HC Deb 03 April 1838 vol 42 cc385-422
The Marquess of Chandos

rose, to bring the subject, of which he had given notice, under the attention of the House, and he would not trespass long on the House at that late hour; but he must observe, that the motion was one which was of very great importance.

Lord John Russell

inquired what the specific motion of the noble Marquess was?

The Marquess of Chandos

said, that the noble Lord asked him what was his specific motion, and he would take the liberty of reading to the House the resolution which he intended to propose. It was in the following terms:— It is the opinion of this House that the duties of the Lord High Commissioner and the Governor-General of her Majesty's North American provinces should be conducted with the utmost possible degree of economy, consistent with a just remuneration of the persons employed. That it appears by returns which are before this House, that the amount of the expenditure for one year on the establishment of Lord Gosford, as Governor-General, amounted to 12,678l.; and that it appears to this House, that such establishment was founded on a just and liberal scale, and is a proper precedent to be acted upon in the case of the establishment of the Earl of Durham. It would be in the recollection of the House, that a question had been asked of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) with reference to the appointment of Lord Durham, and he answered, after some con- sideration with the representative of the Colonial-office, that there would be no objection to a return of the amount proposed to be expended being laid on the table of the House. By Returns which were now before the House, it would be found, that on the 10th of March a letter was written to Lord Glenelg by Lord Durham, containing a memorandum of the establishment proposed, so far as he could judge of the assistance which he should require. That was on the 10th of March. On the 24th, after the question had been asked of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Glenelg wrote to Lord Durham in the following terms:— I have the honour to inform you that a desire has been expressed by a Member of the House of Commons that a statement of your Lordship's establishment as Governor-General of the British North American provinces and her Majesty's High Commissioner for the adjustment of certain affairs in Canada should be laid before the House. Lord John Russell, on the part of her Majesty's Government, having assented to this request, I shall be obliged if your Lordship will furnish me with a statement of your establishment for this purpose. This was on the 24th of March, the Return having been sent by Lord Durham on the 10th, and as Lord Glenelg asked Lord Durham for his appointments, it appeared that the Cabinet had left him to arrange the matter himself, and did not tell him what they would allow. On the 26th of March a letter was written by Lord Durham to Lord Glenelg, and it stated that Her Majesty having been graciously pleased to intrust to me the general Government of six provinces in North America, the entire administration of affairs of one province during the suspension of the ordinary form of Government, and a separate Commission for the adjustment of weighty affairs affecting the permanent welfare of all her Majesty's possessions in North America, I must require, for the due performance of those important and multifarious functions, the most zealous and efficient co-operation. He was convinced that the efficient cooperation of the House of Commons would not have been withheld. I feel it due to those who leave this country on this arduous and difficult service to ensure to them adequate and honourable remuneration. He would go along with the noble Lord in this too, and would express his opinion that a proper remuneration should be given. By this feeling I have been influenced in the formation of an establishment for carrying on the Government of North America, and have the honour of inclosing you a copy of my letter to Sir George Grey of the 10th instant, in which are included the details which your Lordship requests. I have also to state to your Lordship that I have received from the Commander of the Forces permission to avail myself of the services of four paid aides-de-camp, whose assistance will be urgently required in the various personal communications which I must necessarily make to the Lieutenant-Governors and commanders of Her Majesty's forces in the different provinces placed under my Government. I have now given to your Lordship all the information I can afford you at the present time. On my arrival in North America I may possibly find it necessary to require further executive assistance, but I can assure your Lordship that I shall ever be guided by as strict an attention to economy as is consistent with what is, I own to you, my primary object, the efficiency of the public service. He had felt it his duty to bring this question forward before Lord Durham started on his mission, that the House might express its opinion as to whether the noble Lord should have the power of putting the country to unlimited expense, or whether the expenses of his establishment should be limited to something about the amount of the expenses of the establishment, including salary, of his predecessor, Lord Gosford, which was 12,678l. per annum. When a man, having the abilities and the disposition to serve his country, made the offer of his services, or consented to take office, he only did that which it was quite proper he should do; but if the services of the noble Earl were thought worthy to be employed, he considered it much better that the individual should receive pay for them than that by rendering them gratuitously, the country should incur a greater expense than if a salary had been afforded. He thought instances might be found in which that had happened, viz., that the acceptance of gratuitous services had been more costly to the country than the payment of a fixed salary would have been. He had always thought that the government formed the administration of persons employed by it; he did not believe, that it had been the practice to leave it to any officer whom it employed rather to form his administration, or to determine how few or how many that administration should comprise. If report spoke truly, the mission of the noble Lord was to be on such a scale of splendour and expense, that he thought it due to the House that her Majesty's Ministers should be called on to state what were the circumstances under which the noble Lord would embark for Canada, and that this House should have the opportunity of determining whether it would give its assent to the noble Lord being empowered to incur an unlimited expense; whether he should be allowed to have an immense establishment, comprising, as it was said the noble Lord's was to comprise, sixty or seventy individuals; or whether it would not rather that the noble Lord received a fixed salary, and that some limit were set to his expenses, so as to make them approach very nearly to the expenses of the establishment of his predecessor. He found in the memoranda of the salaries required for the establishment of the noble Lord, that the Governor-General was to be put down blank. There was to be no remuneration for the services of the Governor-General; he offered them gratuitously; but he thought they were bound to look at the whole of the bargain that it was proposed to make. He concluded that the Private Secretary of the Governor-General was also to receive no salary, for, in place of any emolument being set down for that officer, the entry was also blank. No doubt that the noble Lord proposed to render his services to the country in a very handsome and chivalrous way, and no less must be said of the noble Lord's Private Secretary, who, he believed, was Mr. Edward Ellice; but he did not think, that this got rid of the objection to unlimited power being given, or to the expense of the noble Lord's establishment. From the memoranda to which he had already referred, it appeared that, besides the Private Secretary, the Governor-General was to take four other secretaries. There was the Chief Secretary at 1,500l. a-year; there was the Military Secretary—a most unexceptionable gentleman, certainly as gallant and highly distinguished an officer as ever trod the soil; he was to receive 700l. a-year; and then there were two Assistant Secretaries or clerks at 600l. a-year. These salaries of the Secretaries amounted altogether to 2,800l. per annum; the salaries of Lord Gosford's secretaries amounted to 1,505l. per annum. Why should the noble Lord take with him this number of secretaries, and at so great an amount of cost to the country in salaries, he could not conceive. He believed there never was an instance before of a person, being similarly employed, a requiring so many attachés as did Lord Durham. After the secretaries came another person who was to be in the retinue of the Lord High Commissioner, he being described as the noble Lord's "legal adviser." He had taken great pains to examine the establishments of former Lord High Commissioners, and in none of them he had found a legal adviser one of the appendages. Now, as there were already in Canada an Attorney-General and a Solicitor-General, with a salary of 500l. per annum each, gentlemen who were no doubt very respectable in their way, and when they found that there was a legal adviser proposed, with a salary of 1,500l. per annum, he thought it was of importance that they should know who this legal adviser was to be. This was information which, in his opinion, the House ought to possess, it being intended, he imagined, that the officer in question should, in a great measure, supersede the other legal Gentleman he had mentioned, and it being unquestionable that very great responsibility would devolve on him. By the letter of Lord Durham they were also informed, that the Lord High Commissioner was to have the services of four paid aides-de-camp; and when he saw it stated, that they would be urgently required to ride fast all over the country, he was induced to make some inquiry to ascertain the number of aides-de-camp that had been required by as great and illustrious a commander as our service ever could boast. The Duke of Wellington, when field mar-shall in 1815, found that six paid aides-de-camp were sufficient: but when he had the command not only of our own army, but of the allied troops of all the foreign nations engaged with us in carrying on the war, had he eight aides-de-camp? No; he had only four. Now he (Lord Chandos) would put it to the House whether there was any comparison to be instituted between the importance of the services likely to be rendered by the Lord High Commissioner in Canada, and that of the duties which were performed by the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsula? It should be stated, that the Duke of Wellington had objected to officers being taken from the ranks to serve as aides-de-camp without permission from head-quarters. But he begged to ask what was all this for? If the noble Lord, high in rank and station, and one to whom this country looked with respect—if he were going to some great country where splendor was required, and it would be desirable for the riches and power of his own country to be displayed, the case would be essentially different; but the present was an instance of an individual going to a country where anything like splendor was unknown, and where a Lord High Commissioner was, in his opinion, more likely to conciliate by a quiet demeanour, and by an unostentatious government, than by all the display and splendor proposed by the noble Lord. Did the noble Lord suppose the discontent which had existed in Canada, having arisen in a great measure from the amount of the civil expenditure—did he suppose, that by carrying with him a large number of aides-de-camp,—that by surrounding himself by a numerous body of attaches—that by a profuse expenditure and an extraordinary display of magnificence, he should be likely to succeed in calming the discontent, and in reconciling men's minds to the new government? He thought, that the gallant Officer who was now in Canada had the necessary degree of firmness, and was as well able to conciliate as would be the noble Earl in his capacity of Lord High Commissioner with all his splendor. He would repeat that such display was not wanted in a country where one of the great evils of which they complained was, the existence of poverty to a great extent; an exhibition of splendor there, was not only not necessary, but was not likely to be favourably received. He must say, he had felt not a little surprise that no other Gentleman in the House had felt it his duty to allude to this question, because, as they all very well knew, there were many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who used to be much in the habit of taking a deep interest in the financial affairs of the country, and who, when they sat on the Opposition side of the House, were always awake to things of that sort. He should have been glad if some of those hon. Gentlemen had taken the matter up; but, as they had been silent, feeling its importance, he had considered it his duty to bring it under the consideration of the House, with the view of obtaining the expression of their opinion. He must say, he considered it something in the nature of a job. He thought it probable that the noble Lord was looked upon with some degree of jealousy, and that to have found him an appointment at home suitable to his high rank and great ability, might have been an inconvenience. He thought it probable, that the Lord High Commissionership of Canada was given to the noble Lord with the view of removing him to a distant part, where he would not inconvenience the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and where he would have the opportunity of displaying his talents and his power. He had no wish to deny to the noble Lord any portion of the credit that was due to him on account of his talents and worthiness as an English country gentleman; he knew he was greatly respected in the county where he resided, and he should lament if any thing he said were suffered to detract from what was due to the noble Lord in that capacity. One of the questions which he wished to ask the Government was, whether the noble Lord was to be allowed any outfit? In the reports of his intended magnificence, they had heard of the plate he proposed to take with him, and of the great number of servants that were to be hired, and he thought that the questions which naturally resulted from such reports were—was the country to be charged with the outfit? and if it were, what was to be the cost? Would they allow him the same outfit as was allowed to the Governor-General of India or to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland—say 20,000l. or 30,000l.? Would they do this, or would they give him neither allowance for outfit nor fixed salary, but say he should have the power of putting the country to an unlimited expense? If the latter were the proposition, he would say, he decidedly objected to it; he thought it would create a precedent that would be dangerous in itself, and that such an arrangement was not likely to be of the slightest benefit. What were the opinions of the noble Lord himself on such subjects. In the year 1817, when Mr. Lambton, he made a severe attack on Mr. Canning, the expenses of the right hon. Gentleman's embassy to Lisbon being then under consideration. He thought he could not do better than quote part of the speech of the noble Lord on that occasion. On the 6th of May, in 1817, towards the end of a very long speech, Mr. Lambton said:—"Under all these considerations, he called on the House to come to a decision on the merits of the case. He had now to put to the test the sincerity of the professions of the House, of economy and vigilance over the extravagant conduct of Ministers. He showed them a case in which the public money had been most culpably and disgracefully squandered; no sort of necessity had been shown, in the papers which the Government had submitted, as their justification: on the contrary, every document tended to prove most clearly, that in no one instance had they more abused the confidence reposed in them by Parliament than in the present. If in these times of distress and discontent it was important for the House, to acquire a reputation of strict public virtue and incorruptibility, they would mark their sense of this proceeding, and show the people that they still retained within themselves the means of satisfying their just claims, and of protecting them against the culpable and profligate extravagance of Ministers."* In conclusion, he would call on the House to watch narrowly, the expense that the country would be put to on account of this mission. Lord Gosford was able to carry on the government at an expense of 8,000l., and he did not see why any one who was going out with the same rank should have the power of putting the country to a greater expense. There was, to be sure, one title added to the name of the noble Lord, which was not allowed to that of Lord Gosford; the noble Lord was Lord High Commissioner, and Lord Gosford was High Commissioner only; but was that a difference such as would justify them in allowing to the noble Lord an unlimited power of expending the public money? He now begged to move the resolution which he had already read.

