Commons Sitting of 21 June 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Loan Fund (Ireland); Payment of Rates; Ecclesiastical Courts (Ireland); Admiralty Court; Borough Courts.—Read a second time:—Registration (Court of Appeal).

CITY OF LONDON POLICE.
The City of London Police Bill was read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that there were several clauses which he intended to propose should be added to the bill by way of rider, but he wished to move, that they be read a first and second time, and then be referred to the Committee to which the Metropolitan Police Bill was referred, in order that the Committee might report that they were proper clauses to be inserted.
Mr. T. Duncombeobjected to this course. The hon. Gentleman had proposed, after the bill had been read a third time, to bring up about thirty-four clauses, and to refer them to a committee. He should like to know whether this could be done according to the forms of the House. The clauses were of the most objectionable nature, and he should object to their being referred to a Select Committee, thinking that if the clauses were good they ought to be discussed by the House.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it had been considered, that what was law without Temple-bar ought to be law within Temple-bar, and, therefore, his hon. Friend had proposed to introduce the same clauses which had been inserted in the Metropolitan Police Bill into the City Police Bill.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, if they were to adopt the course proposed by the hon.
702
Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule), they would establish a dangerous precedent, and he thought, therefore, that it would be better to adhere to the rules of the House in regard to the insertion of clauses after the third reading of a bill. Would it not be better to withdraw this bill for the present, and discuss these clauses in committee of the whole House on the Metropolitan Police Bill? This measure could, after that discussion, be again brought forward.
Clauses to be printed, and to be taken into consideration on a subsequent day.

PERSIAN MISSION.
Mr. Mackinnonwished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, relative to the Persian Mission. Her Majesty, in her Speech from the Throne, stated, that circumstances had caused the withdrawal of the British Envoy from Persia. It appeared, that Sir John M'Neill had been a resident in this country for some time, and had also bad an audience of her Majesty, and he begged, therefore, to ask whether the mission had not concluded? It appeared, that the Secretary to the Embassy, together with an attaché, was still in Turkey, in Erzeroum, within eleven days' journey of Teheran, though there was a difference between this country and the Court of Persia, and the British Government had refused to receive the Ambassador of the Schah of Persia. The sum of 12,000 l. a-year had been allowed by the East India Company for the purposes of defraying the expenses of the diplomatic mission; but though the money was paid by that company, it was under the control of that House, because the mission was under the control of the Government. He wished to ask them in what manner that sum of 12,000 l. a-year was expended, and did the individuals of which that embassy had been composed, continue to receive their salaries?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the hon. Gentleman had made rather a long exordium to a short question, which he might answer at once, but that he was anxious to set the hon. Gentleman right in reference to some statements he had made. Everybody knew, that when a difference arose between Governments, it frequently happened that an envoy might be withdrawn without a cessation of amicable communications, though there might be

