Sitting of 13 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Church Discipline s Bribery Prevention.—Read a second time: —Joint Stock Banking Companies; West India Relief.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Loch, from places in Scotland, against Lord Aberdeen's Bill.—By Mr. Hastie, from Silk Weavers of Glasgow, against the Reduction of the Duty on Foreign Silk.— By Mr. Villiers, from Horsleydown, and other places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws. —By Mr. Hume, from Kilwinning, for a Mitigation of the Punishment of Political Offenders.—Dy Sir D. Norreys, from Medical Practitioners in the South of Ireland, for Remuneration as Witnesses.—By Mr. Kemble, from the Congregation of St. Peter's Church, Walworth, in favour of Church Extension—By Mr. Colquhoun, from Port Glasgow, for a judicious system of Emigration to our Colonies.—By Sir R. Peel, from places in Scotland, in favour of Lord Aberdeen's Bill.—By Lord J. Russell, from Medical Practitioners at Stroud, for Medical Reform; and from Poor-law Unions, in favour of the Poor-law Amendment Act.

ROYAL MESSAGE—REGENCY.
Lord John Russellappeared at the bar with a Message from the Throne. It was brought up and read by the Speaker. (See Lords Ante.)
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was the intention of her Majesty's advisers to introduce a bill into the other House of Parliament, founded on the gracious message which had just been read; but as it would not appear respectful to delay the acknowledgment of her Majesty's gracious message, he would at once propose—
"That a humble address be presented to her Majesty, thanking her Majesty for her most gracious communication, recommending this House to take into its consideration a contingency that may hereafter take place, and to make such provisions as in any event may secure the exercise of the Royal authority, and to assure her Majesty that this House will be prepared to concur in such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain unimpaired the power and dignity of the Crown, and thereby strengthen those securieties that protest the rights and liberties of the people."
Address carried nem. dis.

UNITED STATES BOUNDARY.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that he thought it might be satisfactory to the House to know that her Majesty's Government had sent out a proposition in answer to one which had proceeded from the United States, and
670
which had reached this country in the course of the last year. The proposition thus transmitted, was accompanied by the draft of a convention, which he had no doubt would have the effect of bringing the whole question to a final and satisfactory issue.
Sir R Peeldesired to know if the proposition to which the noble Lord referred took for its basis any other proposition which had proceeded from the United States, or was altogether a new proposition which the American government were at liberty to accept or reject, as they thought proper?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the proposition sent out by her Majesty's Government, was founded on that received last year from the American government.
Subject dropped.

CRACOW.
On reading the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply,
Sir S. Canningsaid, that in the former part of the present Session he had called the attention of the House to the situation of Cracow, and he presumed it would be recollected that so long as four years ago he had first drawn the attention of the public to the condition of a state which had been established on one of the most solemn compacts of modern times—which had been invested with sovereign power, and which it was now most painful to see occupied by foreign troops, and under subjection to foreign authority. Cracow was a small state, and remote from the shores of England; but it was important on account of its situation, and it was interesting because it formed an original and integral part of the great European system of national policy. The subject which he had undertaken to bring before the House was one which involved considerations deeply affecting the character of this country, her influence with foreign nations, and her most important interests as a commercial and maritime power; and notwithstanding the positive assurances put forth upon the subject, that the occupation was merely temporary, he yet could not regard it, nor could any man contemplate such a state of things, without feelings painfully aggravated by the reflection that nothing had yet been accomplished towards the relief of that state. He trusted the House would agree with him, that on the present occasion it was not necessary to offer any apology for resorting

671
to the old constitutional practice of coupling a redress of grievances with a vote of supply. The inquiry which he wished to see instituted was one which might or might not involve a charge against her Majesty's Government. He should not take upon himself to say whether it did or not, but this he felt desirous of saying, that he brought forward this motion without any reference to party considerations, that he brought it forward solely upon his own individual responsibility, and in doing so he wished to make no hypocritical appeal to the other side for indulgence. He was free to say that not only the construction of that Government, resting as it did on a principle that was well known to this House, but also the manner in which they conducted the business of the country, were points to which he could not consent. On looking to the foreign policy of the Government, he felt as little satisfaction as in regard to the other parts of their policy, but at the same time he must confess there had been some improvement during the last two years. When he looked to our late transactions in Spain, and to some of our differences with Russia, when he viewed the present state of our relations with so many of those powers with whom we used to be on terms of amity, with China, Naples, Buenes Ayres, and Persia, and more especially when we looked to the state of our affairs at Washington and Constantinople, it was impossible-not to feel considerable anxiety. He felt, that in now presenting himself to their notice, he was rather to be blamed for not having brought forward the subject at an earlier period of the Session, than for any degree of party eagerness in bringing it forward at this moment. It was not necessary for him in the course of his details to refer at any length to tbe stipulations of tbe treaty of Vienna, on which the existence of the city of Cracow and its claims on our interest depended. Those stipulations were generally well known to hon. Members, as they had more than on one occasion been under their immediate notice. It was enough for him to remind the House, that by the several articles of that treaty, the independence, freedom, and strict neutrality of the city of Cracow were secured. The protection of the powers who were immediately concerned in the arrangement of the articles, was also secured to that city.
672
Into the articles, too, there was introduced a special exemption to Cracow from all military occupation whatsoever; the preservation of the constitution was also guaranteed; and, in addition to that, the free navigation of all the rivers through Poland, and the right of transit through that country to other countries more to the east, were likewise secured to the state of Cracow. There was also guaranteed to the city a provision for the instruction of its inhabitants; and the university that existed there in former times was taken under the special care of the treaty, and even its endowment was provided for. The whole of these articles were inserted in the treaty, and every care was taken by those who were parties to it to provide for the complete fulfilment of the various stipulations. It resulted from that treaty that obligations of the most binding and solemn kind devolved on all the powers who had taken part in it; and a general ratification of it succeeded to its arrangement under circumstances of what might be called peculiar solemnity. But he could not give a stronger proof of the importance attached to the ratification of the treaty, than by reading the terms in which it was described in the History of the Events of the Congress—a work which justly maintained a high character, and the author of which Mr. Flassan, was no inconsiderable authority in matters of the kind, he having been a distinguished member of the French diplomacy and present at the congress to which he had alluded.
"All the sovereign slates in Europe with the exception of Spain and the Pope sent, in succession, their entire adherence to the general treaty of the 9th June, 1815, conformably to the invitation contained in the 119th Article of the same treaty. Prince Metternich, as the president of the congress, had been charged to invite that ratification; and the parties engaged in it concurred in a formal and solemn manner, either as accessories or as principals to the execution of the treaty. There resulted from that mode of agreement and stipulation a general, complete, and reciprocal guarantee of all the dispositions of the general treaty."
Such were the terms in which the treaty was spoken of by that author, who was able from his political experience, from his communications with the plenipotentiaries, and the situation he then occupied, in the service of one of the parties to the treaty, to express a just opinion on

673
the subject. Nor must he omit to state, that it was expressly stipulated that all the articles as to the state of Cracow should be considered as having equal force with every other part of the treaty. He had now to approach a part of the subject which it was more painful for him to allude to: he meant the violation of that treaty by the occupation of the city of Cracow by foreign troops. He believed the first occupation that took place was under circumstances which, he would allow, did not in strict right warrant the transaction, but which threw a softening shadow over it, and afforded some excuse for the violation of the treaty. It was immediately after the close of the Polish insurrection, and when the tranquillity of the country was entirely established, that the Russian troops suddenly entered Cracow, apparently without any previous concert with the other powers, but under an impulse which might be supposed to be derived from the peculiar circumstances of the moment. What tended to confirm that supposition was, that the occupation lasted only for two months; and, as he understood, the change was brought about by the amicable interference of Austria. The occupation of the city of Cracow some years later had, however, less to excuse it, and appeared to have been of a far more serious nature. It was known to most hon. Members that disturbances had taken place at Cracow, which on one side were represented to be of trifling importance, but on the other side were aggravated by circumstances of a political character. But, in his judgment, they were not sufficient to justify the violent eruption that ensued. Notwithstanding the assurances that were given at that time, the occupation of Cracow has now lasted for more than four years, without, as far as he was informed, any good cause to account for it. It was impossible, then, for him not to be anxious to obtain some explanation of the matter from her Majesty's Government. The occupation of the territory of Cracow was not confined, nor were the painful circumstances connected with it to the mere establishment of military authority, but many features of that occupation were of a civil and political character. The forms of the free constitution were preserved, but the supreme power was placed in the hands of the three residents. But, not contented with the change that
674
took place in 1833, the new authorities, as he had been informed, afterwards introduced various enactments calculated to ruin all the authority of the former functionaries of the place, and to make their own power supreme. The police was placed under the direction of" Austria; all the appointments of the different functionaries of the state were placed under the immediate direction of the conqueror himself, and various restrictions were put on the trade and commerce of the place; and it was with particular reference to that state of things that the various petitions which had been presented to the House, and especially the one which, not long since, was presented from the merchants and others of the City of London, by one of the representatives of that city (Mr. Grote). He himself, a few days ago, had presented a petition to the same effect from the important town of Hull, which stated:—
"The commercial intercourse which had taken place between this country and the republic of Cracow had been productive of the most favourable results; The export chiefly consisted of the British manufactered goods, and of the produce of our colonies. That this trade, which for a period of sixteen years appeared so promising, has been, through the occupation of Cracow by foreign troops, entirely destroyed."
Such also were nearly the terms of the petition which had been presented from London. One of the evils of Cracow at this time had been the retirement from office of a person who was most calculated to engage the confidence of the citizens with respect to commerce. It was impossible for him to enumerate all the circumstances connected with Cracow in its present state; but he had in his possession papers in which they were expressed in more forcible language than any which he was able to employ. He would take the liberty of reading to the House a translation from an address which had been presented to the three protecting Sovereigns, through their representatives at Cracow, as far back as 1838, after the occupation of the city, had existed for some years. The expressions they used were these:—
"It is, no doubt, come to the knowledge of your Majesties that for some years past, the trade and industry of our country have been ruined, and the sources of its prosperity dried up. In fact, it would be difficult to find a country where this state of impoverishment and general misery is more striking than in ours

675
This physical distress is rendered still more painful by the consideration, that the individual rights of the subjects of this country, find no security in its existing institutions. The inhabitants of the free city of Cracow see themselves consequently deprived of two conditions essential to public prosperity; namely, of liberty for the exercise of industry in the limits indispensable to its development, and of a sufficient protection for private interests against arbitrary power. It is now two years that shut up, in some sort, as we are, within our narrow frontiers, our communications have been interrupted with the neighbouring states, and especially with the kingdom of Poland, so that the productions of our industry have a difficult and limited vent, while the objects of exportation from the neighbouring states find a free market with us. The university of Cracow, which by the resort of young men from the neighbouring countries, conformably to the treaty of Vienna, might have secured to the country a certain degree of welfare, and the advantage of an important scientific advancement, is now without students, in consequence of the prohibitions to allow the youth of the neighbouring provinces to pursue their studies there. This measure is maintained, although the university has been re-constituted according to the intentions of the protecting sovereigns, and that the competition for the professorships be submitted to the decision of universities, situate within the states of the protecting sovereigns."
In addition to those circumstances, he could mention another, which was very characteristic of the state of the relations in which Cracow stood towards the protecting powers. It was said, that even the professorships in the three faculties were equally divided between the three protecting states, and that the professorship of law was attached to Prussia, and that of medicine to Austria, while the professorship of religion, the people of the country being Roman Catholics, was given to Russia. The petition further said:—
"We do not come this day to claim any kind of new constitutional right; all our wishes are confined to those which it is allowed to your Majesties' faithful subjects to frame. All our desires tend to no other object but to be able, to enjoy with a certain degree of security a calm and tranquil existence in a state of prosperity obtained by assiduous and productive labour. We beseech your Majesties to delegate a new commission equally impartial and conscientious to verify the actual stale of things and ascertain our innocence. We beseech you to restore to the senate its former authority, and by replacing it at the head of all the powers of the state to re-establish the unity of the Government which no longer exists."
676
The reply of the representatives of the three protecting powers, was as follows:—
"The undersigned, &c, having considered the address to their august Sovereigns, of which the senate of the free city has been pleased to communicate a copy to them, and which address was voted by the Chamber of Representatives, found themselves under the necessity of declaring that this document does not appear to them of a nature fitted to be carried to the foot of the Thrones of their Majesties, and they hasten to let his Excellency the President know that the address is to be considered as null (non avenue)."
After receiving this answer, the people of Cracow, despairing of being able to obtain any relief at the hands of the protecting powers, found it necessary, as the only alternative, to find access to some of those powers, who, although they did not fill the character of protecting states, were bound to enforce the execution of the treaty. A whole year, however, elapsed before the people of Cracow resorted to this expedient, and that it was not till 1839, towards the close of the year, that a memorial was drawn up and addressed to the Governments of France and England. He would quote a passage which showed its spirit and effect.
"The misfortunes which overwhelm the free city of Cracow and its inhabitants are such that the undersigned see no further hope for themselves and their fellow citizens than in the powerful and enlightened protection of the governments of France and England. The situation in which we find ourselves placed gives us the right to invoke the intervention of every power that subscribed the treaty of Vienna."
He thought that the people of Cracow had a right to claim the intervention of those states which had been parties to the treaty of Vienna, and he must say, that if they should be disappointed in this expectation, and find no power answer to their cry of distress, it would have been better that the establishment of the freedom of Cracow should not have been made part of the treaty of Vienna, or placed under the protection of an English signature, and an English ratification. He must be allowed to say, that until he heard some further explanation from the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—until the House was told on what grounds the noble Lord reconciled the present condition of the question with the answers given by the noble Lord four years ago to

