§ Mr. COCKBURNSir, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs being in his place, I rise for the purpose of putting the question of which I have given notice, which is founded upon a statement recently made at one of the metropolitan police offices, and to which I beg to call the noble Lord's attention. In the course of an inquiry which lately took place at the Thames Police Court, the captain of a British vessel, the barque Marianne, made a statement to the effect—that on the last outward voyage of that vessel, she being bound for Charleston, in the United States of America, on the arrival of the vessel in that port, the police authorities boarded her, seized the steward of the vessel, who was a man of colour, and who had committed no offence; on the contrary, the captain gave him a high character for respectability and intelligence; took him on shore, put him into a common prison, and kept him there for two months; being the whole period that the vessel lay in the harbour. The captain further stated, that it is the invariable practice at Charleston for the authorities to board all vessels which enter that port, British vessels included; 892 to take out of them all persons belonging to the crews who are persons of colour, and to keep them incarcerated during the whole time that the vessels remain there. Now, inasmuch as it appears to me that this practice of seizing British subjects before they have set foot upon the American soil, when they are aboard British vessels, and are under the protection of the British flag, is, although it may possibly be authorised by some local law or regulation, a direct infringement of the law of nations, at all events, is in direct opposition to the principles upon which the intercourse of civilised nations is conducted, I beg leave to ask the noble Lord if he is aware of the practice to which I have referred? And, in the second place, inasmuch as I am individually quite satisfied that Her Majesty's Government would not allow British subjects to be so treated without interfering for their protection; as I cannot but believe that strong indignation has been excited in the public mind by the statement thus openly made; and as the public ought to be satisfied that Her Majesty's Government have not been wanting in their duty in remonstrating with the Government of the United States respecting such a practice as this, I take the liberty of asking if Her Majesty's Government have made efforts with the Government of the United States to prevent British subjects, whether black or white, from having their liberties thus invaded and their persons injured by a practice which I cannot help designating as a most scandalous invasion of the rights and privileges of a British subject?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONMr. Speaker, the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House by the question he has put, is, I am sorry to say, by no means new to Her Majesty's Government; it was brought under the attention of the Government several years ago. It is an undoubted fact, that there exists in the State of Carolina, and I believe also in Louisiana, a law by which all free men of colour, be they of what country they may, whether foreigners or citizens of the other States of the Union, are subjected, on coming into the State of Carolina, to imprisonment, with a view to their removal from the territory of the State. In respect to persons coming on board ship, the law prescribes exactly the course which my hon. and learned Friend has detailed to the House, namely, that the men of colour should be taken out of the vessel coming 893 within the jurisdiction of the State; that they should be detained in prison during the time of the vessel's continuance there; and that the master of the vessel should be bound to take them away at his own departure. It is quite unnecessary, I am sure, for me to express the opinion which Government must entertain on a matter like this. It arises out of those unfortunate institutions which exist in the southern States of the Union, and which are now, as everybody is well aware, the subject of very serious differences in the Congress of the United States; it is a law applicable equally to the citizens of the Union as to subjects and citizens of other States. Her Majesty's Government, in 1847, directed Her Majesty's Minister, then at Washington, to present a note to the Government of the United States, remonstrating against this law not merely as inconsistent with the usual established courtesy of nations, but as at variance with certain parts of the first article in the treaty of 1815, between the British Government and the United States, by which the subjects and citizens of the two countries were to be permitted to enter and reside in, and freely to leave the territories of, the respective States. The answer made verbally, but not in Writing, by Mr. Buchanan, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the United States, was, that the Federal Government had no powers to induce the Legislature of the State of Carolina to revoke this law; and that if the British Government insisted upon its right, and pressed the Government of the United States upon the ground of right, drawn from the article I have just mentioned in the treaty of 1815, the Government of the United States would find the question not only so difficult, but so impossible to deal with, that they would be obliged, however reluctantly, and with whatever inconvenience to them, to take advantage of the stipulation which was contained in the treaty of 1827, under which either party is at liberty, at any time they please subsequently to the year 1828, to put an end to that treaty of 1815, by giving twelve months' notice of their intention. Under these circumstances, I am sorry to say, it did not appear to Her Majesty's Government that any advantage would result from further pressing that demand. Whatever may be thought of the law, on the other hand it is fair to say, that it is a matter of public notoriety, and that, therefore, free persons of colour, subjects of the Queen, who voluntarily go into 894 the jurisdiction of that State, know beforehand the inconvenience to which they expose themselves by so doing.