MR. M'LEOD—UNITED STATES. (Hansard, 9 February 1841)

Lord Stanley
said, that yesterday he had asked the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he had any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence that had taken place with the United States since 1837, relative to the seizure of the Caroline; also whether he would lay upon the Table the correspondence that had taken place in respect of the apprehension, in the state of New York, of Mr. M'Leod, a British subject. The noble Lord had then stated, that he did object to the production of the correspondence with regard to these two subjects, but that he had no objection to lay before the House so much of the correspondence on the latter case as had been published in the American papers, inasmuch as it had been laid before Congress. Now he would submit to the noble Lord that he should re-consider his answer. At all events, the production of the correspondence in that form would be a matter for the noble Lord's discretion. He had asked for the whole correspondence; he had not asked for a partial correspondence 457 to be produced, on the ground not that it contained the facts as they actually stood, but that it had been made public through some irregular medium. He thought, that the production of those papers in that form would establish an improper precedent, and would place the case on a footing that might be greatly liable to misunderstanding as regarded this country in the eyes of her colonies. He wished also for a more explicit answer to a question which was asked yesterday, namely, whether her Majesty's Government had taken any steps, and if so, what steps, as regarded the liberation of Mr. M'Leod. The noble Lord had told him—he believed these were his Lordship's exact words—that her Majesty's Government would, and indeed had taken such steps as they thought necessary on the subject. He did not ask them what steps they had taken, if the noble Lord thought proper to withhold that information, but he did ask him whether he had taken such steps for the protection and liberation of Mr. M'Leod (who had been apprehended on the 12th of November, 1840) as would be effectual in point of time in reference to the proceedings then going on. He wished to ask that question, and also to give the explanation, though he did not wish to press for the production of papers, nor did he ask for them when they did not give the whole information. He was aware of the responsibility which attached to any Member calling upon the Government for papers which they were not willing on public grounds, to produce. At the same time, he reserved to himself the future expression of his opinions upon the subject, and the full right of pressing upon the Government at another time for the part and whole of the correspondence.

§ Viscount Palmerston
replied, that when he stated yesterday, that he could have no reasonable ground of objection to the production of papers which had already been laid before Congress, and published, he did not intimate any intention, on the part of Government, to lay those papers on the Table of the House of its own accord. He thought the noble Lord, for the reasons he himself bad stated, had exercised a sound discretion in not press-sing for the production of those papers.

Lord Stanley
observed he had not asked for a part—he had asked for the whole.

§ Viscount Palmerston
With respect to 458 the other question, what he had stated was this:—A case of a somewhat similar nature happened, or was expected to happen, a year or a year and a half ago; and upon that occasion instructions were sent out to Mr. Fox, laying clown what the Government thought were sound principles to meet the emergency. At that time, it was rendered unnecessary to act upon the instructions; but the case having now actually occurred, Mr. Fox, without waiting for further instructions from home, acted upon the former instructions, and made a demand upon the American government for the liberation of Mr. M'Leod. He then reported the whole case to her Majesty's Ministers, but from various onuses that communication had been much longer on its passage than usual, and it was only a few days ago that he had received the final portion of the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Fox and the American government—it was, therefore, only that day that an opportunity had presented itself for sending out final and conclusive instructions—they were then ready prepared and were on the point of being sent off; but what the nature of those instructions was, neither the noble Lord nor the House would then expect him to say. He repeated, Mr. Fox had founded his remonstrances with the American government upon instructions sent him by the British Government, respecting a case of a similar nature, which it was feared would have occurred.

Lord Stanley
The noble Lord did not answer my question. I wish to understand whether the noble Lord has or has not, up to this time, since the 12th of November, sent out to the British Minister, at Washington any specific instructions as to the protection and liberation of Mr. M'Leod.

§ Viscount Palmerston
said, that the instructions to Mr. Fox were precisely to the same effect as those which were stated as having been given in the former case. It was not till Saturday last that the government had received from Mr. Fox the report of his last correspondence with the government of the United States, and he repeated that to-day was the first on which instructions could be sent to Mr. Fox.

§ Mr. Hume
wished to put a question to the noble Lord. He held in his hand a paper purporting to be a general order issued and signed by Colonel M'Nab, the 459 general tendency of which was, that the Lieutenant-Governor approved in the highest degree of the destruction of the steam-bout Caroline, and offered his thanks to Captain Drew, and those under his command, including the volunteers, for the creditable manner in which the feat was performed. The question which he (Mr. Hume) wished to put was, whether that paper had been communicated to her Majesty's Government and whether her Majesty's Government had signified their approbation of the act?

§ Lord John Russell
replied, that the communication quoted by the hon. Member had been made by order of the Lieutenant Governor, who stated that he approved of the act done. The Lieutenant Governor then reported the circumstances to her Majesty's Government, who received a counter-statement from the American government. As to whether her Majesty's Government approved of the act, his noble Friend had already answered that question.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
wished to know whether the Government had adopted the acts of Captain Drew, who had acted under the orders of Sir Francis Head, as their own. He thought the House ought to know whether they had given or withheld their approbation of that act.

§ Viscount Palmerston
If the hon. Gentleman means to ask whether this Government do or do not consider the capture of the Caroline to have been a justifiable proceeding, I answer that her Majesty's Government do consider it, under the circumstances, to have been a proceeding perfectly justifiable by the consideration of the necessity of defending her Majesty's territory.

§ Mr. Hume
then asked whether her Majesty's Ministers had ever signified that opinion to the Government of the United States in any way?

§ Viscount Palmerston
That opinion has been submitted both to the Minister of the United States here, and, I believe, by Mr. Fox to the American government.