The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-17 00:00:00

CANADA GOVERNMENT BILL

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that nothing which had
transpired since the second reading of the bill had induced
him to alter the opinion he then entertained on the question.
'He recommended their Lordships to send the measure down
for further consideration in the other house, and he thought
it would be prudent for Ministers to adopt that course. If
the opinion of the Legislature in Lower Canada could not be
obtained, that given by the Assembly of the upper province
should at least have been free and unbiassed by any govern-
ment influence. It had been, however, clearly understood
that all who were opposed to the views held by the Cabinet
on the question would lose their places, and the Solicitor-
General had actually resigned his office because he could not
support the measure. Under all the circumstances he could
not vote for the third reading of the bill, at the same time
that he thought it should be referred to the other house for
further discussion.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH would leave a permanent record of
his opinion on the question in the shape of a protest against
the bill. He feared it was more calculated to separate the
'colonies froni the mother country than to bind them together
by stronger ties. '

Lord MELBOURNE entered into an explanation of some
circumstances which had been referred to as matters of com-
plaint, and regretted the course which had been taken upon
the present occasion. He greatly lamented the continued
distrust and disapproval of the bill which the noble duke had
expressed, but he thought that his anticipations on this sub-
ject were not characterised by his usual foresight and sagacity.

Lord GOSPORD having suggested an alteration in the qua-
lification to be required,
Lord WHARNCLIPPR observed upon the apathy with which
the people of Upper Canada regarded the measure. The
fact was, they felt that their interests would be sacrificed.
After a few words from Lord RIPON,

Lord BROUGHAM said that his objections to the bill re-
ferred chiefly to the want of consent on the part of the colo-
nies. He feared thut the measure would be attended with
the worst consequences, and must ultimately lead to a sepa-
ration from this country.

Lord MELBOURNE briefly replied, and the bill was then
read a third time and passed.
One or two petitions against the Weaver Churches Bill
were afterwards presented, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY
THE REGENCY.

Lord J. RussELL laid before the house a Message from
the Crown couched in exactly the same terms as that to the
House of Lords [for which see above.]
Her Majesty's Address having been read by the SPEAKER,
Lord J. RUSSELL said a bill on this subject would be
brought forward in the House of Lords without delay. He
therefore now moved that a humble Address be presented to
her Majesty, returning her Majesty thanks for the most gra-
cious Message, and to assure her Majesty that this house
would, at the earliest moment, proceed to the consideration
of the important subject referred to in her Majesty's Mes-
sage.

The Address was unanimously agreed to, and ordered to
be presented to her Majesty. _ _

In answer to Lord G. SOMERSET. Lord J. RUSSELL said
he had directed the attention of the Attorney-General to the
subject of magistrates acting as such, and at the same time
as poor law guardians, but had not yet got his opinion.

The third reading of the county constabulary 6111 was fixed
for Thursday next, and the clergy reserves bill for Monday
next.

In answer to Sir R. PEEL, Lord PALMERSTON undertook
to lay the whole report on the boundary question on the
table as soon as finished. His lordship afterwards observed
that a proposition had been sent out by her Majesty's go-
vernment to the United States, founded on that received
last year from the American government.
In answer to Sir F. BurtnETT, Mr. F. MAULE said that
he knew nothing of any order of government for preventing
Mr. F. O'Connor from forwarding petitions to parliament.
On the order of the day for the committee of supply, Mr.
Humv. said a few words in behalf of certain grantees of
Canadian lands; in answer to which Lord J. RUSSELL ex-
pressed a hope that the subject would be arranged by way of
compromise. . _ _

Sir S. CANNING then brought under the consideration of
the house the circumstances of Cracow. He wished to treat
the subject without party feeling, though he did undoubtedly
disapprove the general policy of the government. He then
proceeded to take a review of the history of Cracow, from
the declaration of its independence under the treaty of
Vienna to the military occupation of it by Austria, Russia,
and Prussia, and thence to the present time. The occupa-
tion, which was still a continuing one, required the best
efforts of England to determine it—efforts which it especi-
ally behoved her to make, inasmuch as she, with France, was
a guarantee for the independence of Cracow as established
by the treaty. Lord Palinerston had four years ago assured
the house that within one month from that time a consul
should be stationed at Cracow. This assurance had not been
fulfilled, and its non-fulfilment was wholly unexplained.
That city was of great importance to the commerce of this
country, from its position on the bank of a great navigable
river, and from the facilities which it afforded for the diffu-
sion of British merchandise through those districts of Ger-
many to which it was the entrance. Still, while, he was
anxious for some redress of the evils whereof he had com-
plained, he must disclaim any other than pacific views with
respect to the three powers by which the occupation of Cra-
cow had been effected and continued.

