HL Deb 24 January 1832 vol 9 cc772-9

Lord Ellenborough rose to make two motions, for returns to which he supposed that no objection would be offered. The first motion was, for "An account of the number of vessels seized and condemned in each year, by the Mixed Commission under the several treaties with foreign States, for the suppression of the Slave-trade, specifying the countries to which such vessels belonged." And the second for—"An account of the number of vessels belonging to his Majesty's navy, which have been employed from the year 1817, inclusive, to the present time, under special instruction for the suppression of the Slave-trade." He would avail himself of this opportunity to make a few observations on the convention which had been recently made between his Majesty and the king of the French, for the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade, and to ask for explanations on one or two points connected with it from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government. When he heard the expression used by his Majesty in his most gracious Speech on the opening of Parliament—namely, that this convention had for its basis the concession of reciprocal rights, and would, he trusted, enable the naval forces of the two countries, by their combined efforts, to accomplish an object which was felt by both to be so important to the interests of humanity—when, he repeated, he heard that expression fall from his Majesty, he did expect that the treaty so concluded would be not less efficient than preceding treaties. Great, however, had been his disappointment on reading the convention which had been recently placed on their Lordships' Table, for he found it much less efficient than those which had gone before it. First of all, it wanted the instructions which formed part of all the other treaties: next, it wanted a provision for the indemnification of his Majesty's subjects, in case of any abuse of the right of search now conceded; and last of all, the limits under which that right of search was to be exercised were more strict and definite than they had been in any former treaties. There was no such limitation in the treaties which we had formed with Spain and with Portugal, in which the right of search had been reciprocally conceded, as was contained in this treaty. In the treaties with Sweden and with the Netherlands it was provided that the right of search should not be exercised in the Mediterranean or in any other European sea—a limitation which made the right of search as extensive as it was necessary, inasmuch as no slave-trade was carried on within those seas. In this treaty the limits were more restricted than in any other, for they were confined to that part of the western coast of Africa which runs from Cape Verd to ten degrees south of the Equator; to the islands of Madagascar, Cuba, and Porto Rico, and a distance of twenty leagues from their coasts; and to the same distance from the coast of Brazil. Moreover, the right of search was not to be exercised beyond those limits, unless the cruisers to whom it was given came up with the slave-ship beyond those limits without having ever lost sight of her; so that, if a night intervened, the right of search could not be exercised beyond the space which he had already mentioned. If their Lordships would only take this point into their consideration, they would see that this limitation nullified the provisions which were included in the treaties which we had made with the other four Powers. There was another difference between this convention and the preceding conventions, which he deemed still more important. In the conventions with Spain and Portugal there was no limitation as to the number of vessels of each kingdom which were to be employed under them. In the conventions with the Netherlands and with Sweden, there was a limitation that not more than twelve vessels should be so employed. But in this convention it was provided, that in no case should the number of the cruisers of the one nation be more than double the number of the cruisers of the other. France, therefore, by declining to employ any vessels, would prevent us from employing any, and would thus be enabled to nullify every provision of the treaty. There was also an article in this convention, by which the contracting parties to it agreed to invite the other maritime powers to accede to it within as short a period as possible, so that any maritime power, by declining to employ any vessel, might nullify this convention with regard both to England and to France. It could not be desired by us, that the four Powers to whom he had