§ Mr. Barlow Hoy, in rising to move for copies of certain correspondence connected with the province of Texas, said, that the recent conduct of the United States with reference to that province was a subject of too great importance to be over-looked by the British House of Commons. He believed the United States of America to be actuated by a desire of encroaching upon the dominions of adjoining powers in a southern direction. The interests of the British colonies situated in the Caribbean Sea, might become seriously affected in the event of these encroachments being made; and he for one, never could consent to the United States extending their boundary so as to occupy Texas, and ultimately, perhaps, to gain possession of Mexico. Under no circumstances could he give his sanction to this occupation. The Americans had said, that Cuba was so important an island that no European nation, except Spain, should be permitted to take possession of it. He (on the authority of Mr. Huskisson) would say, on the other hand, that the province of Texas was a province so important by its position to the commerce and the naval power of this country, as well as to the independence of Mexico, that upon no condition whatever should he allow it to come into the possession of any American power, with the exception of Mexico. When Mexico declared herself an independent state, Mr. Canning had entered into a treaty with that country, by which the Mexicans consented to abolish slavery in every portion of their dominions. This stipulation with regard to the abolition of slavery having been mutually agreed to between the contracting parties, Great Britain was bound to co-operate with Mexico, for the purpose of securing the desired abolition. It was, however, quite notorious that an importation of slaves to 192 an enormous extent had been recently carried on from the United States into Texas. If a procedure of this nature were suffered to continue, there was nothing binding in treaties, and the immediate abrogation of the treaty in question would be the most proper course to pursue. Could America, he would ask, be presumed to be unacquainted with the provisions of a treaty which was not made in secret, and of which she thus exhibited her utter disregard? It could not be for a moment doubted that Texas was included in the arrangement; and yet, the President of the United States did not think it necessary to prevent his subjects from carrying on the slave-trade within the limits of Texas, and even from assisting the revolted slaves in every mode which lay within their power. With regard to the question of boundaries, which had been very much agitated, why did not the parties abide by the arbitration of the King of Holland? The President's message to the Senate of the United States spoke of "peremptorily demanding an arrangement from the Mexican Government. What was the nature of that demand? They all perfectly well knew that it was to get Mexico to give up Texas, in order that the latter might become incorporated with the southern states and form a part of the union. Was it not notorious that the Mexican minister had considered himself compelled to withdraw from Washington, in consequence of an army being kept up by the United States in Mexico? He would beg of hon. Members to put this case to themselves—how would they brook the maintenance of a foreign army within the British dominions? There was no doubt, whatever, that this army was so kept up for the purpose of influencing the Mexican state. He must say that if England were to desert Mexico in the present crisis, she would well deserve that this latter state should fall a prey to the rapacity of the American Union; that a large portion of the commerce of England should, in the event of a naval war, fall a victim to America; and that the British colonies in the West Indies should either fall together, or be materially endangered. The standard which had been raised in the province of Texas was not the standard of rational freedom, but was unfurled for the support of slavery. Notwithstanding the high position which England had long maintained with reference to the slave trade, she must 193 now withdraw, and take up an humble posture, unless she were determined to uphold this treaty. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had said in that House some years ago, when the same subject was debated, that there existed a very just ground for remonstrance. Why, he would ask, should his Majesty's Ministers decline to remonstrate, at least in a friendly manner, with the government of the United States? It was of little consequence whether the acts complained of were the acts of the American people, whom the President was incapable of restraining, or had received the sanction of the President himself. In either case the interference of the English government was called for. There was another consequence which was likely to follow, and it was this—if the northern states were to be outnumbered by the southern states, the northern states would immediately ask for a counterbalance, and demand, that part of East Canada should be added to their territory. He hoped the noble Lord would also state his opinion upon that subject. He moved for those papers the more particularly, as he believed that appeals had been made by the Mexicans to this country, to use our influence with the United States for the maintenance of their integrity. The hon. Member concluded by moving an humble address "for copies of all correspondence between the government of Mexico and his Majesty's government on the subject of Texas, from the 1st of March, 1836, to the present date; also, of all correspondence between the Government of the United States of America and his Majesty's Government on the same subject for a like period."