Mr. Praed

in seconding the motion, observed, that the present was one of those cases which especially required to be brought under the consideration of the House of Commons, and he begged it to be distinctly understood, that no part of its effect would be to deprive the noble Earl of any of the just means or advantages necessary to an effective discharge of his duty. Of what importance to him could be a few aides-de-camp, more or less, or an additional lieutenant or two? But an abuse of liberal expenditure would be not only a waste of the public money, but possibly an impediment to the public service; for let it not be forgotten, that the noble Earl was going out to a colony, especially jealous of superfluous expense; that the de- * Hansard, vol. xxxvi. p.166. puties from Lower Canada had expressly stated, that the calculations of the mother country with regard to expense were wholly unsuited to the circumstances of our North American colonies. Mr. John Neilson one of those examined was asked this question:—"You approve of the cession of the whole revenue, provided a sufficient civil list be secured?" He answered," Certainly. They are very bad managers of our revenue in England: they are accustomed in their own persons, to a far larger scale of expenditure than we are here, and they are unfitted to deal with a public revenue so moderate as ours." So much for the testimony of one qualified to pronounce an opinion; but what said the letter of Lord Durham itself, who was now going out to Canada with an equipment and cortege that would astonish the people of that colony? It was a letter in every respect most unsatisfactory: it formed no guide as to the nature of the duties which the noble Lord would have to discharge. In answer to an inquiry with regard to expense, he says," that being intrusted with a separate commission for the adjustment of weighty affairs, affecting the permanent welfare of all her Majesty's possessions in North America, I must require for the due performance of these multifarious and important functions the most zealous and efficient co-operation." He (Mr. Praed) desired to know how it happened that the noble Earl was to have the adjustment of any affairs whatever. Surely it was understood that he was going out not to settle, but merely to inquire; from his letter, however, the very contrary would appear, and when asked for precise sums, and items of account, he replied to the inquiry with a statement about multifarious and important duties to perform. With trope and metaphor his Lordship comes, Phrases for figures, similes for sums. His Lordship also stated, that he would require four paid aides-de-camp. Were these to be for the purpose of carrying important communications, or were they merely to swell the pomp and splendor of the Governor? His Lordship then proceeded to say, that he had now given all the information he could afford, and, considering that all this information had been given fourteen days before, and considered unsatisfactory, it was rather curious that his Lordship should say, at this time it was all he could afford. His Lordship said on his arrival in America he would afford—what? further information? No such thing, he might, perhaps, require further executive assistance. Then there was the legal adviser, who was to supersede the Attorney and Solicitor General; the House certainly required some explanation on this subject. Now, he asked with his noble Friend, what were they to get by this mission? He looked at it with the greatest suspicion, because he did not anticipate any great benefits from it. He would not say anything as to the personal fitness of the noble Earl—that would be trenching on the prerogative of the Crown; but he thought all this parade—these four paid, and four unpaid aides-de-camp—were, particularly as the rebellion was put down, extremely useless on a mission, the end of which was, merely to carry into effect a commission of inquiry—to add to our already immense mass of Canadian information. He expected nothing from this inquiry, but another great blue book, like the last. For the various reasons which these considerations suggested, he should give the motion his support, confident that it was a resolution which the House ought to adopt, and confident at the same time, that the mission to which it had reference, would end in failure and disappointment, as St. Paul's great cupola just brought to bed, After large labour, of a small pin's head.

