Star.
London, England, 1823-02-28 00:00:00

CASE OP MR. BOWRING.

Lord A. HAMILTON, pursuant to notice, rose to
bring the consideration of tia case of Mr. Bowring
before the House. His object was to move for cer-
tain papers to elucidate the parts of it which were not
clearly known. He was .aware that a case of this
nature might be felt to be a foreign question; but the
House would bear in mind that it was the case of an
Englishman, wlipse person had been outraged whilst
under the protection of this Government. Ile was
not going to arraign the conduct of this Government;
for, although he could not say that what it had done
was not right, he was able to say that it might have
done more. The best course for him to take with
the House, he believed, would be to state the case of
Mr. Bowring's arrest, his subsequent sufferings, the
remedy he had sought, and the justice he had ob-
tained, with x view of shewing the right of the House
to the official correvpondente on that subject with the
office of the Right Honourable Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. This, then, was the case of a merchant
travelling on the Continent, upon commercial busi-
ness, with whom, he begged leave to say, he was
not acquainted, nor had he ever seen him. Upon
demanding his passport at Paris, some trifling ob-
struction was made, not necessary to notice, indi-
cative of what afterwards fell out. At Calais, the
luggage of Mr. Bowring was taken from him; but
not satisfied with the-detention of that, Mr. Bowling
himself was arrested, and
.his papers put under ex-
amination. Upon aiking what charge there was
against him, he was told that a telegraphic commu-
nication had been received from Paris, ordering his
papers to be examined, and himself arrested. He
was aware that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
would answer him, that what Mr. Bowring suffered
was in conformance with the French law; but he
wished it to be impressed on the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, and all who heard him, 'that when he was re-
leased, he was told that he was set at liberty, be-
cause it had been determined that the crime ofowhich
Ice was accused, was one which did not admit of im-
prisonment. - This, he must observe,- was a .most
gross inconsistency in theFremeh law, to imprisdn a:
man for what would not adinit. Of imprisonment.
Another telegraphic dispatch prdered that he be con-
veyed to Boulogne. There he was conveyed, with-
out-being informed of the charge against him, and
confined du secret, debarred Coininunicatico with any
one NOW he would put it to the House to consider
the injustice and hardship of an Englishman confined
in a foreign prison, and subject to foreign laws, not
being permitted to have prefessional assistance: To.
so monstrous an.extent was-this pushed, that when
Mr. Bowling was led out from his dungeon to be
subjected to interrogatories, he was not allowed to
have a legal- adviser. Although condemned to soli.
tary confinement, he was not permitted the indul,
gence Of 'solitude, for he was exposed to all'-the per-
.secutien which those who wereover him could inflict.
He wished thlt every man-in the House would pUt
hiniseli in the situation of Mr. Bowling. There was
one point which be wished to be particularly attended
,to,liecause of -its ot*scurtt7,-- and became he under-
stood it was intended fo refuse him the papers he
Meaneto move for to elncidateit. Mr. Bowring had
applied to Sir Charles Stuart, at .Paris, to interpose
in his behalf. Upon this becoming known it ap-
peared that the Tribunals, Or Authorities, or the.
Ministers of Justice; or, as he Would Call them, of
injustice, set to work to find out some other charge.
If they had done this, it was a sort of chicaned, or
quibble, amounting to a fraud ; and it was to prove
this that he desired these papers. There had been no
cause of irritation that he knew of in France at that.
time, unless, indeed, which he supposed the Right
'Hon. Gentleman would nut admit, it had proceeded
from some of the acts of those who bad gdne before
him. Thus they had succeeded in manufacturing a"
charge of " complicite" in'treasonable-practices. They
could not justify the former charge, and therefore
manufactured a second one, in hopes of swallowing
up the first. After iubtnitting to many interrogatories,
Mr. Bowling was told that he might go to Paris,
but that he was not compelled, and it appeared there
were two letters from .-t'he French Authorities, one of
,shich declared he had agreed to go, 'and the other
that he had refused. The use that he had made of
this
remark was, to point out the necessity of his.
having been permitted some professional man of
that country. A few chiyi after this came the sen-
tence from Paris, which he had already stated. After
inch a result, was it possible to say that no injustice
'had been done to this individual? -He did not accuse
the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite, nor his
office; but after what the Hduse had seen and heard,
was it'not natural and just to hear and see more?—,
He was aware that it would be said, it was of no use
to arraign the laws of other countries. He knew, too,
it might be said that the Courts of France were Open,
hut that would be no answer to the call he Made, to
have what was confused and contradictory Cleared
up. One goOd would at least wise from the succeis
of his motion—and that was, that -those documents
would be published, by which every Englishman
would see, that when he crossed thechannel he gave
up his claim to freedom, and was liahle to arbitrary
imprisonment. It appeared that, real guilt was- not
half so severely punished as suspicion of guilt; and
that, after suspicion, no matter whether it could %e
substantiated,' the same. punishment was awarded..
Sir Charles Stuart. he understood,. had been unable
to extract any charger from the Frepch Government.
He maintained, that if the publication of .-thesempi-'
pers did nothing more than excite the indignation
and disgust of foreign nations, it would answer a
sitfficient and good purpose.' He was aware that it
could be retorted upon them, that every foreigner