703
extensive differences, very little short of an absolute rupture, causing the temporary retirement of the ambassador. That was the state in which this country now stood with regard to Persia. Sir John M'Neill was at home on leave of absence, which was given to him before the differences between the two Governments took place. It was true that he had had an audience of her Majesty—not, as the hon. Gentleman supposed, because of the conclusion of his mission, but on leave of absence from his post. The Chargé d'Affaires and another member of the mission had withdrawn from Persia on account of the disputes with the Schah of Persia, and they had intended to return, but they were ordered to remain at the nearest frontier point, Erzeroum, for the purpose of receiving communications. In reference to another point adverted to by the hon. Gentleman, he would state that the Persian Government had sent an ambassador to this country, who, although he had been told before, that he could not be received in his official character until the differences between the countries were arranged, had, nevertheless, considered it his duty to come to this country in a private capacity, and was now in London, and he (Viscount Palmerston) had had some private communications with him. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that it had happened, as it had in all similar cases wherein the mission was not at an end, Sir J. M'Neill was at home, but he had returned only for a time, and he was still subject to all the customary regulations like all other ambassadors. Colonel Shiel, the Chargé d'Affaires, who was on duty abroad, was receiving his emoluments, and the mission went on just as it would go on if Sir J. M'Neill were still in Persia.
Mr. Macleansaid, perhaps the noble Lord would allow him to ask, if we were not at war with Persia, whether any reparation had been made by the Schah for the insult offered to the servant or messenger of Sir J. M'Neill? And he begged to put another question to the noble Lord at the same time, in relation to the explanation of Count Nesselrode respecting the conduct of Counts Simonitch and Viscovitch? He begged also to ask him whether any accounts had reached this country of an outrage on Sir Frederick Maitland and the crew of the Wellesley,
704
at Bushire? It had been announced that Admiral Maitland was about to land at the place of honour, when he was told that he would not be allowed to do so, but that he must go to the Custom-house, which he would not do, and the consequence was, that the soldiers of the Schah fired on the boats, and bullets passed through the hats and clothes of some of the crew of the Wellesley, who returned the fire, and some of the individuals who perpetrated the outrage were wounded. That was the rumour, and he wished to ask the noble Lord if he had received any intelligence of the affair.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, in reply to the first question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had to state, that no sufficient reparation had been made by the Schah of Persia for the outrage committed on the messenger of Sir J. M'Neill. With regard to the explanation of the Russian Government with regard to the conduct of Counts Simonitch and Viscovitch, he could only refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the papers already laid on the table of the House, which contained the answer of the Russian Government to the applications made on the subject. Then with regard to the other question, we were certainly not at war with Persia, though there was a very serious interruption of our communications. He had received accounts of the circumstance to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, but they were not exactly as he had stated them. There had been no difficulty about the landing of Admiral Maitland at Bushire, for he had landed without interruption, and friendly communications afterwards took place between him and the Governor, but the dispute arose on his embarcation. The Governor insisted that he should embark from the Custom-house quay, instead of the usual place near his residence; and he being informed by those in the service that such a course was not usual, and that in fact it was an indignity to which he ought not to submit, he refused to comply with the regulation, and insisted upon embarking from the quay opposite his residence. He took the necessary precautions; the boats of the Wellesley were got ready, and during the embarcation shots were exchanged between the parties. This circumstance and subsequent differences led to the departure of those in the service of the East India Company, who settled

705
at the island of Karak. From the last accounts it appeared that Admiral Maitland was returning to Bushire to have some communication with the Governor on the subject.
Subject dropped.

PRISONS BILL.
Lord John Russellmoved the third reading of the Prisons Bill.
Mr. Pakingtonhad already stated the strong objections he had to the 14th clause, enabling the Dissenting ministers to visit the gaols, but as that clause against which he had already recorded his vote might form the subject of a specific motion by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Teignmouth), he would not now trouble the House with any observations in support of his objection to that particular provision of the bill. His further objections were to the second and third clauses, which gave magistrates the power to order separate confinement without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. He assured the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department that in objecting on that ground to the further progress of this bill, he had no intention or wish to get up a vexatious or groundless opposition; he gave the noble Lord every credit for a desire to improve the prison discipline of the country; but he submitted that this important change in the principle of the prison discipline throughout the kingdom admitted of very considerable doubts as to its propriety. The noble Lord, he believed, relied in support of this measure on the results which had been shown to attend the system of separate confinement in the Penitentiary at Philadelphia, and in the report of the inspectors of the prison at Glasgow. That being the case, he (Mr. Pakington) must be allowed to refer to authentic returns in reference to the results of the system in the Penitentiary at Philadelphia; and in doing so, he did not trust to persons who might be supposed to be led away by their prejudices or private bias, but to documents the authenticity of which could not be questioned. In page 334 of the book he held in his hand, and to which reference on a former occasion had been made by the hon. Member for Lambeth, he found it distinctly laid down that the system of separate confinement in the Penitentiary at Philadelphia had not produced those effects in the suppression or diminu-
706
tion of crime which its early friends had anticipated, and that for the last three years prior to 1837 the mortality in that prison had regularly and constantly increased, thereby showing the injurious effects of the system upon the health of the prisoners. Again, in page 241, the letter of a medical gentleman showed that its injurious effects were not confined to the bodily but extended to the mental health of the prisoners, for it was stated, that while seventeen out of 318 prisoners had died, there had been no less than fourteen cases of insanity within a very short period of time. Indeed the returns showed the important fact that the mortality in the Philadelphia Penitentiary had been twice as great as in the prison of New Hampshire and other states where the separate system was not practised. The first proposition then he laid down was, that whatever degree of punishment might be fixed, the Legislature had no right to adopt any system which might incur danger to the bodily; still less to the mental, health of prisoners whose offences brought them under the lash of the law, and he opposed this bill because he thought, and he was justified in the opinion by the results he had stated, that it would produce both those effects. Objecting also to the provisions of the bill with respect to the discipline of persons committed for safe custody, and not convicted—provisions which had been left in a most unsatisfactory manner, and having his strong feeling against the system fortified by the results which had risen from it in America, he felt it his duty to resist the adoption (at a large expense) of the system throughout England, and he should, therefore, move that the bill be read a third time, this day six months.
Mr. Darbyseconded the amendment The bill would impose large expense on the country, with very little chance of success. Neither the results from Glasgow nor Philadelphia afforded sufficient evidence to show, that the system was practicable throughout the country, and on that ground he must support the amendment.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the objection of the hon. Member opposite, was directed to the system of separate confinement, though that system had been approved by persons of the highest authority, who had seen it in operation in America. What was proposed by this bill was to enable the proper authorities in each county to introduce