Lord John Russell

must, in the first place, remark, that the noble Lord had followed a very bad practice, though he was not the beginner of it, of bringing forward a motion like the present, of very considerable importance, without having given the House any previous information respecting it. The noble Lord was aware that Lord Durham was about to discharge a most important duty—the noble Lord was aware that Lord Durham was going out to Canada to fill a most important situation—the noble Lord was aware that the Government had charged the noble Earl with very high duties, and that they were responsible to the country for the appointment they had made; and yet the noble Lord had thought proper to bring forward a motion inculpating Lord Durham, and this, too, without giving any notice to the House that such a motion was to be made. The noble Lord had only told them that he would call the attention of the House to the subject. This was the ordinary way giving notice on that which it was not to be supposed would be the subject matter of a motion, or which, if a motion were made on it, was one that could not be objected to. The noble Lord had merely told the House he would call attention to the subject. If then a contrary practice were to be introduced, if it was intended that when a motion of censure upon an individual were to be proposed, it was to be brought forward without any previous information to the party accused, then he could not say, that any such practice would be useful to that House. With respect to the motion itself, he did think that it was one of a very paltry character. As to the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, he seemed to know nothing either of the state of Canada or the measures that were under consideration. Canada having been disturbed by insurrection, Canada, too, having likewise been agitated by the discords between the different bodies comprising her Legislature, that Douse had thought proper to suspend her Legislature altogether, with the view of making arrangements, if it were possible, for having an harmonious Government established. It was proposed to intrust, under such circumstances, very great and important duties in that country to an individual whose talents, and whose accomplishments, and whose fitness for such an office the noble Lord had not denied. The noble Lord had not stated a single objection to that appointment, no more than any other Member of the House during the discussions upon the measure had attempted to show, that the person who had been selected by the Government was not perfectly fitted for the office, and who had undertaken its duties, as he thoroughly believed, from a sincere wish to serve his country. No one had attempted to show, that the noble Earl was not perfectly competent to discharge the functions of so high and important a situation. The only attack which the noble Lord had made was upon the expenses of the mission of Lord Durham. He said, that the motion of the noble Lord was merely an attempt to cramp the exertions of the Governor-General. It was merely an attempt at attack upon a minor point, when all the attacks upon the greater part of the measure had failed. It was only an attempt to aim at the smaller matters connected with the mission, and it was, too, an attempt to raise unfounded prejudices for the purpose of baffling in some degree the effect of the mission intrusted by the Government to Lord Durham. It was this, and nothing else. The noble Lord had proposed, with respect to Lord Durham, that his expenses should be defined, and that they ought to be measured by the expenses of Lord Gosford, and the noble Lord seemed to imagine that Lord Gem-ford had been sent to Canada to receive a salary for his services. Lord Gosford had not been sent to Canada with a salary—he had been sent with the mere ordinary form of having his expenses paid, with certainly the instruction that economy should be attended to; and it was also to be observed that Lord Gosford had with him two other Commissioners, whose expenses were not included in the account referred to by the noble Lord. But then it was to be remembered, that Lord Durham was intrusted with functions which had nothing to do with those that had been confided to Lord Gosford. Lord Durham, besides being Governor-General of Canada, was also high Commissioner over other provinces in North America, and, in addition to his other most important duties, he had, together with a Council to be named by himself, to frame laws for the regulation of Canada until the Legislature, to be afterwards sanctioned by Parliament, was established. It was to be recollected, too, that a Legislature had existed in Canada during the time that Lord Gosford was governor. The noble Lord knew, that the machinery of that Legislature was carried on at very considerable expense. The amount of the sums paid in the year to the Speaker and Members of the House of Assembly, during the time that the Constitution was in force, was very considerable; so that if the noble Lord meant to contend, that the whole of the expense of Lord Durham's mission was to fall upon this country, it was to be remembered that the total amount of the whole of the revenues of Canada, a great part of which were consumed in the expenses of the Legislature, were expenses that would not be incurred during the time that Lord Durham would stay in Lower Canada. The noble Lord had, indeed, said that many remarks had been made with respect to the expenses of Lord Durham's mission, which were not to be found in the papers. Now, as to the particular number of servants and grooms which Lord Durham meant to take out, he could not give the noble Lord any information; but then he was aware that rumours, and unfounded rumours too, had been circulated for the purpose of injuring Lord Durham's reputation. One of these rumours was to the effect that Lord Durham was to be furnished with an extensive service of plate. The origin of that rumour was, that Lord Durham had sent his plate to a goldsmith for the purpose of having it valued, and ensuring it during its passage to Canada. And that was one of the rumours which the noble Lord naturally believed, and which he thought, perhaps, justified him in the course of proceeding he had adopted. The noble Lord had also alluded to the aides-de-camp appointed by Lord Durham; and the noble Lord had also thought fit upon the present occasion, he did not say whether rightly or wrongly, to attack her Majesty's Government for Lord Durham's being sent to Canada. As to the hon. Gentleman, who seconded the motion, his ignorance made him think, that all danger was at an end. On the contrary, the state of Canada was critical. It was to be observed, that the situation to which Lord Durham had been nominated was much more consonant with the great situation of a governor-general of India, or the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, than to that of an ordinary governor. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whoever he might be, had always four aides-de-camp, and generally several others were appointed by him. The noble Lord had mentioned the name of the Duke of Wellington. That was only for the purpose of exciting a prejudice in the House. Whoever the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland might be, he said it would be unfair to institute such a comparison between him and the Duke of Wellington, and to say of him that he was not to be placed on an equality with the Duke of Wellington, who had commanded all the armies of Europe. The number of aides-de-camp were to be looked to, and considered as to what were at the moment the rank and the station of the persons to whom they were attached, and the office to which they belonged. He did think, that there was one reason why Lord Durham should have the number of aides-de-camp which had been objected to, and that was, he thought, a perfectly valid one it was, that he might wish to make confidential communications with the other governors of the North American provinces, or the British minister at Washington, and might think it better to intrust an aide-de-camp to proceed with them, than transmit them by post, or send them by a common courier. Another appointment of Lord Durham's had also been much criticised—it was that of "a legal adviser." On this subject, it might be observed, that peculiar duties were imposed upon Lord Durham; for he had to consider whether he should bring forward certain propositions, for the pur- pose of their enactment, before the Special Council, of which he was himself to be the bead. He ventured to say, that, possessed of talents, as Lord Durham was, which particularly fitted him for the situation of governor, yet it could hardly be expected, from him that he could propose such measures as under the circumstances, would be required without the legal advice of a person fully competent to discharge that duty towards him. The noble Lord had alluded to the Attorney and Solicitor-General of Canada, and asked, could not they perform this duty. He had no fault to find with those law advisers; but the question resolved itself to this: Must not some such matter be left to the discretion and responsibility of the Government for the time? When Lord Durham mentioned the matter to the Government, it was considered by them he had taken a correct view of it, and they believed, that its adoption would tend to the successful termination of his Lordship's mission. As to the person in view for such an appointment, he was not aware of any particular person at the present moment; but he thought, that the appointment in itself was a very proper one. Now, the noble Lord had said, that it was by a display of magnificence of this kind, that Lord Durham would endeavour to govern the province of Lower Canada. This was said by the noble Lord, and yet the noble Lord admitted, indeed he could not deny, that Lord Durham did not rely upon magnificence or upon display; but upon his talents, his energy, his character, his well-known principles, his acquaintance with the history and the constitution of various countries, and it was these means and these qualifications which gave him influence wherever his country might place him, or in any station that he might happen to hold. Then the noble Lord had alluded to former examples, and by way of a personal taunt, he had brought against Lord Durham a motion, which, as Mr. Lambton, he had made respecting the expensive mission of Mr. Canning to Lisbon. That sounded very well, as if it were similar to the mission upon which Lord Durham had been engaged, and as if the objection could be of a similar character. He thought, notwithstanding the splendid speech of Mr. Canning—the most splendid, perhaps, he had ever made—that the general impression was, that Mr. Canning had been sent upon an expensive mission without there being a sufficient reason for incurring the expense, and that there was no real necessity for sending Mr. Canning, nor was there any weighty and particular business to be performed. He remembered the sarcastic observation of a gentleman upon this occasion who said to him, "whatever you in the Opposition may think of the competency or incompetency of those who fill certain situations in the Government, you cannot, at least, deny that our ambassador to Lisbon is fully competent to hold that situation." It was, then, upon that objection, that Lord Durham had founded his motion against Mr. Canning; but then he had never denied, nor at any former time had the Opposition denied, that where important duties were to be performed, great charges must be incurred; that where a public duty was to be discharged, and an individual was chosen by his Sovereign to perform an arduous duty, that in such a case, the expenses were, to a certain degree, to be regarded as a matter of indifference, and it was left to circumstances to determine them; and as a proof of this, he referred to the speech of Earl Durham upon the very motion respecting Mr. Canning. Upon that occasion, it was said by Lord Durham, that The expense of Sir Charles Stuart had been referred to, but that could form no precedent for the expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole of Sir Charles Stuart's expenses were occasioned by the Peninsular war. He actually held the reins of the Portuguese Government. He was a member, he believed, the sole efficient member of the regency, and was forced to incur the whole of his large expenditure, to discharge the high official duties of his situation. But the case was very different when the war had ceased, and when the ambassador was no longer a member of the Portuguese government,"* There Lord Durham had given as a reason for the expenses of Sir C. Stuart's mission, his being an efficient member of the regency, and holding the reins of the Portuguese government. Then by this it appeared as if Lord Durham had anticipated the noble Lord's motion, and, at the very time that he was bringing forward his own motion respecting Mr. Canning, as if he were guarding against the attack that was afterwards to be made on himself; for he justified expense when, according to his own words, there must be a "large expenditure incurred in the discharge of high official duties." In the discharge of these duties he had declared, that larger expenses must be incurred. There had been many * Hansard, vol. xxxvi. p. 165. instances of cases in which large expenses were incurred upon special missions; and, before he sat down, he meant to read for the House a few of the cases in which they had been incurred. It might be thought that this was not a good system, and that it ought to be abolished. He did not think so. It had always been the system acted upon in this country. An ordinary salary was allotted for ordinary services; but, upon special occasions, and when persons were sent out specially, and had no limited time to stay, nor exact expenses to incur, a different course had been adopted. Here were a few of the instances in which special expenses had been incurred:—1808, Mr. Hookham Frere, Spain, 12,307l., September 1808, to September 1809; 1808, Mr. Villiers, Portugal, 17,500l., November 1808, to February 1810; 1809, Marquess Wellesley, Spain, 13,584l., May to November 1809; 1813, Earl of Aberdeen, Vienna, &c., 15,220l., August 1813, to September 1814; 1813, Earl of Clancarty, the Hague, &c., 29,005l., November 1813, to May 1816; 1814, Viscount Castlereagh, Frankfort and Clermont, 11,000l., January to June 1814; ditto, Vienna, 21,596l. June 1814 to April 1815. What was the case with respect to those expenses? There had been considerable expenses incurred in the attendance upon Congress, at which the affairs of Europe were to be arranged. The objection to Mr. Canning's embassy to Lisbon was, that expenses were incurred where there was no court, and where there was no important business to be done. But Lord Castlereagh was engaged upon important business, and it was not his fault if great expenses were incurred. He did not believe, that any party in the House denied, that important duties were to be performed. It was not, and it could not be denied, that these important duties were to be discharged, and it could not be denied, that it was necessary, that a court should be attended to. Here, too, were most important duties to be discharged, and yet an endeavour was made to nibble at the expenses, to cut off a secretary, or to find fault with a number of servants, for the purpose of its being palmed upon the House as a kind of popular motion. But to proceed with the expenses of special missions:—1815, Lord Castlereagh, Paris, 13,500l., June 1815, to January 1816; 1818, Lord Castlereagh, Aix-la-Chapelle, 7,948l., August to December, 1818; 1825, Sir C. Stuart, Lisbon and Rio, 24,647l., January, 1825, to October, 1826. This was a most important mission, for Sir C, Stuart was the bearer of proposals, of which they all recollected the consequences, as by them a constitution was introduced into Portugal. The expense of that mission, however, appeared to be 24,674l. He had quoted these instances and examples of special missions, for the purpose of showing that Lord Durham was not the first person sent by this country, who was not required to fix a very exact limit to his expenses beforehand. Where great and important duties were to be performed, the person chosen to perform them was one who was considered the person best calculated to execute such important duties. No exception should be made with respect to Lord Durham, in such a case, and under such circumstances. He found no one—not even the noble Lord who had brought forward the present motion—to find fault with the qualifications of Lord Durham, or to express a doubt as to the manner in which he would perform his duty. He said, then, that the state of Canada was most critical, and that much must depend upon the judgment and the energy shown by the noble Earl in the due execution, and the suitable performance of his duty. He said, that one of the great faults of the Government of these North American colonies was, that the station generally of the Governor of those colonies was not a station of more consideration, and of more importance than it had been, so that men of the highest talents might be induced to undertake the duties connected with the office of Governor. But, at all events, he did say, that at the present moment, they could not overrate the importance of those duties, or the necessity of having a man of the highest talents to execute them. Therefore it was, that he asked of the House, if it wished to see those duties well performed, not to cramp the exertions of Lord Durham, in performing such duties, by agreeing to the present motion. He asked of that House, if they were satisfied with the appointment that had been made, if they would not censure what was just, if they would not throw an impediment in the way of the good to be hoped from the future, not to agree to a paltry motion of this kind. It was wished that they now, by hesitating at the expense likely to be incurred, would indirectly express that want of confidence which the House would not express, when a motion to that effect was honestly brought before it.

