§ Mr. Sergeant Jackson, in pursuance of the notice he had given, begged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the precise date of the confidential note addressed by Lord Howard de Walden, our Minister at the Portuguese court, to Viscount Sa da Bandeira.
§ Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that no day of the month was affixed to the note to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred; but, comparing its contents with other documents which were fully dated, he believed it must hare been written on the 19th of May. As some remarks had been made upon this subject which he thought very unfounded, he hoped the House would allow him to state very shortly the precise circumstances under which this note had been written. The whole of it would be found in the despatch, the inclosure of which was quoted on Thursday night by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tana worth. If anybody would read the despatch which was to be found among the papers recently laid before Parliament from Lord Howard de Walden to Viscount Sa da Bandeira, dated the 20th May, 1838, he would see the whole history of that which was a very simple transaction, although it had apparently been very much mystified. In the negotiation between Lord Howard de Walden and Viscount Sa da Bandeira, there was one point on which Lord Howard insisted, and there was another on which Viscount Sa da Bandeira insisted, Lord Howard insisted that the Portuguese Government should agree to assimilate their law on the subject of the slave-trade to the law of this country, and should declare slave-trade to be piracy, and Viscount Sa da Bandeira insisted that England should give a guarantee to Portugal of her African dominions. In this 246 despatch, which was dated the 20th of May. 1838 (No 110 in the printed papers), Lord Howard gave an account of two interviews which he had with Viscount Sa da Bandeira on the 18th and 19th of May. He stated in that narrative that he urged Viscount Sa da Bandeira to agree to a declaration that the slave-trade was piracy, and he also stated the insurmountable objections which Viscount Sa da Bandeira entertained to accede to that demand, alleging that no government in Portugal could agree to it with a knowledge of the feeling existing throughout Portugal respecting the slave-trade, and that it was, therefore, wholly out of the question. Lord Howard then stated to Viscount Sa da Bandeira:—
If you cannot do what we wish, do as nearly as you can. I will write to you an official note, demanding, that you should declare the slave-trade piracy. This I cannot expect you to do, because you have told me it cannot be done; but do you, in answer to my note, state your intention to declare the slave-trade piracy, when the other powers of Europe shall agree to do so. That may, perhaps, be satisfactory to my government; and if you do as I have suggested, I will agree to sign the treaty, without its containing a declaration that the slave-trade is piracy, sub spe rati, as the basis of future negotiations, which I will take home to my Government. If the British Government should approve of it, well and good; if not, then the thing drops.So far from its being the fact that any suggestions were made, either on the part of Lord Howard de Walden or on the part of the British Government to the Government of Portugal, as stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), the other night, to make out a case for abstaining from a direct proposal for the abolition of the slave-trade, that in the very same despatch which the right hon. Baronot read, there was this paragraph:—In order to record the objections brought by the Viscount Sa da Bandeira, on the part of the Portuguese Government to the required declaration as to piracy, I addressed a note to his Excellency, of which I enclose a copy, submitting drafts of two articles embodying that principle, either of which I proposed to adopt. In reply to this note, the Viscount has promised [but he did not keep that promise] to make such a declaration on the subject of piracy as his Excellency trusts confidently will remove the only difficulty on the part of her Majesty's Government to accepting the treaty, as it will stand on my departure from Lisbon.Well, the declaration which Viscount Sa 247 promised to make, was one suggested privately to him by Lord Howard de Walden in the note referred to. Therefore, the House would see, that Viscount Sa, having said, on the 18th of May, that he could not make the declaration required on the morning of Saturday, the 19th (the day on which the note was written), another long conference took place between him and Lord Howard, when he again stated that the difficulties under which he laboured, as to the piracy article, were insurmountable. On that occasion Viscount Sa stated that:—No minister at this moment could venture to contract an engagement to pass such a law, with a knowledge of the feeling which existed throughout the country respecting slave-trade; there being on one side active opposition to the suppression of the slave-trade, while total indifference was the characteristic of the feelings of the greater part of those to whom the Government must look for support as against the machinations