Commons Sitting of 23 July 1822

PIRACY IN THE WEST INDIES.
Mr. Canningpresented a petition from certain merchants, shipowners, and underwriters of Liverpool, complaining of the numerous piracies in the West Indian seas. The. right hon. member, having detailed the contents of the petition, begged to add some facts with which he had been furnished regarding outrages committed upon British shipping. On the 13th Dec. 1821, when within five miles of Cape San Antonio, a British ship bound for Liverpool, had been stopped by a crew of armed men,
1726
who boarded her and demanded of the steward if there were any specie on board. The answer being in the negative, the man was instantly stabbed by the pirates. They then endeavoured to extort a confession from the captain, and compelled his own crew to hoist him up by the neck to the yard-arm, where he entreated his own mate to fasten weights to his feet that his misery might be more speedily terminated. Of course, this was not allowed, and when taken down and while lying on the deck in a state of almost total insensibility the wretch who had stabbed the steward blew out the brains of the captain. The pirates were all either Spaniards or Portuguese. The right hon. gentleman mentioned some similar particulars, and observed that the petitioners had first applied to the Admiralty, which had represented the matter to the Court of Spain. No doubt, every step had been taken on the part of the British executive to remedy an evil so outrageous; but the petitioners felt that a time would arrive, if it had not arrived, when the mother country would be unable to redress the grievance committed under the flag of her colonies, and when it would therefore be necessary for this government to adopt some course for the protection of the trade of the empire.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that when these transactions came to the knowledge of government, it sent out instructions to the admiral on the station to seize all vessels which could not prove their nationality, and which had committed depredations on our trade: a statement was sent in answer to government, that no actual proof could be made of depredations committed by any particular vessel: government sent out fresh orders to the admiral requiring him to seize all vessels against which reasonable cause of suspicion existed. With respect to the depredation committed off Cape St. Antonio, the moment the government heard of that transaction it excited their attention. It appeared that the pirates lay at the point of St. Antonio in watch for vessels; that they anxiously looked out in order to distinguish merchant men from ships of war; and that sometimes they made their attack in schooners and sometimes in small boats. So long as our men of war were near the coast, these pirates did not come out, but as soon as they were driven off by winds or currents, the pirates came out in their schooners and boarded vessels that hap-

1727
pened to pass. The land on the west coast of Cuba was jungle, only intersected by small paths, so that if our ships landed their crews the pirates would disperse through the country, and all that could be done would be, to burn their huts, which were of no value. If, however, Spain would send down a force from the Havanna, to attack their piratical settlements on the land side, while we sent a force against them on the sea side, we might bring them to the condign punishment which he would do the Spanish government the justice of supposing that it wished to inflict. As to the giving convoy to foreign ships, this was what the Admiralty always set their faces against; because it was impossible for the Admiralty to be acquainted with the arrangements between foreign nations as to the right of search, &c., and to give directions in following which the commanders of our ships could be secure against violations of the law. Before government could take any farther step, it was necessary to wait a reasonable time, to see in what way the Spaniards meant to act.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that if the cases of aggression complained of were mere cases of undisguised piracy, there would be no difficulty in dealing with them; but the peculiarity was, that the piracy was perpetrated by vessels having commissions. At the commencement of the contest between Spain and her colonies, these commissions had been issued, not only by the provinces which carried on war against Spain on the sea coast, but by powers which had no ports, particularly by Artigas, whose commissions were sold to cover piracies. In consequence of this, the government had issued orders to seize all vessels sailing under commissions from governments in whose ports they were not fitted out. As to the local governments in South America, they had shown every disposition to keep their cruisers within bounds; and, considering the difficulties of the case, had made great efforts to do justice. But when the vessels sailing under the commissions he had described were seized, it was necessary to prove that they had committed acts of hostility. These orders were at last enlarged, and our ships were authorized to seize vessels of the description mentioned on suspicion. He now came to the particular acts of piracy complained of, which had taken place near Cape St. Antonio, and which were first
1728
brought under the notice of his majesty's government in March last. The facts were first communicated to him in a letter from the Admiralty, of the 23rd of March, 1822. The first was the case of the Martha; the second was that of Harborough; the third was the case of the Alexander, of Greenock, seized by a piratical vessel, and the master and his crew murdered. He lost no time in transmitting a statement of the accounts that had been received from the Admiralty to Mr. Hervey, our ambassador at the court of Spain. The letter which was dated the 1st of April, directed Mr. Hervey to take an immediate opportunity of calling the serious attention of the Spanish ministry to the circumstances narrated, and to impress on them the necessity of putting an end to this disgraceful system. On the 14th of May, the Spanish minister for foreign affairs intimated, that directions had been given for the immediate discovery and punishment of the guilty parties. If, in the end, it should be found, that the Spanish government were not able to put down this system, it would then devolve on the British government to take steps for that purpose. But it would have led to very great difficulty, and would have involved considerable loss of property, if hitherto they had taken stronger steps than they had done.
Mr. Brightsaid, the acts of the pirates at Cape St. Antonio were such direct acts of piracy that he saw no such difficulty in dealing with them as had been described. He could not but admire the superior success of the American navy in dealing with these pirates. This was owing to no superior skill or activity in American officers, but to a better system. The active exertions of our officers in so important a matter should be encouraged; and when, in attempting to execute their duty, they fell into mistakes, they should be indemnified from the legal consequences.
Mr. Marryatsaid, the present was a question between the human race and its enemies. There was not now that difficulty respecting commissions that once existed, as those of Artigas had been called in by the authority that issued them, The diplomatic communications with Spain would produce little effect, as this country had just as much influence with the local government of Cuba as Spain had. Cuba, though not nominally independant of the Spanish government, had really paid no attention to the laws of Spain

