HC Deb 22 July 1850 vol 113 cc91-4
MR. HUTT

rose to call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. G. C. Redman, presented the 12th of April last. In the year 1833–34, Mr. Redman, in conjunction with other merchants, was anxious to open the trade with Portendic, on the coast of Africa, in conformity with the treaty of Paris of 1783, which specially secured the right of commerce there to British subjects, which right had, notwithstanding, been monopolised by Prance. Mr. Redman accordingly in that year sent a cargo to Portendic for that purpose, and the Governor of the French colony of Senegal seized and detained the British ships engaged in the enterprise; but the outrage did not end there. The following year the French Government, as if to close for ever the territory of Portendic against British commerce, in defiance of the faith of treaties, declared that port in a state of blockade, and again seized the British vessels that had been sent out. The consequence was that great loss and almost ruin fell upon the parties who had undertaken to engage in the trade. For the portion of those losses which Mr. Redman sustained he had been utterly incapable to obtain any redress whatever, and it was under those circumstances that he made an appeal to the House. He (Mr. Hutt) should further state, that pending the experiment of opening the trade with Portendic, Mr. Redman had, in reply to an application which he had made on the subject to the Foreign Office, received an assurance, dated the 12th of December, 1834, that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to extend to British subjects at Portendic every protection, and to secure to them every right guaranteed to them by treaty. Mr. Redman and his friends were thus encouraged, as the Earl of Aberdeen expressed it, to engage in the trade which they were entitled by treaty to enjoy; and a second time they sent out vessels to Portendic. The vessels, however, had scarcely left British waters when Mr. Redman obtained information from private sources that the French Government meant to place Portendic in a state of blockade, and he applied to the Foreign Office for protection. At the interview which Mr. Redman had on the occasion with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary the late Earl of Auckland was present, and the noble Lord assured Mr. Redman, that he might implicity rely upon the protection of the British Government, and that a British naval force should be sent out to enforce the right of treaty. A British naval force was accordingly sent out to Portendic, but it arrived too late—Mr. Redman's vessels had a second time fallen into the hands of the French authorities. Thus those British subjects who had engaged in the most lawful trade, under the special promise of protection from the British Government, became thereby involved in losses of a most ruinous character. Mr. Redman then applied to his own Government for redress, and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary immediately preferred demands for losses against the French Government. The French Government offered 10,000l. as indemnity for the losses sustained by British subjects in the affair—an offer which was rejected, and the matter was then referred for arbitation to the King of Prussia. Up to that point Mr. Redman was supported by his Government, but here arose some little point of difference. The case laid before the King of Prussia was a very ambiguous one. Whilst the Earl of Aberdeen and the British Government contend- ed that the illegality of the blockade was made the subject of reference, the French Government had always maintained that no such reference had been made to the King of Prussia, and that, on the contrary, the French Government had never submitted to having that subject called in question. However that might be, it was certain that Mr. Redman was no party whatever to the reference: on the contrary, when he applied to the British Government, as to whether the grounds of reference were in every degree satisfactory on the subject of the losses, he was told that the question at issue was one between the French and English Governments, with which he as an individual bad nothing whatever to do. The King of Prussia, however, made his award, granting 1,700l. as a sufficient indemnity in a case in which the British Government had refused 10,000l. Mr. Redman having then applied to his Government to obtain reparation for his losses, was referred to the award of the King of Prussia, and was offered some small share of the 1,700l. That was the case which he wished to submit to the House, and he should make no comment on the injustice and hardships, which were most palpably evident. The hon. Gentleman was about to submit a Motion for an address, when.

MR. SPEAKER

intimated that as one Motion had been already disposed of on going into Supply, it was not competent for the hon. Member to submit a second.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that as by the rules of the House his hon. Friend could not make a Motion on the subject, he need only say a few words on the matter. He agreed that the case was one of those in which no doubt British subjects had sustained considerable loss; but he could not admit that there was, therefore, any claim against Her Majesty's Government in the matter. They had endeavoured to get reparation as much as they possibly could for the aggrieved parties; and Mr. Redman was, practically, in the situation of a man who, having gone to law to obtain damages, and obtained them, found that the amount he received was not sufficient to cover his losses. The amount awarded to him by the King of Prussia had been given to Mr. Redman: and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not see on what grounds he asked the whole case to be reopened.

MR. AGLIOKBY

hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, though pre- vented by the forms of the House from bringing forward the question now, would do so on a future occasion. He considered that a Committee would be the only tribunal by which a satisfactory investigation of the facts could be obtained, and he hoped in the next Session Government would not oppose a Motion for an inquiry by that means.

MR. NEWDEGATE

believed if Mr. Redman had the opportunity afforded him he could establish his ease before a Committee of that House, and he could scarcely suppose that a Government that had assumed so strong a position in the maintenance of his rights and interests abroad, would endeavour to preclude him from a hearing before the House of Commons.

Subject dropped.