707
this system into the prisons under their superintendence, if they so thought fit. The hon. Member, however, seemed determined that the system should be totally excluded from the prisons of this country. He had reduced the powers conferred by the bill to the lowest possible degree; and now, after the question had already been so much discussed, he did not think it necessary to prove facts which had already been as much made matter of demonstration as anything could possibly be.
Viscount Dungannonexpressed his entire concurrence in the humane and considerate view which had been taken of, this question by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Pakington), and must also express his disapprobation of the principle of intrusting to individuals connected with the government of prisons the power of inflicting solitary confinement.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 126; Noes 21: Majority 105.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Duncombe, T.

Aglionby, H. A.

Easthope, J.

Aglionby, Major

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Eliot, Lord

Archbold, R.

Ewart, W.

Baines, E.

Fenton, J.

Baring, F. T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Barnard, E. G.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Barry, G. S.

Gibson, T. M.

Beamish, F. B.

Grattan, H.

Bellew, R. M.

Greenaway, C.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Grey, Sir G.

Bernal, R.

Hawes, B.

Bethell, R.

Hector, C. J.

Bewes, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Blair, J.

Hoskins, K.

Blake, M. J.

Howard, P. H.

Blake, W.J.

Hughes, W. B.

Bodkin, J.J.

Hume, J.

Bowes, J.

Hutt, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Hutton, R.

Broadley, H.

Kemble, H.

Brodie, W. B.

Langdale, hon. C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Buller, C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Macleod, R.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Marshall, W.

Callagan, D.

Marsland, H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Melgund, Viscount

Chalmers, P.

Miles, W.

Chester, H.

Morpeth, Lord

Clive, hon. R. H.

Murray, A.

Collier, J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Brien, W. S.

Davies, Colonel

O'Connell, J.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

O'Connell, M.

Duke, Sir J.

O'Conor Don

Bill read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Lord Teignmouthrose, to move the omission of the 14th clause. That clause had been hurried through the House without sufficient discussion, and the division was pressed on in the absence of many hon. Members on that side of the House, who would have voted against the clause. After the postponement of the discussion upon the clause upon a former stage of the measure, at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who objected to so important a discussion taking place at eleven o'clock at night, it could not have been expected that the clause would be afterwards disposed of in so summary a manner. Many hon. Members had been induced to support the provision by the argument, that as prisoners were deprived of the means of obtaining such religious instruction as they themselves