Mr. GALLY KNIGHT followed, and expressed his indigna-
tion that a British Government should stand by and timidly
see a gross wrong committed. The injustice inflicted upon
Cracow was perhaps without parallel in history. She might
well bear upon her gates the celebrated inscription from
L' Inferno, for she was now indeed " la citta dolente."
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the British Government had
fully expressed its disapprobation of the conduct of the three
powers ; but it certainly had not thought proper to take
hostile steps against those powers for the enforcement of its
opinion, and a time was now arrived when, from the altered
relations of Europe, the occupying states would be disposed
to take a more lenient course. Austria, indeed, had declared
her intention of actually discontinuing her occupation at no
distant period. Sir Stratford Canning had overstated his
case with respect to the commercial importance of Cracow,
and there was documentary evidence showing that the
German commerce of England had, since the occupation of
the town, been, in fact, considerably increased. The
government felt a sincere sympathy with the people of
Cracow, and he trusted that abetter day was not far distant;
but he could not concur in the policy of using strong lan-
guage in cases where it was not fitting to adopt strong
measures.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, admitting the general truth. of Lord
Palmerston's concluding maxim, yet felt that a British
House of Commons ought not to carry that forbearance too
far. He would say nothing of an irritating tendency; he
was not insensible to the weight of those considerations
which had induced the three powers to the course they had
adopted, and he trusted that they would ere long sponta-
neously restore Cracow to that independence which it was
the general interest of Europe that small states as well as
large ones should enjoy. He did not give much credit to
the argument founded on the general increase of our com-
merce with Germany ; for this commerce might very pro-
bably have increased in a vastly greater degree, if there had
been no occupation of Cracow. Government might have had
good reasons for not sending the promised consul to Cra-
cow ; but then the noble Lord should have abstained from
making the public declaration that he would establish such
an agency—a declaration which, at the moment, had served
to get rid of a hostile motion in the House of Commons, but
which had probably very much enhanced the difficulty of
bringing the three powers to a right understanding upon this
subject. He would repeat his hope that those powers, the
great guarantees of conservative principles in Europe, would
speedily restore the desired independence of Cracow, acting
on their own discretion, and unrnenaced either from England
or from France.

Mr. HUME, condemning the conduct of the three powers;
desired to know what sort of protests the British government
had put forth against their acts. He hoped that no man in
that
,house, whatever his party, would sanction such pro-
ceedings:

Mr:CoLaullouN read an extract from a memorial of
London merchants, complaining that by the occupation of
Cracow the trade of England with that city was wholly
destroyed.

Lord ELIOT said, that Lord Palmerston, though he had
declared the intention of the allies to withdraw their forces
from Cracow, had not declared any intention of theirs to
restore its independence. He hoped the noble lord would
not relax in his efforts to accomplish that desirable object.
Sir H. VERNEY expressed his suspicion that the severity
inflicted on Cracow had been pursued with a view to force
her into an incorporation with some one of the three pro-
tecting powers.

The' discussion on Cracow having terminated without a
division, and the question being put that the Speaker should
leave the chair for the purpose of going inter committee of
supply, Colonef Sibthtmpe rose to animadvert upon one item
in one of the estimates—a grant of public money to Dr.
Bowring, extending over a period of two years, six months,
and five days, during the whole of which time that gentle-
man was a member of that house. He imputed no deficiency
of Went or zeal to Dr. Bowring; his charge was against the
ministers. It was unconstitutional on their part, to put a
member in a situation in which he might appear to be voting
under an undue influence, Dr. Bowring had furnished
several commercial reports, which had been published ;
one of them, however, in a shape materially altered from
that in which the Doctor presented it. Before those grants
were made, the whole of the present estimates ought, to be
referred to a select committee. A sum of £130,000 was pro-
posed to be voted for 1841: and he should like to know how
much of that was intended for Dr. Bowring. He thought
the information which the Doctor had been sent to collect
might more properly have been procured by our diplomatic
functionaries. These grants were to a gentleman, of whose
time a great part was occupied in the House of Commons,
where he invariably supported those by whom the grant was
made to him. The gallant Colonel concluded by expressing
his intention to move the disallowance of this grant in the
committee.