1729
since 1809; having opened her ports to all nations in defiance of the laws of Spain, and having legalized the admission and sale of slaves, equally in defiance of the dictates of the mother country. He thought it of great importance that this country should afford to the vessels of other neutral states the same protection against the pirates the neutral ships afforded to us. The piracies were increasing. Yesterday there were no less than three cases of ships plundered by pirates on Lloyd's books.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, he could not listen without strong feelings of indignation at the narrative of rapine and cruelty which had been practised on British subjects, and the insult that had been offered to the British flag. If they overlooked such an insult, even to the smallest vessel that carried the British flag, they would be unworthy of the name they bore. But as they were deeply interested, they were bound to speak with consideration and temper on matters of such importance, to show that they contemplated them seriously, and were seriously determined to maintain the rights and interest of the empire.
After some farther conversation, the petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

CANADA GOVERNMEMT AND TRADE BILL.
Mr. Ellicepresented a petition, signed by all the respectable merchants of London connected with Canada, in favour of this bill. He confessed he felt some surprise and regret at hearing the present measure, the object of which was, to give an independent constitution to the provinces of Canada, assimilated, on a former evening, to that odious measure by which the British parliament sought to deprive the province of Massachusetts of a free legislature. He was satisfied that the bill would be received with gratitude by the great mass of the population of Canada.
Mr. Brightprotested, on the behalf of our absent colonists, against the wickedness of introducing so iniquitous and abominable a measure at this late period of the session.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he had received strong representations from many persons connected with Canada, that the present bill was likely to produce the most injurious effects. Under these circumstances he should certainly oppose the passing of it, unless withdrawn until next session.
Sir F. Burdett, without entering into the abstract question, how far it was right to legislate for the interests of our colonies without previous communication with them, begged leave to protest against the exaggerated expressions of the hon. member for Bristol, which imputed to his majesty's government an act of gross injury and violent tyranny against the provinces of Canada. Feeling that great credit was due to his majesty's ministers for the very liberal views they entertained on this subject, and believing, that if the same enlightened system of colonial policy had been much better for this country, he felt it his duty to protest against the harsh and violent expressions of the hon. member for Bristol, which had no foundation whatever in reason or justice.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, he had never applied any expressions of censure to the bill itself; for he admitted that the conditions of the union appeared to be fair and reasonable. He had certainly deprecated the attempt to pass a bill, depriving a free colony of their constitution without hearing their opinions and arguments for or against the measure. He confessed he had heard the sentiments of the hon. baronet on this subject with the utmost surprise. He had never carried his opinions, as to popular rights, so far as the hon. baronet. He venerated every part of the constitution, and he preferred and loved the popular part of it; but he had never carried his popular principles so high as the hon. baronet. This was the first time he had heard it argued, that an incorporating union of two great colonies was not a most essential alteration of their political constitution. The annexation of Holland to France might, on such principles, have admitted of an easy defence; and it might have been said to the former power, "We do not take away the rights of Dutchmen, but we only communicate to you the rights of Frenchmen." He objected to such an interference with the rights of a free people, on grounds wholly distinct from the merits of the constitution which might be imposed upon them. He no more wished to see liberty imposed on a people than despotism; for even liberty imposed on a people did not deserve the name, and was little better than despotism. The people of Canada had no less than two years' notice previous to the measure of 1791; whereas parliament was now called upon to make a total