•
Wto landed in England was liat4e torornalrit t
mint ; and if it was so,. what presence, indeed, could
theY,who every two ye*- peiiied an nu-
therising arbitrary impriSonenent 'ac the discriltifts of
the Secretary of State -for the Moine Depariment,
have to pursue such a charge as this?—(Hear, hetir).
Whatever might be the fate of his motion, he trusted
the\House and the Right Hon. Gentleman would
give him credit for having embarked in this cause
without any personal interest or any personal hosti-
lity towards the Right Hon. Secretary or his office:
, The Noble Lord concluded by moving for " copies
of all the letters addressed to the Right Hon. George
Canning, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, by,
Mr. John Bowring, relative to his imprisonment in
France; and also to Mr. Plant; with the iuclosures
relating to the same subject."
Mr. Secretary CANNING said, whatever might be
his opinion of the expediency of the motion,. he was
sure it would not be right : neither had he a disposi-
tion to suppose that it was brought forward with any
improper object, or urged in an improper manner.
For his own part, he certainly ha. ao complaint to
make of the manner in which he had been alluded
to personally, or that part of his conduct involved
in this question ; and having nothing to complain of,
the House would conclude that he saw nothing ob-
jectionable in the discussion of the subject by the
House. The production of the papers he meant to
oppose, upon the sound Parliamentary principle that
no practical ground had been sbewn for the produc-
tion; and he (Mr. Canning) had -apprehended that
it was for those who moved, and not for those who
opposed, to shew the use to be made of the papers
when produced —(licar, hear).—He would endea-
vour to put out of sight every painful allusion, in
treating of this subject, by stating the general pi in-
ciple upon which ail such individual cases revolved.
lie believed it would be granted, that the first prin-
ciple in the law of nations was, that a stranger, upon
entering into a foreign country, entered into a tern-
porary allegiance to the laws of that country. lluw-
ever harsh the laws of that country might appear—
however little congruous to a British subject—and
however he might regret the absence of the
dons connected with the happier Constitution of
/England, he was bound for the time being, to yield
the same obedience to them which was exacted from
thembjects of the nation in which he resided. He.
had no right to complain of the severe operation of
the • laws, provided they were impartially adminis-
tered in his case, as they would-be in that of a mi.-
tural-born subject. When thus he heard of the im-
prisonment of this Gentleman (Mr. Bowring), of-
;hose private character, talents, and personal de-
meanour he wished to speak, so far as he could judge,
from all he had heard, and from the slight inter-
course which had taken place, with perfect respect.
As soon as he had heard of the case, it teemed to
him that it was the duty of the English Government
to take care that the individual so arrested was dealt
with by law—not the law of England, but that of
France, impartially, and as a French subject, si-
milarly circumstanced, would have been dealt with.
The instructions, therefore, which he had sent out to
-our Ambassador in Paris, and not an hour was lost
in sending them, for they were dispatched in about
three quarters of an hour aftey he had heard of the
case,.directed Sir Challes Stuart to inquire into the
circumstances, and if no prima facie ground appeared
for applying to the French Government, on account
ref irregularity, he was then directed carefully to
watch the proceedings, and to see, aided by the best
legal advice which he could obtain, that the law was
administered with strict impartiality and justice. lint
he did not think that Mr. Bowing, having separated
himself for a time troth England, had a- right to ex-
pect that the form of the proceedings against him in
-France should be tiresome that he might have looked
for under a like accusation in this country. He and
'lris Majesty's Ministers had no authority to introduce
our Habeas Corpus, and our mode of Trial by Jury
into France, fot the protection of Mr. Bowring. All
they could do, 'as to see that whatever means of
defending himself impartial justice would accord to
an accused subject of France, 'should be afforded to
Mr. Bowring, and it was only when any departure
from This occurred,- that the right of national inter-
ference would begin. Nothing could be tnore clear,
more indisputable, than the position that national
interference could only be resorted to in behalf of an
individual in a foreign land, when justice, according
to the laws OF that land, was either delayed oire-
fused. He would not go into the consideration of all
the circumstances connected with Mr: Bowring's
arrest arid imprisonment; but in passing, he mttst re-
mark, it appeared .to 'him that the Noble Lord had
fallen into one mistake. The Noble LOrd had truly
stated that when Mr. Bowring was released, his en-
largement was accompanied by a declaration on the
part of the French Authorities that fhe crime with
which he (Mr. Bowring) had been charged was not
one to which the penalty of imprisonment attached.
This was true, but the Noble Lord was mistaken in
his view of the 'bearing of that declaration. This
Gentleman, it appeared by his own Statement, and
also by the counter-statement of the French Govern-
ment, had been arrested as the bevy' tif- sealed let-
ters. This was an Offence against the 'Wench law—
it was -an attempt to =defraud (he did- not -use the,
word invidioudyitheßevenue of Prance. There was.
nothing atrocious in it—it was an offence of no deep
moral dye—it was not a inalton in se, but a 'naafi pro-
hibiliun. Here a punishment was inflicted for the
same offencef but the offence was visited pecnniarilj,
while in France it was punished iira more summary
Manner. Mr. Bowring being-so detained as a cat-
rier of sealed letters, there afterwards grew up out of
these letters, - or out. of other circumstances, new
grounds of accusation. The crime with,which he
was charged after his arrest was one which did incur
the punishment of imprisonment; but on.that other
crime 'he was never brought to trial, and when re-
leased on the greater charge, he was not detained on
the lesser. He had been "told he might go; as it was
not intended to proceed on the more serious accusa-
tion, and as the lesser one was not an offence which
incurred the punishment of imprisonment. He was
not released becaug 'the French Government ad-
mitted that lie had been unjustly ihiprisoned; but the
greaterf.charge not beipg.gogqintoi the minor did not
authorise his detention. -Heiltiught it. would be seen
'that there was a great difference between chit
which he stated to have taken place, and that which
the Nqble Lord had understood to be the fact. He
(Mr. (.anning) WAS not bound, nor did he consider