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, he was not prepared to dispute the importance of the subject to which the hon. Gentleman had drawn the attention of the House, nor to deny that it was a matter which the public and the Government of this country should view with attention and interest. The hon. Member had not, however, laid such ground for the production of those papers as to induce him (Viscount Palmerston) to think it would be consistent with his duty to grant them. He thought the hon. Member had not correctly viewed the present state of the transactions to which his motion related; and he would beg of that hon. Member to ask himself what the present state of the matter really 194 was. The inhabitants of Texas had revolted against Mexico; the Mexican army had been defeated in the first campaign, and the President had been taken prisoner; but, at the same time, the government of Mexico had not abandoned their right of dominion—they still looked for the re-establishment of their authority in Texas, and were making preparations for re-commencing their operations in the ensuing spring. As far, then, as Texas and Mexico were concerned, there was on one side a case of revolt; and on the part of the other, a determination to suppress that revolt. He apprehended that the hon. Gentleman did not contend that with respect to that dispute the Government of England was at all called upon to interfere. The hon. Gentleman surely did not mean to say, that England ought to send a naval or military force to America for the purpose of establishing the authority of Mexico in the province of Texas—he did not mean that we should thus interfere in their unsettled dispute. The hon. Member conceived that the independence of Texas would follow as a consequence of its revolt,—that that independence would lead to the annexation of Texas to the North American Union, and it was to prevent that annexation that the hon. Member wished for the interference of the British Government. Now let them see what was the part which the United States of America, through their government, had taken in reference to the dispute between Texas and Mexico, The hon. Member conceived that the government of the United States entertained the intention of annexing Texas to the Union. But every government he (Viscount Palmerston) thought, had a right to be judged by its acts and declarations. What had been the declaration of the President of the United States? It was, no doubt, true, that some of the adjoining states had interfered in favour of the revolting faction in Texas; but the President and central government had ordered the laws of the Union to be enforced to prevent that interference, as inconsistent with the relations existing between the United States and the government of Mexico. What had been the declaration of the President with regard to Mexico? The hon. Member must have read the special message of the President of the United States, addressed to the Congress upon this particular subject, 195 subsequent to the general message at the opening of the Session of Congress. Of that message, he would say, that it was impossible for any government to express itself more honourably, or more consistently with good faith towards other powers than did the President of the United States in that document. The President stated, that he had been pressed by many to take steps towards acknowledging the independence of Texas; he reminded the Congress of the principles by which a government ought to be guided in acknowledging the independence of a revolted province; and he added, that before such a course should be adopted, the province should not only have established its independence, but have done so in such a manner that other powers might see, that the mother country, had no rational chance of re-establishing its authority. The President also stated, that it was inconsistent with the principles by which the policy of the United States was guided to acknowledge the independence of Texas, in the then present state of things, and until it had succeeded in proving to the world that it had the means of maintaining itself as an independent state. He went on further to say, that great precaution was peculiarly incumbent on the United States upon that question, because a suspicion had prevailed, that the United States had an interested motive for interfering in the dispute between Mexico and Texas, and because they had been suspected of encouraging the revolt, for the purpose of annexing that province to the Union; that consequently a just regard for the honour of the United States required not only that they should suspend their recognition of the independence of that province, until it should be demonstratively accomplished, but that they should wait until other powers against whom no such suspicions could be entertained had previously acknowledged it. He would therefore say, that there had been nothing in the conduct of the government of the United States respecting this matter, which was not consistent with the most scrupulous feelings of honour and delicacy towards other powers. That being the case, he must beg leave to say, that the hon. Member had not grounded his accusation against the Government, of the United States, upon the acts or declarations of that Government. With reference to the position of Texas, as 196 regarded the United States, he would admit, that if the former were to unite itself to the latter, such union might indirectly lead to the introduction of slaves into that province, not only from the slave states in North America, but by importation by sea, for which great temptation would then, no doubt, exist. The very facility which the incorporation of Texas would give to the great extension of slavery, formed one of the strongest objections against that incorporation, and at which he looked with quite as much jealousy as the