709
might wish to receive, and such as they might if at liberty have been able to procure, it was right that means should be provided of supplying that which was thus taken away from them. But that was a perfect fallacy, because, in point of fact, religious teachers of all persuasions were permitted to go and did go into gaols. Besides, if the principle were worth anything, it would apply with much greater force to sailors in the navy, who were shut up in ships, and utterly deprived of the power of resorting to religious instruction of their own choosing, and it would also apply to soldiers serving on foreign stations. The real question was this—did there really exist any grievance? He had communicated with the chaplains of several gaols in different parts of the country, and particularly in London, Manchester, and Bristol, and he had learned from them, that complaints were never made by prisoners on account of their religious scruples being interfered with. By the introduction, therefore, of this clause, the House would not remedy any practical evil, and would establish a precedent which he could not but regard as one fraught with danger to the Established Church. He had thought it his duty to make these observations, but at the same time he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
Mr. Fox Mauleprotested against the statement of the noble Lord, that any attempt had been made to smuggle this clause through the House. It had been fully debated on no less than four different occasions, and every opportunity had been afforded for the public consideration of it. With regard to the noble Lord's observations in reference to spiritual instruction for the army, it should be recollected that persons who entered the army did so voluntarily, and knowing to what extent they could avail themselves of spiritual instruction; whereas persons who were incarcerated in prisons were forcibly removed from society, and being thereby deprived of the ordinary means of obtaining that instruction, it became their duty to provide it for them.
Mr. Prymesupported the clause. Although he respected the noble Lord's motives, he could not agree with him, that even supposing Roman Catholic prisoners had shown an indifference to religion, they were, therefore, to be refused the advantage of moral and spiritual instruction.
710
He maintained the very contrary. Where the lives of individuals were at variance with the precepts of religion, it became the more necessary to teach them the value and importance of those precepts.
Mr. Langdaleobserved, that in two long debates, in which the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth had taken part, this question had been fully discussed. The noble Lord, therefore, had nothing to complain of on that head. The noble Lord had said, that by this clause a blow was aimed at the Established Church. Now, that he had never attempted and never would. He had been informed, that in districts where Roman Catholics were numerous, the Roman Catholic clergymen were obliged to leave their congregations to attend to prisoners in the care of the State. It had, therefore, appeared to him just that the State should make provision for the religious instruction of those prisoners. It was now proposed to separate the inmates of prisons in order the more effectually to give them moral and religious instruction. That being the case, he would ask, could the House refuse to furnish them with that instruction which alone they would be willing to receive?
Mr. Estcourtobjected more particularly to that part of the clause which stated that whenever Dissenters of a certain denomination should amount to a certain number, a chaplain should be provided for them, than to the particular sect for which such chaplain was required. He saw no reason why fifty prisoners should be regarded, in this respect, of so much greater importance than five prisoners. Was the soul of one of the fifty more valuable than one of the five? Besides, the chaplain to a gaol was a very important officer, whose authority would be considerably diminished by the introduction of other chaplains. He regretted the noble Lord would not divide the House on this clause, against which he protested, as calculated to lead to very great inconvenience, and as being highly injurious to the prison discipline of the country.
Mr. Morgan J. O'Connellthought it rather singular, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken should have reserved his objections in point of detail, while he advanced none against the principle of the clause, for this stage of the bill. If the hon. Member would move, that the