Captain Wood

was, he said, most willing to meet the challenge of the noble Lord, as to the character and talents of Lord Durham. They had not spoken of the character and talents of Lord Durham as they might have done, and they had refrained from doing so, not because they admired that noble Lord, but out of respect to her Majesty, who had appointed him. Respect for the prerogative of the Crown was no rule with hon. Gentlemen opposite. A noble relative of his own had been appointed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, when in office, to the embassy of Russia; but hon. Gentlemen opposite searched the noble Lord's speeches, and found out an expression in which he (Captain Wood) did not concur, and which he believed the noble Lord himself scarcely felt, and had made this expression a reason for an address to the Crown, that the noble Lord should not be appointed to his important office. He (Captain Wood) thought, that if he were to search through the noble Earl's speeches, he might find him advocating the most extreme changes in the constitution, and prove him not to be the man to assuage in Canada those discontents, which the noble Lord had been so active in raising in England.

Mr. James

was as anxious as any man in the House to promote a wise economy, but he did not see how anything in the nature of a wise economy could be promoted by the noble Lord's motion. He believed that Lord Durham had undertaken this arduous and onerous commission, most reluctantly—that, in fact, he had only undertaken it to oblige her Majesty: and he did not conceive that it would have been too much even if Government had given the noble Lord a carte blanche to spend whatever he thought proper; safely depending upon the noble Lord's high honour and integrity, not to spend one pound more than he deemed actually necessary for the purpose of carrying his important mission to a satisfactory result.

Colonel Sibthorp

did not mean to do any thing which should disoblige her Majesty. The noble Lord talked of the motion being a paltry one; he had never heard a more paltry reply than the noble Lord's. The House was entitled to an explicit statement of what the expense of this mission would be. This was, forsooth, called a reformed, retrenching Government; but they seemed to him to be carrying on a continuous, fraudulent system of increasing the expenses of the country. The fact of the matter, as the noble Lord near him had just said, was, that Ministers found Lord Durham rather an inconvenient neighbour, so they put the country to the expense of sending him a long distance, out of their way. Whatever opinion the noble Lord might have, about the reports circulated on this subject, he believed a great many of them to be well founded. The whole concern was a manifest job.

Mr. Ellice

, jun., (St. Andrew's) at that late hour of the night, would trouble the House with but very few words. He did not see that it was necessary for any one on that side of the House, much less so humble an individual as himself, to defend the appointment of Lord Durham. The best proof of the excellence of that appointment was, the bitterness and malignity with which it was assailed by hon. Members opposite. The fury and vehemence with which hon. Members opposite attacked Lord Durham, would only render his character higher, and his appointment more popular than ever. He did not, of course, suppose that the people of this country would be ill natured enough to say, that the noble Lord, in bringing forward this motion, was actuated by any feeling of jealousy that he had not been deemed a better pacificator than Lord Durham, or that the hon. Seconder of the motion was influenced by any feeling of annoyance at not having been selected as the best possible legal adviser; but the people of this country would see and say that the motion was brought forward in a spirit of enmity to the political principles on the basis of which, it was well known that Lord Durham was about to proceed on his important mission. One word with regard to himself. It had been stated, that it would have been more economical if he had been paid a salary, and he saw, in a Tory print of that morning, that his salary was described as l. s. d. with nothing underneath. He could only state, that when the communication was first made to him with regard to accepting this appointment of private secretary, a salary was proposed. He, without a moment's hesitation, refused positively to go out on those terms, because he thought himself amply remunerated for any trouble or pains he should take in the mission that was to take place, by the happy results that he hoped would occur. Deeply interested as he was, in all that affected that country, if the result of the mission should cause a desirable change in the affairs of Canada, he should feel himself amply remunerated for any mere personal trouble that could possibly take place, and for the greatest services that he could possibly perform.

Sir E. Sugden

rose merely in consequence of the allusions that had been made to the appointment of a legal adviser. Before an adviser could be appointed, of course he took it for granted that there must be something to advise upon. If it was to be upon the laws of Canada, he must remind the House of what had happened to the Hollander, who came to England to teach Dutch, and who found, that it was first necessary for him to learn English. So if the legal adviser was to go to Canada, to advise upon the laws of Canada, he must first learn them. But if this were not the purpose of the appointment, perhaps it was to advise as to what ought to be the constitution, or what permanent measure should be adopted with regard to Canada. He should object to either purpose. He should object to strike out a new constitution for Canada by the aid of any lawyer, however able. He hoped, therefore, as regarded the legal adviser, that they should hear a better account as to what were to be his functions. He wished to hear from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) what really were to be the functions of that gentleman.

Mr. Hume

having been alluded to in the course of the debate felt called upon to address a few words to the House. He must acknowledge that he heard with great astonishment, the whole of the debate on this subject. It was the first time that he ever heard economy professed by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and he could not believe, that they could be serious. It appeared to him, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had brought forward this subject, in order to annoy the gentlemen on that (the ministerial) side of the House; and this, too, without any serious intention of carrying it into effect. He had never heard a motion of this purport proceed from the other side of the House before that night, When he looked at what their conduct was with regard to Canada—when he saw them make no opposition to sending out brigades of guards and whole detachments of troops at an expence of about 400,000l.—were they, after this, to refuse a latitude to the individual who was to be accountable for the result of this very expensive preparation? It appeared to him, that by such a proceeding they were stultifying themselves. This was the language made use of by the noble Lord who made this motion, No man of sense could object to the words of the motion; but he judged of its object by the language used by those who brought forward the motion. What was the amount of the expenses of this mission, as appeared by the papers before the House? Not more than 3,500l. He saw nothing set down for the Earl of Durham. There was, indeed, the legal adviser, about whom so much fuss had been made. Some Gentlemen opposite, seemed to be very sore and jealous on this point. He called upon the noble Marquess to look at the real expense of this mission. There was nothing in the papers before the House, to show that the expense would be greater than the mission of Lord Gosford. If there was, let the noble Marquess point it out. If, indeed, he added to the expense of the mission, the expense of sending out so many regiments of infantry and squadrons of cavalry, there would appear to be a very considerable expense incurred by Lord Durham as governor, and his would be a very expensive Government. The proposal of the noble Marquess was to the effect which every body wished—namely, that the expense should be kept within reasonable bounds, consistently with the station of Lord Durham; but what was the language in which that proposal was made? The bitterness of that language showed, that there was something in the background. Was it not, in truth, an attempt to retaliate for the abortive mission of the Marquess of Londonderry? He should like to know, whether the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire approved of this motion or not. Did not the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex show the bitterness with which this attack was made upon the Earl of Durham, and did not that speech show, that, this motion was now brought forward, because the Marquess of Londonderry was attacked and prevented from going on his mission. Did not this debate show, that this was a mere formal question. This was not a question of ten, twelve, or twenty thousand pounds—the whole tenor of the debate showed, that it was a mere personal attack upon the Earl of Durham. It did not appear to him to be a question of economy one way or the other, but a mere personal attack, and he therefore could not support it.

