that no such reference had
been made to the King of Prussia, and that, on the con-
trary, the French Government had never submitted to hav-
ing that subject called in question. However that might
be, it was certain that Mr. Reiman was no party what-
ever to the reference; on the contrary, when he applied
to the British Government, as to whether the grounds of
reference were in every degree satisfactory on the sub-
ject of the losses, he was told that the question at issue
was one between the French and Englisn Governments,
with which he as an individual had nothing whatever
to do. The King of Prussia, however, made his award,
granting 1,700/. as a sufficient indemnity in a case in
which the British Government had refused 10,0001. Mr.
Redman having then applied to his Government to ob-
tain reparation for his losses, was referred to the award
of the King of Prussia, and was offered some small share
of the 1,700.. That was the case which he wished to
submit to the House, and he should make no comment
On the injustice and hardship, which were most palpably
evident. The Hon. Gentleman was about to submit a
motion for an address, when
The SPEAKER intimated that as ono motion had
been already disposed of on going into supply, it
was not competent for the Honourable Member to sub-
mit a second.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
as by the rules of the House his Hon. Friend could not
make a motion on the subject, he need only say a few
words on the matter. He agreed that the case was one
of those in which no doubt British subjects had sus-
ta'ned considerable loss; but he could not admit that
there was, therefore, any claim against her Majesty's
Government in the matter. They had endeavoured to
get reparation as much as they possibly could for the
aggrieved parties, and Mr. Redman was, practically, in
the situation of a man who, having gone to law to obtain
damages, and obtained them, found that the amellint he
received was not sufficient to cover his losses. The
amount awarded t) him by the King of Prussia had been
given to Mr. Redman; and he (the (inancellor of the Ex-
chequer) could not see on what grounds he asked the
whole case to be re-opened.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that the Hon. Member for
Gateshead would seek another opportunity for bringing
on the motion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE observed that the case bad never
been fully or fairly stated Le-ore the proper tribunal,
and had not therefore hesn justly decided. He hoped,
theref ire, that the Government would allow the sub-
ject to be again brought forward, the more so as the
principle on which the reference was made to the King
of Prussia was, that the decision should not enhance
she difficulties between the French and English Go-
vernments.
After a few words from Sir C. BURRELL, which
were inaudible, the subject dropped.
SUPPLY.

The House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. BER
NAL in the chair.
Oa the vote that a sum not exceeding 41,740/. be
granted to her Majesty to defray charges for New
Zealand,
Mr. HUME objected to those items of the vote ap-
plying to the support of the bishop and the chaplains, and
schools, and moved as an amendment that the vote be
reduced by 600/.
Sir R. INGLIS opposed the amendment.
Mr. AGLIONBY said the present would be the last,
or nearly the last., year the vote would have to be moved,
as the lion. Member for Lambeth had held out hopes of
a representative government, when, of course, the co-
lony would pay its owe expenses.
Mr. HUME did not object to the amount of the vote,
bat to the principle. The colony had a revenue of
36,000/. a year, and he (Mr. name) feared that the vote
would pledge the House -to a Church establishment.
Therefore he should take the sense of the Committee on
the subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL seid if the vote was put on the
ground that it was the first, it would be untenable.
Since 1842 the House had agreed to an annual vote of
that description. It would very much tend to the set-
tlement of the colonies if the Church missionaries were
under a proper ruler. The cause of civilization had
been much promoted by the establishment of bishops in
New Zealand; and he (Lord J. Russell) would rather
pay bishops than police magistrates.
Mr. HUME had objected to the vote in 1848, but he
was then told that they would revise it next year.
Mr. HOWARD saw no reason why Dissenters should
not be established in New Zealand as well as the Church
of England. He supported the amendment.
Mr. KERSHAW also supported the amendment, be-
cause the motion went to disparage the Dissenters in
Favour of the Established Church.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 24
Against it
Majority ••• .•• ... —66
20,0001. for Hung-Kong.
Mr. SCOTT objected to the vote, on the ground that
it was disproportionate to the necessities of the case.