711
number of persons to whom a chaplain should be allowed, should be reduced, he would support him; and, if in the operation of the bill fifty were found to be too many, he was sure no objection would be made to reduce it. The noble Lord had said, that danger to the Church would result from the principle of this clause. Surely the noble Lord, who belonged to the Irish peerage, must be aware that that principle was acted on in the gaols of Ireland; and if it did not endanger the Church there, he saw no reason for supposing it would in England.
Motion withdrawn, bill passed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE
Mr. Fox Maulemoved, "That the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Metropolis Police and Metropolitan Courts Bill (advances out of the Consolidated Fund)."
Mr. Goulburnrecommended, that the vote of the Committee should have reference to one of the bills only. If the proceeding were confined to the Metropolis Police Bill, the subject would still remain open, and he, therefore, should not object to the Speaker's leaving the chair.
Mr. Fox Mauleobserved, that he merely required an increase of the grant for the purpose of enabling the House to decide upon the propriety of increasing the salaries of Commissioners and Magistrates.
House in Committee.
Mr. Fox Maulemoved, that a sum not exceeding 1,200 l. be the annual salary of the Commissioners appointed to carry into execution an act for improving the police of the metropolis.
Mr. Wakleyobjected to moving such a resolution in so thin a House.
Mr. Humeapprehended the resolution was a mere initiatory proceeding to enable the Government to introduce a clause in the bill. When that came to be discussed, the proper time would have arrived for deciding whether the salaries of the Commissioners should be fixed at 1,000 l., 1,200 l., or any other sum.
Colonel Sibthorp, although a rigid economist, had no objection to give the larger salary to those two very valuable officers for their most meritorious public services.
Mr. T. Duncombecould not but think the whole of the bills which had been introduced for the improvement of the metropolitan police very clumsy and bungling pieces of legislation. Already had the
712
House been favoured with no fewer than three or four editions of these bills. The first was scarcely intelligible, and the resolution they were now called upon to sanction partook largely of the same character.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that although it might be considered matter of form in that House to vote away money, the people considered it matter of extortion. Although he admitted there were some good provisions in the bill, there were many bad ones of which he disapproved, and which he should oppose. He objected to the salaries of the magistrates, which were too large, and he could see no reason for increasing the salaries of the Commissioners of police. It should not be proposed to increase the salary of the Commissioners to 1,200 l. a-year each. When their salary was appointed at 800 l. each, the interest of money was 3 per cent.: now it was 5½ per cent., and really he thought that with our enormous debt, and in such a distressed state of the country, the House ought to proceed on a principle of the strictest economy. He really thought the House was more reckless of expense than the Ministry. When it was proposed, the other night, that 70,000 l. should be allowed for the building of stables at Windsor, he moved an amendment of 50,000 l., and not one Member on either side seconded him. But two Members of the Opposition gave the proposition their highest approbation. The Government would not be so extravagant if the House would insist upon economy. He would not vote for the resolution, unless it were distinctly understood that the House should not be pledged to the 1,200 l. salaries.
Mr. Humebore testimony to the very efficient manner in which the Commissioners performed their duties. No man in London, even the county coroner himself, ever devoted more time, energy, and talent to the public service, he would say, "from daylight to sunset, and during the night."
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed, and went into Committee of

SUPPLY—EXPENSE OF CHARTERS.
A vote was proposed for a sum not exceeding 70,000 l. to enable her Majesty to defray the civil contingencies of the year 1839.
Mr. Humeobjected to one of the items in the vote, for the expense incurred in granting the charters to Manchester and Birmingham.
Mr. Courtenaywas also opposed to it. In his opinion the parties applying for the charters ought to defray the expense attending them.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that it was necessary to make inquiries before any charters were granted, and how could they be paid for but in this manner? It was on account of these inquiries that the present sum was to be voted.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that the expense of these inquiries ought to fall upon the parties applying for the charters, and not be defrayed by the public money.
Viscount Howicksaid, it was of the utmost importance, that municipal institutions should be granted to all the great cities in the kingdom, and no difficulty, therefore, ought to be thrown in the way. It was absolutely necessary, that inquiries should be made, and, as persons could not be compelled to subscribe for that purpose, the expense must be paid by a public vote.
Sir T. Fremantlethought, that the money ought not to be paid by the public. The Privy Council was a court before which the parties came. Let them, then, pay their own expenses, and do not let the Government say, "If you cannot make out a case, we will send down commissioners to make out one for you."
Mr. Brothertonsaid, the vote was properly asked. He knew that in the case of one application for a charter, a great many forgeries were committed with respect to the names of the petitioners, and the Privy Council found it necessary to send down commissioners to inquire. The Government was bound to pay the expenses of those commissioners.
The Attorney-Generalsaid the expenses under consideration were not the expenses of the parties petitioning for or opposing a charter, but of the Privy Council. That body had to decide, not merely for the different parties, but for the public, and it was impossible for them to know whether they should grant a charter until they had investigated all the circumstances of the case. It was more economical to send down a commission to the country, than to bring all the witnesses up to London.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if the expenses
714
to the parties were lessened by sending down a commission, that was another reason why the diminished expense should be paid by them.
Mr. Williamsfelt so strongly the impropriety of the vote, that he moved its rejection. If Manchester acquired a charter, Manchester ought to pay for it, and not expect all the other cities in the country, which were not benefited by the incorporation of that town, to contribute to the expense.
The Solicitor-Generalreminded the hon. Member, that Manchester and Birmingham had been obliged to contribute to the expense incident to inquiring into the state of the corporation of Coventry. Nothing but a necessary expense had been incurred, and if the House refused to sanction this vote, it would be tantamount to a declaration that no more charters should be granted.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that Coventry had enjoyed a charter for 400 years, so that the cases were not analogous.
Mr. Wakleysaid, they were told, that there would be a great number of these applications for charters, and he thought, that if they were to sanction this expenditure, they would be only opening a fruitful source of patronage for the Government. These expenses were for objects purely local, and to make the public pay for such objects was neither fair nor just. The Government had sent down commissioners to the various towns, but they had not been told what those commissioners had done, and he would call upon any hon. Gentleman to show any other body of men acting judicially who were entitled to send out persons at the public expense to make inquiries relative to the cases that came before them for decision. He really did not understand these estimates, for in one place, he found a sum of 11 l. 5s. 2d. for conveying the Prince and Princess Hohenlohe from Woolwich to Ostend, If his Highness had come over to this country in order to work some miraculous cure, he mi surely pay the expense of the journey back.
Sir S. Canningsaid, he had been formerly in possession of the committee, but had yielded his right in order to allow hon. Gentlemen to run down the hare which they had started. He had allowed the discussion relative to the corporation charters to go on for an hour and a half,