677
him (Sir S. Canning) and to other hon. Members—and what circumstances justified the public assurance then made by the noble Lord that a consul would be sent to Cracow, and the total neglect and non-execution of his promise since that time, and until the House knew how far the noble Lord had made use of the influence of his office to make representations to the powers, more immediately concerned in favour of Cracow, and to take advantage of the favourable demonstrations which had been made by a neighbouring power on more than one occasion, it would be impossible to resist the impression that our interests connected with Cracow were treated with neglect, and that our only remedy at this late period would be a tardy and perhaps ineffectual remonstrance. The first matter for consideration was, the military occupation of the city, and with regard to this, he did think, that what more immediately concerned the interests of England was, that the protecting powers should be brought to a sense of what was due to their own character, and what was due to the engagements which they contracted by the treaty of Vienna. It was difficult to pronounce with certainly as to the exact state of commerce in Cracow; but it was impossible to look at the map of Europe, and see the situation of Cracow, placed on one of the most important rivers of Europe, without understanding its importance to commerce, and the facilities which it offered to the extension of the trade of this country. The right hon. Gentleman quoted at some length the Foreign Quarterly Review to show that Cracow enjoyed a great trade with the different Polish provinces, as Siberia, Hungary, Wallachia, Moldavia, to which it sold the commodities of England; and that Cracow enjoyed great immunities; and that the prosperity of her commerce was becoming more and more important, when the two successive occupations, in 1831 and 1836 came and annihilated it. Having thus, the right hon. Gentleman continued, laid before the House a state of circumstances leading to the belief that the position of Cracow was favourable to commerce, and that it already furnished a market of no inconsiderable magnitude, considering its distance and the circumstances in which it was placed, and might furnish one of still greater extent if it were evacuated by foreign troops, he thought the House could not be insensible to the advantages
678
which might be derived in a commercial point of view from placing an agent there. It was on that account that he called the attention of the noble Lord to that part of the subject, and expressed a hope that the difficulties might be removed which had hitherto prevented such a course from being taken. It was impossible not to presume, after the promises which the noble Lord had made four years ago, that some objections had been made of a stringent kind to the residence of an agent under any circumstances, either commercial or political. It was true that the city of Cracow was classed, in a diplomatic point of view, as a free city, and there was, perhaps, an impression that it had not that complete enjoyment of political rights as to be able to receive an agent without the consent of the three protecting powers; but at Frankfort, which was also a free city, we had not only a commercial but a diplomatic agent; at Hamburgh, which was like Cracow a free and independent city, we had a consul and a diplomatic representation. An analogy might also be drawn with regard to protecting states. The Ionian Islands were placed under the protection of Great Britain, and the treaty which applied to them might be considered as resting upon the same basis as the treaty of Vienna. Now in the former treaty it was considered requisite to introduce an express stipulation in order to give Her Majesty's Government the right of keeping a garrison in the Ionian Islands. Again, in the treaty regarding the Ionian Islands, there is an express article declaring that foreign powers should have no right to send any representatives but commercial agents. It appeared, therefore, necessary that there should be an express stipulation in order to prevent other powers from sending representatives. From these considerations, notwithstanding the lapse of time since the noble Lord had made his promise to the House, and notwithstanding the presumption that circumstances had hitherto prevented the promise from being performed, he (Sir S. Canning) hoped before the close of the discussion, to receive from the noble Lord a satisfactory explanation of the difficulties which had interposed, and he also hoped to see those difficulties speedily removed in a satisfactory manner. Although all hope had not abandoned him, he could not say he had any confidence that the state of things he had exposed would be

679
treated and remedied as it ought to be by Her Majesty's Government. He appealed to that House, and trusted it would teach the Government that such a subject as this was not to be delivered over either to total neglect or interminable delay. It was here he expected to find some sympathy with the rights and injuries of other nations, with which we were connected by treaties the most solemn, and commercial interests of the greatest magnitude. It was here he expected to find a disposition to represent to the allies of the Crown the obligations they had contracted in common with ourselves, although from the pressure of some peculiar views, they had for a time been tempted to neglect them. No one was more anxious than himself to maintain our pacific relations with every quarter of the globe; but it appeared to him that exactly in proportion as we entertained friendly relations with other Powers, we ought under careful management to have that degree of influence which would prevent occasional aberrations from proceeding to dangerous extremes. [The right hon. Gentleman concluded by quoting passages from Viscount Palmerston's speeches on March 18,1836, andonApril20,1836,toshew that the noble Lord took similar views as he took of the importance of Cracow, of the injustice which had been done, and of the necessity of interfering]. It would depend, he said, on what line should be taken by the noble Lord opposite, whether he should make any formal motion now, or leave the matter over till another session.
Mr. H. Gally Knightsaid, after the full and able manner in which this subject has been brought forward by my hon. Friend, it will not be necessary for me to intrude upon the House for any length of time, but having on a former occasion raised my voice, however unavailingly, for Poland, I cannot now behold Cracow, in the very agonies of approaching dissolution, without uttering one word in her behalf, for Cracow is a remnant, the last remnant of the Polish cause, therefore, perhaps, is she odious in the eyes of the oppressor —therefore, perhaps, is she trampled under foot; not a spark must exist lest the fire should be kindled again, but therefore will Cracow be interesting to all whose hearts bled for Poland, and they will renew their exertions to snatch from destruction the little, the all, that remains. This House has heard the history of Cra-
680
cow's wrongs, and never was there a darker succession of injuries and persecutions, and having heard it, how must we look upon each other? England was a party to the treaty which made Cracow independent, and have we stood by, and let it come to this? Must we not look upon each other as men whose honour is in jeopardy? as men obnoxious to reproach? for having permitted all this desolation to take place—for having permitted that which the good faith of England was pledged to prevent? I know not what answer the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will make on this occasion, but this I know, that on these subjects, the noble Lord has disappointed us again and again. I remember when the noble Lord was pressed to exert himself in favour of Poland, that he admitted the justice of the cause, the justice of our complaints, but he said, only restrain yourselves at present, there is an ambassador just setting out, of known liberal sentiments, you maybe sure he will do all that is right, you will only embarrass his negotiation if you incense the power with whom he has to deal, so, take my advice, be quiet at present, and be assured that a great deal will be effected. We trusted to those assurances. The Liberal ambassador went, whether he ever approached the subject or not was never known, but all we got was the fine words of the noble Lord, and no results. Again, when my right hon. Friend on a former occasion brought forward the subject of Cracow, we were promised that an English consul should be established at Cracow in a very short time. What has been done? and the noble Lord told us, in the early part of this Session, that he did nothing for fear of giving umbrage. Why did the noble Lord promise if he could be so easily discouraged? Has he taken the ground which does credit to a British Minister? Is this the attitude which it becomes England to assume? Is this country sunk so low as to be compelled to acquiesce in the violation of a treaty to which we are parties? Are we sunk so low as to be tongue-tied, in a righteous cause for fear of giving umbrage? There is something curiously inconsistent in the proceedings of the noble Lord when Russia is concerned. It is not long ago that he seemed absolutely desirous of getting up a war with Russia. His language, at that time, was of so me-

681
nacing a description as to create considerable alarm, and, whilst that remarkable publication, the Portfolio, was coming out, the noble Lord did not appear to be so very sensitive on the subject of giving umbrage. If he was so valiant then, what has now made him so circumspect? Again, when Russia was intriguing in Persia, did not the noble Lord remonstrate in good set terms? most properly remonstrate, and did he not obtain the most complete satisfaction? I should have thought he would have been encouraged by that transaction to adopt the same course again, or will he do nothing for Cracow, that he may get a Russian army to descend into Asia Minor, and thus, eventually, give the Dardanelles to Russia, and Egypt to France? But suppose the noble Lord is conducting the Eastern mediation in a more statesmanlike manner, is not the time when we are entering into new engagements with Russia a fit opportunity for asserting the rights of Cracow? A contract implies that each party wants something of the other, and therefore offers the moment when conditions may be made. Why were we not to say, you cannot have our co-operation, unless you will observe the engagements which it is our duty to see fulfilled? The treaty of Vienna is violated. We cannot connive at this infraction of good faith. This matter must be set right before we embark together in a fresh undertaking. If the independence of Cracow is intolerable to Russia, why did she consent to it? She cannot have said one thing and meant another, but the House had heard to what she consented, and the House had heard what has been done. It cannot be denied, that by the treaty of Vienna, to which this country was a party, Cracow was declared to be a free town, received a constitution, and by various specific articles in the treaty, was granted a perfect freedom in trade, from which Cracow for some time derived great benefit, and in the advantages of which this country participated to no inconsiderable degree. The prosperity of Cracow, however, was but short lived. The persecution soon began, followed up by invasions and occupations under different pretexts. But the blow which was struck in 1833 is almost unparalleled for its injustice, and the cruel mockery by which it was accompanied. It was at that time that three of the five powers who were parties to the treaty of Vienna, took upon themselves, without any
682
reference to the two other contending parties, to confer upon Cracow what they called a new constitution, and to declare, that from that time the residents of the three courts should become the government of this free town. I doubt whether the history of the world affords another instance of such an act of aggression, and how it could be that France and England, the two powers who had been parties to the original treaty, yet were not even consulted on this alteration—how it could be that they did not interfere on the occasion of this injury to Cracow, and this insulting disregard of themselves, may well be matter of astonishment. It may easily be imagined how things went on under such a protectorate. At length the com-plaints of Cracow reached this country, and a motion in its behalf was made in this House—on which occasion the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, declared, "that he could not see any sufficient justification of the course which the three powers had pursued," and he engaged to interfere, but that pledge was never redeemed—and what is now the state of the case? The constitution of Cracow is annulled—the Senate overthrown—the independence of her tribunals destroyed—her commerce is at a stand— and even her ancient university, to which the youth of Poland used to resort, has been plundered of its endowments, and is all but put down. The very police of the place are foreigners—not protectors, but spies —and paid by the three protecting powers—are employed to watch the tormented inhabitants, and invent the conspiracies which they fail to create? Every species of annoyance and humiliation is heaped upon this unhappy people, who at once are deprived of their rights, and see their country falling into ruins around them. Can the imagination of man represent to itself a more revolting picture? Really the words which the poet has inscribed on the gates of the infernal regions might, with too much propriety, be now inscribed on the gates of Cracow—it is indeed "la citta dolente," nor hope remains for them who dwell therein. And here was no Polish insurrection—no misconduct of any kind—nothing to excuse the violence of the oppressor, or the lukewarmness of the friend. Is not this a case which is worthy of compassion? Is this an occasion on which it becomes England to stand by with her arms folded? Because Cracow