Thera was no trade whatever at Hong-Kong. All the
vessels bound to China go from seventy to nine
hundred miles beyond it—to Whampoa or Shanghae.
The Governor, however, had a higher salary than
any other colonial governor except the Governor-
General of Canada. The populetion of the island
was usually about 20,000; it V% a S now about 28,000;
in consequence of the disturbances at Macao.
The salary was therefore disproportionate to the services
of the governor. There were consular agents in China;
and the governor was only paid because he was a super-
intetident of trade—Miele trade did not exist. The
consular establishment in China cost 33.0001. a year,
one-third of the whole cost of the consular establish-
ments of Great Britain all over the world, which was
102,000/. The Governor of Hong-Kong was paid in ad-
ditien 6,0001 a year; vehile the Governor of Heligoland,
which island stood in the same relation to Hamburgh as
the Goveruwent of Hong-Kong did to Canton, was only
paid 5001. a year. Tho Governor's aide-de-comp received
3001. a year, while the colonial seer= tary and establish-
ment received 3,700/.--io all 10,000/. a year for the cost
of government in a miserable colony where only ten
British merchants resided. There are 23,0001. a year
revenue derived from the colony, while the cost of
collecting it was 2,314L—fully 10 per cent. The Hon UN
able Member went into a detail of the abuses of the
government in the colony. The harbour master, for in-
stance, received 1,1681. a yea-, while the duty was dis-
charged by a lascar for 3001. Toe law and justice de-
partment cost 15 318/. 6s. 81, than %hide there was no-
thing more monstrous in law, in justice, or in equity.
The chief justice got 3,000/. a year; the attorney-general
1,500/ ; and the chief !magistrate 9001. Notheig could
exceed the expenditure of the gaols and the police than
their inefficiency. The roads at a certain distance from
town were not safe, yet the police and peels cost 7,8421.
Gs. Bd. a year. Since the last year the tra le of Hong-
Kong had been reduced, a-id the feelings of the Chinese
had teen much altered towards Great Britain since Mr.
Jardine rave his evidence in 1839. The service that
was now performed for 40,000/. or 50.000/. a year might,
he conceived, be properly done for 17,0001. His amend-
ment was that the sum of 15,0001. be the sum voted
for Hong-Kong, instead of 20,0001.
Colonel SIBTHORY hoped his Hon. Friend would
persevere in his amendment, for at another page in the
estimates he found Hong-Kong down for another sum of
public money to the extent of 4,621/., in addition to the
20,000/. for the vote under debate. There were also
other sums for consul's expenses, consulate expenses, and
miscellaneous expenses. The sums in addition amounted
to 21,C00/. This was the way the Government mystified
the subject. They put one sum in one place, another
sum in another, and so on, in order to get one vote
passed, awl then another vote, so as to prevent the House
from seeing the enormous total which a particular esta-
blishment costs.
Mr. HAWES said the votes in question did nut pro-
perly come under one head, sad that was the reason why
the sums appeared in separate pieces. The Honourable
Gentleman who bud moved the reduction of the vote to
15,000/. had not assigned any special reason for this
reduction. lie presumed he had done so on the
general principle that Government ought to re.

aseeess
e•
trench in 'lpublic d r t wiLii reference
al epateleen 3. ' !id
to the charge that the Hong-Borg blishment
viith
not: come under the notice of tho Government grit
the view to reduction of seep:minute, he would b•e,h
refer to the tact that the first vote wile 49,000/, woolo-L
este
had ben succes,ively re fused to 36.0001, theta to 31Vbis
th.n to 23,000/. in 1319. and to 20,0001. in 1850. ,
I,v,oild prove ti,at Government had not been extrvali,nn
in respect to thr . xpenses of this establi,lment.
ild:te.
with( regerd to the assertion that Hong Kong 1)5 Chinese or
rirated, and that no respectable person the
__otherwi,e, would reside there, he begged to asure.
~t 1
Heine that this was not the case. The reports esn'u .
had been laid before the House would show that the
not
spectanility or efficiency of the establishment had
dria.
