The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-02-28 00:00:00

THE S'T'ATESMAN.

mach seemed to be the process at Paris. The panistoment
seemed to have been warranted only by chicanery or
fraud, and if that was not the case, the tonne of efnci-
dating the truth was easily had, by the prediction of
the papers from the Foreign-office. In that place he
begged to remind the Honourable Gentleman at
the lead of that department, that before he brought on
the present motion, he asked if there was any objection
to it in point of time (hear), to which he was informed
there was not. Well, in about 11 days, a fresh charge
was made out, that of being (un accomplice) an aecom-
plice in treasonable practices. l'hat charge was an after
thooght, and was intended to have a retrospective effect.
After three or four days more, another set of interroga-
tories were sent down, and Mr. Bowring was told, that
by the French law, he was required to go to Paris. On
that point two letters have been since produced by the
French Government from Mr. Bowring, ito one of which
he agreed, and in the other refused to go to Paris. These
letters were since brought against Mr. Bowring, and
they were a strong proof-of the injustice of denying him
professional advice, and then bringing his own declara-
tions against him.—(Hear.) In a few days more, an-
other despatch was transmitted from Paris, ordering Mr.
Bowring at last to be set at liberty, because (he quoted
the very words), the crime of which he was accused, did
not warrant imprisonment. After that, who could say
that Mr. Bowling had not severely suffered. It was ne-
cessary fax him (Lord A. H.) to be un Icretood that he
did not bring any charge against the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Canning) or the Office to which he belonged. He
was perfectly aware that it was not for bum to arraign the
laws of other countries, further than to tkinsplain where
an injustice had been done to a British subject; but he
asked him if it was not fair in him to call for documents
in the present case, wbich showed in the execution of
their laws a tissue of falsehood, tyranny, and inconsis-
tency. He was perfectly willing to give any argument
founded on those documents, all the value they deserved,
hut there was an inconsistency, at least in the opinion of
lawyers, on the ease, and in Ate accusation and sentenre
which demanded the production of the papers. One
coot], at least, would arise, that every Englishman wonld
know when he crossed the Channel, that he deprived
himself of the rights of freedom, and because subject to
arrest and detention in solitary confinement, without even
the form of an accusation being made out. Their crime
or guilt it seemed did not warrant iinprisoninent, hut
suspicion did, and the British subject would discover
that be was liable to arrest on the suspicion of one
crime, and to detention on the suspicion of another,
though the first might be abandoned.—(Hear, hear.)
when he saw the grounds of justification which were
resorted to in the present ease, and when neither Mr.
Hovering himself, or Sir Charles Stewart 'on his heha'f
could ascertain the exact accusation, the production of
the documents was essential. And if no other effect was
;maimed by laying the papers on the table, they would
at least ehow every Englishman what he was liable to,
and the indignities that he ntiglt expect to happen, nut
only to him in France, but in any other foreign country.
There was only one point more which he lilt it necessary
to discuss, but which, hottest; r forcibly it may be urged,
generally could not apply to him or those who sat around
him. It might be retorted, What are the laws to which
every foreigner makes himself liable, on the moment of
his landing in England, and how could yon place your-
self in the moral chair and reflect upon the lass of other
countries, a hen you have a law, which yon renew every
second year;—(Hear, hear,) an Alien Act, by which
every Frenchman, German, or Italian, or other foreigner,
not only is rendered liable to arrest and to imprisonment,
but to be taken and transported, not to his own country;
but to any 'Ace that appears necessary in the wisdom of
Government.—(Cheers.) He gouda not undertake the I
defence of either case, but he did not admit altogether
their analogy, and he would he happy it the Hon. lien-
tleman's ingenuity could establish it. The imputed ne-
cessity of the one, that of preserving the safety of the
country, could not be brought in comparison with the
municipal lass of France. " I have embarked," said the
Nokia Istwal, in conclusion " in this mule, not Irene any
personal motive, and without hostility, or the desire
of throwing any imputation on the Hon. Gentleman op-
posite; I have only done so from a feeling of justice, as
.well to an individual as to the rights of Englishmen in
general."—(Hear, hear.) He then moved, " That an
Addre'S be presented to his Majesty, praying that be
would be pleased to order Copies of arty Letter addressed
by Mr. Bowring to the Secretary of State, the Bight
Hon. George Canning; and also any Letter (with their
I nclosures, if any) addressed by Mr. Planta from the Se-
cretary of State's Office, relative to Mr. Baserrin's impri-
sonment in France."
