§ Mr. Hardy546 begged to put a question to the noble Lord opposite (the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), with respect to the treaties between this country and France for the suppression of slavery. The first convention between this country and France was made in 1831, and the supplementary convention in 1833. The question which he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether the proposition for that supplementary convention proceeded from the Government of this country, or from the government of France?
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that as soon as the late Government came into office in 1830, proposals were made to the French government for a treaty granting to each country reciprocal powers of search, with a view to the prevention of the slave-trade. The convention of 1831 was concluded in consequence, and in that convention was recorded the general principle agreed upon by the two Governments. There were other details, however, including, among other matters, instructions to cruisers, which had not been regulated by the first convention. The convention of 1833 became necessary in consequence of these omissions, but that convention was essentially a part and continuation of the former, the general principles of which it sought to carry out more completely. He felt bound to say, in justice to the French government and to the French ambassador then accredited to the British court, that it was impossible any government or any ambassador could have entered with more readiness or more philanthropy into the negotiation. It was the honourable desire of both governments to concur in the most effectual means to obtain the suppression of the slave-trade.
§ Mr. Hardywished to know what was the earliest date at which any complaints were made by the French government relative to the detention of French vessels by our cruisers?
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid that no complaint had ever arisen till a very short period before he and his late Colleagues quitted office. The complaint that then arose originated in no detention, in consequence of the conventions in question, but in consequence of the detention of a vessel in our own waters, on the coast of the Gambia, the detention arising out of a violation of our own municipal laws. He might, therefore, say that no complaint whatever, founded on the execu- 547 tion of the conventions of 1831 and 1833, had been made while he remained in office. The complaints that did arise were founded on the applications of the municipal law of England to French vessels suspected of being engaged in the slave-trade in the waters of Great Britain.