been damaged. Nor had economy in the internel!: eof
cistratton been lost sight of. Hong-Kong "5 P—CsVere
considerable importance in relation to the trade we lent
carrying on with Chinese ports, ansl it was exPee, 0t
therefore to keep up its efficiency. Mto the coraPeulb,
of the terms on which land war granted. ths,t authorsv,eisas
ject at present under consideratien of the mu"' 3
rides; aid if any hardship was found to extet, it err'o
no doubt be taken into consideration, with the vie ow
was jeer
I.
its remedy. If tie showed that population
was being
tea Pie!),
ing, trade increasing, and that reduction
severed in as fir as was wise and expedient, he we
thought he had
helpmae out a case which ought to conil_ 9
the lloti,e that t roposed reduction of the votobtfft%
o eig.gin°.A
not put forward on tenable grounds, and als
jii- tity him in asking the House to support thwori
vote.
Mr. MITCHELL considered the vote was so extrelii;
gent that he hoped the Hon. Member vsould, tar6vlhetiti
in his amendment. The Right Hon. Genlie-11 that
asked what item required reductior. His reply v'Te' The
not one item, but every item ought to be redo ife 0
Governor of Hong-Kong, whose main duty w.itte 1,1,) kap
dinner now and then to the merchants at Welsh% suet
had a salary of 6 0001. This was higher than t"; this
given to similar appointments. He should prop eesd 0
be reduced to 3,500/. Then the chief socretarY foe.
salary of 1,8001.; 1,0001. would be ample for that i
the
tionary. The chief justice had 3.000/. a reeseoo
amount might be reduced to 2,000/., and tins PI bad
would not be underpaid, The attorney
'g
a year, but that sum might be reduced touleloo
a year. The harbour-master bad 6001. a year. ,mation
that amount to 2001. a-year, and the total re'oed
would amount to 5,0001. This SUM could be e-nut
' without • inconvenience and without injustice- wise
there was also other items which %night would
equal propriety be reduced, and thste es Oa'
.genere. ...hos
very much sled to the sum he bau " the
Government had promised last year to consider
tleA
subject of reduction. Government met the r! de'
or economy now with the same excuse, and 50 °-,,, be
pendence was to be placed on Government pro ace.
hoped the House would see the necessity for inter'esbese
But it was the system e f appointing individuals tend out
colonial offic hat he objected to most. WhY ; high
as governors Lards and gentlemen to whom theo Or
salaries were a consideration, and indeed theta ceylee
ducement? They had sent out a governor .s to
We sal:rye°
who was a Lord, but a bad governor. .
and Government to send out working, competent men to wsresest
posts. Such a system would be preferable to the riot a
systeml of sending out some Lord, who nsigh,:i the
ittle fresh air, and who might find the air to one
salaryof unexampled
of a colony very convenient. The vote ^ele ,
l extravagance, and he should orPee.„stjfies
r. DRUMMOND said the had been J'' they
A
before by Government on thevsnaterno r°11"d!;1111.01si-
ju justified it now. The Hon. Gentleman very itlarittoce,
if we compared the salary of the Governor e.'t woo
b Kong to the salarica given to other govereore'se% d Or
e found to be too high T sass -a cod gi--13 ,
considering whether it Couldhnatot-b-e- r-cd-tiochediii th e 1' e Pifera'
Mr. SPOONER referred to a paragrarial benefit bee
of 1847, which stated that
Hong-Kong,
comnsere, that 00 e . I
not yet been derived from g Kong, anues,, it,t po,l°A
existed it would be of much nvnal . in cam ow-.
value a
0,4 in _ 4
of view. It was important to bear that 13,e1u would b 74
With respect to the Governor's salary, beer that r •
make much observation; ut there was ano.