of the advocates of the slave-trade.The House would, therefore, perceive, that Lord Howard de Walden having pressed strongly upon the Minister of Portugal to declare the slave-trade piracy, that Minister stated that his objections to advise any such declaration were insurmountable; that Lord Howard then said:—I am not authorised to sign a treaty without that declaration, but if you will make a declaration nearly tantamount to if, I will take upon me to sign the treaty without the declaration, and carry it home to my Government sub e rati.In a letter addressed by Lord Howard de Walden to himself (Lord Palmerston), his Lordship observed:Allusions having been made more than once officially by the Viscount Sa da Bandeira to my departure from Lisbon in May last, as the cause of the non-signature of the treaty for the abolition of the slave-trade then under negotiation, I have the honour herewith to enclose a copy of a memorandum which, a short time before I broke off the negotiation of the said treaty, I drew up hastily at the moment, as explanatory of the grounds on which alone I could consent to affix my signature to it at all, (containing, as I felt it did, several provisions which could not be satisfactory to her Majesty's Government), even supposing the two main difficulties under discussion, created by the Portuguese government, respecting piracy, and the proposed guarantee, to have been overcome. I did not forward this paper at the time, as no discussion on the subject of it took place. I had merely read it over to the Viscount de Sa on delivering it to 248 him, and he had received it to take it into consideraation only as an act proposed by me, as preliminary to the signature of the treaty whenever it might take place, subject to amendment and correction on being discussed by us.The memorandum was in these terms:—At a conference held this day between the Viscount Sa da Bandeira and Lord Howard de Walden, Lord Howard declared, that he did not feel authorized, under his instructions, to affix his signature to any treaty for the abolition of the slave-trade, which did not contain a provision for making that traffic piracy. The Viscount Sa da Bandeira, on the part of the Portuguese Government, stated that force of circumstances alone prevented his acquiescing in such a stipulation in the proposed treaty; but declared, in the name of the Queen of Portugal, her most faithful Majesty's willingness to become party, by either a joint or simultaneous act, to any general measure adopted by other European powers for the above object. The Viscount de Sa da Bandeira and Lord Howard having both also weighed the various inconveniences which might arise from a delay at this moment in the actual signature of the treaty, containing important stipulations so entirely in conformity with so many of the other principles and details of the project as presented to the Portuguese Government, have agreed to affix their signatures to the treaty sub spe rati, under the mutual pledge, that in the event of the treaty not being accepted as it stands, by her Majesty's Government, the act of its signature shall remain secret, and the document shall be cancelled, and be considered to all intents and purposes null and void in all its parts, as if the said signature had never taken place.This memorandum had no date, because it was never signed. It was given by Lord Howard de Walden to Viscount de Sa, in the course of the negotiation which took place between them towards the end of May. It was to have been signed if the two parties had agreed upon the treaty, but the two parties did not agree upon the treaty. Before Lord Howard went away fresh difficulties were started, and the parties did not come to terms. The memorandum, therefore, was never signed; but it stated the conditions upon which Lord Howard was willing to sign the treaty. He explained to Viscount de Sa, that his instructions did not allow him to sign any treaty without a stipulation that the Portuguese government would at a future time declare the slave-trade to be piracy, whenever the other powers of Europe were willing to do so; but that if such a stipulation were acceded to, then he would sign the treaty sub spe rati. So 249 far, therefore, from there being any tiling like double dealing or underhanded proceeding in this matter, not only was it shown by these very papers which he had already laid before Parliament, but by those papers which he had received subsequently, and which would be laid before the House when the next batch of papers relating to the slave-trade should be presented, that the whole transaction was most fair; but that nothing could be more strictly in accordance with the spirit of his instructions, than the course which was pursued by Lord Howard de Walden on this occasion, (although he took upon himself the responsibility of going beyond the letter of those instructions, under the liability of what he did being disapproved by the Government at home), and that nothing in the world less merited those objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman without a full knowledge of the circumstances, had thought proper elsewhere to throw out against the conduct of one of the most meritorious and zealous servants of the Crown.