Mr. CANNING rose and said, whatever his opinion
was as to the expediency of the motion, he had neither
the right or the disposition to say that the Noble Lord
bad any improper ohjo-ct in bringing it forward, or any
other titan the fairest motives. He hat not tither to
complain of the part which was imputed to him of hav-
ing taken. He grounded his opposition to the motion
on the general principle that the production of papers,
without some necessary and immediate &jeer, was in x-
pedient at all time-, and that it was the dory of those who
demanded them, ta show goad and satisfactory reasons
for their production, witleint reqoiring an explanation
of the motives of refusal from these who opposed it.--
With that ground hr ivould state his disinclination to the
motion on other veiniest principles. He presumed that it
was one of the first and universally recognized laws of
nations, that strangers, on going into any foreign part,
entered into a temperery and qualified allegiance to its
laws; that he bound himself, however inconsisteut such
laws might be with his min notions of liberty, and hav-
ing done so, he load no reason to complain of Gila opera.
lion upon him, provided such fans were impartially ad-
ministered, with regard to him as they would be upon
the natives of that country themselves. When he (air.
Canning) heart of the arrest of this persbn, fog season
personal character and talents' he hid the faillest ren-
pect, his first care, as a Minister of the British Govern-
ment, was, to see that the laws under which be was so
arrested, were admihisteriJ, nut according
.to English,
hut French interpretaion, with the most strict impartia-
lity. In ortler to this, three quarters of ao hour after
the intelligence arrived, instructions were sent off to our
Ambassador at Paris, enjoining him to look closely at
the case of Mr. &tering, and if upon inquiry there did
.not appear such a prima facie case in hie favour as to
warrant an appeal to the French Government, that be
mould watch over the application of the law toe anis
Lim -oaed ascertain, by the brat legal advice, whether or
not it ass administered with strict impartiality and
justice. (hear, hear, hear,) Ile (Mr. Causing) could
not bring himself to think that Mr. Bowring's
case was of such s nature as to induce this Government
to respire that it should stand separated from that of
any brencionan, or class of Frenchmen, who might 1w
accused under similar circumstances. He did not think
that a Habeas Corpus should be issued to release him
from prism—that the Government should be called upon
immediately to impound a Jury to bring him to trial.
All that appeared incumbent upon him as the Minister
of a country to which Mr. Bowring belonged, was to re-
quire that the Freucli law, under which he was accused,
whatever that law might be, should be administered im-
partially on his person, and to state that any deriaion
from it would be redressed by national interference.—
(Hear.) Bu it was a principle which he (Mr. Canning)
strongly contended for, that national interference was
only called for when individual justice was delayed. It
was no part of his duty now to discuss hew far the case
of Mr. Bowling warranted each interference, or to fol•
low the Noble Lord into any disquisition as to the causes
of his arrest. One mistake, however, into which the Noble

Lord bad fallerew.) wished to take so opportunity of
oorrecting. The. N ble Lord bad stated truly, that when
Mr. B. was rele • ,he was so, because the crime with
which he was originally charged did not infer the penalty
of imprisonment. So 'far this was true ; but the Noble
Lord had omitted a material feat which was necessary
to explain this clreunis'ance. The first charge upon
which Mr. Bowring nee arrested-. as appeared from his
own exposition, as well as the statements of the French
Government, was that of being a bearer of sealed letters
—a charge of defrauding the PostOaffice of France, by
carrying letters secretly. This was net a crime of very
immoral dye—not very degrading to the moral chaise
'ter of any man, it not 'being a =alibi in se, but a ma-
' Inm prohibitum. It was a crime against the law of this
country as well as against that of France, punishable
here by fine, but there by imprisonment. But out of this
comparatively slight charge, the French Government stat-
ed, that there subsequently arose matter of accusation for
ahe crier crime—a crime which inferred imprisonment.