Lord Jonx RUSSELL said, the committee was certainly
the proper stage tor.the discussion, and he hoped the House
would consent that the Speaker should now leave the chair.
The house having accordingly resolved itself into the com-
mittee of supply, Mr. MORE °TERRA LL moved, the esti-
mates for the naval service. These were voted for after a few
observations from Captain Pechell and Sir G. Clerk, in the
course of which Sir G. Clerk extracted from ininistersthe ad-
mission that tbey had proceeded to the length of moving this
vote in the house without ever having gone through the in-
dispensable preliminary of passing an order in council for the
number of seamen to whom the vote was applicable. This
omission, so characteristic of the present ministry, Lord J.
RUSSELL promised to see supplied.
The naval estimateshaving passed, Sir R. PEEL moved the
estimates for the British Museum. Mr. HAWES proposed
to abridge the holidays, and to discontinue the sentinels. Sir
R. PEEL showed that the •number of the holidays, when all
of them w
wither prespecttogether,ut to
theam osuerni cnl
el
s, onlyh
eto b
believed
days t in
that
al: e
year s
there ;
and
must always be a certain military force in London,
the two soldiers at the gate occasioned no additional expense
to the nation. Mr. HuasE complained -that the Museum
was not open to everybody every day: Sir R. PEEL.ex-
plained that three days a week were given to the public at
large ; one was necessary for the purpose of cleaning, and

two were reserved, in order to allow means of more private
study to men of science.

Mr. MACAULAY moved the remaining army estimates.
Mr. HUME asked for some.pcplanations, which Mr. MAC.
AULAY gave, and the vote passed.
The remaining ordnance estimates were. Moved by Sir H.
VIVIAN, and passed ; after which, on Mr. R. GORDON'S
proposal of the vote for civil contingencies, Col. SIBTHORPE
renewed his objection to the grant for Dr. Bowring. He de-
sired from Lord Palmerston some information respecting
particular reports presented by Dr. Bowring to the govern-
ment.

Lord PALMERSTON admitted the general validity of the
objection to the emplOyment of unofficial members of the
House of Commons upon paid services ;-but he thought that
the peculiar aptitude of Dr. Bowring for the. services he was
employed upon rendered him on_ exception to the ordinary
rule. It was true that in some of the reports.there.ha.d been
certain trifling pas Sages expunged, but nothing in any of them
which would materially affect the character of the document.
Your diplomatic agents could not perform this kind of ser-
vice ; it required travel from place to place.
Mr. Gour.svux said the question was a very simple one.
In nine years he received _from Government £ll,ooo—a
proportion of which sum was for services rendered by him
while he sate in Parliament. The statute of Anne disqua-
lified frprn sitting in that house every person accepting anew
office with a salary. Here was the mischief. of the salary,
only in another form—a worse form indeed : for the remu-
neration was not fixed, but was left to the pleasure of go-
vernment, who might give more or less according to the cor-
diality subsisting between them and the member in their
employ. He had himself in the last parliament inquired
whether Dr. Bowring, a member of that parliament, bad
been paid foi the reports he was then preparing, and the
house had been told by Mr. .Sprinc, Rice that nothingl had
been paid, and that nothing would be paid to him for that
service. Yet, when that parliament was dissolved, and Dr.
Bowring ceased to be a member, a sum was devoted to the
payment of that, gentleman for the very report to which Mr.
Spring Rice's denial bad applied.

'The CHAICCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER cited precedents
of other members who had received pay for services on
which government had employed them. When Dr. Bow-
ring was first selected by government he was not a member
of parliament at all. He was originally retained by the tory
government, and the whips, finding him in employ, conti-
nued him therein. He came into parliament ; was govern-
ment, therefore, to displace him and lose all the benefit ofhis
experience? It had always been understood by the house
that Dr. Bowring was to be paid, and what Mr. S. Rice had
said mit have been a misapprehension of the fact.
Mr. DISRAELI could not agree in the high estimate formed
by Lord Palmerston of Dr. Bowring's utility. His reports
were for the most part mere compilations, furnished in a
great measure by the consular agents. The hon. member
then dissected the travelling and other sumptuary accounts
of the doctor, so as to raise a strong' inference that the
doctor, independently of any payment for the reports, made
what is called " a very good thing" of his allowances, which
were three guineas a day for, expenses, and two shillings a
mile for posting. There was something objectionable upon
principle in ,the employment of statistical mercenaries.
Their mission led foreign courts to the conclusion either that
the business was too trivial for the fixed diplomatists, or
that the fixed diplomatists were too little informed for the
business.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that the commercial world did
not concur in Mr. Disraeli's low estimate of Dr. Bowling's
abilities. He praised the doctor's reports, and vindicated
the utility of special missions for the acquisition of commer-
cial information.