683
is weak is she to be abandoned? And if generous motives are not to impel us, are we to have no regard for British interests? Are we patiently to acquiesce in the destruction of that trade from which we derived so much advantage, and which the petitions addressed to this House by the bankers and merchants of our towns beseech us to restore? But I trust, that the opinions expressed in this House will encourage the noble Lord to exert himself at last. The Senate of France have already proclaimed their sentiments on this subject, and the new Minister of France is the declared friend of Cracow. If the Senate of England expresses the same opinion with the Senate of France, the united voices of the representatives of two such nations cannot fail to arrest attention, and produce an effect. Now is the time—the victim is nearly exhausted—a little longer and it will be too late. What Cracow desires is, that a conference of the five powers should be convened, and restore the constitution to what it was originally made by the treaty of Vienna, and that for the future a British Consul and a French Consul should reside at Cracow. Nothing, as it appears to me, can be more just and reasonable than these demands. With a view to the accomplishment of this object, I hope that both sides of this House will be of one mind on the present occasion. We are proud of our freedom. We know the value of a Constitution. Let us not appear to be indifferent to the loss of those blessings by others, and above all things let us remember that the good faith of England is at stake.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was something in his Parliamentary career, in respect to the present Government, which made it necessary for him, as a matter of fairness and candour, to undeceive the Government, and take from them any false hopes they might entertain of obtaining his support, by assuring them in the commencement of his speech, that he disapproved of all their policy, both domestic and foreign. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that no such explanation was necessary to set the Government right with respect to his views and intentions. The Ministers were quite aware that they had incurred the misfortune of the right hon. Gentleman's disapprobation, but they endeavoured to bear it as well as they could; and perhaps it was the forti-
684
tude which they had shown under this heavy calamity, that had led the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that they could not be aware of his hostility. The right hon. Gentleman conceived that his disapprobation was justified by the state of our discussions with foreign powers,—with the governments of Naples, Buenos Ayres, Constantinople, Washington, and China, which, he said, displayed a total absence of all wisdom. The Ministers did not certainly pretend to have more wisdom than their neighbours; but they at least had this wisdom, that when they spoke of matters, they took care to inform themselves of the state in which those matters stood. Now, when the right hon. Gentleman talked of Naples, he might have known, for the fact had been stated in the French Chambers, that the discussions between Naples and this country had, through the mediation of France, been drawn to a satisfactory conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman had also alluded to discussions between this country and Buenos Ayres, and Constantinople. He supposed that unfriendly discussions were meant, but what those unfriendly discussions might be, was totally unknown to him. With respect to the discussions with the Government at Washington—and he presumed the discussions connected with the boundary question were meant—he (Lord Palmerston) had already staled to the right hon. Member for Tamworth, that her Majesty's Ministers had recently made a proposition to the government of America, founded on the principle and basis of the propositions made by that government last year; and he therefore indulged the hope that those discussions were in a fair train of settlement. He would now advert to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman with respect to Cracow, which in truth was the real question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying, that he did not bring this question forward with any party feeling; and therefore it would perhaps have been as well if he had avoided topics which seemed to partake of that character. With respect to the question of Cracow, he (Lord Palmerston) was not going to unsay anything which he had said on a former occasion, or to retract any opinion he had advanced, either in extracts quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, or any other, as to the question of right between the three powers and the city of Cracow, or between

685
those powers and the other parties who had signed the treaty of Vienna. He thought that the grounds on which the three powers justified the step they had taken, however valid they might in their own opinion deem them, were not borne out by the fact, and were not sufficient to bring the occupation of Cracow within the treaty of Vienna. Her Majesty's Ministers had informed the three powers that they deemed the occupation of Cracow a violation of the treaty of Vienna, and had protested against it; but it was one thing to express an opinion, and another thing to take hostile steps to compel the three powers to undo an act which they had done, and especially in a case where, from local and geographical circumstances, there were no means of enforcing the opinions of England, supposing that this country were disposed to do so by arms, except by declaring war, because Cracow was evidently a place where no English action could by possibility take place. When he stated that it was the opinion of Ministers that the occupation of Cracow was contrary to the stipulations of the treaty of Vienna, yet it was only fair to bear in mind the peculiar circumstances of Europe very recently before that occupation. There had been the revolution in France, and that movement in Belgium which led to the separation of the latter country from Holland. There had also been that great effort on the part of the Poles to recover what they considered their just rights from the government of Russia. The three powers were greatly alarmed at these demonstrations of popular feeling and opinion in Europe. Each of them had possessions which were formerly part of Poland, and therefore it was not surprising if, at such a moment, their fears or their passions might have in some degree obscured their judgment, and led them to adopt measures which at a calmer period they would perceive to be inconsistent with the obligations they had entered into. These apprehensions being gone by, a hope might reasonably be entertained that the three powers would take a more moderate view of these matters; but as far as the opinion of the English Government went on the question of right, he had already stated in Parliament what that opinion was, he had stated it also in communications with other governments, and by that opinion he abided. On the question of interest, he conceived that the
686
right hon. Gentleman had very much overstated his case. The right hon. Gentleman contended that Cracow was of great importance to this country in a commercial point of view. In a political point of view, he concurred in thinking that where principles were concerned, it mattered not much whether the spot to which they applied were small or large; principles must remain the same, and it was important to maintain them. But with respect to commercial interests, the case was different. It here became a matter of degree and of fact; and it was obvious that Cracow, if its commercial intercourse with this country were merely considered in reference to its own particular consumption, could not be an object of very great importance. The population of the city of Cracow did not amount to much more than 110,000 souls. As a point of connexion with the rest of the continent, it was undoubtedly in times past of some importance; but the question was, whether the events which had lately taken place had diminished our commercial intercourse, not with Cracow itself, but with the rest of Germany. He did not now seek to diminish the interest which the House might be disposed to feel on the political part of the question; but he wished the commercial part to stand upon its real merits. How stood the fact with respect to the exports from this country? The British exports to Germany could not in the nature of things be kept so distinct as to enable any one to tell how much went to each particular inland port; but the total export to Prussia, Germany, and Holland, in the year 1835, amounted in value to 7,439,000 l.; in 1836 to 7,134,000 l., being a diminution; in 1837 to 8,069,000 l.; and in 1838 to 8,693,000 l. Therefore, whatever effect the present state of Cracow might have had on the commercial arrangements of this country which depended on Cracow itself, it was clear that with respect to the commerce to Germany, including Holland, there had been no diminution, but, on the contrary, a considerable augmentation, of late years. With respect to the occupation of the city of Cracow, it should be recollected that though that occupation was sanctioned and ordered by the three powers, it was practically executed chiefly by Austria. It was at present, and had been for some time, garrisoned by Austrian troops. The British Government

687
had from time to time urged the three powers, and especially Austria, to withdraw that garrison, which had been placed in Cracow for a temporary purpose, and the governments of those powers, and particularly that of Austria, had repeatedly assured the British Government that the garrison should be withdrawn, and that it was only kept there for a time, waiting for certain events, namely, in the first place, the re-organization of the militia force of Cracow; and in the next, the result of some transactions which were about to take place. Indeed, the government of Austria, whose troops formed the occupying force, had assured the British Government that it had no wish to make a permanent occupation, and was about shortly to withdraw the garrison. Her Majesty's Ministers had very lately repeated the expression of their wish, that that assurance should be carried into effect; and between Austria and the British Government the question remained only a matter of time. He could assure the House, that as far as the object of gaining the release of Cracow from military occupation was concerned, the Government had not lost sight of that object, and had pursued it in the manner they deemed most advisable, by amicable negotiations. If he were now asked to say when that object would be attained, or what were the intentions of Ministers on the subject, he thought that his experience of the manner in which his unfortunate assertion of an intention to appoint a British consul at Cracow had been taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite, justified him in positively refusing to give any answer to such a question, which might expose him to similar, and, as he conceived, unjustifiable attacks. It was true that he had stated, that it was the intention of the Government to send a consul to Cracow, but not, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, by "this day month." However, when that intention became known, it created a great deal of jealousy on the part of the three Powers, not so much on account of the fact of the Government's intention to appoint a consul at Cracow, as on account of the political character which would be given it by other parties; and in the course of communications with the three Powers, which lasted some time, it was found impossible to remove from their minds that feeling of jealousy and suspicion with which they
688
would view the execution of the intention to appoint a consul. He now stated, as he had done on former occasions, that it then became a question of prudence, as well as a question respecting the character, honour, and dignity of this country, whether the Government should carry their purpose into effect. In the first place, as regarded the people of Cracow, if this sending a British consul there had excited in their minds the expectations of further support and interference, which might have been justified by the language held on the subject of the appointment by those who wished to press it on the Government, he was afraid that that people might have been led to commit themselves some way or other in consequence of these unfounded expectations of impossible support, and thereby have rendered worse that state of things which everybody deplored, and which her Majesty's Ministers would be glad to improve, were it in their power to do so. In the next place, if the three Powers had chosen to do their utmost to prevent a British cousul going to Cracow, nothing could have been more easy than by their influence to induce what was called the government of Cracow to reject our consul, and decline to give him his exequatur. Was this a fitting situation for a great power like England to place herself in with reference to a small state like Cracow? If Cracow refused to receive the British consul, the Government would be bound to look upon the refusal as the act of the government of Cracow, though in reality it would not be the act of that state. Under these circumstances he thought the House would be of opinion that Ministers had only acted with a due regard to the honour and dignity of this country, in abstaining from carrying their intention of sending a consul to Cracow into effect, when they found this difficulty which they had not anticipated. He quite agreed that the manner in which Cracow had been constituted an independent state, did not prevent it from having diplomatic agents, if it so thought fit; and that there was a distinction between Cracow and the Ionian islands, inasmuch as it had been necessary to put a particular article into the treaty with the Ionian Islands, which were under the protection of Britain, to prohibit them from holding diplomatic intercourse with any foreign powers except England. He, however, did not admit the exact parity of

689
the instance cited by the right hon. Gentleman. The city of Frankfort might not be a more considerable place than Cracow, and nevertheless England had a Minister there. But that Minister, though accredited as a matter of courtesy to the Government of Frankfort, was there, because that city was the seat of the Diet; he was an unpaid officer, and merely transacted business connected with travellers. In Hamburgh there were a consul-general and charge-d'affaires; but they were appointed not merely for Hamburgh, but because that place was the principal of the Hanse Towns, and the port through which a great deal of the commercial intercourse with the Continent proceeded. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that he did not fail to take a lively interest in everything which concerned the unhappy population both of Cracow and Poland. It was impossible for any one standing up in the Parliament of this country, not to feel and express a great sympathy with the calamities and afflictions of that unfortunate people. He could also assure the House—and he now spoke, not for the present Ministers, but also for those who might succeed them—that the Government of England would, on every occasion, when by the exercise of their influence, they could mitigate the fate of those whose misfortunes they all lamented, not fail to take advantage of the opportunity. But a greater mistake could not be committed, than to suppose that these things were to be effected, not by persuasion, but by means of force only—by threatening right and left, and by using big words, which they were not prepared to maintain by acts. Without presuming to express any unbecoming opinion of what passed in another country, he certainly should not recommend the House to follow the example of the French Chambers; because he did not think that the Legislature of a great country added to its honour or dignity by annually entering strong resolutions upon its records, without being prepared to follow them up by action.
Sir R. Peelsaid, no person was more impressed than himself with the necessity of proceeding with caution with respect to matters of which the House was but imperfectly informed, and the conduct of which might naturally affect our amicable arrangements with foreign powers. He agreed with the noble Lord, that there was
690
nothing more unwise than for a popular assembly, acting on feeling and passion, to excite the Executive Government to resort to force for the purpose of attaining an object, which perhaps might more easily be accomplished by friendly negotiations; but, at the same time, he felt that the House of Commons would abdicate its functions, and lose its character in the eyes of Europe, if it carried its forbearance to too great an extent, and exhibited a perfect indifference to questions of foreign policy. He bore in mind all those considerations to which the noble Lord had referred, as forming matter of justification of the conduct of the three powers; he bore in mind the portentous events of the year 1830, which led to the overthrow of one dynasty, which led to the separation of Belgium from Holland, to the insurrection of Poland, and to such a state of dangerous excitement throughout Europe, as betokened some peril that the happy settlement of the affairs of Europe which had taken place in 1815 might be disturbed, and Europe involved in the miseries of general war. He recollected all this, and it went far to account for those feelings which appeared to have influenced the three powers in their conduct, and which in particular induced them to forbid Cracow to become a place of residence for refugees from other countries. Speaking then, in the full knowledge, and recollection of these things, but at the same time speaking with all reserve, and knowing the weight of what was openly said in the House of Commons, he must say that, in his opinion, the time was come, or at any rate very fast approaching, that the three powers would feel assured that it was for the general interests of Europe, that it was for the maintenance of those true Conservative principles which he believed it was the great object of those three powers to support, that due observance should be given to the settlement that was made in 1815, and that Cracow should be re-established in that independence and freedom which were guaranteed to it in that year. Those three powers must in his opinion feel the immense importance, when the temporary necessity by which their conduct hitherto had been regulated with regard to the matter should be at an end, of re-establishing all the states, small as well as great (and perhaps the moral obligation was the stronger to re-establish the small than the