The result was, that for that ether crime, whatever it was,
Mr. Bowring was detained, nut brought to trial, but
r eleased ; and that when he was released, it was stated
that he could not longer be detained, as the offence
with which he was originally charged did not infer im-
prisonment. It was not true, then, as the Noble Lord
stated, that Mr. Boring was released with an admission
of his having le en unjustly imprisoned, but because the
superinduced charge for which he was in fact detained
having been abandoned, the original accusation was then
naturally adverted to, and this woeful not warrant further
detention. He hoped he haul nTadeliirdielf intelligib!e to
the house, in making good the distinction between his
statement and that of the Noble Lord. With regard to
the statements of the French Government on the one
hand, and those of Mr. Mitering on the other, lie (Mr.
Canning) did not think himself called upon now to re-
concile their differences, or say which was right •or
which was wrong. Ile set entirely aside the question of
Mr. Bowel ng's guilt or innocence, for lie maintained that
all that the individual could expect from his Government,
was to require that the laws under which he was arrested
in a foreign state should be impartially administered in
his person.—(Hear.) It was not necessary to refer to the
part taken by this Government in the affair, after the ad-
missions by the Noble Lord, that every thing was done in
the most kindly spirit to the individual concerned. Per-
haps, however, it might not be too much to add, that if
Mr. Bowring had been on terms of the closest cennection
with Ministers, or if he had been connected with him
(Mr. Canning) by the dearest ties of individual regard, a
greater anxiety could not have been felt for his safety
and comfort under the peculiar circumstances in which
he was placed; for Government did not give over their
interference at the date of Mr. Boy/ring's retase. When
the proceedings were brought to a cluse, as it was well
known, they acre, by the intervention of the British Go-
verntnent, •who had certainly not pressed fur the release
of Mr. Hovering, but oiily that he should be brought to
trial, the next ease was to ascertain, by the opinions of
the most eminent French lawyers, whether any reparation
f r the imprisonment could be had, if it turned oat that
Mr. Bowring's whole case was not discussed in a spirit
consonant to the ordinary course of French jurisprudence.
Accordingly Sir Charles Stuart received his (Mr. Can.
ning's)order to consult too of the most distinguished
French advocates in Paris—men to be chosen for emi-
nence in their profession, and one of them particularly
fez his npposi'ion to Government—(hear.) and to draw
up :in anonymous case, and have their opinions, whether,
under the circumstance, the law Lad been duly and im-
partially administered (bear.) The answers of tbeseigen-
Omen. ignorant of each other's co-operation, and differ-
ing as they did in all pelideal opinions, were in the most
strict accordance in the declaration, that upon the case
wade out, the French law had been most scrupulously ob-
served; that the person ii,.a been in every respect
treated as a Frenchman would ; and that under such
circumstances, a Ffelltik subject weld mike uo com-
plaint, further than that being accused lie was not
brought to trial.—(Cries of hear, hear, hear.) And
this was an inconvenience to which persons accused of
crimes in every (estuary were subject. In this country,
indeed, in the proceeding was malicious, the party air.
grieved had his remedy by civil action, and the British
Ambassador was instructed to tell Mr. Bowring that he
should have the countenance of his Government, if such
a remedy was practicable by the laws of France. But if
it was not so, were the British Government answerable
and did not this bring him (Mr. C.) back to what he se
out with, namely—that the individual who, with his eyes
open, consigned himself to the protection of Government,
where lie knew there was lit le security for personal li-
berty, virtually abdicated the jurisprudence of Ene-
land, and submitted himself voluntarily to the lain of
that country.—ln no case would it be possible for the
British Government to go farther than in that of Mr.