hon. Member. But there was good reason to think, that such an addition to the southern states would not be looked upon by the northern states as a matter indifferent to them. The northern states would probably entertain objections to the incorporation of Texas with the union, quite as strong as those which were felt by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had stated, that he did not think slaves had been imported into Texas direct from Africa, but fancied the importation had taken place from the island of Cuba. That, to a certain degree, was possible, at the same time there was such a demand for slaves in Cuba itself, that it was not likely their exportation from that island would be carried on to any considerable extent, unless the same quantity of slaves was replaced by importation into Cuba. He could, however, assure the hon. Member, that the treaty with Spain, which had only come into full operation within the last year, had produced a very considerable effect. A large number of ships had been condemned upon the ground of their being equipped as slave-traders, although not having any slaves on board: he was inclined to think that this would be a severe blow to the importation of slaves into the island of Cuba. That treaty had, however, been evaded to a great degree by Spanish ships, not only by the assumption of the Portuguese flag, but by fraudulent papers, which they obtained from Portuguese colonies. Upon that point it was satisfactory to know that the Government of Portugal was animated by a desire, in conjunction with the Government of England, to put an end to such a disgraceful traffic. The present Government of Portugal had done that which the British Government had been unable to persuade any former Portuguese Government to do, although bound by treaty to do it—namely, it had published a very 197 severe and comprehensive law prohibiting and rendering penal the importation of slaves into the Portuguese dominions; and although they had not yet signed that treaty, which he had hoped they would have signed many months ago, yet the law enacted contained almost all the stipulations which our treaty with Spain contained. Therefore, if the Portuguese authorities, both at home, and in the colonies, were honest and zealous in the execution of the law, the object would be already accomplished. But he was afraid, from experience of the conduct of the subordinate authorities of the Portuguese Government, that the object of the British Government would not be obtained until permission was given to British cruisers to carry that law into execution. He apprehended that the object which the hon. Member had in view would be met, not in the correspondence for which he had moved, but in the communications they were carrying on with the Spanish and Portuguese Governments regarding the slave trade itself. He conceived that the hon. Member had not laid any special ground for calling for those papers; at the same time, it was only natural that he, entertaining the sentiments he did, should have taken this opportunity of placing those sentiments upon record. So far from inconvenience arising from such a course, he thought that the open expression of opinion was always the safest and most convenient plan to adopt. He trusted the hon. Member would acquiesce in his objection to produce the papers moved for. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government was by no means inattentive to the subject, but in the present state of the question, between Texas and the United States, and between Mexico and Texas, he conceived there was no ground to justify the Government in laying the correspondence moved for before the House.
§ Mr. Wardwould not trespass on the attention of the House did he not feel that he had an imperative duty to perform towards a distinguished individual—Mr. Forsyth—a member of the government of the United States against whom he had last year brought a charge, which he had since ascertained to have been totally unfounded. The charge which he had made was this—that a certain influential member of the American government had an interest not 198 only in public but in private speculations in Texas lands. That charge had excited very considerable attention, and had naturally given great pain to the gentleman whose name was coupled with it. Mr. Forsyth had put himself in communication with him through the medium of a friend of Mr. Forsyth's now in this country; and he had now no hesitation in saying—on the contrary, he said with the greatest confidence—that there had never existed the slightest foundation for that charge against Mr. Forsyth. He never was connected with the purchasing of lands in Texas, and had always held it to be incompatible with his Ministerial duties to be so connected. He should also observe, that such a rumour had never been current in the United States until it had unfortunately become the subject of debate in that House. He had now only to express his deep regret at having put forward such a statement, and, in his own excuse, should say, that he had done so upon the authority of a friend of his, who he thought had the means of ascertaining the facts, and who had pledged himself for their accuracy. With regard to the question before the House, he would observe, that for upwards of ten years he believed a fixed design had existed in the United States to annex Texas to that country—a design which he deeply regretted, as its accomplishment would close up our sources of communication with that province, and disturb the good understanding with the government of the United States, which every one desired to see perpetuated.