715
but the hon. Gentleman had started a new hare, and he thought it was now time to assert his right.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the right hon. Gentleman was completely mistaken. It was not a hare he had started, but a Prince and a Princess. In regard to the expense of obtaining charters, he thought the burden ought to be borne by the parties who applied for them, and he hoped the hon. Member for Coventry would divide the House against the vote.
Mr. C. Bullerthought the establishment of corporations in large towns was of great importance to the public, as well as to the towns themselves. The Bristol riots had shown the effect of a want of a good police and a good municipal executive. These riots had cost the country many thousand pounds, and had a good municipal executive existed, all that expense might have been spared.
Mr. Pringlesaid, every town requiring a police force was obliged to come to that House and bear the expense of obtaining a bill, and he thought in the same way that they ought also to pay for a charter of incorporation. In his opinion, it would be introducing a bad precedent if the House were to consent that the public should pay for those charters.
Mr. W. Williamswould not divide the Committee on the question.

SUPPLY.—DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS.
Sir S. Canningrose to direct the attention of the Committee to that part of the estimates which was under the head of "Special Missions." He was perfectly aware, that these estimates had reference rather to the future than to the past, but, as the past was in some degree an indication of the expense to be incurred in the future, they would not be doing their duty if they allowed any portion of these estimates, in regard to which there might be any doubt, to pass without observation. The first thing to which he would call attention was, the charge for the mission of Sir Charles Vaughan to Constantinople, and he would beg the Committee to recollect the peculiar circumstances connected with that embassy. The amount charged in the present estimates was only a part of the expense which it was said had been actually incurred, and when it was considered, that the embassy had not succeeded, that, in fact, the ambassador had never reached his destination, he thought
716
the amount was such as to call for some explanation. There was another head to which he wished to call attention, and which related to the excursion of Mr. Macgregor and Dr. Bowring. Under that head he found a charge of 2,579 l., and how and for what object so large a sum had been expended, he was unable to ascertain. Some explanation on this point, he thought, was also necessary. There was another item to which he would briefly call the attention of the Committee. He alluded to the expenses of the Earl of Durham in the mission to Canada, the amount of which required explanation. In making this remark, he was anxious to guard himself against any chance of misconstruction, for he was aware of the delicacy of objecting to what might be called personal expenses. In speaking of those of Lord Durham, he felt it necessary to say, that that noble Earl had not drawn on himself any, even the slightest, ground for a charge of misapplication of the expenditure of his mission. Nevertheless, he thought that the great amount of the expenditure of that mission required explanation. The Committee would scarcely believe, unless they saw the estimate, that the expenditure of the noble Earl was on a scale, and at the rate of about from 50,000 l. to 55,000 l. a-year. Was it to be contended, that the representative of the Crown sent out to a republic, or he should rather say to a colony with republican habits, and more particularly with habits of republican plainness and frugality, should be required to live in the style of the first nobleman in his own country, and that in a country where there was no nobleman.
An Hon. Member: How can the right hon. Gentleman make out that the expenses of Lord Durham's mission amounted to 50,000 l. or 55,000 l.
Sir S. Canningsaid, that with some deductions, he found that the personal expenses of the noble Earl were 32,000 l. or 33,000 l. These, it should be observed, were not for a whole year, but for a period of only eight months; and then it should be recollected, that the noble Earl had generously applied 10,000 l. out of his own private funds for his personal expenses. This sum, it was true, was not paid out of the public money, but it served to show the great amount of the other expenditure for the period he had mentioned. The noble Lord must, in fact, have carried on