800 ring. And really before Gentlemen came to sympa-
thize in the feelings of the Noble Lord, they should con-
sider how the British Governnient would treat anyforeign
interference in a similar case of a Frenchman's beitigta.
ken up here, and not brongbt to trial. Suppose a native
of France in this country, ignorant of the language,
had got into a emit&' in which lie committed a viola-
tion of the peace; and that he was committed in Septem-
ber, after the Assizes, and not tried till the Spring
Assize, following, would it be said that this was a case
fur national interference on the part of the French Go-
vernment, or that the act should be justified by the rigid
principles of the law of Nations by that of England
(hear, hear, hear.) Would not the natural answer be,
a reference to the municipal law of the coun-
try, to which any man coming into the country gave his
assent, and elatedly submitted himself. --(hear ) berry
in going to a foreign country, was obliged to putt up
with all the inconveniences of the country—he was
obliged to take the good and evil as lie found it, for he
bed come there voluntarily. Nothing could be snore
troublesome and inconvenient than this principle of
national interference in the case of every Ettglislim in who
had left his own shores. Wandering natives of these
countries were to be found in all parts of the globe —in
Syria, Aleppo, Algiers, and the must arbitrary states of
the world ; and was it to he said that in places where
there was avowedly no colour of law, the nations were to
be called upon to interfere in the case of every English-
man who happened to suffer ineoeveniences which be
ought to have expected ? It would be a most mischie-
vous principle, and yet this was die extent Iv which the
proposition went, for if interference was gaud in Mr.
Bowring's ease, so that it was in those to which he allu-
ded. But such had never been the prineice of, and such
had never been required from any Ousel:eine:o. It was
incumbent, then, on the Noble lewd to establish either
of two propositions, that any Englishman, in any land
whither he had gone voluntarily, could, upon general
principle, claim the protection of the hung and out-
stretched arm of his country against individual oppres-
sion ; or that the case now Before the House %121,1 " sus
geueris," and to be considered upon its own peculiar
merits. Considering that the first was untenable, and
the second incorrect, lie (Mr. C.) could nor, by his sup-
port, gave countenance to such propositions. and he
should therefore (reserving always an entire respect foi
Mr. Botvriug), oppose the production of the papers now
sought for.—(Hear,hear.)
Sir ft. WILSON teas not disposed to withhold from
Government the praise to which they were entitled for
their zealous interference for Mr. Ilwering. The tr at-
meat, however, which that gentleman experienced at the
hands of the French Government —the indignities which
were put upon hitn as an Englishmen, a. merchant, a
scholar, and a gentleman, were so opprobrieue, that in
his (Sir It.'s) opinion some step should be taken to ex-
press a reprobation of them, lie did nut go to du.

t

length of saying that it wee a case to; national inter-
ference, but it was due to the safety of Englishmen on
the Continent to hold out assurances, that breache. of
the pab!ic laws of nations, would nut be viewed wile
•etitile indifference in this country. Notwithstanding the
inconvenience of interfering with other states for indi-
viduals, which had been alluded to by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, he (Sir Robert) would contend, that whet- •
ever there was an English Ambassador, his protection
should be afforded to Englishmen in their difficnititte.—
The visitations of arbitrary power should out be per.•
mitted to individuals abroad, whilst the nation at home
had the ;water of demanding redress. The Right Hoe.