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that humanity was indebted to the hon. Member for bringing this question before the House, as it was only by the expression of public feeling they could hope to check the progress of one of the greatest evils the human mind could contemplate—namely, the addition of eight or nine slavery states. The revolt of Texas was founded upon nothing else than the abolition of slavery by the Mexican Government. The Mexican Government of 1824, pronounced that no one born in the territory of Mexico after that year should be born in slavery, and in 1829 they went further, and abolished slavery altogether, upon which immediately followed the revolt in the province of Texas. That revolt was actually the consequence of abolishing shivery in Mexico. The United States could not think of peopling that country 199 with white men. What, then, were they to think of those who settled there upon the speculation of increasing the number of slaves by that most horrible of all traffics? He would say, they ought to be degraded in the eyes of every man of feeling. It was revolting to think of breeding up human beings for the purpose of making them slaves and selling them—of stocking farms, as it were, and estimating the probable number of women necessary to be kept for a certain number of men—of breeding up children as a matter of speculation, just as they would sheep, and calculating how soon they would be ready and ripe for the market. It was a blot which no country but America would suffer to stain her history. No nation was ever degraded by such a crime except the high-spirited North American republic They talked of the progress of democratic principles. No man admired those salutary principles more than he did; but what became of their boasted efficacy if they could not induce those who enjoyed them to abstain from such a horrid speculation? He admitted that the North American government had behaved with common decency in reference to Texas, but at the same time the press was calling out for volunteers to go to Mexico, and many men of influence from Louisiana and all the western states were sending out regular purchasers under a Spanish name, and calculating to what extent they would be able to establish a market there. Could Texas hope to remain independent without the assistance of North America? He thought not. He believed that but for the interference of North America Santa Anna would have overcome that province, and by this time have established in it an organized and powerful authority? There was an end to Texas unless North America assisted her, and who would say that was not speculated upon? He wished the noble Lord had felt it consistent with his duty to grant those papers. He did not believe the noble Lord had stated that any inconvenience would result from giving them, but had put his refusal upon the plea, that they would not serve the purpose of the hon. Member who had moved for them. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that the conceding of those papers would show a disposition upon the part of the Government to discountenance the revolt in Texas. He felt that it was not the duty of this country to go to war with 200 America, or to do any thing likely to create disunion between the two countries, but he thought it was the business of that country to follow the glorious example which England had set, of her determination not to have a slave within the reach of those who were under the protection of the British Crown, in having given 20,000,000l., to purchase liberty for her own slaves, in order to raise them to that station for which nature and nature's God intended them, as human beings having the same faculties, and being heirs of the same redemption with ourselves. No one in this country had ever complained of our having shown that example; on the contrary, it was the pride and the boast of England that that sum of money had been conceded, and was looked upon as miserable dust in the balance compared to the liberty of so many thousand human beings. Oh what a contrast did that form between the Government of Great Britain and that of the American republic! Could say thing be more striking, could anything be more glorious to this country, or more degrading to North America? He wished, therefore, that the small concession of these papers had been made by the noble Lord as the first step towards discountenancing the revolt of Texas, and the conduct of America regarding that province, for certain it was, that they hoped to add it to their territory. He had two hopes on the subject,—first, that the United States would not succeed in any such project, and secondly, that if they did, the crime would bring its own punishment. They had in North America not only made laws to prevent the black man from learning to read, but had actually made it a capital offence to teach men of colour, nay, to teach even free men of colour to read. He could scarcely refrain from thinking that if this vile system of inhumanity were continued, there would arise such a mass of physical strength in the country as would eventually put an end to it in the blood of their oppressors. If the present motion were not conceded, and it ought to be conceded, he hoped the hon. Member who had done himself so much credit in bringing it forward would persevere and again bring it forward in another shape before the end of the session, and in a fuller House, that the voice of humanity might reach across the Atlantic and terrify those speculators from their abominable traffic in human beings.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, what the noble Lord called revolt, other persons termed rebellion. If the British subjects who had settled in Portugal chose to seize a province or some of the strong places, then would the noble Lord have called such a proceeding a revolt? Or would he have expected the Portuguese nation to give it such a designation? Why should the noble Lord apply such a term to the rebellious Texians? Was it not beyond question that all the inhabitants of Texas were Americans, wherever the Americans went they carried their bad habits.