.„ tie -e,
been overlooked, and which might be redunerruh' e illeb,
ferred to the police and contingent charges. '—earteagge.e
cahadrge for police was about 9,000/, while the et,-; Pe
n iecineutal police charges ;amounted to Onooo
thought the House had a right to some explaoll°-
these oints. s IllerS
-Mr PHAWES could not bear in mind all the PL,tl toe'
otifoevery vote. It the Hon. Member would ine'7,,ftiertne.
n on the subject he had no doubt all proper '-
Lion would then be drawn out.no sea :
Mr. SCOTT said the reason why he had Pr-gat
gross sum without going into particulars waeithise Pr°-
he gone into items, the reduction he shouln --,,,,
otter I°l-11 f°t
posed would have amounted to a much 1
Mr. PLOWDEN said it was all very well L° coaeroelh
a reduction in the salary of this person or thst ,rai re A'
but he thought when reduction was contecePle:(o 00,1
gard ought to be had to the position of the Par:- artiest
to the peculiar position of the colony. n impale-gise.4
known that Hong-Kong had been established; for by
tart commercial and naval purposes,and he 1 C 10;
ought to consider that we had a "o l Chilrityhe sk
sustain by those appointments in thatnati 'ncoalony. fteieeif
penses at Hong-Kong, he believed, were re4ls;ter
ogoregahttertothhaentainkenmionstto
Mr. HUME said the tea
ocothnesridecroaltoinain'e. and tILISVO I:L4
was altogether an experiment. It was SUPeicrit ..h.P
establishment at Pae en tP ,
Hong-Kong would be the centre of commerce, ben,,, 07,
turned out quite the reverse; and the question 11,-,. ter
whether such an expensive establishment oug" cot?'
kept up as
_a mere military post.—(Hear, hear) 00fir
lure
all the circumstances he thought the eltPsw
re ought to be reduced nearly one-half.—(FlenV
Viscount PALMERS roN said that Hong
.00.0
could not be regarded in precisely the same light its'oree
other colonies. It was not merely a colony inith Woo?
nary sense of the term, but a port for trade W,s 01/
in general. When instructions were g c give •-
palve ssi
Henry Pottinger on his departure ior vocov
conclude a treaty with that empire, he ( reW
, 'of° ana
Palmerston) felt it his duty to gain whateae- tier, -As
tion he could from every possible Irareil °I. (
had interviews with persons from differentlagi-colleLr''
country who possessed any knowledge of ireteee is'es°l
and he received a great deal of valuable aSsts:-," 01P';
Sir George Staunton. There were two ttihill:: 0 ri-14
appeared to be of considerable importance-4"4- 11;1°01)6
to obtain access to a larger number of porst,sioseo-btlisiaOloseer;
stetisfied with Canton only; the othe
insular For
rh position for head-quartersr flcotts• our et 04
personsH o n g - I i
theao
bn
ag
nelwatbsd greatestcwh iobtilsleraecnp:ou:rfoi:nlactibees(ts). 0
0. its°,
wasttheatoppiunriopnosoef
insular position was of
many doubted whether it would not
be eo`tils Ce 000
admission to any other
But both objects were accompliashPendrts ileYerie°l3so istill
not to be considered merely with referencvibers;
amount of trade in the island itself, althong-, 1i3:4
crease cf tonnage last year over the prep
as
cad
was 63,000 tons; but it must be looked to as s bopri
to where naval and military assistance wee, IVAellol,''
support our merchants in the China Port'l rls'
Our position at Canton was by no ixicerledy fr.' e
factory one, for great hostility was fretleellseeft'esage
fasted by the people of that city, and it was b''.o-01C1hPe-id
matter of importance that our merchanto eci.,,a, v-*
assistance ready in case of an emergency.----(i',Yeli ,,o
se t
Now with regard to the amount of salaries ?:,:,o.he•-010
question uite independent of the other. ' -.11';- 0 w •
given wagon a far more economical sc°180.:a1):!;
given by the East India Cot‘san Crieu'et r'eliv
amount now proposed was only the Late for te-tevelltise
year, and his Hon. Friend had said that the peth—e eV
of former years justified him in saying illti"li, dill dS'
tion of the colonial deartment was constantvhe 10'0
to those different heads of expenditure, with l'es-itbei-01
reducing them as far as possible consistentli with
ei
the interests of the public service. It bad beell„,eps:sir
salaries were kept at a high rate for the Tglie 4" 00l
furnishingtoc appointments to the members °W as Videll
racy. But on the present occasion thas,tcrs-b°0;:,
It had also been
eseossi , sebe;llo°.
unjust assertion.
to be chosen. D 4 w?