§ Mr. Sergeant Jacksontrusted the House would permit him to offer a few words in explanation, after the allusion the noble Lord had thought proper to make to him. It was perfectly true he did, at a meeting of his constituents, make some observations upon this question; and the noble Lord had only done him justice in supposing that he would not have made such strong objections to the conduct of Lord Howard de Walden if he had been in possession of the whole facts connected with the transaction, and which certainly did not appear to subject that noble Lord to the charge of double dealing. Although the lengthened explanation of the noble Lord was not satisfactory to his mind, and he must say that there did, upon the face of the whole transaction, appear to have been a mass of political diplomacy calculated to affix a stain upon Great Britain, in its relations with foreign slates, by which it had never hitherto been disgraced. It appeared that a British minister had required from another government, as a sine qua non that a certain thing should be done.
§ Sir S. Lushingtonrose to order. He thought that this discussion, according to the rules of the House, was clearly irregular. He conceived that the hon. and learned Gentleman might put his question to the Ministers in what terms he pleased, 250 but he must be content with the answer which was given to him. If he thought that that answer was not satisfactory, he had ample opportunity, by giving notice of a motion, to bring forward the whole, in order to a complete and satisfactory investigation. But he would put it to the House whether—
§ The Speakersaid there was no question but that the whole of these proceedings had been irregular. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) asked a question of the noble Lord which admitted of a concise answer; and when the noble Lord rose in the first instance, he thought the answer would have been concise; but the noble Lord craved the indulgence of the House to give a more lengthened answer. He understood the House to have given that indulgence. If he had not thought so he certainly should have felt it his duty to interrupt the noble Lord. When the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) afterwards rose, he (the Speaker) supposed it was merely for the purpose of stating something in explanation of what had passed, and if he had found the hon. and learned Gentleman exceeding that object, he (the Speaker) should have felt it his duty to interrupt him.
§ Sir Robert Peelcould not help observing that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Jackson) had, in pursuance of a notice he had given, asked a question in ten plain words, namely, what was the date of the despatch, and he should have been perfectly contented if the noble Lord had in so many words have answered, "the 19th of May;" but the noble Lord had entered into a lengthened explanation, which he confessed was to him wholly unsatisfactory. He considered the question to be much prejudiced by that explanation, and that the noble Lord had gained an undue advantage by not answering the questions in the same brief terms in which it was asked. He, however, not only thought the explanation of the noble Lord to be unsatisfactory, but was prepared to show that it was unsatisfactory. But, although the noble Lord had, contrary to the rules of the House, been allowed to enter into a lengthened statement, yet he was precluded from answering it.
§ Mr. Sergeant Jackson, said that as to the point of order, he should throw himself upon the consideration of the House. He had asked simply a question of the 251 noble Lord, and the noble Lord had entered into a lengthened explanation, which he concluded by a personal observation. The noble Lord had referred to what had fallen from him (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) when addressing his constituents, and his wish had been to say one word by way of explanation, and in his own justification. He should not, however, persevere in that intention now; but upon a future occasion he should afford the noble Lord a more ample opportunity of explaining this matter. He would merely say that the explanation which the noble Lord had already given was quite unsatisfactory.
§ Sir R. Peelasked the noble Lord whether he had any objection to the production of the letter and memorandum which he had just read.
§ Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that the letter was not sent home by Lord Howard as a despatch; still he had no objection to the production of the papers.
§ Mr. Sergeant Jacksonwished to know whether the noble Lord had any objection to state whether the letter of Lord Howard de Walden to Viscount de Sa was written in pursuance of heads of instructions to Lord Howard prepared in England, or whether it entirely originated with Lord Howard de Walden?
§ Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that the letter to Viscount de Sa was not in conformity with the instructions sent to Lord Howard de Walden. He himself stated that, and he took upon himself to agree to a modification of those instructions.
§ Here the conversation ended.