that he bad been in the progress of the case, to cp.
mine the statements for and against Mr. Bowling, in
order to form an opinion on its merits. The single
point to which he had to apply himself was not to
ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused, but
to determine whether Mr. Bowring, standing in the
Isituation °fan accused person in FE Auce,hadteenclealt
with iirispartially according to the laws of that country;
It was superfluous to enlarge on thil subject. The
Noble Lord must allow, that through. the whole
course of the transaction.. had Mr. Bowring heed the
Person nearest to the English Government, or to Lim.
self individually, it would have been impossible- to
have.watched over Itian more carefully, or with a
more anxious desire that justice should be done. But
when the case had been brought to a close, with
strong reasons for believink that it had been in some
degree precipitated, by the constant Intel ference of
the British Government, which had required, not
that the French Authorities should let Mr. Bowring
go, but that they should let him go or proceed against
him ; after this, the course taken had been to inquire
whether or not any. reparation was due to that Gea
demon. This question it had been thought right to
refer, not to English but to French Lawyers, who
were to inquire into the whole course sif the proceed-
ings, to ascertain whether the line of conduct which
had been pursued was consonant with the established
rules of French jurisprudence. Accordingly, Sir C.
Stuart was ordered to lay the case before two of the
most celebrated Advocates of France, one of whom '
was to be selected from those individuals at the Bar
who were favour: tole to the present Governmeat,
the other from those who were known to be pio
litically opposed to it. To these persons he was
directed to state tire case anooyn:ously, and to ino
quire if the ordinary practice had been duly oh-
served in the proceedings Which had taken plate?
The answers given by those Learned Advocates"
concurring in their knoo-ledge of the law, but
fering in every political opinion, and without knows. .
ledge of each other's de;tision, was this : that in the
case of Mr. Bowring, th t law had been scrupsilousl
observed, and that a Fowl) subject under such cis.
cumstances would have had no cause of complaint,
excepting that which evetr man accused elan offense
and not bought to trial Ir. ir it, might assume he had
a right to prefer. To some degree-of inconvenienoe
the aczusation naturally subjected the party accuses!.
If this had been caused Maliciously, the proper mo de
of acting would undoubtedly be to Prosecute the
individuals concerned. If Mr. .Bowring' .thong lit
fit to pursue this course, he was assured that ire
might depend on receiving every countenance frrira
the English Ambassador. If the French 1. is
would not allow of his doing it, he (Mr. C inninr)
then came back to his former position, and must s. sy,
that if Mr. Bowring had found hinisell in a country
so ill provided with law, he, having voltentarily gc to
'thither, had abdiCated :itsr a season the advantages of.
living under British laws, and must take the corn 1.-.
quences. He was not disposed to do mote for Ali.
Bowring, and he was sure he was not disposed to c'e ,
less for hint than for any other individual. Donla'r
less, a little reflection would satisfy every one the i
here was no case for nazional interference. Let thsi
House suppose what would be the feelings of 1,1'.e
English Government with respect to aFreach sobjs