Mr. Lambton

said, it had not been his intention to obtrude upon the House on this subject, for reasons which it was not necessary to mention. But an expression had fallen from the noble Marquess in the course of this debate which he could riot allow to pass in silence. The noble Marquess stated, that he considered the appointment of his noble relative a job. If the noble Marquess meant to say, that his noble relative had, in the slightest degree, shared or participated in what the noble Marquess called a job, he did say from the confidence he had in the high and honourable feelings of his noble relative, that a greater untruth had never been uttered against any man. ["Order!" and "chair!"]

The Speaker

was sure the hon. Member would see the necessity of explaining the term he had made use of in the heat of debate.

Mr. Lambton

said, he bowed to the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, and would say, that a greater mistake or misrepresentation had never been made. It did appear to him, that if ever the House was called upon to lay aside party feeling, it was upon the subject of this important appointment. In another place, when his noble relative was addressed upon this subject, he was treated by the most influential men of the Conservative party in what appeared to him to be a totally different manner from that which was exhibited on this occasion by the other side of the House. The most influential men of the Conservative party in the other House forbore, and generously forbore, from saying anything until they could form a judgment upon a consideration of his noble relative's acts. They said, they would do so when they knew what those acts were, but the same party in that House had thought proper to bring forward this motion before they could know what those acts were. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Chandos) had acted in a totally different manner from that pursued in the other House of Parliament. The noble Marquess had, he thought, shown a want of fairness and courtesy in never having the slightest intimation sent to his noble relative that such a question would be put. The noble Marquess came down night after night putting these questions behind the back of his noble relative. It was perfectly competent for the noble Marquess to get any Peer who was actuated by the same sentiments as the noble Marquess to put questions to his noble relative. The noble Marquess knew that his noble relative had been in his place to answer any questions that should be put to him for many nights running. He could only say, that he would not have risen if it had not been for an observation which he conceived to have been personally offensive to his noble relative; and he could only say, in conclusion, that his noble relative had accepted this most important and difficult situation at great self-sacrifice; and he could assure the House that nothing on earth could have induced his noble relative to accept the situation but an imperative sense of public duty.

Lord John Russell

, in rising to set the House right, begged to say that with regard to the first resolution he wished to move the previous question.