691
great states), the independent existence of which had been guaranteed by the treaty of 1815. He said, he was convinced that when this temporary necessity was at an end, they would feel the obligation to be absolute to re-establish Cracow in freedom and independence; they would recollect the favour which had always been felt and shown throughout Europe to small communities, like Frankfort, and Lubeck, and Hamburgh, and Cracow; they would see that the rights of these small states could not safely be disturbed; they would not fail to see this on looking to the discussions which had recently taken place in France with reference to this subject, and looking to the possibility that the very strong feeling on the question which now lay dormant might be at length excited throughout Europe. It was in reliance upon these considerations and upon others involving the rights of individual states, however small, and upon their sufficiency to induce the three great powers who were the supporters of that principle for which he had great respect, and which had been called the Conservative principle, and with whom he cordially desired to continue relations of amity, to arrive at the same conclusion, that he most earnestly hoped that they would see fit to anticipate the feeling of France and England on this subject, and would of themselves, without any interference on the part of any other power, re-establish the independence of Cracow. This would be far the most satisfactory course which they could pursue. He hoped, therefore, that no angry interference with those powers would take place at present, but that they themselves, listening to justice, would of themselves re-establish this town in the freedom which had been guaranteed to it, and permit Europe to enjoy that spectacle which must be most gratifying to every one—namely, of a small state surrounded by powerful military governments, but yet allowed to preserve inviolate its own independence. He agreed with the noble Lord that the political question was of much more importance than the commercial; but he must say, that in this commercial country we could not but view with jealousy, and justifiable jealousy, every infraction of the rights of a free city, which, by a solemn treaty, had been declared to be independent, and to have separate rights of free trade with other countries. But he thought that the noble
692
Lord had quite failed to establish his position, that the trade and commerce of this country had lost nothing in consequence of the occupation of Cracow. He well knew that the commerce of this country with Cracow could not at any time be extremely large; but how did the noble Lord make out his case? By showing that the amount of general exports to Germany had not fallen off. Supposing that our commerce with Germany in general was in a state of progressive increase, or that the trade with Germany and Poland in general was not falling off, did the noble Lord think that our commerce with Cracow had not fallen off, had not been injured, by the peculiar circumstances under which it had been placed? Take the case of any foreign town—Cadiz, for instance, and suppose that our commerce with Cadiz were cut off by hostile occupation, might not our whole commerce with Spain show, notwithstanding, a state of progressive increase, and how would showing the latter prove that the Cadiz trade was not ruined? The question, in fact, was how did the noble Lord show that our commerce with the whole of the north of the continent would not have shown a greater progressive increase if we had retained the trade of Cracow? But if this progressive increase would have been greater, then our right to complain on this score of the interference with Cracow was good. Then the noble Lord said, that on this occasion he should not make any declaration of the intentions of her Majesty's Government with respect to this question. Now, in the propriety of what the noble Lord had stated on this topic, he (Sir R. Peel) quite agreed. Indeed, he had thought that the principle laid down by the noble Lord as directing the conduct of the Government, had been the principle by which all Governments guided their conduct in matters of this nature. Therefore he quite approved of the noble Lord's course, and he thought that the recollection of the noble Lord's declaration of the intention to send a consul to Cracow, and the consequences which had followed that declaration, must tend greatly to fortify the noble Lord in the resolution he had taken, not to communicate more of the intentions of her Majesty's Government on such points. He, therefore, congratulated the noble Lord on the determination he had shown, and he trusted that he would see fit to

693
adhere to It, for he thought that nothing was more inconvenient than that a Government should announce themselves to the House of Commons as about to adopt a certain course unless they had positively made up their minds to adopt that course. The noble Lord had declared four years ago, that it was the intention of Government to send a consul to Cracow, and by means of that declaration the noble Lord had prevailed on an hon. Member of the House of Commons to withdraw a motion of rather a hostile character of which he had given notice; and the noble Lord now told the House that he had reason to make that declaration, and the noble Lord had made a contract between the circumstances in which his declaration and those in which the statement of his (Sir R. Peel's) right hon. Friend had been made that evening, saying that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken without full information on the question, but that the Government did not speak without having full information. Now, he did not mean to question the fact of the information possessed by her Majesty's Government, but he must say, that the niggardliness with which they brought it out, made the contrast between the immensity of their stores, and their small charity to their opponents very great indeed. However, with respect to the noble Lord's declaration of the intention to send a consul, he did not complain that the noble Lord had the courage to recede from his determination if he found it impracticable; but what he did say was, that the noble Lord ought not to have made that declaration without foreseeing what might be the consequences of it; because, in the state in which Poland then was, in the state of the House of Commons, and in the state of things in this country generally, a declaration on the part of Government that they intended to send a consul to Cracow could not but have the most important consequences. There could be no doubt that the people of Cracow, and of Poland generally, when they found that the British Government talked of sending a consul to Cracow, concluded that the Government and people of Great Britain were impressed with the opinion that the claims of Poland were overpowering, and that consequently this step had been resolved upon. He must tell the noble Lord that it was his opinion that this declaration had actually postponed the time when a consul might have been
694
sent thither from this country, for he thought there could be but little doubt that the three powers, when they found that a British Minister in his place in Parliament had declared that a consul should be sent, had determined to resist the measure. He could not but think that if the noble Lord had communicated to the three powers, without making previously any public notification of it, the intention of Great Britain of sending out a consul, the noble Lord would have succeeded in establishing consular relations for the protection of commerce. He concurred with the noble Lord, that if great powers like England or France were to push matters to extreme points by an appeal to arms upon every trivial occasion, there was little probability of general tranquillity being secured; and seeing the language used in the French Chamber, the protest which had been made, and the language held by the Minister of France, it was impossible not to observe that the question was in a most unsatisfactory state. He should conclude by repeating the hope which he had already expressed, that the three Powers would, in this instance, adopt the course which had been suggested, which, while it was perfectly consistent with their own honour and dignity, would tend much to extinguish those seeds, which in their growth might be dangerous to tranquillity.
Mr. Humehad always viewed the violation of these treaties as a step of which no man ought to approve, and he was happy to hear them condemned by the right hon. Baronet. He did not believe, that any Member of that House had ever expressed his assent to them, for they must all entertain feelings directly opposed to what had taken place in reference to British commerce. He hoped that the Government would persevere in their efforts to maintain international justice, and that they would ultimately compel the aggressive powers to retire from the occupation of Cracow, and thus put an end to the violation of treaties which now existed.
Mr. Colquhounwas glad to see men of all parties joining in one unanimous expression of sympathy in the position of the state of Cracow, and of regret at the violation of treaties. He entirely concurred with the right hon. Baronet, that had more active measures been taken by Government at an earlier period, this usurpation would have been put a stop to, and

695
he doubted whether the course taken by the noble Lord in 1836, in promising the appointment of a consul, and in 1840 refusing one, was likely to redound to the honour of the country, or add to the character of the Government. The noble Lord had declared that the commerce of Cracow had not suffered by these events. But those interested in that trade declared, that the export trade had been entirely destroyed. The present position of Cracow was neither honourable to the Government nor advantageous to our commerce.
Lord Eliotmust say, that it seemed extraordinary that it required four years to settle the internal affairs of a small state like Cracow. But when the noble Lord told them that the allied powers intended to withdraw their garrisons, he had not also told them that they intended to restore the independence of Cracow, according to the provisions of the treaty. According to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, the representatives of those powers had erected themselves into a permanent conference, and they would not allow the interference of the Senate of Cracow. Yet Cracow was a sovereign state—more a sovereign state than the Hanse Towns or Hamburgh—and her rights having been secured by the treaty of Vienna, we, as parties to that treaty, ought to, at least, protest—as the noble Lord said he had done—although of that protest Parliament was as yet ignorant—against its violation.
Sir Stratford Canninginquired whether he was to infer from the silence of the noble Lord that he had received the address and memorial said to have been sent by the inhabitants of Cracow to the Government of this country and that of France?
Viscount Palmerstonhad received the paper to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The subject dropped.
Question again put for the House to go into a Committee of Supply.

DR. BOWRING.
Colonel Sibthorprose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the sums paid to Dr. Bowring. He begged in the outset to say, that his motion was not directed against that gentleman personally—he had no complaint to make against him—he was a man of great talent, and one who, no doubt, faithfully discharged his duties; but
696
he complained, that the Government should have paid a considerable sum of money to Dr. Bowring during a period of two years, six months and five days (for he liked to be precise) in which he was a Member of that House. It did look something like a desire to influence his vote. From the commencement of 1835 to the dissolution in 1837, Dr. Bowring was a Member of that House, and during that period, he had received from the Government 3,579 l. 8s. for certain services performed by him. In 1831, Dr. Bowring received 500 l. for a report on the commercial affairs of France; in 1839 be received 463 l. on the same account. It appeared that a further sum of 386 l. had still to be paid. Now, the whole amount granted to Dr. Bowring was 14,858 l. 12 s. 3d.; the amount paid up to the present grant was 11,071 l. 13 s. In what shape had the money been voted? 662 l. was under the head of special services: and there was another sum of 676 l. under the same head. 2,249 l. was under the head of civil contingencies. He thought the House ought to know for what service those sums under the head of "special services" had been paid. He complained of the principle of paying a Member of that House for special services. If they refused to allow Judges to sit in that House, why allow any hon. Member to receive pay for one duty while he ought to be attending to another? The hon. Member for Windsor, the present Secretary 'for the Treasury, when Member for Cricklade, used to declare that it was essential that the vote for civil contingencies should be submitted to a select committee, he hoped that the hon. Member was of that opinion at present, and would support him in the suggestion which he was about make. He should propose a reduction in the amount of the vote equivalent to the salary paid to Dr. Bowring. At the same time, he was anxious for some explanation from the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on this subject, for he, no doubt, would tell them the reason why the report of the learned doctor in Egypt was suppressed, and he also wished to know to what extent the reports of Dr. John Bowring, however they might be drawn up, had been acted on. If ever they were adopted, his objection to the grant of money for getting them up would not be removed; he therefore must demand some explanation from the Government on the subject.

697
He would move, "That the estimate be reduced to the amount of the sum paid, or to be paid, to Dr. Bowring."
Lord John Russellobserved that the hon. and gallant Member had stated that he had been recommended by some of his friends to bring forward his motion in the committee of supply rather than in its present form. The result of the hon. Gentleman's speech showed how prudent this advice was, and he trusted that the House would not support the hon. Member, but at once consent to go into the committee, as there were some votes which it was most desirable to take without delay. The hon. Member might then, if he thought proper, submit his motion in a regular form.
House in Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY NAVY ESTIMATE.
Mr. More O'Ferrallhad to propose a supplementary vote for the Navy Estimates, and as he did not anticipate there would be any objection to his proposition, it was unnecessary for him to take up the time of the committee. The amount which he had to propose was 165,023 l. Of this sum 95,409 l. was required for the pay, victuals, &c, for 2,000 additional men for ten months, to the 31st of March, 1841, for the service of her Majesty's ships afloat; 48,014 l. was required for the increase of pay to naval and marine officers, &c, proposed by the naval and military commission for nine months, to 31st March, 1841; and there was also the sum of 21,600 l. required for the accelerated conveyance of the mails to and from England and Alexandria for seven months, to the 31st March, 1841. It had been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, when the navy estimates were brought forward, that the number of men proposed was not adequate to the number of ships that were afloat; other representations of a similar nature had been made to the Government, and the result of the consideration that had been given to the subject was the proposal of the present increase. The hon. Gentleman concluded with proposing the first resolution, that the sum of 101,748 l. be granted to defray the charge of wages for 1,000 additional men for her Majesty's fleet for ten months to the 31st of March, 1841; and also including the increase of pay to naval officers afloat, and to marine officers on shore, for nine months, as proposed by the naval and military commission.
Captain Pechellwas extremely glad, to find that the recommendations of the naval and military commission had been attended to; he regretted, however, that the situation of mates serving in the royal navy had not met with that attention which their merits entitled them to.
Sir G. Clerkdid not object to the additional amount proposed to be voted for the naval estimates, as he thought it was called for by the increased number of ships afloat, and by the importance of having them efficiently armed and manned. He could not help observing, however, that the usual form had not been adhered to in submitting this estimate to the House, and he therefore wished to know whether it had previously been submitted to the approval of the Queen in Council. When he was a member of the Board of Admiralty, he knew that it was considered necessary that a member of that body should submit the navy estimates to the House, and that he should be able to enter into any explanations that were requisite.
Lord John Russellobserved, that it was better that the estimate should be postponed, as there appeared to be some doubt as to the regularity of the proceeding. He had attended her Majesty in Council that day, and the impression on his mind was, that the application had not formerly been completed.
Vote withdrawn.