1731
change in their form of government without any notice, when they already enjoyed a free constitution.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that as his majesty's government, instead of finding the support they expected, had been strenuously opposed, not on the principle of the bill, but on the period of the session at which it was introduced, it was obvious that the measure could not be passed, except under circumstances which were calculated to alienate the feelings of the people of Canada from the proposed arrangements. He lamented that the learned gentleman had opposed the measure in a tone of earnestness, which rendered it almost impossible to carry it through in the present session. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he felt it inconsistent with his public duty to press the measure, however much its postponement was calculated to injure the best interests of the people of Canada. He protested, however, against the principle, that parliament had no right to legislate for the best interests of the most distant dependencies, without previous communication with those dependencies. He could not conceive any principle more disastrous, since it was calculated to tie up the hands of the legislature from performing its most sacred duties.
Sir F. Burdettregretted the postponement of the measure, and trusted that no opposition would be offered to it next session. The operation of the bill would have been highly beneficial to both the provinces concerned; and he could not help thinking that the gentlemen who had opposed it, had been a little over scrupulous in the cause of technical objections and abstract principles.
Ordered to lie on the table.

RECOGNITION OF THE COLUMBIAN GOVERNMENT.
Mr. Lennardsaid, that as it was desirable that parliament, in its Consideration of this question, should be aided by the knowledge of what was passing immediately with respect to it, he should move for the production of all correspondence between his majesty's government and the agents of Columbia. He did this in order that the House might be informed as to what demands of recognition might have been made by Columbia, and as to the manner in which those demands had been treated by England. He could not see that the success of such a motion could interfere in the negotia-
1732
tions existing between Spain and this country: still less could he anticipate any objection to his proposal upon the ground that, in the present state of the affair, it would be irregular for parliament to interfere. In coming, however, to the question of Columbian independence, he would not enter into any details as to the course of the South American contest. The result of the struggle, every one knew, was this:—Spain, late the tyrant of twenty-five millions of men in that country, was now completely expelled from the scene of her oppressions. One fortress in Columbia still remained unsubdued; but the free government had the means of reducing it at pleasure, and were only waiting an inevitable capitulation, in order to spare the unnecessary effusion of blood. Columbia was the first of the free states, let it be remembered, which had established a liberal and an independent constitution. The abolition of slavery, the freedom of the press, universal toleration, and a representative system of government—these were the leading features of the constitution of Columbia. And were they not such as to entitle her to the approbation of fellow nations? In cases similar to the present, difficulties might have been found; but in the present question, there could be no difficulty whatever. This was no acknowledgment of a struggle for independence—no recognition a the rights of a people who might be subdued and thrown again into bondage to-morrow—no question of assisting colonies who were in rebellion against their parent state. The Columbians had already established their independence; there was not the slightest prospect that Spain would ever be able again to disturb it. The government of Columbia was already independent de facto; and by delaying to acknowledge her title to independence, we injured her interests, and sullied our own reputation. The right of one country to recognize independence acquired by revolution in another, stood beyond all dispute. England herself had exercised the right not long ago, by acknowledging the revolutionary government of France. In fact, we had virtually acknowledged the independence of Columbia. We had acknowledged it by the commerce which we had carried on with her; and it would not be very creditable to the character of England, to have it said that she did justice in the case, only where she was interested in doing it. America had already

1733
acknowledged the independence of Columbia. He regretted that in so honourable a course, America should have been allowed to take the lead of us. There were other circumstances which gave the South American colonies a peculiar claim upon England for the recognition of their rights. This country, in point of fact, had urged on the colonies to the attainment of the rights and liberties which they now possessed. In 1797, the governors of our West India possessions had been instructed to excite the South American states to throw off the yoke of Spain; and those states had only now adopted that advice which they were too weak to adopt at the precise time when it was first urged to them. Nor would he confine himself to the mere question of justice. England was, in truth, interested in the decision of the present question. Columbia had published a proclamation, declaring that no country should share her commerce which refused to admit her independence. Those who had attended the late meeting at the London Tavern must have seen what the feelings of the mercantile interest were upon the subject. Both for the sake of this country and of Columbia, government was bound to come to a speedy decision; and he therefore should sit down by moving, "That there be laid before this House, copies of all Correspondence which may have taken place between Mr. Zen, or any Agent of Columbia, and his Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, and his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, respecting the right the Columbian Government to be recognized."
The Marquis of Londonderrywas somewhat surprised at the latitude to which some of the observations of the hon. mover had proceeded. It was not the custom to lay before the House proceedings which had not arrived at any result; and parliament would be placing itself in a, rather embarrassing situation, if it interfered with arrangements in the stage of those in question, and took upon itself a responsibility which regularly belonged to government. His majesty's ministers had never refused to entertain any agents of what was called the Columbian government, although such person had not been received officially; and the representations of such agents had been discussed by government, and made the subject of communication with Spain. He (the noble marquis) did not mean to assert that
1734
our treaties with Spain bound us in every possible new situation which might arise in the world; but so, on the other hand, he must distinctly protest against England's being biassed by the example of any other country. For the documents moved for, they were already public; but it would be impossible for him (lord Londonderry) to make the general subject intelligible to the House at the present moment. He, for his own part, would never regulate the conduct of England towards Spain now, by what had been the conduct of Spain towards England under a similar emergency. He would make Spain feel her misconduct, if she had misconducted herself, by measures of liberality, and not by measures of retaliation. There had been every desire upon the part of government to cultivate good understanding and friendly intercourse with the provinces of South America. Every right of real value, as regarded their ships and their commerce especially, had been conceded to them; and upon measures of that character Spain could have no right to interfere with this country. As long as South America continued de facto a government, so long was England entitled to cultivate, de facto, a friendly feeling and communication with her.—Whether it would be advisable at the present moment to establish formal diplomatic arrangements with that country, became another question; and he doubted whether the facts of the case were sufficiently within the possession of the hon. mover, to enable him to arrive at a just conclusion upon the point. It would be better, he submitted, for the House not to call for information until it was prepared to adopt some course upon that information when received.
Sir J. Mackintoshthought it very fair to make a motion like the present, in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing its feeling upon the particular subject; and such motions had been attended with highly beneficial results. The questions for consideration were simply these:—Would it be convenient for England to recognize the independence of Spanish South America? and would such a recognition by England be any violation of the rights of Spain? Surely, neither of these questions could be connected with any secrets of state. There was a wide distinction between recognizing independence in colonies which had been our own, and admitting it in states over which