Ubi Camillus ibi Roma.The Americans could not congregate any where, without carrying their habits with them. Wherever Americans conquered, there they carried slavery. They lived, moved, and had their being in that crime. Were the British nation to make themselves parties to such transactions? It had been said, that we ought not to go to war. But for what were we strong—why did we keep up a large army, and why such a noble navy, if not for the purpose of upholding our own rights, and causing the rights of others to be respected? But it was not war the nation wanted, it was three inches of state paper. Let it be drawn up with energy, so that other countries should not possess the power of charging us with having deserted our posts and neglected the interests of humanity.
§ Mr. Powell Buxtonsaid, the noble Lord had told the House that they should look rather to the effect of the treaty than to any interference on the part of the British Government; but of all the treaties he had ever met with, he had never seen one which had been so totally disregarded as the treaty alluded to by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord depended on it, he might be assured that the slave trade would ere long be introduced into the country of the Texians. He wished the American government to know that the people of England were deeply interested upon this subject. Perhaps there was no subject which so strongly animated the feelings of the people of England as that of a country in which slavery and the slave trade were being abolished. It was a matter of undoubted certainty that if measures were not taken to check the carrying on of this trade and the interference of America, the effect would be its establishment in the 202 neighbouring provinces, an evil which he would tell the noble Lord would be but trifling in comparison with the slave trade of Cuba. He thought they ought to let the world see what was the feeling of Government upon this subject. He could conceive no responsibility greater than that of a Minister of the Crown, who, without the least remonstrance quietly permitted those noble dominions to be taken possession of, and slavery and the slave trade established in them.
§ Mr. Barlow Hoyin reply said, that being convinced that the expression of opinion which had this evening been given upon the subject would not alone be productive of any effect in the quarter to which it was directed, he felt bound to press his motion.
§ The House divided: Ayes 28; Noes 41; Majority 13.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Blackburne, I. | O'Connell, J. |
| Bonham, R. F. | Palmer, C. |
| Bowles, G. R. | Polhill, F. |
| Brady, D. C. | Rushbrooke, Colonel |
| Buckingham, J. S. | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Butler, hon. P. | Stuart, Lord D. |
| Buxton, T. F. | Thompson, Colonel |
| Crawford, W. S. | Twiss, H. |
| Dick, Q. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Duncombe, T. | Wakley, T. |
| Eaton, R. J. | Walter, J. |
| Johnston, A. | Young, Sir W. |
| Knight, H. G. | |
| Lawson, A. | TELLERS. |
| Lushington, Charles | Hoy, B. |
| O'Connell, D. | Lowther, — |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Palmerston, Viscount |
| Bewes, T. | Parrott, Jasper |
| Brotherton, J. | Pease, J. |
| Collier, J. | Potter, R. |
| Dillwyn, L. W. | Pryme, G. |
| Elphinstone, H. | Rice, right hon. T. S. |
| Ewart, W. | Rickford, W. |
| Grote, G. | Rundle, J. |
| Hall, B. | Scott, Sir E. D. |
| Handley, H. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Heathcoate, J. | Thornley, Thomas |
| Hindley, C. | Tooke, W. |
| Hume, J. | Turner, W. |
| Humphery, J. | Watson, R. |
| Johnstone, J. J. H. | Whalley, Sir S. |
| Leader, J. T. | Wilde, Sergeant |
| Lefevre, C. S. | Wood, Alderman |
| Lemon, Sir C. | Worsley, Lord |
| Lister, E. C. | TELLERS. |
| Lushington, Dr. | Hawes, B. |
| Martin, J. | Parker,— |