Mr. HUMP: said he believed Dr. Bowring's first introduc-
tion to public employment was through the recommendation
of him by Mr. Irving, of the customs, to Mr. Herries, who
had applied to Mr. Irving to find a fit person for these re-
searches. He thought the three guineas a day too little.
Captain HAMILTON defended Dr. Bowring personally ;
but said he should vote against the grant on the constitu-
tional ground, as taken by Mr. Goulburn.
Sir R. PEEL said he had heard no satisfactory answer to
the fact, that Mr. SPRING RICE had deified all intention of
paying Dr. Bowring. He thought the employment of statis-
tical agents a bad practice. But how surprising to hear Mr.
flume finding fault with an allowance of three guines a day,
as being too little ! What would Mr. Hume have said if
such an allowance had been given by a conservative govern-
ment? Such inconsistencies had a. tendency to lower the
character of parliament itself. The present appointment was
within the principle of the statute of Anne. If ono member
might be thus employed, so might half a dozen or a dozen.
The thing.was dangerous in itself, and objectionable as a pre-
cedent.

Mr. HUME said, Sir Robert Peel's objection was made too
late : that was what degraded parliament. If Sir Robert
should come back to office, the house should see that he
(Mr. Hume) would make objections as strongly as ever.
This piece of candour raised a general laugh.
Mr. GOULBURN repeated what he had before stated to
have been declared by Mr. Spring Rice.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that no doubt Mr. Rice, when
he made that declaration, had fully intended what he so de-
clared ; but had probably afterwards been satisfied that Dr.
Bowring really deserved the retrospective payment. The
paid employment of members was undoubtedly a bad prac-
tice ; but there might be special exceptions, and this appeared
to be one of them.

Mr. VILLIERS said, it would not be practicable to get
ambassadors and consuls competent to collect valuable in-
formation upon commercial questions, therefore these agents
were necessary evils. If Dr. Bpwring's reports had been
of a different tenour, there would probably have been less
disposition to oppose this grant.
The house then divided, affirming the grant, after which
the remaining civil contingences were voted.

-~--

HOUSE OF LORDS.--TuEsaAy

Their lordships met at five o'clock

.
Lord LY.tsinirunwr presented a number of petitions against
the Irish municipal reform bill, but the designations of the
petitioners were not heard in the gallery.
Lord STANLEY (of Alderley) presented petitions from towns
and places in the county of Chester against• the Weaver
churches bill. The noble lord supported the prayer of the
petitions ; and recommended that prayer to the consideration
of the noble and learned lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst),
who had said a few evenings since (in the debate upon the
Irish municipal bill) that be would never consent to deprive
any persons of property, vested in them by act of parliament.
It was highly unjust to allow the trustees of Weaver River
to violate their trust, and apply the funds to the building of
churches instead of the improvement of the navigation. He
hoped their lordships woulcrgive this bill the fullest consi-
deration, and regard it not as a private bill, but as one, the
principle of which affected all the trust property in the king-
dom.

The Bishop of LONDON complained of the course taken by
the noble lord, in making strong allegations against the pro-
moters of the bill in presenting a petition, whereas it was dis-
tinctly 'understood on all sides that the discussion of the
principle of the bill should be taken on the second reading.
He would not trouble their lordships by going into the de-
tails of the measure on this occasion. But their lordships
ought to be informed that the trustees thought it was their
duty to provide not only hospitals and other places of relief
and assistance for the large population which their navigation
brought together, but also to provide for them the means of
religious worship and instruction. The surplus profit of the
trust, after all expenses for the navigation and improvement
of the river, amounted to £15,000 a-year, and out of that the
trustees proposed to expend in all only £30,000 for so excel-
lent a purpose. The right rev. metropolitan contended that
the opposition to the bill was wholly grounded in political
jealousy, and the signatures to the petitions against it were
obtained by artifice and misrepresentation. _

Lord STANLEY, in explanationo said that it was no argu-
ment in favour of the measure to say that the justices of the
county of Chester were favourable to it; for the trustees
were all justices, audit was only the justices on one bench
approving of what they did as trustees on another.
_

Lord BROUGHAM (who rose amidst vehement cries for
" the order of the day") presented a'petition from the Lord
Mayor and Corporation of the City of York against the Wea-
ver Churches Bill. The noble lord also presented a petition
from Mr; James Clarkson, a solicitor in the county of York,
complaining that ho could not obtain an interview with Mr.
Feargus O'Connor, his client, who was a prisoner in York
gaol. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0--
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that Mr. Crawford, the
inspector of prisons, had informed him that he had ascer-
tained that Mr. Clarkson did not want to see Mr. Feargus
O'Connor upon professional business. He did not wish to
impugn the statements of Mr. Clarkson' but there might
have been some mistake on 'the part of Mr. Tweedie, the
visiting magistrate, as to the exact statement made by the
petitioner to him.
Lord BROUGHAM said the application of Mr. Clarkson to
the visiting justices distinctly stated that he wanted to see
his client on professional business. The contradiction given
to Mr. Clarkson's assertion was, therefore, manifestly untrue.