1735
we had no control. There was nothing new in what was now proposed He would instance the case of the celebrated revolution of Portugal, when the duke of Braganza was declared king of that country. This took place in December 1640. In January 1641, the Cortes declared the duke king, and issued orders that the declaration should be communicated to foreign nations. Now, what was the conduct of England on that occasion? In January 1642, a treaty, not merely of recognition, but of amity, was signed between Charles 1st and king John 4th, and this without a rupture of the friendly relations between England and Spain. He would now proceed to the remarkable revolt of the United Provinces of the Netherlands from the authority of Spain in 1566. They had revolted against the bigotted dominion of the Spanish government, and in their declaration, published soon after, they stated that Spain had, by her system of misrule, forfeited all title to the government of the provinces. What was the conduct of England on that occasion? While the treaty of peace was in agitation between James 1st, and Philip 3rd, a communication was made from the English government to that of the United Provinces, intimating that nothing would be done by her against their interests. It further appeared, from sir Ralph. Win-wood's papers, that the minister of Spain, in the communications respecting the treaty, always styled the United Provinces as rebels against Spain. Notwithstanding this, the treaty was concluded; yet it never interrupted the amity between the government of Spain and this country. These instances completely showed that according to the practice of nations one government might continue in relations of strict amity with another, and at the same time recognize the government of provinces which had revolted from it. The case of Portugal and the United Provinces of the Netherlands were unanswerable in this respect. But the recognition of the independent provinces of South America was not sought for, to support any one of them against the power of the mother country. It was sought for, in order to support the interests of the subjects of this country. All that was asked was a treaty of amity, by which the persons and commercial interests of the subjects of England might be assured of equal protection in those provinces, which would be accorded to the subjects of states in
1736
amity with them. What was there to prevent our recognizing the States of South America. It was now three year since Spain had been able to send out a ship or a man to support her authority in those provinces. How long must our great commercial interests be put to inconvenience and risk before this recognition was admitted? He might be asked, what inconvenience could result to our commercial interests, if we did not now take the step which he conceived so just? He would leave it to men more conversant with commerce to enter into this part of the question; but he could not avoid saying, that by the establishment of friendly relations with the independent governments of America we should effectually prevent the inconvenience complained of by the merchants of Liverpool. If we had agents in those states, our commerce would be effectually protected; because those governments would have an interest nearly in preventing such piratical attacks upon our property. They had, in fact, offered to assist us in this object; and for what were we to refuse this? To wait until the fashion which had been adopted on other occasions allowed her to recognize the independence of South America. She had taken 67 years to consider before she recognized the independence of the United Provinces of the Netherlands; and were we to wait for a similar length of time, subjecting our commerce in the interim to such ruinous inconvenience, until Spain, who had not a ship nor a man to support her claim, should finally give it up? For these reasons, he thought his hon. friend entitled to the thanks of the country for having brought this subject forward.
Sir R. Wilsonwished to ask whether the question of South American independence was clearly a British question, or fettered in any way by the treaties at Aix-la-Chapelle?
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, the whole was purely a British question, uninfluenced by foreign powers, and resting only upon the law of nations, and the character of generosity and prudence which he trusted this country would ever maintain.
After a short conversation, the House divided: Ayes, 18. Noes, 53.