Sir R. Peel

said, he had heard such extraordinary comments made in the course of this debate upon the motives of his noble Friend with whom this motion had originated, and upon the demand made in the House of Commons with respect to the public expenditure, that he felt it absolutely necessary to rise for the purpose of protesting against the precedent sought to be established. He thought, that the hon. Gentleman, who, with a very natural feeling, prompted by fraternal affection, had risen on that side of the House, could not imply, that the Opposition had shown any disposition unfairly to question the appointment of Lord Durham. He did not consider, that they were entitled to call in question the qualifications of the Earl of Durham for the office to which he had been appointed. Her Majesty had the unquestionable prerogative of selecting whom she should think proper to fill that office; and he should think it inconsistent with the respect which he owed to the Crown and the privileges which the Crown exercised, if he made the particular qualifications of the noble Earl the subject of discussion in the House of Commons. He must say, that he had not heard in the course of the debate upon the Canadian affairs any expression which Lord Durham had a fair right to complain of. He did believe, that never had any appointment been made which, considering the excitement that prevailed with respect to party politics, had been treated with more perfect fairness by the opponents of her Majesty's Ministers than the appointment of Lord Durham. He considered this question to be one entirely apart from the jurisdiction of the House of Commons; but, at the same time, he must contend for the absolute right of the House of commons to bring forward propositions relative to the public expenditure. And he must say, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had not discharged his duty in a manner becoming a Minister of the Crown when, upon this question of expense being raised, the noble Lord imputed it to unbecoming motives. What would have been said of the Opposition, in the Government, if the Opposition had questioned the expenditure of any public office, if no satisfactory answer had been given to the question, but they had taunted their opponents with unfairness, or if, in questioning the expense of a public establishment or arrangement, they had imputed to the Opposition that they had been influenced by motives of party hostility or mean malignity? Such conduct would have been justly characterised as little short of treason to the privileges of the House of Commons, and an insult to the understanding of its Members. In professing his concurrence with the course pursued throughout the Canada discussion, he neither meant to raise any question as to the qualifications of Lord Durham, nor did he then question them in the slightest degree; but, consistently with that intention, he had a perfect right, and after the manner in which he had been challenged he would exercise the right of inquiry, whether or not the establishment proposed for Lord Durham did not exceed the just bounds of economy? He did not in this respect find any fault with Lord Durham—the fault he found was with her Majesty's Government. He must say, that the first letter written by Lord Glenelg to Lord Durham, the first letter that appeared in the papers, was a letter without precedent as being addressed by a Minister of the Crown to a public officer. The House would from thence see, that if the establishment proposed by Lord Durham had been ten times more extravagant than it was, the imputation would not have rested upon the department which left Lord Durham the exclusive judge of his own expenditure. He would ask, was it ever known, that a Minister of the Crown addressed a letter of this kind to a public officer about to proceed in the execution of his duty? Supposing it were desirable to prescribe beforehand the establishment, what authority ought there be to limit that establishment? Was it the individual himself, or was it the Treasury, after communication with that individual, and with the department to which he was responsible [Lord John Russell: So it was]. The noble Lord said so it was. But look at the letter of Lord Glenelg. No previous arrangement having been made on the subject, it apparently never occurred to the Government to determine what ought to be the proper outfit or establishment. But here was the letter of Lord Glenelg:— Downing-street, March 24,1838. My Lord—I have the honour to inform you, that a desire has been expressed by a Member of the House of Commons in his place, that a statement of your Lordship's establishment as Governor-General of the British North American provinces, and her Majesty's high Commissioner for the adjustment of certain affairs in Canada, should be laid before the House. Lord John Russell, on the part of her Majesty's Government, having assented to this request, I shall be obliged, if your Lordship will furnish me with a statement of your establishment for this purpose. I have, &c. (Signed) "GLENELG. The right hon. the Earl of Durham, G. C, B, &c. &c. He would say then, upon the terms of this letter, which was to be consulted for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of the writer, that it appeared to him that never were terms made use of which could more clearly acknowledge Lord Durham as the judge of the establishment which ought to accompany him to Canada; and he was surprised that Lord Durham, with the natural desire of every man going on any eminent service, in the first place, that that service should be effectually performed, and next, that those who accompany him should be amply remunerated, did not seek for a still more extensive establishment: but the treasury of the country should be the judge to correct this natural feeling in its officer, and to curtail within proper limits the establishment with which he ought to be accompanied. The course pursued by her Majesty's Government, he repeated, was entirely without precedent. He was bound to say of these estimates, admitting to the full extent the natural desire on the part of the noble Lord to insure the efficiency of his mission, and admitting also, that true economy often consisted in a sound and judicious exercise of liberality, admitting the weight of all these considerations, he was bound to say, that he thought the noble Lord's estimate of the expenses of his mission to be much larger than was necessary. First, there was a chief secretary, with a salary of 1,300l. a year, then a military secretary at 700l. a year, and then two under-secretaries; he did not mean to say 200 secretaries, though, perhaps in so saying he might only be anticipating what was to follow; no, but there were two under-secretaries at 300l. a year each, and then, besides all these, were to be a private secretary, and a legal adviser. Now, looking at these appointments only, if his opinion was asked on the subject, he was bound to say, that he considered them exceedingly large; he thought them enormous in reference to the duties which were to be performed. With respect to the legal adviser, with a salary of 1,500l. a-year, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, said, that he was not in the slightest degree aware of who was intended to fill that situation. Now, that being the case, he was really sorry for the noble Lord's ignorance on the subject. The noble Lord was, in this instance, like the phoenix, a vast species alone, for he could venture to say, the noble Lord was the only man in the House who did not know who the legal adviser of Lord Durham was to be. He would undertake, at least, to say, that there were many Members composing what was termed "her Majesty's opposition" who could confidentially inform the noble Lord upon the subject if called upon. [Name.] He certainly should not have considered himself entitled to name the individual to whom he referred, as the communication had been made to him privately, and it might possibly happen that he was mistaken. But of this he was quite sure, that in the communication which had been made to him, a trap had not been laid for the purpose of misleading him. And as the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard was one of those who called upon him to name the intended legal adviser of Lord Durham, he would only say, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman said to him, "I shall not be among you when the controverted Election Bill is discussed," that observation gave him distinctly to understand, that at the period in question the hon. and learned Gentleman's face would be directed towards the western possessions of her Majesty. Now, this was an inference, which, coupling the declarations of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, with the rumours which were previously in circulation on the subject, he thought a very remarkable one. [No!] Oh, then, the hon. and learned Member went out gratuitously, and in that case there was another candidate for the office of legal adviser. He thought, that when any one who knew the rumour previously in circulation, and then coupled with it the information which the hon. and learned Gentleman volunteered to confide to him, that he should not be here when the Controverted Elections Bill was discussed, he might very fairly infer, that nothing would induce the hon. and learned Member to abandon this measure, but the hope of rendering valuable service to the public by giving legal advice to the Governor-General of the Canadas. If he was mistaken in drawing this conclusion, he could only say, that he was extremely sorry for it; but that, at the same time, it was one into which he had fallen bonâ fide. However, the case might be, he must say, that he thought these half-confidences were very inconvenient, or at least the hon. and learned Member ought to have added a postscript, or warning note to this effect:—" Mind, I am not going to be legal adviser to the Governor-General of the Canadas." He must say, that he was rejoiced to hear, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not to be the legal adviser of Lord Durham; not from any personal objection to the hon. and learned Gentleman, or from any doubts as to his qualifications for such an office; but because he thought that, if these appointments were too freely given to Members of Parliament, it might amount to a virtual evasion of the statute of Anne, which rendered the appointment to a new office inconsistent with a seat in that House. Now, as to the necessity for the office at all, he must say that, considering that the Act which Lord Durham would have to administer was one of the very plainest and simplest description, he thought that the taking out a law adviser upon the subject, in addition to all the other Secretaries, was quite unnecessary and uncalled for. Then, again, was the point of outfit, upon which he thought that the House of Commons ought to have some information. With respect to the motion of his noble Friend, the question was simply this; that the establishment of Lord Gosford was a fair precedent to regulate that of Lord Durham. Now he put it to the House whether there was anything unfair in this very simple proposition. The hon. Member for Limerick, who considered that Lord Gosford's establishment was too large, thought also that that of Lord Durham ought not to exceed it. If that were the hon. Member's view of the case, it would be impossible for him to oppose the present motion, for he who opposed the present motion, must either hold the proposition that this was a subject which was not within the legitimate cognizance of the House of Commons, or must be prepared to maintain that the resolution was niggardly and parsimonious in its allowance of expenditure. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had taunted the hon. Member who had succeeded him, for what had fallen from him on this occasion, but did the hon. Member mean succeeded him as Member for the county of Middlesex, or in the advocacy of the doctrines of economy? For it so happened, that the hon. Gentleman had not only ceased to represent the county of Middlesex, but also to uphold the right of the House of Commons to meddle in matters concerning the public economy, without exposing itself to the imputation of personal malignity, or disappointment, or other unworthy motives to those who brought the subject forward. The hon. Gentleman declared, that this was the first occasion on which the advocacy of economy had proceeded from this (the Opposition, side of the House.) Now, it was always a tedious and invidious task to enter upon comparisons between the economical arrangements of one Government or another—but he would beg to state a few facts illustrative of the feelings of Government when he (Sir It. Peel) and his Friends were in office. [Mr. Hume: I did not allude to you.] Oh, the hon. Member did not allude to him (Sir Robert Peel.) Perhaps, he only alluded to the younger Members of that side. However, he was going to show that the attack of the hon. Member against former Governments, on the score of want of economy, was unfounded; and he should proceed to prove what he averred, by citing the practice of the Government in a precisely analogous case, when he was at the head of the Treasury. On that occasion he, in conjunction with his noble Friend (Lord Aberdeen), advised his Majesty to send an individual out to the Canadas to perform certain duties. The individual selected for this appointment was an individual of the first rank and station, Lord Amherst; a nobleman holding the rank of Earl in this country, a nobleman of no obscure name or station, and one who had never filled any subordinate office, but had recently filled the office of Governor-General of India, with all the gorgeous and royal splendor which surrounded that appointment. In the next place, let them consider the duties which Lord Amherst would have to perform in Canada. His Lordship was to be Governor-General of Canada, and also his Majesty's Royal Commissioner; so that, as far as titles went, the appointment was very analogous to that of Lord Durham. The duties which Lord Amherst would have to perform were thus described in a letter, dated April 2, 1835, from Lord Aberdeen to Lord Aylmer, notifying to the latter nobleman the appointment of Lord Amherst: This individual in the capacity of his Majesty's royal Commissioner, will repair to Lower Canada, fully instructed to examine, and, if possible, to terminate, the various points of discussion, in the hope of composing all those differences which have so long agitated the province, and which have deeply afflicted his Majesty's loyal subjects. For this end, it will be the object of his Majesty to renew an inquiry into every alleged grievance, to examine every cause of complaint, and to apply a remedy to every abuse that may still be found to prevail; for this end there is no sacrifice he would not cheerfully make which should be compatible with the fundamental principles of the constitution itself, and with the continued existence of the province as a possession of the British Crown. The right hon. Baronet then proceeded to state the duties which were included in the commission of his noble Friend, who expressed his belief "that some comprehensive scheme of general education might be adopted." ["Oh, oh!"] Why, Sir, said the right hon. Baronet, the noble Lord was allowed to dwell on the important duties of Lord Durham's mission; and surely it is a legitimate course for me to show what those were which appertained to Lord Amherst's office. Show that I am speaking of matters which are inapplicable: answer me if you can, but do not suppose that you will succeed in doing so by uttering unmeaning sounds. I am contending that my noble Friend's duties were not exactly of equal amount to those of Lord Durham, but that they were, on the whole, most important, as he filled both the offices of Governor and high Commissioner. I don't say, that the two offices were exactly of equal importance; I make every just abatement on that account; but still they were of an analogous nature; and Lord Amherst, a person of high rank, and who had filled the most important offices, was selected for the former situation. Now, what was the establishment of, and the expense proposed to be incurred by Lord Amherst? And I ask the hon. Gentleman who has attacked the want of economy of a Conservative Government to compare the establishments, making every just abatement for the difference of duties of the two noble persons, and then to answer me this question, which of the two Governments has given the greatest practical proof of economy? I admit to the noble Lord, that he cannot extinguish the system of special missions. I acknowledge that it is exceedingly difficult to decide what expenses may be incurred in an extraordinary and temporary duty; and I say at once that the mission of Lord Amherst was a special mission, and that equal objections apply on principle to Lord Gosford's office of Chief Commissioner on a special mission also. But the establishment of Lord Amherst, as governor and Royal Commissioner, in what did it consist? Mr. Elliott was the single person appointed by the Government to accompany him. I believe on Mr. Elliott's recommendation a clerk was assigned him. There was also a private secretary. That was the whole extent of the establishment. Let those who are now at the treasury contradict me if I am wrong, but I believe, that the total charge incurred for the outfit did not exceed 1,000l. I believe, that the arrangements for that mission were completed, and that Lord Amherst was on the point of sailing, I may be wrong in my recollection (but if I be, I am subject to correction), and I don't believe, that the total charge incurred by the preparation of Lord Amherst for the voyage, with an outfit, exceeded the sum of 1,000l. Now, when I look at the expenses preparatory to Lord Amherst's departure to fill a situation of rank, and when I remember the duties which devolved on him, I ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) whether he is warranted in saying, that a Conservative Government never gave any practical proof of economy? I will allow you to make every increase on account of the difference of duties, and yet I will still maintain this position, that the establishment proposed for Lord Durham does far exceed, does exceed in a fourfold degree—that establishment, for duties which were nearly analogous, provided for Lord Amherst. Sir, I protest, therefore, against the doctrine which has been maintained, that because we (the Opposition) question the expense of public establishments, you have therefore a right to answer us by saying, that our considerations are not those of public economy, but spring from hostility to the individual, or disappointment that Members at this side of the House are not favoured by being selected for those appointments. That charge, I say, is unfounded; but this charge I prefer against you who have been the constant advocates of economy, that when an individual participating in your political sentiments is appointed to a public situation you then show a tendency to forget the principles which you have professed; and that your political accordance with the man obliterates your recollection of the principles which you maintained against Governments to which you were opposed. And then it is, that you call the questions which we originate, paltry questions, not deserving consideration; and then it is, that you reconcile yourselves to an establishment when connected with the services of your own friend which had the position of political parties been reversed, he who sanctioned, he who advised, your proceeding, would be the first in high-sounding terms to denounce as aggravating the feelings of the country suffering under distress, and as evidence of a wanton and profligate disposition on the part of Government. With what triumph would you have referred to the avowal that your finances were in such a state that you could not part with a third of the soap-tax. How you, or some of you, would have dwelt on what I have before heard stated, that a great number of the hand-loom weavers might have subsistence provided for them by the sum allowed to the extravagant establishment which was proposed to be confirmed and sanctioned! But now, because that establishment is proposed for one in whose political sentiments you concur (you the class of which the hon. Member for Kilkenny is the representative and warmest advocate) forget the principle which you formerly avowed, and try in every manner to throw ridicule and contumely on those who act in a temperate and moderate manner in accordance with your practice; and you, through your leader, the hon. Member for Kilkenny, justly give rise to the imputation, not only that you have been succeeded by others in your seats, but that you are also succeeded by others in your advocacy of the principles of retrenchment and economy.