Gentleman had said that provided the law of France was
impartially administered, Government were nut caged
upon to interfere further. lint there was no protectiea
to be found in French law, as was proved by the late pr.,
ceedings for the conspiracies of Salome and R
The Hon. Niember thin proceeded to explain the sautes
of hie having been ordered away from Paris by the
French Government. He attributed it to ili4 harinie
written to Mr. Bowring, telling him that Sir Charles
Stuart would protect him. His bon. friend the member
for Cork (Mr. Ilutchin-ua) was also ordered away from
the French capital, because he protected an English
demo. There was then no security fur the individuals
of this country, bat so far as they were backed by their
Government. Upon-occasions like the present hr thoogate
at least the language of firmness should be used toivards
the French Government. The answer of Cromwell to
one of the German states would be a model for them to
copy after. " If," laid he, "fair means and entreaty the
not avail, it will be then necessary, according to the law
of nations, that the severity of retaliation shall take
place, which, it is to be hoped, you in your pre fence
will avoid."
Mr. HUTCHINSON was disposed in general to Ismer
an amicable interference between one Groverntneut end
another, bat he felt that there were occasions in whites
.stronger representations would he sometimes necessary.
--(Hear.) The case of Mr. Bowring, though not one to
tall for national interference or general reprobation, was
yet not to be passed over with entire indifference. As
towards the French Government itself, it would be awful
to notice, and it was almost necessary to the safety of
Englishmen that it should not be overlooked. Ile was
not disposed to apply to the conduct of the French Go-
vernment any harsh epithet, having made there some of
his most valuable connections, such a course would be un-
grateful in him. At the same time he admitted, to the
full extent, the criminality of entertaining any projects I
against the French Government. Having said thus mock
he was dOX;0:1S to correct an error into which the Right
Hon. lien lemnan had fallen—unintentionally hemline.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said, that Mr. Bowling •
was tried for the minor offence, but was discharged without
hieing brought to trial for the greater one. He (Mr. H.)
wished to know what was that greater offence; for so fir
as he knew, theonly offence of which Mr. Bowing was
i„,eiii;ty, was that of being connected with the Liberals ct
Paris. In fact, it was almon admitted that he was takes
up, less for any offences of which he had been guilty him-
self, than upon suspicion of his having in his parts some
evidence against other persons. Nothing, however, hail
been fourei in these papers to commit either Mr.llowrieg
or any oilier individual whatever. Under suspicion of such -
crimes, he was kept for six weeks in the most loathsome
gaol in Europe, not for any crime of his own, but be-
cause they wanted to fish evidence out of him agairitt
other persons. The detaining of him without bringing
a definite charge was not the bast oppressive part of the
transaction. He (Mr. II.) spoke feelingly on this subject,
fur when during the lri,h rebellion, he used to interfere
for poor wretches who were kept in prison without being
brought to trial, he was answered by the officers of the
Irish Government by saying in confidence, -6 we limes
we have no evidence against these persona, but we alas
know that they are dangerous, therefore they cannot be
Id' at large.'"rhe Hon. Member then adverted to the
" au secret," system under which Mr. Bowring
tained, which, he contended was worse than the "L
de Cachet," in their worst times. By the cut secret sy
tem a man might be kept in prison indefinitely without
being brought to trial. The hardships which Mr. R. ant-
fered under this system, he thought gave him a strong
claim to the notice of Parliament.

Mr. CANNING, in explanation, raid he wished nut 'a
he utiderstood to assert that Mr. Bowring was releloed
for the larger offence, leastthat shoald be construed int..
an admission that he hail committed any offence at all. As
he could not presume guilt against any one till they
were convicted, so as Mr. Bowring was never brought
to trial, hr could not do bins the injustice to suppose that
be was not entirely innocent.—(Hear.)
Lord A. HAMILTON replied.
The motion was then negatived without a division.
The Weights and Measures Bill was rest the sewed
time, and ordered to bit com•nitted to—norrow.
Sir J. NEWPORT obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
reg.ilate the amount of presentments by Grand Jories,ao.l
for the payment of public officers in the several counties
in Ireland ; and another to take more effectual certain re.
confirms with respect to Grand Jury Assessments iu Ire-
land.