who might be taken up, not under the Mien Act, ! set
'in the ordinary course of law. Suppose a Proochn- in,
on landing in this country, should be involved i. a
scuffle of some kind, and in consequence be commit tat
to prison—suppoie this committal to take place
September, just after the termination of the Sumn ks
Assizes, and that he should remain in prison, in t Le
absence of a third Assize, till the ensuing March, a pd
be then dismissed why, would the English Govei
meat bear that A case like this should be made t tie
subject of national interference? Would they rct
at once refer to the municipal law, and say, wh. en
the individual came to this country, he necessarily
exposed himself .to that treatment to which union; 1-
nately, but not maliciously, he. had been doomed ?- -
If the claim set up for Mr. Bowring were good, a
similar clairt might be set up for every other trap. 2
yeller who suffered from the laws of the country in • •
which he sojourned.. We (said .Mr. Canning) must
take the good and'evil of our. institutions together.--
Englishmen might travel, as they often. did, to Con-
stantinople, Aleppo, or Algiers, and is the Govern-
ment to take notice of all its wandering subjects In
every part of the globe? When an Englishman cas-
ters those despotic States, where law is scarcely heayd'
of, is he to expect that we are to transplant our owe
institutions to their States for his peculiar Protectl'ito,
and to distinguish him from the other suhlesas,
amongst whom, for the time being:* he has vo) en.
tarily enrolled himself? I cannot agree to. thetas°.
tion, without allowing that every British subject, .
wherever he goes, has a right to call on, the strong ,
►and outstretched arm of the country, to rescue hies
from the consequences of the foreign allegiance to
which he had tacitly submitted.' The peculiar insti-
tutions of independent States are beyond the COll.
troul of other Governments:' I shall there:foie abstain
from giving my authority, to the principle advocated
by the motion ; and as there is neither room nor ne- •ts
cessity adduced, I shall object' to the prodisction'of
the Papers—(Loud and continued cheers).
Sir ROBERT WILSONsaid, he, helieved the
meanest native of any other country.tiould noChair.
been treated as Mr.' Bowring, an Englith merchant,.
a Gentleman of the most amiable manners and of the'
most excellent_ attainments, had been treated by the
French Government. . Herwai not, however, aware-
that it was a case which* called for
,national inter- t
,ference. It was one, however, that ought to be gene
rally known. This discussion would' be most u.eful. '
to their countrjmen. at large,.hecaude it would she*"
that this country was determined to protect her.sub:
jests from. the violation of the law. It Was not enough.
for a foreign Government to say," We violate 4ie•
haw in the persons of our own subjects, And havriA
right, therefore, to AO the same with respect to yatti.s:
In such a case, it was necessary to appear tO-tho 41.
of Nations:— it was. proper, pat Oey, shonlckiei..ffiat;.
justice was not tong denied, or delayed.so.lonsessto..
become, in effect, a denial. The Right How: Uentle.t
man bad said, " Are we to protect all the•wandetbp
traveller who -Imve this country ?-• Are thifto)*.
always under thePmtecoion of thelritich (Mewl
ment ?" Undoubtedly, wherever Oil countelPhad ha'
Ambassador, British subjects ought to be protected
against despotic power. Because the Vizier al COD'
stantinople struck off the head of any per,* be
pleased, or bosause he commanded women to be