Mr. C. Buller

had not the slightest wish to affect any concealment upon the subject of his connexion with Lord Dur- ham's mission. With that mission he had connected himself at the request of the noble Earl, but not in the capacity of legal adviser. One word, as he was on his legs, on the general question. The question at that moment really before the House was, that the Earl of Durham in his special mission should be limited to the same amount of expenditure as the Earl of Gosford had incurred during his mission. Now, a great mistake prevailed respecting the expenses of the Earl of Gosford's mission. The return on which the noble Marquess had rested his argument, did not include the salaries of the secretaries and other officers belonging to the establishment of the Governor-general of Canada. These salaries amounted to 4,000l. a-year. The Earl of Gosford was also attended by two Assistant-commissioners, who received 2,000l. a-year each. The additional expenses, then, of Lord Gosford's mission, besides those included in the return to which he had before alluded, were 8,000l. a-year. But it was unwarrantable to put these two missions on the same footing, and to say, that, because so much money sufficed for the expense of Lord Gosford's mission, the same sum would therefore suffice for the expense of Lord Durham's. Now, there was no difference between the officers intrusted to these two noblemen! He contended that the authority intrusted to these two noblemen was very different. The Commission of the Earl of Durham, was, in the first place, much more extensive than that of the Earl of Gosford. In the next place, the Earl of Durham was invested with greater powers as Governor of Lower Canada, than any Governor had ever been invested with before. They had given to the Earl of Durham powers almost despotic; they had invested him with all the powers of the executive government of Lower Canada; and yet, they were then called upon to assert that the Earl of Durham ought not to have a larger sum to meet the expenses of his office than the Earl of Gosford had, who had all the aid of secretaries and other officers, belonging to the permanent establishment of Lower Canada. They should also take into consideration the great exasperation which prevailed at present in Lower Canada, and which would, of necessity, throw the Earl of Durham more than any of his predecessors upon the resources of those whom he took out with him. When the Earl of Gosford had the aid of two Commissioners, with large salaries, was it too much to let the Earl of Durham have the aid of one legal adviser? When that noble Earl was going to settle such important questions in Canada, as they all knew he was sent out to settle, was it too much to grant him such a modicum of legal advice as he could procure for 1,500l. a-year? The confidence of all parties had been granted to that noble Earl. He repeated, that the confidence of all parties must have been granted to that noble Earl, when they determined to invest him with almost despotic power, and he would repeat the assertion, though he should be met again with cries of "oh!" from the disappointed Gentlemen on the opposite benches, and of "no, no!" from nobody knew whom. Would they, then, after confiding to the Earl of Durham the power of making laws for Canada, and of preparing a constitution, by which it was possible that our North American colonies might be governed for ages—would they show by the vote to which the noble Marquess wished them to come, that they valued a few paltry pounds more than the liberty of the millions which they had confided without reserve to the noble Earl? They had, already, given that noble Earl unlimited power; they could judge by no past precedent of the expenses which he must incur in the exercise of that power; and this motion was intended to cramp him in an unprecedented manner in all the circumstances which were requisite to give efficiency and success to his mission. He therefore trusted, that it would not meet with the approbation of the House.

Sir S. Canning

wished to say a few words in reference to the allusion which the noble Secretary for the Home Department had made to the conduct of a revered relative of his, during his celebrated mission to Lisbon. An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, had spoken, as if it were a hardship on the Earl of Durham that any limit should be placed to the amount of his establishment, and to the expenditure necessary to support it. Now, it might be recollected, that that noble Earl was the very person who had brought an accusation against his revered relative, the late Mr. Canning, on the occasion to which the noble Secretary had alluded. It might also be recollected, that Mr. Canning, in his justification of himself, against the charges preferred against him by the noble Earl, referred to the line of conduct which he had pursued on accepting the embassy to Lisbon, and that he had stated, that as soon as he found a question must arise regarding the "extraordinary expenses" of his mission, he had called upon the noble Lord then at the head of the Treasury, to fix something precise, by which he might guide himself in regulating those expenses. His revered relative did not choose to expose his character to the suspicions which might have been cast upon it had he allowed those expenses to run on uncontrolled by the Treasury at home, It was remarkable that at a distance of twenty-one years from that debate, the Earl of Durham should be claiming for himself, in his expenditure on a civil mission, that very latitude which his revered relative with a more statesmanlike feeling, had determined to discard.

Viscount Palmerston

did not rise to dispute the full right of the House, or indeed of any Member of it, to question any part of the public expenditure; neither had his noble Friend near him ever questioned the existence of that privilege, either upon that or upon any previous occasion. That which his noble Friend had found fault with was the manner in which this motion had been brought forward, both as regarded the way in which notice of it had been given, and as regarded the unfairness with which it had been afterwards treated. It was not fair that, without any previous notice, further than that of an intention to call the consideration of the House to the expenses of Lord Durham's mission, a motion of censure should have been brought forward both against an individual on the point of starting on an important public mission, and against the Government which had appointed him to execute that mission. He maintained, that it was a censure on the noble Earl to assert that he had accepted an office of high rank and dignity to which undue allowances were attached, and on the Government to assert, that it had given him those allowances without a due regard to economy and retrenchment. The right hon. Baronet seemed to find fault with the Government because it had not made a full statement of the extent of the noble Earl's establishment, and of the amount of its necessary expenditure; and had complained that the letter addressed by his noble Friend Lord Glenelg, to the Earl of Durham, was not the usual mode of demanding from a public servant an estimate of the expenses of his proposed establishment. Now it ought to be recollected that his noble Friend the Earl of Durham, was going upon a special mission, and from the very nature of a special mission it was obvious that no previous establishment could be formed for it, and if so, that no estimate of its expense could be laid before Parliament. The reason why the return for which the noble Marquess had moved was given, was a desire to comply with his wishes, and the noble Marquess wished to have the return in order to have some sort of data for his present motion. The expenses which his noble Friend might be forced to incur in the execution of his mission could not be foreseen; and therefore a previous establishment could not be formed. The right hon. Baronet had complained of the extent of the establishment now given in by the Earl of Durham, and had compared it with the arrangement which the right hon. Baronet had himself made for the establishment of Earl Amherst. He had no objection to enter into that comparison, but before he did so, he would beg leave to say one word on the case of Mr. Canning, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had just referred. There was no similarity between the mission of Lord Durham to Canada and the mission, as it was called, of Mr. Canning to Lisbon. He thought at the time, and he still continued to think, that the sending an embassy to Lisbon at the close of the war was a wise measure, and that the expenses incurred in it were not greater than the occasion required and justified. The right hon. Gentleman could not feel greater admiration for his deceased relative, Mr. Canning, than he had always felt, and still continued to feel; but this he must say, that Mr. Canning's was not a special mission, but a regular embassy with a fixed salary—and that was the real difference between the case of Mr. Canning, to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted, and the mission of Lord Durham, which was at that moment under discussion. He was now willing to enter into the comparison, to which the right hon. Baronet had challenged him, and to contrast the economy of the present Government with that of which the right hon. Baronet had been the head. Though he did not wish to throw any imputation on the right hon. Baronet as having encouraged an undue expenditure, be must nevertheless assert that the present Government stood as well on economy as that to which it had succeeded. In the first place, the Earl of Durham was going out to Canada on condition of charging the expenses which he actually incurred, and without having any specific salary fixed for his services. He also went out to a colony where there was no governor. Now, Lord Amherst went out to a colony where there was a regular governor with a salary of 4,500l. a-year, concurrent with his own salary as a commissioner. The mission sent out by the right hon. Baronet was, therefore, the more expensive of the two, as the country had two governors, and therefore two salaries to provide for. With regard to the outfit of the Earl of Durham, the right hon. Baronet was sufficiently acquainted with diplomatic details to know, that there was no allowance for an outfit made on a special mission, for all such charges were considered as part of the general expenses of the mission. Now, though Lord Durham had not with him a concurrent governor, enjoying a salary of 4,500l. a year, and though Lord Amherst had, there was a considerable sum allowed to Lord Amherst for an outfit. Both Lord Durham and Lord Amherst were to have a secretary with a salary of 1,500l. a year. On that point, then, there was nothing gained on either side. Lord Amherst, however, besides having his own secretary, had at his command the secretary and all the other members belonging to the establishment of the governor of the colony. It was only right, then, to add the expense of the governor's establishment to that which the right hon. Baronet had formed for Lord Amherst as Commissioner, if they wished to ascertain the real expense of Lord Amherst's mission. "Ay," said hon Gentlemen on the other side, "but Lord Amherst did not carry out with him a legal adviser." But did the House see nothing in the difference of the political circumstances of the colony at the present moment, and when Lord Amherst was on the point of going there?—did it see nothing in the difference of the duties to be performed by Lord Durham, and by Lord Amherst?—did it see nothing in the greater difficulty of the task imposed upon Lord Durham by the recent insurrection, which rendered it a matter of duty on the part of the Government in this country, to send out a legal adviser with Lord Durham, although none was sent out with Lord Amherst? Lord Amherst went out as a Commissioner to settle the disputes then raging between different classes of her Majesty's subjects. His authority did not extend to Upper Canada: he had no legislative power. The existing Constitution was not suspended, and he was not called upon to draw up a new Constitution in its stead. But all this Lord Durham had to do, and, therefore, when the House saw the difference of the duties to be performed by his noble Friend, the Earl of Durham, and by Lord Amherst, he thought that it would agree with him in declaring, that it was the bounden duty of Government to furnish the Earl of Durham with a legal adviser. The Gentlemen opposite, on the present occasion, had not given the slightest intimation of their intention to move a vote of censure either against the Ministers or against the Earl of Durham. Their conduct was a departure from the ordinary practice and courtesy of the House. He must remind the House, that when the Canada Bill was before it, the right hon. Gentleman had objected to certain words in the preamble, because he would not, either directly or indirectly, incur any responsibility as to the success of the mission of his noble Friend. The right hon. Baronet said, he would give to Lord Durham those ample powers which the Bill conferred upon him, but that if he in any way identified himself with the noble Lord's instructions, he would be taking on himself a responsibility which he had no wish to incur. Now, the right hon. Baronet and his friends, according to this creed, were taking on themselves a responsibility in making this motion which they ought not to incur, if their object was to deprive Lord Durham of that assistance which Government thought necessary for the due performance of its functions; and, in conformity with the system they had adopted, of throwing on Government the whole responsibility, and leaving Lord Durham to perform his duties as he might, and reserving to themselves the right to find fault afterwards, if he and the Government should fail. They were bound not to attempt to induce this House to deprive Lord Durham of those means of discharging his duties which Government, acting on the responsibility thrown upon them, had thought necessary for the exact and efficient performance of them.