SUPPLY—BRITISH MUSEUM.
Sir R. Peelproposed that 29,953 l. be granted for the estimate for the British Museum for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1841. There was a very full detail of the mode in which this sum was to be expended in the printed paper on the table, and therefore he did not think it necessary to do more than to move this vote; but he should be glad to give any explanation that any hon. Gentleman might require.
Mr. Hawesdid not object to the amount of this vote; on the contrary, it was for the maintenance of so important and useful an institution, that he most readily assented to it. At the same time, he could not help feeling that this great national institution might be improved by forming a board according to the recommendation of a committee of the heads of the several departments, by whom it might be considered what improvements might be made therein. He also thought it objectionable to close the King's library, to the public, merely

699
on the ground that too much dust was created by persons walking through it. Again, the public paid, as appeared in the estimates, for the moulds and casts made from the antique marbles in the Museum, and as these were presented to foreign museums, and he saw no reason why casts should not be presented to the schools of design which had been established in various parts of the country. At present these casts could be procured at a cheaper rate from Paris, paying the duty, than they could be obtained in London. He did not see the use of having two sentinels standing at the entrance to the Museum. Mr. Hallam, stated in a note to his Constitutional History of England, that nothing could be more uncongenial to the feelings or more alien to the objects of the institution than to see sentinels stationed at the entrance to the British Museum and to our exhibitions of pictures.
Sir R. Peeldeclared that it was the object of the trustees to give every accommodation to the public consistent-with the preservation of the books and the property. As to the holidays, the whole of these which the officers enjoyed were six days in January, six days in May, and six days in September, with Ash-Wednesday, Good-Friday, and days of fast and thanksgiving. It had been suggested, by a committee of that House, that the heads of the subordinate departments should meet quarterly to consider the details in those departments, so as to suggest an improvement in them. It was in the British Museum, as in every other public department, that every one was proud of that portion with which he was connected, and most anxious to set it off to the greatest advantage. He thought, then, that the calling of them together for the purpose of making suggestions, would not be the best way of making an arrangement. The trustees received suggestions separately from the heads of the departments, and then decided upon them; while the determination of subordinate officers, if acted upon, would, he feared, only lead to an increase in the building, and a large addition to the public expense. As to the casts, it was his opinion that they should not make many of them; but then on the other hand, he did not think that they ought to expend the public money in making casts. Last year they had asked the Government for 800 l. to make models, and they gained 500 l. As to the sentinels
700
being stationed at the British Museum, he must say that he had not seen Mr. Hallam shudder since he had been appointed a trustee. With respect to the King's library, concerning which a committee of the House of Commons had advised that an accurate catalogue should be made, he must say that it was very difficult to proceed with it without interfering with the time that was allowed to the public. He could assure hon. Members that it was the desire of the trustees to adopt every prudent suggestion that was made to them.
Vote agreed to, as was a vote of 22,000 l. for the purpose of carrying into effect the recommendation of the commissioners of naval and military inquiry, and votes for the Supplementary Ordnance Estimates.

SUPPLY. DR. BOWRING.
Mr. R. Gordonmoved the remaining estimates and civil contingencies. The vote proposed was, that 70,000 l. be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge of the civil contingencies.
Colonel Sibthorpmoved that the grant be 66,420 l., deducting from the amount the sum of 3,579 l 7l s. 10 d., being the sum granted to Dr. Bowring for the period of two years, six months, and five days, for services stated to have been performed by him. He wished the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department to state—first, what was the amount of practical public advantage derived from Dr. Bowring's services?—secondly, whether some of that Gentleman's reports had not been sent forth to the public in a shape somewhat different from that in which they were drawn up by the learned Gentleman himself, both as to omissions and additions; thirdly, why the report on Egypt had not been given to the public; and, fourthly, whether there was to be any future charge of this description.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the employment of Dr. Bowring had certainly in no way altered his conduct as a Member of that House; for there had been various occasions during the intervals of his employment in which Dr. Bowring had not voted with the Government. Nor had Dr. Bowring's employment been detrimental to his constituents, for on each occasion the employment had taken place in the recess. The selection of Dr. Bowring, in all other respects, he con-

701
ceived, could not be questioned. The Government deemed it essential to have information on various commercial and statistical subjects connected with foreign countries, and to collect that information Dr. Bowring was eminently qualified, not merely by his general talents, his peculiarly extensive knowledge of foreign languages, but from his having turned his especial attention to the subjects on which information was desired. As to the results of Dr. Bowring's employment, there could be no doubt as to the great practical benefit which the public had derived from the mass of information contained in that Gentleman's reports. The whole of that information was of the highest value to all persons in any way interested in commerce. As to the publication of the reports themselves, that on Prussia had been sent forth precisely as it was drawn up by Dr. Bowring. With respect to the report on Syria, it had been some time in Dr. Bowring's hands, in order that he might superintend the printing of it. He had looked over that report, and he had struck out one or two trifling passages of a political tendency, unconnected with the commercial matter to which Dr. Bowring's attention was directed, nor had these omissions in any way altered the value of the report in a commercial point of view. This report, he hoped, would soon be printed and laid on the table. He thought he had now said enough to show that Dr. Bowring had performed the duties upon which he had been employed ably and effectively, and that the sums which had been expended upon him, were not more than an adequate remuneration for his services. The reason must be obvious why the diplomatic officers of the Crown already abroad could not be employed to collect the information which Dr. Bowring had been the means of obtaining, inasmuch as it could not be obtained on any one spot, but demanded a great deal of travelling and research throughout the whole country, and the devotion of nearly the whole of the inquirer's time to the subject. Every one would at once see that if any of our consular agents were to be so employed, it would be impossible for him at the same time to attend to the other and more ordinary duties of his office. Besides, which, he would, without meaning any disparagement to British consular agents, observe, that he thought it would
702
be difficult to find amongst them any individual who, from his habit of mind and previous attainments, could have obtained the various information desired in so satisfactory a manner as Dr. Bowring.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the noble Lord, with a dexterity which it was impossible not to admire, had contrived to pass by the whole of the gist and merits of the question now before the Committee, and had devoted himself almost exclusively to the discussion of the merits of Dr. Bowring, against which, at the present moment, he (Mr. Goulburn) did not wish to say a word. The point upon which he wished to speak was one entirely of a general and constitutional nature. It appeared that Dr. Bowring had been paid, in the course of nine years, 11,000 l. for public services; and it would appear from the papers now before the Committee, that, whilst sitting as a Member of that House, that Gentleman had been employed by her Majesty's Government, and receiving pecuniary allowances in return. Now, this fact, as he apprehended, brought the case within the scope of a general principle, which every Member of that House was bound to notice. He alluded to the provisions of the Act of Anne, by which any Member of that House accepting office under the Crown, and receiving a salary, was obliged to vacate his seat. This was admitted on all hands to be a very wise and wholesome enactment, tending materially to guarantee the integrity and independence of Members of that House. The Act of Anne declared, that if any Member of this House accepted office, and received a salary, he should vacate his seat, and he (Mr. Goulburn) maintained, that if any hon. Member did accept of an office under the Crown, and received a salary, without vacating his seat, he violated that Act of Parliament. But if this were true in regard to offices in general, which were before the world, still more was it so with regard to employments of a more secret nature, and paid out of funds of which the public and this House had no knowledge, and over which they could exercise no control. These employments of Dr. Bowring's were treated as special services, under the special direction and control of the Treasury, and paid not by any specified and regular salary, but by allowances varying, and granted from day to day, just as the Trea-

703
sury pleased to dole them out; and in doing which it was quite competent to the Government to give more or less according as the conduct of the recipient appeared to deserve. If Parliament recognized and sanctioned the proceedings which appeared to have taken place in this case, they would be opening wide the door for corruption, and laying the constitution open to that danger which it had been the intention of Parliament to guard against. But this was not the only feature in the case which called for his reprehension; for from the beginning to the end of these transactions a system of concealment had been adopted. The House would recollect, perhaps, that in the year 1837, when the ordnance estimates were under consideration, he (Mr. Goulburn) had made an observation in reference to one of the reports of Dr. Bow-ring, and he then said that if Dr. Bowring was receiving payment for his services on that work, the point to which he then referred ought not to be lightly passed over. On that occasion, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him an assurance which he would now read to the committee, namely, that:—
"With respect to remuneration he could affirm that no sum of money had been received for this report by the hon. Member, nor would any sum be received by him for it."
This was the distinct assurance given him by Mr. Spring Rice, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his (Mr. Goulburn's) suspicions on this subject were entirely groundless. But what happened? In August, 1837, Parliament was dissolved; and shortly afterwards it appeared by these papers that Dr. Bowring was specially remunerated for this very report with the sum of 600 l. He might be told that this payment was made, not out of the special services fund, but under the civil contingencies of the ensuing year. But here again there was still concealment. The vote was thus entered amongst the civil contingencies: "Paid to Mr. Macgregor and Dr. Bowring (who were known to have performed certain services abroad) 3,826 l." Now, who would have suspected that this sum included the 600 l. paid to Dr. Bowring for this very report, if his hon. Friend had not ascertained this to be the fact, by moving for a most minute specification of the amounts? Upon reviewing all these circumstances, it could not but be considered, notwithstanding the assurance of the then Chancellor of the Ex-
704
chequer, which he had read to the House, that this sum of money was paid to Dr. Bowring in fulfilment of a pledge previously given to him by her Majesty's Government. The whole case, therefore, appeared to involve so much concealment, and to be so pregnant with danger to the constitution of this House that he thought the House was bound to take marked notice of it; and with this feeling, he should undoubtedly give his cordial support to the motion of his hon. Friend.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that two points had been mooted by the right hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down, upon which he thought it necessary to make a few remarks. The first position of the right hon. Gentleman was, that any payments of this description made to Members of this House were contrary to the letter and spirit of the constitution, and the second, that in the present instance such payments had been made in a deceitful manner. With regard to the first of these positions he would ask, had Parliament ever laid down as a principle that in no case the Government might give remuneration to a Member of this House for public services without subjecting him to the vacation of his seat? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought not, for he certainly had heard of cases of a much stronger nature than that of Dr. Bowring, in which payments to Members of this House had been made and sanctioned by an express vote of Parliament. If he recollected rightly, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dundee, sat for several years in this House, whilst receiving the salary of Chairman of the Excise. Mr. Blackburn, also, whose loss they must all deplore, sat in this House whilst receiving salary as a commissioner inquiring into the corporations of England; he was appointed to this situation before he obtained his seat; he continued it afterwards, and received the payments attached to his appointment during the whole time he sat in Parliament. Mr. Frankland Lewis also sat in this House whilst receiving the salary of a commissioner of education in Ireland. There was another case also which occurred to him, which was not exactly similar, to the present; he referred to that of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who sat in this House whilst employed, and paid under the church commission. It might be said that this hon.

705
Gentleman was not paid by Government, but by the public: but in his opinion, this only made the case stronger, because it was a payment over which this House had no control. With respect to Dr. Bowring, he had been first employed in inquiries into the state of public accounts in 1831, before the present party came into office; and who, finding him employed, and that he acquitted himself satisfactorily, continued to employ him in other matters. When Dr. Bowling came into Parliament, the Government saw that he was a man on whose knowledge, prudence, and sagacity, they could place the utmost reliance, and he would ask would the fact of that Gentleman's having become a Member of Parliament have been a sufficient reason for his not being employed any more, and so his industry and his talents be lost to the public. The Government had not thought so, they had employed him before he became a Member of Parliament, they continued then to employ him, and now that he was no longer a Member of Parliament they employed him. He apprehended that there were two sums of money which Dr. Bowring might have received for services rendered whilst he was a Member of Parliament. The first of them was in the shape of bills drawn between October, 1835, and February, 1836, amounting to 676 l.; the other was of a larger description: both were paid out of the civil contingencies. There had been no attempt at concealment in this case; all the principal sums had been paid out of the civil contingencies, and had been open to discussion in the House; the very date of each transaction was given, and it was stated that the money paid was for service performed during the time that the learned docter was a Member of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances he thought there was no ground for the motion of the hon. and gallant Officer.
Mr. D'Israeliobserved that the question now raised by the hon. and gallant Officer appeared to him to possess much constitutional importance. It was always painful to enter into a discussion upon topics of a personal nature; but as the vote in the present instance was made to rest almost entirely upon the merits of the learned doctor, he must be allowed to observe that he could not agree in the estimate which the noble Lord (Palmerston) seemed disposed to place upon the services
706
performed by that learned functionary. One of the principal reports upon which the compensating vote was now asked consisted of seventy-five pages, of which more than one-half consisted of a mere compilation from the labours of several celebrated German statists, whose works no doubt had obtained a place in the libraries of many Members of that House. There was an appendix attached to this report, containing undoubtedly very valuable data, but they were supplied by Mr. Irving, of the Custom-house. But, as he had before stated, the body of the report was copied either from German statists entirely, or supplied by the Vice-consuls of her Majesty, resident in the different countries to which the report referred. This document, so compiled, constituted one of the most valuable of Dr. Bowring's labours. There was, however, another report, which furnished a remarkable instance of the manner in which these public documents were prepared. It consisted of statistics of Tuscany, the pontificial states of Lombardy, comprising in the whole, all supplementary documents included, 140 pages, in quarto. Of these 140 pages, fifty-four related to Tuscany, nearly the whole of which consisted of official statements, furnished by the ministers of the Grand Duke. Obtained from such a source, he did not imagine that our resident minister at Florence would have had much difficulty in procuring the same information. At Trieste, indeed, it appeared from the learned doctor's own admission, that our Vice-consul furnished all the details comprehended in the report, and in so satisfactory a manner, that it was not deemed necessary to make any alteration in them. Then at Leghorn, where even the amount of money lodged in the savings bank was mentioned, he owned he did not see why the British cousul there could not have supplied all the information so carefully paraded in the report. That part of the report which related to Lombardy consisted of fifty-eight pages, more, in fact, than one-third of the whole volume. Speaking of that portion of his labours, Dr. Bowring had the candour to say "the principal part of the following statement has been collected by the assiduous care of Mr. Campbell, our consular agent at Milan," and it appeared that not one jot of the information so afforded by Mr. Campbell had been altered. On turning