enckged in.
'them ci:stsfes;
.:.7becanse
ipcts of. this
• 'Under the
be recollectc
It be endure,
snent,., shMtl
the •ezlitipg
security :nod
Saotime:and
.ihe system
Such was th
those occasit
the' officer o
:61ember the
- Prench' terril
which he si
that the B;
,assistance to
'which his I+]
kutchinson)
protected at
calling on tl

of one of the
honour that
Oliver Gron
German Prii
not prevail,
tom! y Law
must take ii
dente to av
Mr. C. 14
British &rave
.tries by the
the laying i
the House
vantage. .4
never accept
dune fir a Ig
teeing into a

in Govern!!

-
The fact Wit!

' Bowing wr
alcettatn wt
by their roc
fore the Fri
meted with
France. Ant
at all that c
then dischat
in reality as
petted perso
whose lette
evidence of
Gentlenian i
the Governr
the pmceedi
bellion of 11
fined in the (
guilty,epevirdso enns
evidence
it: 1 1
g, al
cause they w
only clanger
lightened rt
then protect
Noi, convey
Bowring, w
in the fi,llov
- " Queen con
• Conseil du Tri
• ravention i l'i
i
ethes ou 'env
ce Correction
..--This; he t
which was
much severs
.bt the first
inalefactor,
geon, irm,se
IVith respe
cis secret, it
than that u
and he rea
went could
Criminal •C,
terests of i
bad Called
present. gut
existed in tl
Mr. nowrir
Gentleman,
end to hav
Anne im pre
ittlet. It vr
to say, dial
and that • h
• his country
Mr: Secr
be had beer
seemed to I
have been
riever intern
seemed, to i
Mr. Briwrin
tl tilt Gentle
of guilt ha
much reaso

Lord A.
production
%were under

proceeding,
was then n

On the mot

Zilttea, to
farch,
Me Wrigh
ordered to be
*JOHN
tesnlate the a
Offices in she
!nitre effective
vikis pfand J

On the rill ni
***return fi
• ,
_ir.rinOts and
imilmeted,
ANS, togethe
; '4attiid pFrioo
• 'fillatnation.ol
• Neff .aiteresar
Lbs:,
• ; amen Nitii,
MbP,'-fitt! 04ct
-11rhai

~n' Ia 17198.M7
4 Land Tax, Iv
detattas Debt

enclosed in sacks with wird cats, in order to maker
them confess where-their littibanirs4tedsures were
--because such was the custom there, were the subs
jects of this ctintry.‘not‘ to trt. protected from it?—
Under the torttief CsOvernment of 'Prance, it should
be recollected there were learn dt cwchit and would'
it be endured thit Englishitien, tinder such an instru-
sluittld be imprisoned- au secret? Looking to ;
the -existing law of France, there was evidently no
security under it. The trials for the conspiracies of
Baurnur: and Rochelle clearly proved the cruelty of
the system which wits addlpted in the French Courts.
each was the condutt of the Attorney-Genes al on
those occasions, that it was said to be " only fit for
the' officer of a Barbarian Government." The Hon.
iMenther then alluded to his own expulsion from the
Prencli territory, because he had written a letter, in
which he stated, that Sir Charles Stuart had said
that the • 'British Government wodld afford every
assistance to Mr. liowring ; and also to the treatment
Which his Hon. Ft iend, the Member for Cork (Mr.
Hutchinson) had received, because lie comforted and
protected an English gentleman; and concluded by
calling on the House to hear in mind the declaration
Of one of the most strenuous defenders of the national
honour that this country ever produced.; he meant
Oliver Cromwell, who thus expressed himself to a
German Prince—" If fair means and reasoning. will
not prevail, of necessity, but according to the cus-
tomaty Law of Nations, the severity of retaliation
must take its course, which we trust in your pru-
dence to avoid."