717
the mission at a rate of oriental expenditure, and this appeared the greater, when they recollected who and what the noble Earl was before he was called to the House of Peers—and that he had been a Member of the House of Commons, and that he had been a distinguished member of that party which had almost arrogated to itself exclusively the merit of economy. When it was recollected that noble Lord had, when a Member of the Commons, denounced, and almost from the very spot on which he then stood, the expenditure incurred by the mission of a right hon. Gentleman, now no more, (the late Mr. Canning) in the embassy to Lisbon—when these circumstances were borne in mind, it was impossible not to feel surprise at the great amount of the noble Earl's expenditure in the Canada mission. When he alluded to these circumstances, let it not be supposed, for a moment, that he was influenced by any personal feelings with respect to them. Nothing was further from his thoughts. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed by his cheer to cast a doubt upon his statement. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that cheer to impute to him any personal feeling towards the noble Earl on the present occasion? From the silence of the right hon. Gentleman, he inferred, that he did mean to impute to him personal feeling in this matter. If that were so, all he would say at present was, that the right hon. Gentleman did not know him; but, whatever might be the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, they should not deter him from discharging his public duty, and he would again say, that there were good grounds for calling the attention of the House and the country to those items, and for requiring some explanation respecting them.
Mr. C. Bullerregretted, that this question, which certainly deserved the attention of the House, should have given rise to any personal feeling. If any party or personal motives had been attributed to the right hon. Baronet when making a temperate inquiry, there might hare been some reason for his heat.
Sir S. Canningmust throw himself upon the House. The hon. Gentleman behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken; he had not complained of what had been said, but what he had seen.
Mr. C. Buller: If such an imputation had been made, it might have accounted
718
for the right hon. Baronet's natural warmth. But who mentioned the case to the House, who attributed a motive, who cast a suspicion? Why, no one; but it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself which insinuated it; he recurred to the part Lord Durham had formerly acted—to the part which the noble Earl took with respect to Mr. Canning's mission to Lisbon; he (Mr. C. Buller) was sorry to see the introduction of topics into this discussion which were calculated to revive bygone animosities, that he had hoped to have seen slumbering in the pages of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. He was sure, that the right hon. Gentleman only meant that these were not proper topics to introduce. The noble Earl was compelled to make a large expenditure; but what was the nature of that expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman surely would not maintain that the Earl of Durham was sent out as a pattern for an independent republic—["A dependent republic."] Well, a dependent republic, then, if hon. Gentlemen liked, for a republic they would have it some way or the other. Republican forms of government in Canada! He hoped that no report of the debate would go forth, to show that the hon. Gentlemen opposite sanctioned the idea that there were, or ought to be, in Canada, republican forms. Lord Durham did not go as the representative of the Sovereign to what might, perhaps, be a hostile nation; but he went as Governor: it was necessary that he should keep up the state of a Governor. All the House was asked to allow, was the necessary expenditure of the Governor-general of a colony; under peculiar circumstances, and no more did Lord Durham require. It must not be supposed, however, that in Canada living was cheap. The expenditure in many parts of the United States was large, and in Canada it was greater than it was here. It should be recollected also, that Quebec was suddenly filled with a large population, and that the price of commodities was consequently raised. Then a sum for building was expended for a house for the Governor-general, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his love for republican institutions and fashions, if he were shown the rooms occupied by Lord Gosford, would think them unfit for a Governor with a family and household; they were formerly the rooms of the aide-