707
to the consular returns laid before that House, he (Mr. D'lsraeli) found that Mr. Campbell, who supplied more than one-third of this volume, to which so much importance was attached, received for his services as British consul for the whole of the Lombardy states, a salary of 80 l. a-year, whilst Dr. Bowring was paid for this particular report a sum of 600 l., in addition to 2,240 l. which he drew in bills for travelling expenses during the eleven months, of which a portion was employed in framing this document. Whilst engaged in the service it appeared that the learned Doctor drewbills at the rate of three guineas a day for the expenses of living, and two shillings amile for posting. The learned doctor extended his travels over Egypt, Syria, and Turkey. Now for an hon. and learned Gentleman to wander over the deserts of Syria with three guineas a day for the expenses of living, and two shillings a mile for posting, was something so ludicrously preposterous that he could hardly imagine any thing more so, till he had heard, that the learned doctor arrived in Egypt in one of her Majesty's ships, being a distance of 2,000 miles, for every mile of which the two shillings was regularly and punctually drawn for the expense of posting. This sending forth of statistical emissaries, not only over the whole face of Europe, but into the less trodden wilds of Asia and Africa, appeared to him to savour of vain and profitless excess. Our diplomatic missions connected with the countries of the Germanic union cost us annually no less a sum than 20,000 l., and if Austria and Hanover were added, the cost for our missions in that part of Europe alone would be found to amount to nearly 34,000 l. a year. He should like to know what our Minister at Hanover, at Wurtemberg, or even in Saxony, could have done better than to attend the meeting of the Germanic League, for being present at which so large a compensation was now to be given to the learned Doctor? He should like to know, too, why all the information rendered by that learned individual with respect to Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, could not have been as well supplied by our consular agents resident in these countries? Observe the inevitable consequence resulting from this employment of statistical emissaries—in every country in which they appeared the result was this, either that the authorities of the country supposed that our diplomatic
708
establishment was considered at home not capable of attending to the business in question, or that the business in question was too insignificant for regularly established agents to attend to—thereby, in the estimation of those countries, either causing our own authorities to be underrated, or else rendering the newly constituted mission of little importance. He should support the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, if the subject had been argued merely as a constitutional question, he (Mr. Labouchere) should have been perfectly satisfied to leave the debate on that side of the House with the speeches made by his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but alter what had been said of Dr. Bowring, having, in the course of his official duties, had opportunities of witnessing the zeal and ability with which that learned gentleman discharged the various important duties that were imposed upon him, he felt bound, not so much in justice to Dr. Bowring as from a sense of duty incumbent upon himself, not to allow the discussion to terminate without offering a very few observations. The hon. Gentleman had stated that, having carefully considered the various reports furnished by Dr. Bowring, he had been led to form a very low estimate of that gentleman's talent and ability. He could only say, that he had never heard that opinion expressed by anybody else. He firmly believed, that the hon. Gentleman was the only individual by whom, in the course of this or any other debate, such an opinion had been uttered. In the commercial world, at least, the labours of Dr. Bowring were not held in the low estimation in which the hon. Gentleman appeared to hold them. It was generally acknowledged, that the various reports he had furnished contained a greal deal of most valuable information upon topics of great interest and great importance. With respect to the late report in reference to the Germanic union, he (Mr. Labouchere) could only say, that he believed the task, by no means an easy one, had been executed with great zeal, ability, and discretion, and that the result of his labours was to furnish the country with a mass of most valuable information. He could not assent to the doctrine that the employment of special missions for special purposes had the effect of casting any reflec-

709
tion upon the regularly established agents of the Government in foreign countries. It would often be quite impossible to obtain the necessary information upon questions of great importance, unless individuals peculiarly qualified for the duty were selected. The practice of appointing missions of this description was not confined to England. Of late years, there had been an increasing desire on the part of foreign powers to obtain correct information, with the view of promoting commercial objects; and the practice of sending persons peculiarly qualified to conduct inquiries of that nature was yearly prevailing more and more. This was particularly the case as regarded France and Russia, and the United States of America had not been slow to follow the example. He should regret exceedingly, if the House were disinclined to sanction a payment of this kind, because he was satisfied there were no better means of obtaining information than the manner in which Dr. Bowring had been employed. It would be unworthy the House of Commons, if they agreed to the expenses of the different diplomatic bodies, and at the same time grudged the remuneration of the very useful labours of the gentlemen he had named. His only object in rising was to bear testimony to the merits and labours of Dr. Bowring, a question which he thought had been somewhat wantonly introduced by the hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Humesaid, he was one that had received considerable information from the reports of Dr. Bowring, and with regard to his labours, he thought that he had been most miserably rewarded. He never had the means of acquiring so much information as the reports of Dr. Bowring furnished him with: and the only fault of Dr. Bowring, in the eyes of Gentlemen opposite, was, that he had been diligent and had given a faithful report.
Mr. Hamiltonhad come prepared to support the claim of Dr. Bowring, but from what he had heard he would now give his vote on constitutional grounds. He did not think, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had, by his advocacy improved the case, and was surprised to hear him treat 3l. 3s. per day and 2s. a mile for travelling expenses as a miserable remuneration.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that in 1837, when Dr. Bowring was in Parliament, his right hon. Friend objected to any payment
710
being made to him because he held a seat in Parliament; and on that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the validity of the objection, and stated that the Ministers of the time had no intention to pay any money to Dr. Bowring. Than the present Comptroller of the Exchequer he could not conceive any person to be more shocked, if called upon to make such a payment; and he hardly thought, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would press the vote in direct contradiction of what he had just stated. He would say nothing as to the reports, or as to the value of Dr. Bowring's labours; but he must say, that he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. D'Israeli) had been rather hardly dealt with; because, forsooth, he questioned the utility of the reports, he was to be told that he was making a personal attack. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the few years they had been in office, had become exceedingly sensitive. It would be for their advantage would they but come to the opposition side of the House for a short time. What his hon. Friend had said was, that when Dr. Bowring went to Turkey he only produced such information as our diplomatic agent could, and which in fact he did supply. He would not say, that they were never to send a person on such a mission as that on which Dr. Bowring had been employed, but he thought as a rule it was bad. It had a tendency to depreciate the regular diplomatic agents, who, when they found others employed to do their duty, would soon altogether neglect what properly belonged to them. In time of peace, he did not think it too much to expect them to perform such duties. They paid the consular agents about 230 l. per annum: yet the hon. Member for Kilkenny vents his indignation because they would only allow 3l. 3s. a day, with 2s. a mile extra, to Dr. Bowring, a friend of the hon. Member, and a gentleman politically allied with him. Had they not heard the hon. Member for Kilkenny declare, that his chief objection to the vote was that it was only for 3l. 3s. a day and 2s. per mile, although this was in addition to a payment of some other sort. If he had been in office, and had employed a Member of Parliament during the recess on some special mission, and contracted to pay him the sum that Dr. Bowring had received, the hon. Member for Kilkenny would have decidedly ob-

711
jected to such a proceeding as unconstitutional; nor would he have said that his chief objection to the vote was its inadequacy. Now, in respect to the Act of Anne, he found that no person a Member of Parliament, was at liberty to accept an office of profit from the Crown during such time as he continued a Member, but that on such an acceptance his election was to be declared void, and a new writ issued for the vacancy. The situation which Dr. Bowring held was one of profit, and he could not see how that gentleman was exempted from the clause of the Act. It appeared to him, that his case fell directly within it. It was clear that it was an office of profit, and that it was held by him during the time he had a seat in Parliament. The precedents to which the hon. Gentleman had referred he did not bear exactly in his mind, but his impression was, that the appointment to the Carnatic mission was made under an Act of Parliament. He doubted whether the appointment was made under the Crown. It was quite clear that a director of the East India Company did not fall within the meaning of the Act. With regard to Mr. Frankland Lewis, if there was not an Act of Parliament which exempted his case from the operation of the Act of Anne, there was, at least, an address to the Crown, praying that commissioners might be appointed to inquire into the state of education, and he was appointed one of those commissioners. There was also this difference in the case of Mr. Lewis—he was specifically paid by a vote of Parliament, and the names of the commissioners were brought before the House of Commons; but the payment was not made to Dr. Bowring in this way —it was made for a special service. He would not call in question the merits of Dr. Bowring, or the intentions of Government— he was speaking of the tendencies of these things. Suppose that a Minister of the Crown found some person that had been previously employed in making certain inquiries for the Government, afterwards a Member of that House, and that he continued to employ him during the recess; that he sent him abroad on some mission, paying his expenses, and remunerating him for his trouble—would it have been a sufficient answer had the Minister said that the gentleman was qualified for the task? Would he not have been told that he had no right to
712
make the appointment, and that if he had done so in one case, he might do so in many others? If the situation of parties in that House had been reversed, would they not have condemned it in him as an Act leading to great abuse? Suppose he had had the misfortune to have denied the fact when questioned, and that the Member so employed remained three or four years in his seat in Parliament, what construction would they have placed on his conduct? He could wish no greater punishment to Gentlemen opposite than to be doomed to hear the speeches which they would have come out with on such an occasion. Would they have supported it as they have done the present appointment of Dr. Bowring?—No.
"Non ego hoc ferrem calidus inventâ,
Consule Planco."
He did not think that the hon. Member for Kilkenny would have supported him in such an unconstitutional course. In regard to the precedent he named, then, if they established no limit, any other Government might select whomsoever they pleased for such a service. The precedent was an objectionable and a dangerous one, and he was sorry that the consequences of it might be visited on Dr. Bowring, while the fault rested with the Government. He could not, however, see how he could so well mark his disapprobation of the transaction, but by voting for the motion of his hon. Friend.
Lord John Russellwould make a very few observations only. The right hon. Baronet had said that, according to the Act of Anne, Dr. Bowring held an office, and ought to have vacated his seat. He believed that an employment of this kind, which was not a regular office, and to which no regular salary was annexed, did not come under the operation of that Act. There were precedents of the kind, and his opinion was that there might be special occasions, in which a person being fitted for the service in which he had been employed, and it being for the public interest that he particularly should be employed rather than any other, the remuneration should be permitted. If indeed it were done in the way which the right hon. Baronet had alluded to, namely, to secure the services of a Member of Parliament, who was not exactly fitted for the task, it would be a most objectionable practice. He admitted, that if it were not done rarely, and for a very good purpose, it

713
might become most objectionable. When, however, the purpose was good, no evil could arise to the public service, but, on the contrary, very considerable advantages might accrue from permitting the remuneration.
Mr. Villierssaid, the right hon. Baronet had condemned the employment of a person in the capacity of Dr. Bowring as unnecessary, in conjunction with the large diplomatic service that the country had to maintain, and which ought to furnish any information that was required. He was not indisposed to admit the justice of that observation, but what was the remedy? Why, to appoint only efficient persons to those situations, persons who would furnish the requisite information, and what assurance could the right hon. Baronet offer, or had a prospect of offering, that such appointments would be made? Could he, or could any Minister, set at defiance the influence which was brought to bear upon him by those who really constituted the legislative power in the country, and who chiefly sought these situations? Had the right hon. Baronet set that influence at defiance? And could he, should he again be placed in office? Would the right hon. Baronet say, that high diplomatic situations were always given according to the merits of the individuals who sought them, or could he deny that they were bestowed chiefly from political influence in this House or in the other? Such being the case, were the commercial classes of this country to be deprived of information that they desired to obtain, or to have their statements questioned, because our ministers and ambassadors were inefficient, or was the House to act in ignorance, because there were no official documents before it to refer to. These agents for commercial purposes, though evils, were rendered requisite by the necessity of the case, and the result of Dr. Bowring's mission had been the collection of valuable information bearing importantly upon great questions in agitation, and he could not but think that if the conclusions to which the evidence he collected led, had been more favourable or convenient to the views of hon. Members opposite, that he would not have been selected for so prominent an attack. With what had been said of the policy of employing Members of this House for this purpose, he did not disagree, but really he thought that they should judge of the case upon its own
714
merits. The question was, whether Dr. Bowring had been appointed for any corrupt purpose, or for any reason but that of being a fit person, and that it was desirable to obtain his services. Not a word had been said in opposition to this, and nearly all had admitted that his services had been well worthy of their hire. Why then were they to withhold the remuneration that had been awarded him, and which with reference to the manner in which other services were remunerated in this country, could not be considered excessive, It seemed, then, that the objection was either personal to Dr. Bowring, or had reference to the purpose of his mission and was not made from any love of economy. He should vote for this item, because he considered that Dr. Bowring had been appointed with the knowledge of the House, with no corrupt view, and his services merited the compensation awarded him.
The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 66; Noes 98: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Holmes, W.

Attwood, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Bailey, J.

Hope, G. W.

Bailey, J. jun.

Hughes, W. B.

Blackburne, I.

Irton, S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Jackson, Sergeant

Blair, J.

Jones, Captain

Bolling, W.

Kemble, H.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Sir E.

Buck, L. W.

Knight, H. G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lincoln, Earl of

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lygon, hon. General

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Mackenzie, T.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Packe, C. W.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Parker, M.

