RIGHT OF SEARCH. (Hansard, 16 February 1843)

§ Mr. Hardy
rose to move for A copy of any complaints made by the French Government to the Government of this country relating to the detention or search of any French vessels on suspicion of being concerned in carrying on the slave-trade. He said that he had heard with great pleasure the paragraph in the Royal Speech which alluded to the concert of the European Powers in the suppression of the slave-trade, but that pleasure was much qualified by speeches of a different description which were made elsewhere. The noble Lord opposite had stated on a former evening, that very few complaints of inconvenience resulting from the exercise of the right of visit had been made 704 previous to his leaving office, and it was very desirable that the public should know the whole amount of those complaints. He did not think the Anglophobia, if he might so term it, exhibited in certain portions of the French press, worthy of notice. But when he saw the Legislative Chamber of that great country, with the honourable exceptions of MM. Guizot, de Lamartine, de Gasparin, and Marshal Soult, avow their belief that this country sought some advantage in entering into the convention for the suppression of the slave-trade, and that they had expressed that belief by a paragraph in the address he thought it time that some light should be thrown on the real operation of the convention. His motion was for such papers as would show whether the French nation had or had not any right to complain, or whether any inconvenience had really arisen from the exercise of the right of visit. When he remembered the cordiality with which the treaty had been entered into by the two countries, he concluded that some great inconvenience must have arisen to make one of the contracting parties now wish to destroy it. He thought that any little inconvenience that might have arisen was amply compensated by the destruction of the slave-trade. He would read a short passage from the only Protestant paper in Paris, to show that even in that country there was some right feeling as to the suppression of the slave-trade. It was in the following terms:— One word to our fellow-countrymen. We are numerous, brave, rich, and powerful, but we must acknowledge that England has over us a great advantage. It is not in the treasures of her industry, which to-morrow may be dissipated—it is not her inexpugnable position on the waves, for to-morrow an internal explosion may put an end to her greatness—it is not her wooden walls, of which she is so proud, for in a few hours, without the aid of our canon, the winds of heaven might disperse them in all directions; but it is in that real and living power which consists, and is to be found in the humble prayer which is every day lifted up for her to the throne of God by those on whom she has conferred the blessing of liberty. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the papers be laid on the Table.

§ Sir R. Peel
hoped his hon. Friend would not press for the production of these papers; if he did, he was sure it would not be consistent with his public duty to vote for the motion. The ma- 705 jority of the complaints to which the motion related he believed had not yet been finally decided, and he thought the House would be of opinion that it would serve no good purpose to lay the complaints on the Table of the House before a decision should have been come to. When they should have been finally settled, it would then be right for his hon. Friend to call on the Government to produce the decisions and the grounds on which they had been made, but till that time it could serve no purpose of public advantage to lay them before Parliament. To take notice of what might have been said by individual members of the French chambers, or published in a French newspaper, would not conduce to that which he believed to be the universal wish of the people of this country, the maintenance of a good understanding with France. The motion which stood for that night was for the consideration of a paragraph in the speech of her gracious Majesty relative to the public distress, and it was better that the time of the House should be occupied with the speech of our own sovereign than with the amendment to the address in the French chambers.

§ Viscount Palmerston
admitted the force of the right hon. Baronet's reasoning; but if he understood the object of the motion, it was to show that there had been very few cases of complaint, and none on strong grounds. He would just throw out, for the consideration of the right hon. Baronet, whether the motion might not be modified into a return of the number of complaints up to a certain date. Whether that would answer the purpose he could not tell, but, as far as his recollection served him, at the time he left office there had not been any complaints—he was sure there could have been very few. He did not recollect any complaints specifically arising out of the conventions of 1831 and 1833. The hon. Member might move for the number of complaints which had been made up to the end of 1841. A return of that sort would, he apprehended, have the effect rather of altogether removing, than of increasing the irritation that existed.

§ Sir R. Peel
wished that the House would consent to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. He was perfectly ready to admit that the complaints had been very few indeed; in two cases a decision had been given, but in three 706 others none was yet come to. He hoped the House would rest satisfied with a public declaration from a Minister of the Crown rather than insist on calling for returns. He was sure the advice he was giving was good advice; and he gave it because he sincerely believed the adoption of it would tend to promote the great objects which the House and the country had in view.