already alluded—namely, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, aud the Netherlands, should accede to this convention, inasmuch as they would be less restricted by it than they were at present. Under all the other treaties the vessels seized were carried before a mixed commission. By the present convention, the vessels captured for being engaged in the slave-trade, or as being suspected of being fitted out for that infamous traffic, were to be delivered over without delay to the jurisdiction of the nation to which they belonged, and were only to be judged according to the laws in force in that nation. This clause of the convention, therefore, enabled France, by a change in her municipal laws, to deprive the treaty of any value. When he made these observations on the discrepancies of this convention and of its predecessors, he trusted that it would not be supposed that he objected to the Government for having made some concession with regard to the mixed commission; for he knew that in America, and he believed in France also, there prevailed great objections to allowing their citizens to be tried by a mixed commission. Neither did he object to the Government having agreed to these narrow limits, if wider ones could not be obtained. What he objected to was this: that Government had accompanied this convention with provisions which enabled France, if so inclined, to nullify it altogether. In every other convention, the instructions accompanied the convention; here they were to be drawn up and agreed upon by the two Governments: so that, until they were drawn up and agreed upon, the convention was a dead letter. The instructions here were extraneous from the treaty, and must form a supplemental treaty by themselves; and very important and very delicate would be the question, when the two Governments should come to consider what the instructions ought to be. The instructions would be most important as to what should be admitted to be proof that a vessel was engaged in the slave-trade, or that it was fitted out with a view of being engaged in that trade, when there were no slaves on board. There were also cases which ought to be exeepted from seizure, where there were slaves on board a vessel either as servants or as sailors, and not for traffic. In our trading vessels from the East and West Indies it was possible that slaves might be on board under circumstances which would render it difficult to decide whether they were slaves or not. There was another point of importance on which it would be necessary that there should be some positive instruction, and that was, what should be the right of search when a vessel was under the convoy of a vessel of war belonging to another State. That would be a question of great difficulty—first, as to whether any right of search should be given under such circumstances; and next, as to the manner in which it should be exercised, if given. There was also another question of difficulty to which he wished to call the attention of the noble Earl, and that was, whether any right of search could exist when a vessel was within cannon-shot of the shore of another State. All these questions must be decided, and they could only be decided by a supplemental treaty. It was therefore not only immature, but also impolitic, to bring this convention under the notice of Parliament before all these points were arranged. Let all this be done; there remained that of which he did not understand the omission—he alluded to the means of indemnifying his Majesty's subjects who might be stopped unjustly by French cruisers. There could be no objection, on the part of France, on point of principle, to grant this indemnification. By this convention, so little restrictive on France—for she had but few vessels on which we could exercise the right of search—by this convention we subjected to search all our numerous vessels which were engaged in the South American trade, the African trade, the West-Indian trade, and in our trade with the country parts of the East Indies. He therefore thought, that it was absolutely necessary that there should be a provision in this convention, as there was in all its predecessors, for the indemnification of British subjects, in case of any abuse of that great power which we were now granting to France, for the sake of the interests of humanity. He, therefore, desired to know, first, what progress had been made in drawing up these instructions? and next, what fund, if any, was provided for the indemnification of British subjects, for losses which it was possible they might incur under the operations of this convention?