Mr. C. 14UTCH/MON was of opinion that the
British traveller might to be protected in foreign court-
tries by tile British Government. He thought that
the laying. the case of Mr. Bowring on the table of
the House would be productive of great public ad-
vantage. As to himself, he declared, that he would
never accept of Ole hospitality of Fiance, a; he had
done for a lot.g time, and tel himself justified in en-1
tering in.n a political intrigue for the overthrow of
its Government, hosrever infatuated
.it might be.--
The fact wa', that the minor offence charged on Mr.
Bowling was but a pretext to get at his papers, to
ascertain whether their suspicions could be verified
by their contents. - He was odious and suspected be-
fore the French Government; because he was con.
netted with the most liberal and enlightened men. of
France. And what was found in the letters? Nothing
at all that could implicate any individual. He was
then discharged ; for he WAS taiginally arrested, trot
in reality as the bearer'of sealed letters, but as a sus-
pected person against whom there was no•proof, biit
whose letters it was vainly supposed would aford
evidence of evil intentions. When the Right Hon.
Gentleman insinuated that there was aeharge which
the Government forbore to try, it reminded him of
the proceedings which occurred in 'lreland in the Re-
hellion of 1798, when numbers of persons were con-
fined in the Castle of Dublin and elseWliete,• and when'
persons in authority acknovledged that they had no
evidence against them, but they were.sure they were
guilty, and they could not set. them at liberty, be-
causethey were dangerous,. when, in fact, they were
only dangerous because they were liberal and ' en-
lighteed reen—(Heir, hear).—the Hon. Member
then proceeded to read the letter of the Procureur chr
Noi, conveying the notice of the liberation of Mr.
Howring, while charging him with a misdemeanour,
in the fiellowing tee ms : -
“ Wen consequence crordonnance rendu par la Chambre du
Conseil du Tribunal, &c. et portant que, vous trouvarn en eon-
iceravention it rarrete du 5 prairial av 9 conune porteur de de-
ethes on lettrea eaehetees, vous etct reuvoye sur ce Chef en Po.
Correctionelle, et que neannteins vim serez mis en liberte,"&c.
—This; he observed, was the result of that proceeding
which was commenced under circumstances of so
much severity to the individual, dragged as he was
.in the first instance thropgh the streets as a public
inalefactor, ana then committed to a loathsome.don-
Feon, ore secret, where he was confined six weeks.
With respect to the modern system of confinement
an secret, it appeared to hint in be infinitely worse
than that of letircs de cachet, under the old regime;
and he really thouA.t that if tine French Govern-
ment could be induced. to change that part of their
Criminal Code, it would be very beneficial to the in-
terests of humanity. Tine Right Hon. Gentleman
had called on his Noble Friend to sinew a case on the
present question. In his opinion, a sufficient case
existed in the papers on the table. With respect to
Mr. Bowring, as he (Mr. Hutchinson) had told that
Gentleman, he (Mr. Hutchinson) should have been
glad to have been in his place; add to have made the
same impression on strangers by his talents and con-
duct. It was but common justice to that individual
to say, that his conduct had been most exemplary,
and that .he had nobly maintained the character of
his countrymen. .
Mr. Secretary CANNING was sorry to find that
he had been misunderstood, as the lion. Gentleman
seemed to think he had described Mr. 13owiing to
Lave, been liberated by an act of mercy. Ile had
never intended to say this, for doing so would have
seemed to imply what he had not meant to say, that
Mr. Bowring had offended. He was bound to presume
that Geritleotait, as was every other person, innocent
tin guilt had been proved, and he was sure he had as
much reason to consider him innocent as any person.

Lord A. HAMILTON briefly replied, and said the
production of the Papers had been opposed, as if it
were understood that he contemplated some ulterior
proceeding, which was not the fact.—The motion
was then negatived.