Darby, G.

Parker, R. T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

East, J. B.

Perceval, Colonel

Egerton, W. T.

Pringle, A.

Eliot, Lord

Reid, Sir J. R.

Estcourt, T.

Rolleston, L.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Round, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rushout, G.

Gore, O. J. R.

Sandon, Viscount

Gore, O. W.

Sheppard, T.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Grimsditch, T.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Vivian, J. E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wyndham, W.

Hayes, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Henniker, Lord

D'lsraeli, B.

Hodgson, R.

Sibthorp, Colonel

715

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Muskett, G. A.

Ainsworth, P.

Nagle, Sir R.

Alston, R.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Baines, E.

O'Brien, C.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Basset, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bellew, R. M

Palmerston, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. C.

Parker, J.

Bewes, T.

Fechell, Captain

Blackett, C.

Philips, M.

Blake, W. J.

Pigot, D. R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Power, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Protheroe, E.

Brotherton, J.

Rawdon, Colonel

Buller, E.

Redington, T. N.

Clay, W.

Rice, E. R.

Clements, Viscount

Roche, W.

Clive, E. B.

Rundle, J.

Craig, W. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Duke, Sir J.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Scrope, G. P.

Euston, Earl of

Seale, Sir J. H.

Ewart, W.

Seymour, Lord

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, rt hn. Sir G.

Somers, J. P.

Hawes, B.

Somerville, Sir W.M.

Hector, C. J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hindley, C.

Steuart, R.

Hobhourse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Stock, Dr.

Hodges, T. L.

Strutt, E.

Hollond, R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Horsman, E.

Tancred, H. W.

Hume, J.

Thorneley, T.

Hutt, W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

James, W.

Tuffnell, H.

Labouchcre, rt. hn. H.

Turner, E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Verney, Sir H.

Lushington, C.

Vigors, N. A,

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

M'Taggart, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Marshall, W.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Martin, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Maule, hon. F.

Wood, B.

Melgund, Viscount

Wyse, T.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Yates, J. A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Muntz, G. F.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Murray, A.

Gordon, R.

Original question, to grant 70,000 l. for civil contingencies, was agreed to.
The House resumed.

PRISONS (IRELAND).
House in Committee on the Prisons (Ireland) Bill.
On the fourth clause, and on amendment being proposed,
Colonel Percevalobjected to the committee proceeding any further with the bill to-night, and to the practice of Government introducing a variety of new
716
bills at the close of the Session, when all the Irish members of the legal profession were necessarily absent, attending the assizes. He moved that the Chairman report progress.
Viscount Morpethsaid, these bills were for advancing the general interests of the country, if, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member persisted in his opposition, he should certainly divide the House upon it.
Colonel Percevalthought that these bills were introduced for party purposes; and he should therefore persist in his motion.
The Committee divided; Ayes 18; Noes 29: Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Knight, H. G.

Dalrymple Sir A.

Lincoln, Earl of

D'Israeli, B.

Packe, C. W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Parker, R. T.

Eliot, Lord

Pringle, A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rolleston, L.

Grimsditch, T.

Sandon, Viscount

Hayes, Sir E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Henniker, Lord

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. B.

Perceval Colonel

Irton, S.

Holmes, W,

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Pechell, Captain

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Pigot, D. R.

Brotherton, J.

Redington, T. N.

Buller, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Darby, G.

Scrope, G. P.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hawes, B.

Steuart, R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Tuffnell, H.

Hodgson, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hope, G. W.

Warburton, H.

Maule, hon. F.

Wood, B.

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Gordon, R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Parker, J.

Bill passed through, the Committee.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Infant Education.— Read a third time:—Timber Ships; Arms (Ireland); Borough Watch Rates.
Petitions presented. By Lord Brougham, from places in Cheshire, against the Weaver Churches Bill.

ROYAL MESSAGE—REGENCY.
Viscount Melbourneannounced a message from her Majesty, which was read by the Lord Chancellor as follows: —
"VICTORIA R.
"The uncertainty of human life, and a deep sense of My duty to My people, render

657
it incumbent upon Me to recommend to you to consider contingencies which may hereafter take place, and to make such provision as will, in any event, secure the exercise of the Royal authority.
"I shall be prepared to concur with you in those measures which may appear best calculated to maintain unimpaired the power and dignity of the Crown, and thereby to strengthen the securities which protect the rights and liberties of My people.
"V. R."
Message ordered to be taken into consideration on the following day.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE— EQUITY.
The report of the Administration of Justice Bill having been brought up,
Lord Broughamexpressed a hope that, at no distant time, some large and comprehensive measure would be introduced for expediting and simplifying equity business, not by taking away the judicial functions of that House, but by rendering them more efficient. He was of opinion that some improvement might be made in the judicial Committee of the privy council, which, however, had operated beneficially since the plan was devised in 1833. He thought, also, that it would be beneficial if a power were vested in the Court of Chancery, and the equity courts connected with it, to frame rules for the especial regulation of those courts, as to the time of meeting, the mode of pleading generally, and the mode of taking evidence. Such a power, properly exercised, would be of great benefit to the profession, and to the respective suitors also.
The Lord Chancellorapproved of the suggestions of his noble and learned Friend, which were well worthy of consideration.
Lord Ellenboroughwas of opinion, that the bill as it now stood, was a much better bill than it was before it was submitted to the Select Committee, and he, for one, would not object to the bill, because it did not contain all those provisions which theoretical reasoners might wish.
Report agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Canada Government Bill (with amendments) being read,
The Duke of Wellingtonmerely rose to State to their Lordships that he still enter-
658
tained the same opinion to which he had given expression upon the second reading of this bill, and that nothing that had passed since that occasion, had in the slightest degree tended to alter that opinion, notwithstanding the amendments which their Lordships had made in Committee. He honestly recommended their Lordships to allow this bill to go down for further consideration to the other House of Parliament. He thought it would be safe to have the opinion of the other House upon this measure, and he believed it would be prudent for her Majesty's servants to adopt that course. With respect to the Canadas themselves, he thought he could see much that ought to be found fault with in relation to the question of local responsible governments. Their Lordships, if they could not have the opinion of the Legislature of Lower Canada, ought to have had the unbiassed opinion of the Legislature of Upper Canada, which assisted her Majesty in maintaining her government in that country, and in driving out what he might call the foreign enemy. They ought to have had that opinion, unbiassed by any influence or opposition; and measures ought fairly to have been taken to make known the real opinion of her Majesty's Government. A circumstance had come to his knowledge with respect to that transaction which was of a very curious nature. It appeared that some public officers of the Canadian Government had retired from Toronto upon the appearance of the despatch of the 14th of October, 1839, and had resigned their offices, because they could not support this measure of the Government. One of those persons was the Solicitor-general. But here it should be remarked that the despatch, though dated on the 14th of October, 1839, was not published until the 13th of March, 1840, and in the mean time there was a prospect of a general election. The new Solicitor-general notified his intention of standing for Toronto itself, and declared openly that he came forward upon the principle of "local responsible governments." That same person still remained Solicitor-general, notwithstanding his declaration, and the publication of the despatch of the 14th of October, 1839, which declared that those who differed from the Government must expect to lose their offices. What, then, must the public expect either in Canada or in this country

659
under these circumstances? If a Solicitor-general, after making such declarations, neither retired nor was dismissed from his office, was it far From the truth to say that the question of "local responsible government" was secretly encouraged by the Government of the mother country, notwithstanding the declarations of Parliament, and the still more forcible announcements made in the public despatch to the Governor? Under these circumstances he must say not content to the third reading of this bill, at the same time recommending their Lordships to refer it to the other House for further consideration.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that his opinion upon this measure remained unaltered, and that all the consideration he had given to the subject, and all the discussions that had taken place upon it, had considerably strengthened and confirmed that opinion. He should, in a protest, place a permanent record of his disapproval of the measure upon the journals of their Lordships' House. He feared it was more calculated to lead to a separation between the mother country and the colonies than to bind them closer together. In the paper last printed for the consideration of their Lordships, and which ought to have been printed at the very commencement of these proceedings, it was stated that the opinion of her Majesty's Ministers had not been so decidedly expressed as to have had any material effect in setting the question of responsible government at rest. The despatch of the 14th of October, 1839, sent out by Lord J. Russell, which would have set that question at rest, had never been published; Mr. P. Thomson did not even acknowledge the receipt of it, although he acknowledged the receipt of a letter of the date of two days afterwards.
Viscount Melbourneregretted that the noble Duke and the noble Baron had taken their present course. The noble Duke had repeated his animadversions on his noble Friend for not publishing the despatch of the 16th of October, 1839, earlier than March last. His noble Friend had acted to the best of his judgment, and as he believed from sound policy, thinking that to be the safer course for the service and benefit of the state. He had often felt it extremely difficult to know what to do in similar cases. When an erroneous opinion took possession of the public mind, it was by no means an easy
660
task to say what should be done. Sometimes it would be prudent to meet it With explanations and corrections; at other times it might be equally wise to let it pass over, to give it its way, and not to meet it with any violent opposition. It very much depended upon the strength of public feeling with regard to an erroneous opinion, whether it was dying away or increasing, what course should betaken. He thought that his noble Friend had acted upon that line of policy: having taken into view the state of Upper and Lower Canada, he had thought it best and most wise not to publish that despatch, or to state to the people of that country the full opinion of Government upon the subject, with which, allow him to say, they were fully and entirely acquainted, because it was perfectly well known there that the opinion of this country and this Government was entirely opposed to "independent responsible Government." He was sure that not only lately, but more than once during the last Session of Parliament, his noble Friend had stated his decided adherence to the opinions he had before expressed, and it could not be for the purpose of concealing those opinions from those who were the advocates of what was termed "responsible government," that his noble Friend did not think it fitting to have that despatch published, but that he thought, upon the fair exercise of his judgment and discretion, it would be better for the public welfare that it should not be published. He had been told by the noble Duke that a Solicitor-General had left Toronto, and given up his office, because he disapproved of the measures which at that time, were just brought forward by the Government. The fact was, that the Attorney-general resigned, and the Solicitor-general was offered the situation which had thus become vacant, and the offer of that office was accompanied by the communication of that letter of Lord J. Russell upon "responsible government," and that he concurred in the opinions contained in that despatch, and said that all he required was, that the Government should be administered according to the explanation of Lord J. Russell, and more in accordance with the general views and wishes of the community. He greatly lamented that the noble Duke should again express his disapprobation of the bill, and his distrust of its effects; and he only hoped and trusted that the anticipations and prophecies of the

661
noble Duke would not be found hereafter to be characterized by the usual sagacity and foresight of the noble Duke.
The Duke of Wellingtonrepeated, that the person whom he had mentioned had declared himself in favour of responsible government in his electioneering speech. What he insisted upon was, that a full declaration, an authoritative declaration, should have been made, that the question of "independent responsible government" was totally inadmissible.
Lord Ellenborouyhsaid, the noble Viscount had now stated that the positive opinion of the Government had been conveyed to Canada by the despatch of the 14th of October, 1839. Mr. Thomson, however, although he was aware of the opinions of the Government, placed in the situation of Solicitor-general Mr. Baldwin, who was the advocate of responsible government.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that if this bill was to pass, their Lordships must all wish that its provisions should be carried into effect, and that the objects of it should be attained. He must say, however, that if the Government were to employ persons in high and responsible situations, who on great fundamental principles of government entertained opinions diametrically opposite to those which the Government had in the most public and solemn manner avowed, it was absolutely impossible that this measure should succeed. Did the Government mean, if Mr. Baldwin avowed that he held the opinions which had been attributed to him, to remove that gentleman, or call upon him to resign? If they did not, he would say that they betrayed their trust, and were the real authors of the separation of the colonies from this country.
Lord Broughamneed hardly state to their Lordships that he retained the opinions which he had already expressed upon the subject, and that his objections to the measure had not been removed. These objections chiefly referred to the want of consent on the part of the colonies, and he thought that this bill must lead to a separation between the colonies and the mother country. With the opinions which their Lordships knew he entertained, he should not lament this if he did not fear that when this event did take place it was most likely to be in ill blood. He could not help saying that, having attended to the different arguments and evidence relating
662
to the controversy which had arisen oh the withholding of the despatch of the 14th of October, his opinion was, that if the province was led into error it was not much to be wondered at.
Viscount Melbournehad been most distinctly given to understand, that Mr. Baldwin had declared, previously to his accepting office, that he adopted the idea conveyed by the words "responsible government" precisely in the sense used by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and that he did not wish for responsible government in the sense employed by the noble Duke. As to the conduct of his right hon. Friend, the Governor-general, in not putting forward the despatch of the 14th of October, and whether he had acted wisely, and for the service of the country, much difference of opinion might exist on that point. It had always been a question which led to much difference of opinion between his noble and learned Friend and himself, when an erroneous impression had taken possession of the popular mind, as to the best course which could be pursued. His noble and learned Friend, with the high and commanding energy which distinguished his character, was always for stemming and facing popular opinion; he, on the other hand, leaning to the course of policy for which his talents fitted him, was rather inclined to let it slip by. In fact, he did not know any question more difficult to decide than this—whether it was the wiser plan to meet popular error in the front, or to let it flow on and spend its force. It appeared to him, that the Governor-general must be in a better position to judge of the propriety of the course which he had to take than their Lordships could be, and the result had been favourable, for, as he understood from Sir G. Arthur, the feeling in favour of responsible government had, in a great measure, passed away.
Bill read a third time and passed.
The following protests were entered:
Protest of the Duke of Wellington against the third reading.
Dissentient;
1. Because the union of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada into one province, to be governed by one administration and legislature, is inconsistent with sound policy.
2. Because the territory contained in the two provinces is too extensive to be so governed with convenience.
3. Because the communications from one