Earl Grey

expressed his satisfaction that the noble Baron, though he found fault with the details of the convention, did not object to the principle on which it was founded. He thought that by this convention a great advantage had been gained, not only for England but for humanity in general, by the further prevention of that inhuman traffic in the sinews and muscles of man—the slave-trade—which he trusted would be the result of the execution of this convention. He thought that his Majesty had not been ill-advised to make that statement in his opening speech to Parliament to which the noble Baron had alluded. It was true, that this treaty was not so extensive as those which had been made with Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and the Netherlands; but their Lordships must be aware—and none more than the members of the late Administration—of the difficulty of making any arrangement on this subject with France. Their Lordships must know the jealousy which existed in that country as to the right of search. It existed not only in France, but also in the United States of America, and he believed it was also felt by the officers of our own navy. He therefore thought, that much had been done in obtaining the agreement of France to the provisions of this convention; for though it was not so extensive as our conventions with the other Powers, it was sufficiently extensive to enable the navies of the two countries to check that trade which disgraced humanity, and of which both Governments anxiously wished to see the termination. The noble Lord had complained that the limits were more restricted under this than under any former convention. They were so; but after the best inquiries that could be made, and the best information that could be collected, it was believed that the right of search, within the limits and under the conditions mentioned in the convention, would be most effectual. Besides, that very limitation might serve as some counterpoise to the danger which the noble Lord anticipated our shipping would incur from the concession of this right of search. The noble Lord had stated his apprehension, that as the number of cruisers to be employed by each of the Powers was not specified, and as each was restricted to employ not more than double the number of the cruisers of the other, one of the Powers, by refusing to employ any cruisers, might compel the other to do the same, and would thus nullify and defeat the convention. Now this supposition took it for granted, that there would be a want of good faith on the part of France in the execution of the treaty. If there were that want of good faith on the part of the French government, he did not know by what form of words he could possiblybind it. With respect to the mixed commission alluded to by the noble Lord, whatever disposition the French government might feel with regard to an arrangement of that nature, it was totally inconsistent with French law. It was incompatible with the law of France that the property of any French subject should be brought for adjudication before any other than a French tribunal. The French law might perhaps be altered hereafter, but at present it opposed an insurmountable objection to the plan of trying these cases by a mixed commission. For the present, however, a part of that difficulty had been got over. It was proposed to appoint a French consul with full power to decide on all such questions as might arise out of this treaty, such consul to be resident either at Sierra Leone or Fernando Po, to save the necessity of vessels proceeding further than was absolutely necessary for the purpose of adjudication. The noble Lord had proposed two questions, having for their object to ascertain in what state the instructions were, and whether any measures would be adopted to procure indemnification for English subjects who might be injured by improper conduct on the part of the French cruisers. He could not give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer to either of the questions the noble Lord had put. He was not prepared to say in what state the instructions were; but he believed he might state with some confidence, that there would be no difficulty on the subject, and that they would be placed on a most satisfactory footing. With respect to the noble Lord's second question, as to the procuring of indemnification, all he could say was, that until some specific arrangement could be made (and he was not prepared either to admit or deny that this would be done), any undue exercise of power by the French cruisers would stand on the same footing as any injury committed by one State against another. A representation of the injury would be made, and redress, he hoped, obtained, where the justice of the case required it. This was all that he felt himself called upon to say on the present occasion, and he would therefore sit down with once more remarking, that, even by the admission of the noble Lord, considerable advantage had been gained by the treaty.

Lord Ellenborough

remarked, that the noble Earl had stated, that injuries to British property would be redressed in the usual manner, on proper demand for reparation being made. So they might without this treaty; but the object of it ought to have been specifically to put an end to such a practice, by rendering the demand for such redress unnecessary. It was, also, perfectly clear, that the Crown, of its own authority, could not carry into effect this or any other treaty upon the subject without coming to Parliament for its sanction. The King possessed no power to permit foreign ships of war to search British merchant-vessels, nor could the Crown of its own right indemnify the subjects of other States if injured in the process of carrying such a treaty into effect. As to another point to which the noble Earl had alluded, he begged to call to the recollection of the House, that both the South American and the Indian trade, by the usual course of navigation, came within the limits defined by the treaty.

The Earl of Aberdeen

said, that the treaty under consideration was the first he had ever known to have been laid before Parliament as an original treaty in the French language. It had been the invariable practice, since Lord Grenville was in the Foreign Office, to have every original treaty in the English language. He did not wish to press this point as of undue importance (though it was not wholly unimportant); but he had felt it necessary to allude to it, lest the present proceeding might be drawn into a precedent.

Viscount Goderich

observed, that a copy of the treaty in English was also laid upon the Table.

The Earl of Aberdeen

replied, that the document on the Table was a translation; but there ought to be two original treaties, one French, and the other English.

Earl Grey expressed

a wish that there should be no departure from any rule which existed on the subject. For his part he knew nothing of the matter. He took it for granted that the papers would be sent to the Foreign Office in the usual form.

The Earl of Aberdeen

said, that the noble Earl did not seem to understand the point to which he had referred. The mistake which had been committed could not be remedied. Our Ambassador had signed a French treaty, instead of signing one in French and another in English. The omission was, of course, accidental on the part of Lord Granville. He did not mean to do more than advert to it.

Motion agreed to.