719
de-camp of Lord Dalhousie. The House of Assembly was vacant, and it was fitted up for the Governor-general, and there was no improper expense. It was necessary to lodge the suite in houses. Now houses were usually let in Canada by the year, and in Montreal by the two years; so that the houses must be taken for one year. There was in this branch an annual expenditure, and it was not right to multiply the actual sum expended, as if it were a proportional part of the annual expenditure. A house at Montreal was necessary for the Governor to pass the winter in; and to show how proper this was, Sir John Colborne, since he had been Governor, had occupied the very house hired by Lord Durham. The expenditure was for colonial purposes generally, and did not refer solely to the noble Earl. There were a great many other expenses. The staff was larger than in other missions; it was necessary to incur greater expense in carrying on the whole government of a country, the constitution of which was suspended, than in a mere mission of diplomacy, where there was one supreme person and only a few others who acted as clerks. Then there were the expenses of the commissions of inquiry, which no one would say did not produce great good. Indeed, there was one from which no Gentleman, on eitherside, said had not been derived great benefits: he meant the waste lands commission. He hoped, in consequence of that commission, that the system of disposing of the Crown lands would be so altered, that the whole system would be a source of wealth to the community, and that there would be no jobbing. The Governor-general was also directed to summon the governors of the other colonies, and it was necessary to entertain them and their suites. There was also the expense of travelling, which was important. Lord Durham had travelled between 1,500 and 1,600 miles, and it was necessary to hire steam-boats, which were very expensive. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in supposing, that the noble Earl had paid the whole of his personal expenditure, which was generally borne in such missions by the public, out of his own purse; and if the expenditure on the part of the public were large, it was not the fault of the noble Earl, but arose from the nature of, the service on which he was sent. He was as much opposed as any one to a lavish expenditure; but he believed, that
720
this did not exceed the limits of the ordinary expenditure of a Governor-general of a British colony under such circumstances.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it would be better to give the Governor-general a specific amount for his expenses, than to allow him an unlimited power of expenditure; for, however well his discretion might be exercised, the other plan would be more satisfactory to the country.
Mr. Labouchererelieved from the necessity of entering into any explanation respecting the expenses of the Earl of Durham's mission, by the statement of the hon. Member for Liskeard, but must state that in the opinion of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, that expenditure had not been by any means extravagant. With regard to the expense of his passages, to and from this country, much misrepresentation had gone abroad. The fact was, Lord Durham had not interfered in that matter at all—he had merely sent to the Admiralty a list of persons for whom he required passages, leaving the whole of the details to them. With regard to the missions of Dr. Bowring and Mr. M'Gregor, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, that the Ambassadors possessed sufficient knowledge to enable them to do without such services. The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted the merits of Dr. Bowring, and he was happy in that opportunity of bearing his testimony to the talents, acquirements, and industry of Mr. M'Gregor. No public servant had ever rendered greater services than that gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to offer a few words to the Committee, by way of explaining away a misapprehension which seemed to have arisen in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Canning), with reference to his having cheered. He disclaimed all motives of which the right hon. Gentleman could reasonably complain, and denied any intention of expressing the slightest improper feeling towards him. He had no wish to mix up old recollections with the present vote. Suppose he had been in the House at the time Lord Durham made his motion about Mr. Canning's mission to Lisbon, and suppose he had voted with Lord Durham (then Mr. Lambton) upon that question, what on earth could that have to do with the present discussion? He had to apologize to the right hon. Gentleman for any re-

721
ference to former transactions and feelings by his cheer; but the right hon. Gentleman was himself responsible for the first allusion to them. His wish was to have this question discussed upon its own intrinsic merits.
Vote agreed to.
Committee to sit again.