TEXAS. (Hansard, 26 April 1842)

Mr. O'Connell
wished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet. He wished to know whether the treaties between England and the Government of Texas had been formally ratified?

§ Sir R. Peel
in reply, said that there 1128 were three treaties with respect to which this country and the Government of Texas were concerned. The first was of a commercial character; the second had relation to the abolition of slavery; and the third referred to a guarantee for the payment of a loan from Texas to the Mexican Government under the mediation of this country. These treaties, were to be ratified simultaneously. The day fixed for the ratification was the first of August. The commercial treaty had been signed by the proper authorities. He had every reason to believe, that the senate of Texas had consented to the abolition of the slave-trade. The treaty, with reference to the guarantee, bad been signed, and this country was prepared to ratify it. The day fixed for the ratification was the first of August.

Mr. O'Connell,
are the papers relating to this subject ready to be laid upon the Table of the House.

§ Sir R. Peel:
No.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that the other question which he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet, related to the conduct of the British Minister at Mexico. It appeared by certain documents that a proposal had been made to the Mexican Government by General Hamilton to pay a certain sum of money if Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas. There was also another sum offered by way of bribe to General Santa Anna, now at the head of the Mexican republic. This was stated to have taken place through the instrumentality of the British Minister at Mexico, through whom it was alleged, the offer was sent. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he had received any information from Mexico in corroboration of these facts, which he knew to be true, which would tend to exonerate the British Minister from the charge of having participated in the transaction.

§ Sir R. Peel
wished it to be understood as a general rule that notice should be given of an intention to put a question relating to a matter of such importance as the personal conduct of a British Minister, especially when placed at so great a distance, in order that he might be enabled to answer it with accuracy, and correct any erroneous information which might have gone abroad on the subject. It so happened, however, in the present instance he recollected having 1129 read, within the last three or four days, a despatch from the British Minister at Mexico, which gave an account of the transaction. The Minister declared, that he was requested by a party, whom he need not name, to deliver a communication to the Mexican authorities, having every reason to believe that the letter related to a different subject. The letter, he believed, was written in England. He was perfectly unaware of the contents of the letter, and as soon as he was made acquainted with the nature of its contents, he wrote immediately to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, expressing his regret that he should unfortunately have been made the instrument of making such a proposition. He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the British Minister was as far from all participation in the matter as he was. He was not merely ignorant of the contents of the letter, but was actually led to suppose that they related to something else.