I.° if II
of business ought
the choice which his Noble Friend had made
elf 00 11,jsted4
did he offer it? To
the high character heabomrean whoma heb
member iy
erotic family, but a man ofnboutsi member
Pecitlo6 le.
business,
judgment
od iv
or
tiiinself to distinction by his own
4.ind by the ability with which ibue lamed dieehlierV 1141311/
oves—he meant Mr. Bonham ...._(Heur hear./ soWAs'
that was not a single instance Of such ;PPeesilieajorgellel
would just mention the appointment of Sireve teed
derson to the Mauritius; Sir George Gri•foilinv
Z. eland; Mr. Gregory to Benares;ir end Pit
Australia; Mr. Higginson to Antigua; e
Colebrook to Barbaeoes.—(Hear.) ,del
for.,
Mr. COBDEN said the Noble Lord see .ifii 9io
a 0 1 eo
that the Committee was now considering the t'Oe)° v
oratese ancd not the military expenditure forth the 0, JP 0
ht h would come before to. -ii, in another °Preeoil
Kong, which a few years y s ilte-otOra
without an inhabitant, nowagpo, possessed eid'ala civi*„Clit to ees
ment of' 44,000/. a year, 26,0001 i ofs which °ZOO," stl"
derived from the local revenue. It had bee
°, *- gePo 0001
the same scale as the establishments of cer;,atir-10411
most important colonies, and for a popelst''-„e °fee" traf
persons there was a governor, auditor, tress-,,,e01 olf'',
trar-general, a chi'fjustice, with a salary colon 11,4;0;
of the judges in Scotland, an att ergel3,r,,,' i real! ire
police magistrate, &c. The whole the 5°,11,-sel) OVI
of justice in the island might be conducteur,r#ol;kr;
magistrate and hie clerk at salaries of I,o°'`a• f)cfn P-
ebaecehn.—(Hear, hear.) He though a decide-a ehe'‘ tr
Committeemade out for a diminution of 5,000/e and
,
would stultify itself if it did oc4 "" el,
reduction.—(ii ear.) ~„t be ;,5
Viscount PALMERSTON explained tm- t eie" '
tions of chief justice and attorney genet: este.; PP.
1 Oa
confined to
at
Hoi, Hong-[long, but that the COnr'e.- enbd'-
g-Kong had jurisdiction over Brit b00
" acli
bei
any part of the China seas. e be f 00,,
Mr. COBDEN said it was quite true that
silt _co rho
quarters of our judicial establishment litseree, eft'olf
Kong; bat let the Committee mark the AOP aAJJ
United
the expense of our establishment an „s ee" ra
thetradSetawttst:
consuls who ditcherwtlihi this
secgoteur
den dttrehyewiras, equal toiret°l6-totoe:01;
The ll.ra,te' • ell
duties c seat
five different ports at salaries of 1,000 dollar° and
After a few remarks from Mr. F. Sc°ll lb°
lilt. f.
PLOWDEN, hi •
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY could find not- figons°;ol.°
Hong• Kong charges in any of the other e°,ol eite:tees
Western Australia there were six realdeo ;ea"( ilir
with salaries of 1001. each, while the. chief 51:15111°,0rit;
Hung-Kong received 900/. While the ,i 1 0 il° d'
judges in other countries varied from 30;' 'ig Olehe era
that of the judise of Hung-Kung was 3,°°°' for fr
°iv
startling to think of such a stun as 15,0„,°/h. 0131,1 ~o°l
penses of adjudication in Hon,e-Kong. '.`"iese et,
nies in which such large salaries were Pel`"(3o, 0" d#
vernrs were the important colonies °h
Ce.,11-
eel'
Ceylon, and the Mauritius.—(Hear. befir'i 00
The Committee then divided, when doll