The Marquess of Chandos

said, that the hon. Member for Durham had expressed himself warmly, in reference to a term of which he had made use, and which, he admitted, could not remain unnoticed. Now, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that he never intended to give the slightest pain to the Earl of Durham; but he certainly reserved to himself the right of criticising the conduct of her Majesty's Government, and the appointments they thought proper to make. The noble Lord opposite had accused him of wishing to take the House by surprise; but he must tell the noble Lord, that he was completely mistaken. He had given due notice of his intention to bring the subject before the House; and when the hon. Member for Durham charged him with discourtesy towards his noble relative, in putting questions behind his back, as he was pleased to term it, he must say, first, that he had not the honour of being known to the noble earl; and next, that it was not usual for Members of this House to communicate to Peers the course they meant to take on the public affairs. The practice of putting notice of questions on the paper, was entirely new; and he remembered that he had himself put questions to Lord Althorp, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, on two occasions, in ten minutes after he had acquainted the noble Lord with his intention. He had heard nothing from the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or any hon. Member on the same side, to induce him to change his opinion regarding the mission to Canada. He should only add, that he disclaimed all feelings of a personal nature in making his motion. He had been actuated solely by public motives, and had felt bound to do so, because the mission entailed on the country an immense expenditure, of which the House ought to take cognizance.

The House divided on the previous question, "That the question proposed by the noble Marquess be now put: Ayes 158; Noes 160:—Majority 2.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D. Blackburne, I.
A'Court, Captain Blackstone, W. S.
Alford, Viscount Blair, J.
Alsager, Captain Blennerhasset, A.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Boldero, H. G.
Ashley, Lord Bolling, W.
Attwood, M. Bradshaw, J.
Bagge, W. Bramston, T. W.
Bagot, hon. W. Broadley, H.
Baillie, Colonel Broadwood, H.
Baring, hon. W. B. Brownrigg, S.
Bateson, Sir R. Bruce, Lord
Bell, M. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bentinck, Lord G. Burrell, Sir C.
Canning, right hon. Sir S. Knight, H. G.
Knightley, Sir C.
Cantalupe, Viscount Law, hon. C. E.
Chandos, Marques of Lefroy, right hon. T.
Chisholm, A. W. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Chute, W. L. W. Lockhart, A. M.
Codrington, C. W. Logan, H.
Cole, hon. A. H. Lowther, Viscount
Cole, Viscount Lowther, J. H.
Conolly, E. Mackenzie, T.
Corry, hon. H. Mahon, Viscount
Dalrymple, Sir A. Master, T. W. C.
Darlington, Earl of Maxwell, H.
De Horsey, S H. Meynell, Captain
Dick, Q. Miller, W. H.
D'Israeli, B. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Neeld, J.
Douro, Marquess of Norreys, Lord
Dunbar, G. Packe, C. W.
Dungannon, Viscount Palmer, R.
Fast, J. B. Parker, R. T.
Eaton, R. J. Patten, J. W.
Egerton, W. T. Peel, right hon. Sir R.
Egerton, Sir P. Perceval, Colonel
Ellis, J. Pemberton, T.
Estcourt, T. Peyton, H.
Fector, J. M. Pigot, R.
Feilden, W. Planta, right hon. J.
Fellowes, E. Plumptre, J. P.
Filmer, Sir E. Polhill, F.
Fleming, J. Pollock, Sir F.
Follett, Sir W. Powell, Colonel
Forester, hon. G. Powerscourt, Visct.
Gaskell, James Milnes Praed, W. M.
Gladstone, W. E. Pringle, A.
Gordon, hon. Captain Reid, Sir J. R.
Gore, O. J. R. Richards, R.
Gore, O. W. Round, C. G.
Graham, right hon. Sir J. Round, J.
Sanderson, R.
Grant, hon. Colonel Sandon, Viscount
Grimsditch, T. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Grimston, Viscount Scarlett, hon. R.
Halse, J. Shaw, right hon. E.
Harcourt, G. S. Sheppard, T.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Shirley, E. J.
Hayes Sir E. Sibthorp, Colonel
Herbert, hon. S. Sinclair, Sir O.
Herries, rt. hn. J. C. Somerset, Lord G.
Hillsborough, Earl of Stanley, Lord
Hodgson, F. Sugden, rt hn. Sir E.
Hodgson, R. Teignmouth, Lord
Holmes, W. Tennent, J. E.
Hope, G W. Thompson, Alderman
Hotham, Lord Trevor, hon. G. R.
Houldsworth, T. Vere, Sir C. B.
Hurt, F. Verner, Colonel
Ingestrie, Viscount Wilbraham, hon. B.
Irton, S. Wodehouse, E.
Irving, J. Wood, Colonel T.
James, Sir W. C. Wood, T.
Jones, J. Wynn, right hn. C.W.
Jones, T. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Kemble, H. Young, Sir W.
Kerrison, Sir E. TELLERS.
Kirk, P. Fremantle, Sir T.
Knatchbull, hn. Sir E. Baring, H. B.
List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral Grey, Sir C. E.
Aglionby, H. A. Grey, Sir G.
Anson, hon. Colonel Guest, J. J.
Archbold, R. Hall, B.
Baines, E. Harland, W. C.
Bannerman, A. Hastie, A.
Baring, F. T. Hawes, B.
Bellew, R. M. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Benett, J. Hodges, T. L.
Bernal, R. Hoskins, K.
Bewes, T. Howard, F. J.
Blackett, C. Howard, P. H.
Blake, M. J. Howick, Viscount
Blake, W. J. Hume, J.
Blunt, Sir C. James, W.
Bodkin, J. J. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Bridgman, H. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Brodie, W. B. Lambton, H.
Brotherton, J. Langdale, hon. C.
Browne, D. Lemon, Sir C.
Bryan, G. Lushington, Dr.
Buller, C. Lushington, C.
Buller, E. Lynch, A. H.
Bulwer, E. L. Macleod, E.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Macnamara, Major
Campbell, Sir J. Mactaggart, J.
Campbell, W. F. Maher, J.
Cavendish, hon. C. Mahony, P.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Marshall, W.
Cayley, E. S. Martin, J.
Clay, W. Maule, hon. F.
Clements, Viscount Melgund, Viscount
Clive, E. B. Morpeth, Viscount
Codrington, Adm. Morris, D.
Craig, W. O. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Curry, W. Muskett, G. A.
Dalmeny, Lord O'Brien, C.
Dennistoun, J. O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Divett, E. O'Connell, D.
Duckworth, S. O'Connell, M. J.
Duke, Sir J. O'Connell, M.
Duncombe, T. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Dundas, F. Paget, F.
Dundas, hon. J. C. Palmerston, Viscount
Dundas, hon. T. Parker, J.
Easthope, J. Pechell, Captain
Ebrington, Viscount Pendarves, E. W. W.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Philipps, Sir R.
Ellice, Captain A Philips, M.
Ellice, E. Phillips, G. R.
Evans, G. Pinney, W.
Evans, W. Ponsonby, hon. J.
Fazakerley, J. N. Power, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Protheroe, E.
Ferguson, R. Redington, T. N.
Ferguson, rt. hon. C. Rice, E. R.
Finch, F. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Fitzsimon, N. Roche, W.
Fleetwood, P. H. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
French, F. Rumbold, C. E.
Gillon, W. D. Russell, Lord J.
Gordon, R. Salwey, Colonel
Goring, H. D. Sanford, E. A.
Grattan, J. Seymour Lord
Grattan, H. Shelburne, Earl of
Smith, R. V. Wakley, T.
Somers, J. P. Wallace, R.
Somerville, Sir W. M. Warburton, H.
Standish, C. Ward, H. G.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Wemyss, J. E.
Steuart, R. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Strutt, E. Wilbraham, G.
Style, Sir C. Williams, W.
Surrey, Earl of Williams, W. A.
Thomson, rt. hn. C. P. Wilshere, W.
Thornley, T. Wood, G. W.
Troubridge, Sir E, T. Woulfe, Serjeant
Vigors, N. A. Yates, J. A.
Vivian, Major C. TELLERS.
Vivian, J. H. Stanley, E. J.
Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H. Wood, C.