planted died off repeatedly before a successful attempt was made. As to the Sierra Leone colony, he thought nothing of that. If this proposition was admitted, from some cause not now to be ascertained, the colony might fail, or the trustees might throw up their powers. In that case, the shareholders would be ruined, the emigrants would be ruined, and the Government would be blamed for granting so much power to irresponsible individuals. Again, he did not see the advantage of placing that power in individuals, doubtless very respectable, which ought to reside in the Colonial Office.'
"To this Matthew Hill replied, that 'it was necessary some body of persons possessed of considerable powers should be appointed, or capitalists would not have confidence in the colony, and so would not subscribe money. Government undoubtedly might manage the colony, he did not of course wish to compare the probable management of the trustees with that of Government, but it must be borne in mind, that if Government founded the colony themselves, they must also find the means wherewith to do it.'
"In reply to this, Stanley repeated 'his preference for a company pledged to purchase a given quantity of land at a given rate per annum, and at a given price; the directors of such a company would have a direct interest in governing well.'
"Upon this, Gouger asked 'whether it would not meet the objection urged, if the trustees were obliged to qualify by taking a given number of bonds, say five bonds of £100 each?'
"This question and a remark made by Matthew Hill as to the probable interest of a body of money-getting directors being different from that of the colony at large, Stanley answered by saying, 'that he did not see, on consideration, that it materially signified whether the trustees consisted of shareholders, or of persons not possessing pecuniary interest in the colony in whom the shareholders had confidence, so long as funds were
