solutions embodying those opinions were agreed to and forwarded to Governor Barkly. He (Mr. Hume) did not wish to detain the House with lengthened details, but would merely express his hope that the House would not let the colony be ruined by the policy of this country. They wished to have the management of their pecuniary affairs, and it did appear extremely hard that such control should be refused to them. Amendment proposed "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Despatches which have been received from British Guiana,'-instead thereof." most objectionable, and led to serious in- | badoes, Jamaica, or Canada. Several reterruption and injury in public business. They refrained from giving any opinion as to the mode in which alterations should be carried out, but strongly recommended that they should be decided on in friendly concert with the inhabitants, and should proceed on the basis of greatly extending the franchise. He must say that after the speech of the noble Lord at the commencement of the Session he had some hopes that efficient remedies would be adopted; but he was sorry to say that those hopes had been disappointed, and that Governor Barkly, himself professedly a colonial reformer, instead of carrying out the principles which he had stated before the Committee, had acted as badly, if not worse, than any of his predecessors. The House might not be aware that there were two legislative institutions in British Guiana. One of them contained ten Members-five elective, and five nominated by the Crown; and the result was that the Governor having the casting vote, could, and did, render nugatory the votes of the five elected Members. This was in direct contradiction to the report of a Committee of that House. The colonists had petitioned Parliament, the Government, and the Queen in Council, in short had adopted every means open to them, within the constitution, to obtain redress; but no attention whatever had been paid to their complaints, or their discon tent. That discontent still existed, and was increasing. It was only by the last packet he had received the account of a large meeting renewing the agitation, which had been for some time suppressed, trusting to the promises of Government, but which was now likely to assume an aggravated form. It was melancholy to think that the Colonial Office would not listen to the moderate complaints of the colonists. The Cape had got free institutions by resistance, and Canada by revolution, and unless the noble Lord interfered, he feared that the same game would be played in other places. He should like to know what would the people of England say to a legislative assembly constructed like the Court of Policy, in which the Prime Minister should have the casting voice on all questions. [The hon. Member then read the proceedings of the meeting to which he had before alluded.] The people complained that they were governed from Downing-street, and not in accordance with their own wishes or feelings, and asked for institutions similar to those of Bar LORD J. RUSSELL said, that no despatches had been received from Guiana since May last that would answer the description given by the hon. Member for Montrose; and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had not as yet had time time to read those which had been received. He feared, however, that his hon. Friend had not made the House acquainted with the real facts of the case, or difficulties with which the Governor had to contend. The party who were clamouring were not a popular reform party, but a close oligarchy, and their real grievance was that the franchise had been extended by the Governor. It was quite true that this party, finding themselves obliged to resort to open election, were now asking for a constitution similar to that possessed by other colonies. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that the Governor, having the casting voice, was enabled to cushion any attempt made at reform in the Court of Policy; but the case in point bore completely in the opposite direction. It appeared that a Motion was made for a new form of Legislative Council; and the Governor, the Chief Justice, and the Colonial Secretary declined to vote, thus enabling the gentleman who made the Motion to carry it. It was not true, therefore, that the Governor, by his casting vote, was in the habit of defeating all Motions for reform. With respect to the general question, it was, whether the colony was prepared to receive extended political institutions. Governor Barkly had stated that it was not yet ripe for such institutions, and that it would be better in the first instance to extend the franchise to the small proprietors, instead of leaving it to the narrow, and, he (Lord J. Russell) must add, selfish party who now monopolised it. That had been done, and whether the franchise could be more extended was a question depending on the state of the colony, and which he should be much better able to answer after the receipt of the despatches. He did not believe there was any one in this country who would contend that all our colonies should at once get representative institutions; but they would be introduced whenever it was prudent; and when the people were prepared, they would be gradually extended. With regard to the statement he had made early in the Session, he was still prepared to say that he should be glad to see the franchise of British Guiana extended; and he looked forward to an early future when the colony would be governed by a locally-elected House of Assembly. MR. HUME said, that as the despatches had not as yet arrived, and after what had fallen from the noble Lord, he was willing to withdraw his Motion. LORD J. RUSSELL said, it must be negatived, not withdrawn. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to. Question again put, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the chair." CASE OF MR. REDMAN-PORTENDIC. MR. HUTT rose to call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. G. C. Redman, presented the 12th of April last. In the year 1833-34, Mr. Redman, in conjunction with other merchants, was anxious to open the trade with Portendic, on the coast of Africa, in conformity with the treaty of Paris of 1783, which specially secured the right of commerce there to British subjects, which right had, notwithstanding, been monopolised by France. Mr. Redman accordingly in that year sent a cargo to Portendic for that purpose, and the Governor of the French colony of Senegal seized and detained the British ships engaged in the enterprise; but the outrage did not end there. The following year the French Government, as if to close for ever the territory of Portendic against British commerce, in defiance of the faith of treaties, declared that port in a state of blockade, and again seized the British vessels that had been sent out. The consequence was that great loss and almost ruin fell upon the parties who had undertaken to engage in the trade. For the portion of those losses which Mr. Redman sustained he had been utterly incapable to obtain any redress whatever, and it was under those circumstances that he made an appeal to the House. He (Mr. Hutt) should further state, that pending the experiment of opening the trade with Portendic, Mr. Redman had, in reply to an application which he had made on the subject to the Foreign Office, received an assurance, dated the 12th of December, 1834, that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to extend to British subjects at Portendic every protection, and to secure to them every right guaranteed to them by treaty. Mr. Redman and his friends were thus encouraged, as the Earl of Aberdeen expressed it, to engage in the trade which they were entitled by treaty to enjoy; and a second time they sent out vessels to Portendic. The vessels, however, had scarcely left British waters when Mr. Redman obtained information from private sources that the French Government meant to place Portendic in a state of blockade, and he applied to the Foreign Office for protection. At the interview which Mr. Redman had on the occasion with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary the late Earl of Auckland was present, and the noble Lord assured Mr. Redman, that he might implicity rely upon the protection of the British Government, and that a British naval force should be sent out to enforce the right of treaty. A British naval force was accordingly sent out to Portendic, but it arrived too late-Mr. Redman's vessels had a second time fallen into the hands of the French authorities. Thus those British subjects who had engaged in the most lawful trade, under the special promise of protection from the British Government, became thereby involved in losses of a most ruinous character. Mr. Redman then applied to his own Government for redress, and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary immediately preferred demands for losses against the French Government. The French Government offered 10,000l. as indemnity for the losses sustained by British subjects in the affair-an offer which was rejected, and the matter was then referred for arbitation to the King of Prussia. Up to that point Mr. Redman was supported by his Government, but here arose some little point of difference. The case laid before the King of Prussia was a very ambiguous one. Whilst the Earl of Aberdeen and the British Government contend ed that the illegality of the blockade was made the subject of reference, the French Government had always maintained that no such reference had been made to the King of Prussia, and that, on the contrary, the French Government had never submitted to having that subject called in question. However that might be, it was certain that Mr. Redman was no party whatever to the reference; on the contrary, when he applied to the British Government, as to whether the grounds of reference were in every degree satisfactory on the subject of the losses, he was told that the question at issue was one between the French and English Governments, with which he as an individual had nothing whatever to do. The King of Prussia, however, made his award, granting 1,7007. as a sufficient indemnity in a case in which the British Government had refused 10,000l. Mr. Redman having then applied to his Government to obtain reparation for his losses, was referred to the award of the King of Prussia, and was offered some small share of the 1,7001. That was the case which he wished to submit to the House, and he should make no comment on the injustice and hardships, which were most palpably evident. The hon. Gentleman was about to submit a Motion for an address, when MR. SPEAKER intimated that as one Motion had been already disposed of on going into Supply, it was not competent for the hon. Member to submit a second. The CHANCELLOR OF THE 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 sustained considerable loss; but he could not admit that there was, therefore, any claim against Her Majesty's Government in the matter. They had endeavoured to get reparation as much as they possibly could for the aggrieved parties; and Mr. Redman was, practically, in the situation of a man who, having gone to law to obtain damages, and obtained them, found that the amount he received was not sufficient to cover his losses. The amount awarded to him by the King of Prussia had been given to Mr. Redman; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not see on what grounds he asked the whole case to be reopened. MR. AGLIONBY hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, though pre vented by the forms of the House from bringing forward the question now, would do so on a future occasion. He considered that a Committee would be the only tribunal by which a satisfactory investigation of the facts could be obtained, and he hoped in the next Session Government would not oppose a Motion for an inquiry by that means. MR. NEWDEGATE believed if Mr. Redman had the opportunity afforded him. he could establish his case before a Committee of that House, and he could scarcely suppose that a Government that had assumed so strong a position in the maintenance of his rights and interests abroad, would endeavour to preclude him from a hearing before the House of Commons. Subject dropped. SUPPLY-NEW ZEALAND. (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding 41,730l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March, 1851.” MR. AGLIONBY said, he did not rise to oppose the vote, for he was aware of the circumstances under which the money was required; but he wished not to be thereby precluded from calling attention to other matters connected with New Zealand. His object now was to ask his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether the grants for the bishop and clergy contained in this vote were to be permanent? MR. HAWES said, that, as the matter stood at present, the grants for the bishop, chaplains, and schools, were permanent; but as there was a prospect of representative institutions being established in the colony, he could not say how far this country would remain responsible for these charges. MR. HUME considered that this country had enough to do to maintain its own ecclesiastical establishments, and that to begin paying for the colonial establishments was most objectionable. Where was the system to end, if once admitted-were we to pay for the clergy and schools of all the colonies? He had nothing to say against the efficiency of the bishop; but he contended that, as the House had had nothing to do with his appointment, they had no right to be called upon to pay his salary. He would move that the vote be reduced by 600l., the amount of the bishop's allowance. Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding 41,1307., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Zealand, to the 31st day of March, 1851." ginning for the first time to support a Church Establishment in the colonies, it was not tenable; for from the year 1842 until the present time a vote had been taken every year for this purpose. This was a case wholly different from that of the North American colonies, where having been in existence for many years, and having the advantage of popular institutions, they were able to support their own Church Establishment; but in the case of New Zealand it had been represented to him by the New Zealand Company and others that it would tend to the settlement of the colony if the missionaries and Church ministers were under the superintendence of a proper and efficient ruler appointed by the Government; and the Government concurring in that view, Dr. Selwyn had been appointed. And without going into the question of whether the duty was worth 600l. a year or not, he thought the cause of civilisation had been much promoted by having a bishop there, and he thought it was better to pay that amount for a bishop than a considerably larger sum for the salaries of a number of police magistrates. SIR R. H. INGLIS bore testimony to the high character of the bishop for piety, zeal, and general efficiency, and urged that while the mother country administered the affairs of a colony, she was bound to provide the means of religious instruction. MR. AGLIONBY should regret very much if the Committee assented to the Amendment. Dr. Selwyn was receiving a very small salary, while his duties were most onerous and arduous-he having to superintend several settlements, extending over a country as large as Great Britain. [Mr. BRIGHT: That is no reason why he should be paid by this country.] The Bishop of New Zealand had more important and onerous duties entrusted to him than perhaps any other colonial bishop; and though he thought Dr. Selwyn had been occasionally mistaken, and had taken a course hostile to the views and interests of the New Zealand Company, he believed a more zealous, honourable, and consci- MR. HUME suggested that it might be entious man could not be found; and the better to adopt at once the old Catholic trouble he had taken, and the good he had rule of the Spanish and Portuguese, to done in assisting in the civilisation of the which we seemed fast approaching, of apnatives, could not be too highly commend-pointing a bishop as the first act of coloed. He had great pleasure in supporting this vote, which was a very inadequate payment for the services rendered, though, he admitted, as much as could be expected from this country. He was glad to hear that representative institutions were likely to be extended to the colony; and he could assure his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies that nothing would give more satisfaction to the colonists than an assurance that a Bill would be introduced next Session for establishing such institutions on a just and firm basis. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would not divide on his Amend ment. MR. HUME objected to the principle of voting money for the support of the ecclesiastical establishments of the colonies. The revenue of the colony was estimated at 36,000l. a year; and if the Governor told them that their expenditure must be limited to that sum, it would be so limited, and there would be no necessity to come to Parliament for grants of this description. LORD J. RUSSELL contended that if the hon. Member for Montrose opposed the vote on the ground that they were now be nisation. The Committee divided: - Ayes 24; SUPPLY-HONG KONG. (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding 20,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1851.' MR. SCOTT objected that this vote, though 5,000l. less than that of last year, was still wholly disproportionate to the wants of the colony. He admitted that Hong Kong was of some importance as a military station, but the ground of keeping up this expensive establishment was, that it was necessary for the purposes of trade. The fact was that there was no trade at Hong Kong; the great trading stations being Whampoa and Shanghae, the former being 70 and the other 900 miles distant. The population of Hong Kong was only 20,000 generally, though in consequence of the late disturbances in the Portuguese colony it had recently increased to 28,000. The salary of the governor was wholly dis proportionate to any services he could have to perform, and was equal to that of the Prime Minister of this country, and larger than that of almost any other governor, except that of Canada. Then there was a most expensive consular establishment in China, costing 33,000l. per annum, while the whole of our consular establishments in all the rest of the world put together cost only 102,000l. The Governor, in his double capacity of governor and superintendent of trade, received no less than 6,000l. a year. It had been said the reason why this high salary was paid, was to enable him to maintain a high position in the eyes of the Chinese; but the truth was, there was no Chinese of any respectability residing within 100 miles of Hong-Kong. England was paying an immense amount, because of the want of respectability on the part of the Chinese. The amount we paid the Governor of Heligoland was 500l. The amount we were now going to vote the Governor of Hong-Kong was 6,000l. This was an enormous salary, considering that we only paid the Governor of New Zealand 2,000l. Then we paid the aid-decamp of the Governor of Hong-Kong 3007.; the colonial secretary and his department cost 3,6541.; making in all 10,000l. per annum, and this for the little miserable place of Hong-Kong, where only ten British merchants, one Danish merchant, two or three agents for American houses, and one German agent, resided. The revenue of the colony the year before last was 24,000l.; this year it was 23,0007.; so that the revenue was going on at a diminishing rate. The cost of collecting the 23,000l. was 2,3147., or about 10 per cent. Then we paid for the surveyor-general's department at Hong-Kong 1,4581., or about 300 per cent, the whole of the money passing through that department last year being 5001. The harbour-master and his department cost 1,1677., and his duties were discharged by a Lascar who wrote down the names of the few vessels that anchored at Hong-Kong, and who received 300l. a year for discharging the duty. But there was a still more formidable amount. For law and justice in the colony, in which the European inhabitants numbered about 600, we paid 15,3187. 6s. 8d. Was there ever anything more monstrous than this in the annals of justice, equity, or extravagance? The population amounted to 28,000; so that law and justice cost at the rate of 12s. per head. Then, we paid the chief justice at Hong-Kong 3,000l., and the VOL. CXIII. [THIRD SERIES.] attorney general 1,500l. The other departments cost 2,9761.; the chief magistrate received 9001.; making in all 7,3761. This was totally independent of the cost of gaols and police; and the inefficiency of the gaols and police at Hong-Kong was matter of notoriety. So inefficient were they, that all the merchants were obliged to keep police of their own, and the roads at a short distance outside the town were unsafe. The police and the gaols cost 2,3497. Then there was "ditto contingent," 3,446.; "ditto incidental," 1,6267.; rent of police office, 4501.; making in all 7,8417., which, together with the judicial department, made 15,3181. 6s. 8d. for justice alone. Mr. Jardine stated, in 1839, that in China persons were sufficiently protected, that life and property were watched by an excellent police, and that business was conducted with unexampled facility and singular good faith in general; but the reverse of all this was at present the case. He admitted that the estimate this year was 5,000l. short of what it was last year; but he contended that the extravagance still remained comparatively untouched. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment that the estimate of 20,000l. be reduced to 15,0001. Whereupon Motion made, and Question put," That a sum, not exceeding 15,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Hong-Kong, to the 31st day of March, 1851." COLONEL SIBTHORP expressed a hope that his hon. Friend would take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment. The vote, he believed, included an office into which a late Member of that House, Dr. Bowring, had been pitched. [An Hon. MEMBER said, that Dr. Bowring was consul at Canton.] Besides the vote of 20,000l., to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire had called attention, he found that in page 27 of the estimates there was a further vote of 4,6751. for the salaries of different officers connected with establishments at Hong-Kong. He found also, in page 26, a vote of 21,000l. for consular contingencies," including a sum, as usual, for "miscellaneous expenses," classed under the heads of special services, journeys, postage, chapels, and other items of expenditure. Now, these were matters that ought to be looked into. The Government spread these items over the estimate; there was a vote on one page, and a few pages further on, another vote for the same purpose; and he hoped the hon. E |