663
part of the country to others are very long and difficult; the difficulties whereof vary, not only in different localities and parts of the country, but in the same locality at different seasons of the year.
4. Because the expense which might be incurred to remedy the inconveniences and to overcome the difficulties of the communications at one season would not only be useless, but might be prejudicial, and render the communications impracticable at other seasons.
5. Because, even in the hypothesis that a central place is fixed upon as the metropolis and seat of Government of the United Province, and for the Assembly of the Legislature, still the communication with the distant parts of the United Province would require a journey of from 500 to 1,000 miles by land or by water, and in most cases by both.
6. Because the inhabitants of these provinces, having originally emigrated from different parts of the world, talk different languages, and have been governed, and have held their lands and possessions under laws and usages various in their principle and regulations, as are the countries from which they originally emigrated, and as are their respective languages.
7. Because portions of this mixed population profess to believe in not less than fifteen different systems or sections of Christian belief or opinion; the clergy of some of these being maintained by establishments, those of others not, the Roman Catholic clergy of French origin being maintained by an establishment, while the Roman Catholic clergy attached to the Roman Catholic population of British origin have no established maintenance, and the system of provision for the clergy of the churches of England and Scotland is still under discussion in Parliament.
8. Because these inhabitants of the two provinces, divided as they are in religious opinions, have no common interest, excepting the navigation of the river St. Lawrence, in the exclusive enjoyment of which they cannot protect themselves whether internally, within their own territory, or externally, but they must look for protection in the enjoyment of the same to the political influence and naval and military power of the British empire.
9. Because the legislative union of these provinces is not necessary in order to render them the source of great influence and power to the mother country.
10. Because the operations of the late war, terminated in the year 1815, by the treaty of Ghent, which were carried on with but little assistance from the mother country in regular troops, have demonstrated that these provinces are capable of defending themselves against all the efforts of their powerful neighbours, the United States.
11. Because the military operations in the recent insurrection and rebellion have tended to show that the military resources and qualities of the inhabitants of Upper Canada have
664
not deteriorated since the late war in North America.
12. Because the late Lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Head, having, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in Lower Canada, in the year 1837, detached from Upper Canada all the regular forces therein stationed, relied upon the loyalty, gallantry, and exertions of the local troops, militia, and volunteers of the province of Upper Canada.
13. Because, with the aid of those under the command of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada, Colonel Sir Allan M'Nab, he first defeated the rebels in Upper Canada, and then aided in putting down the rebellion in Lower Canada, at the same time that he was carrying on operations in resistance to the invasion of the province under his Government by plunderers, marauders, and robbers from the United States, under the name of sympathisers in the supposed grievances of the inhabitants of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.
14. Because the Legislative union of the two provinces, although the subject of much literary and other discussion, had never been considered by the Legislature of Upper Canada, excepting on terms which could not be proposed, or by any competent authority in the Lower Province, excepting in the report of a late Governor-general.
15. Because the bill introduced into Parliament in the year 1839, having in view a legislative union of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, was withdrawn before it was completed.
16. Because the Legislature of the province of Upper Canada which had co-operated with the Government under Sir Francis Head, and had enabled him, after getting the better of the insurrection in Upper Canada, to assist the Commander-in-chief of her Majesty's Forces in 1837 to put down the rebellion in the province of Lower Canada, was not fairly consulted upon the proposed measures for the legislative union of the two provinces.
17. Because a despatch, dated the 16th of October, 1839, having for its object the introduction into Upper Canada of new rules for the future administration of the patronage of the Government, and for the tenure of office, was made public at Toronto on some days previous to the assembly of the Legislature of Upper Canada, for the purpose of taking into consideration the proposed law for the legislative union of the two provinces, and the members of the two Chambers of the provincial Parliament of Upper Canada must have had reason to believe that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to carry through that particular measure; and that they would be exposed to all the consequences of opposition to the views of Her Majesty's Government, as communicated in the said despatch, if they should object to the bill proposed to them.
18. Because it is well known that there is

665
in Upper Canada a large body of persons eager to obtain the establishment in Her Majesty's colonies in North America of local responsible Government, to which they had been encouraged to look by the report of the late Governor-general, the Earl of Durham, recently published.
19. Because these persons considered that the despatch of the 16th of October, 1839, then published, held out a prospect of the establishment of a local responsible government under the Government of the united provinces,
20. Because another despatch, dated 14th October, 1839, appears to have been sent to the Governor-general at the same time with that of the 16th October, 1339, in which despatch of the 14th October, 1839, Her Majesty's Secretary of State clearly explains the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject of, and against the concession of, local responsible government in the colonies.
21. Because this despatch was not published, nor its contents made known in Upper Canada during the session of the Legislature, for the consideration of the measure of the legislative union, although called for by the provincial Parliament, upon which call the Governor-general answered by the expression of "his regret that it was not in his power to communicate to the House of Assembly any despatches upon the subject referred to."
22. Because the Legislature of Upper Canada must have voted in favour of the measure proposed to them while under the influence of a sense of the intentions of Government, declared to be erroneous, in relation to the despatch of the 16th of October; and in total ignorance of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, in respect to local responsible government in the colonies, as declared in the despatch from the Secretary of Slate to the Governor general, dated the 14th of October, which it appears that his Excellency had in his possession, during the discussions in the provincial Parliament of Upper Canada, on the measure of the legislative union of the two provinces.
23. Because it appears the French population of Lower Canada have generally declared against the legislative union of the two provinces.
24. Because the bill cannot be considered by any as giving facility to the administration of the government of the province of Canada by Her Majesty's officers, when united by virtue of its provisions; and security in the dominion to the Crown of the United Kingdom.
25. Because the difficulties existing in the government of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada under the provisions of the act of the 31st George III., which led to insurrection and rebellion, were the result of party spirit, excited and fomented by leaders in the Legislative Assembly in each province, acting in later times, in communication, concert, and
666
co-operation with citizens of the bordering provinces of the United States.
26. Because the union into one Legislature of the discontented spirits heretofore existing in two separate Legislatures will not diminish, but will tend to augment, the difficulties attending the administration of the Government; particularly under the circumstances of the encouragement given to expect the establishment in the united province of a local responsible administration of Government.
27. Because a spirit had still been manifested in the adjoining provinces of the United States in recent acts of outrage upon the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects on the frontier, and even within Her Majesty's dominions, which must tend to show in what light the spirit of opposition to Her Majesty's administration in the legislature of the united province will be viewed in the United States.
WELLINGTON.
Protest against the Rejection of the Amendment moved in Clause 12, to leave out the words "An equal number of."
1. Because it is the duty of Parliament, when it enacts the union of the Legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada, during the suspension of the Legislature of the latter province, to provide that such union shall take place on principles strictly just, to which it might be presumed that the Legislature of Lower Canada, if they acquiesced in the measure of union, would not unwillingly accede, and it could not be presumed that that Legislature would consent to the provision that Lower Canada having 700,000 inhabitants, and comprising the cities of Quebec and Montreal, should have no larger number of representatives in the united Legislature than Upper Canada, which has 400,000 inhabitants.
2. Because the measure affixing an equal number of representatives to two provinces so unequal, for the temporary end of outnumbering the French, tends to defeat the purpose of union, and to perpetuate the idea of disunion, while, if emigration should largely increase the English population in Upper Canada, it will tend to give the same undue weight to the French which it now gives to the English inhabitants of the united province.
ELLENBOROUGH.
Protest against the Rejection of the Amendments to Clause 18, and the two following Clauses.
1. Because the House having decided giving an equal number of representatives to Upper and Lower Canada, a measure which in itself appears to be unjust to Lower Canada, it is the more necessary to provide that the representation of that province shall be settled in a manner unexceptionable, and calculated to give satisfaction to the great majority of its inhabitants.
2. Because the act now regulating the representation of Lower Canada was only passed

667
in 1829, and in the opinion of the Canada commissioners, "cannot justly be charged with unfairness;" and the proposed amendments would have left the representation of Lower Canada as it was then settled, with no other alteration than that which the necessary reduction of the total number of members for that province renders unavoidable.
3. Because the alterations in the representation of Lower Canada, contained in the bill, are partial in their character, having for their object still further indirectly to increase that disproportion between the representation of the English and French population of the provinces to be united, which is directly effected by the previous provision that the two provinces shall be represented by an equal number of members.
4. Because, if the French Canadians are to be deprived of representative government, it would be better to do it in a straightforward way than to attempt to establish a permanent system of government on the basis of what all mankind would regard as electoral frauds. It is not in North America that men can be cheated by an unreal semblance of representative government, or persuaded that they are outvoted, when, in fact, they are disfranchised.
ELLENBOROUGH.
Protest against the Third Reading.
1. Because the vast extent of the provinces to be united, the peculiar difficulty of communication between the several parts of those provinces, the dissimilar state of society in them requiring dissimilar laws, and the great amount of local and private, as well as of public business to be transacted by a legislature small in number, during a session necessarily short, combine to render it impossible that, under any circumstances, the provisions of the bill should afford a good government to the people of Canada.
2. Because the great majority of the inhabitants of Upper Canada, being sincerely loyal, that province, under a separate Legislature, and an honest executive government, discountenancing the disaffected and encouraging the loyal, might be expected to remain permanently connected with this country, and by its position and its resources, would afford the means of retaining possession of the other provinces, which, if Upper Canada be lost, it would be impracticable to preserve.
3. Because the bill, framed in a spirit of distrust of the French inhabitants of Lower Canada, yet gives very considerable power to their representatives, and while it tends to confirm their alleged disloyalty by the distrust it manifests, and by the bad government it creates, affords at the same time the means of constituting, by their coalition with the representatives of the disaffected in Upper Canada, a permanent majority in the Assembly hostile to the connexion with this country.
4. Because the bill, founded on a double
668
error—that of undue distrust of the whole French population, and that of undue confidence in the whole population of British origin —while it gives to the former a representation inadequate to its number and to its wealth, has for its object to transfer in effect to the latter the whole legislative authority.
5. Because such legislative authority, exercised in the spirit in which it is bestowed, must permanently subject the whole French population to a rule practically worse, because partially and less enlightened, than that, which in consequence of recent events has been temporarily imposed upon it by Parliament.
6. Because it is unwise to show distrust, and yet to give power to the distrusted—to commit an injustice, and yet to afford the means of revenge; and while Parliament would be justified in taking all reasonable temporary security against suspected disloyalty, it should be its policy, as it is its duty, to extend its paternal care even to a disaffected people, and instead of confirming temporary alienation by permanent wrong, to endeavour to restore ancient loyalty by just and beneficent government.
7. Because an union between two vast and dissimilar provinces, imposed upon one in distrust of its loyalty, without its consent, and on conditions which it must deem unjust, and acquiesced in by the other from views of fiscal advantage and legislative ascendancy, contains within itself the elements of its own dissolution; and there is but too much reason to apprehend that, at no distant period, both provinces will seek a refuge from their incongruous connexion, and from the grievance of an impracticable government, in a separation from this country, to be effected only, under such circumstances, through the violent means of civil and of foreign war.
8. Because it is inconsistent with prudence to take a step which cannot be recalled under the temporary pressure of difficulties, and hastily to adopt a measure of which the proposers do not pretend to foresee the working, and which its opponents deem to tend directly to the loss of the Canadas, only because it is considered necessary "to do something" with respect to them.
9. Because it is not by such legislative union, but by institutions carefully adapted to local circumstances and social distinctions—above all, by the conferring of practical benefits, that the peaceful possession of those provinces is to be secured, by the establishment in Lower Canada of a pure administration of justice, by the grant of aid to Upper Canada for the completion of a ship canal which may connect the most remote parts of that province with the navigable portion of the St. Lawrence, and by enacting an equitable arrangement for the collection by both provinces of separate duties of customs on that river—measures essential to the well being and contentment of the Canadas, and calculated, in conjunction with the commercial favours they already enjoy, to place

669
their connexion with this country upon the only solid foundation—a deep conviction that they derive advantages from that connexion which would be uattainable under any form of independent or of federal government.
ELLENBOROUGH.