§ Viscount Melbournesuggested, that the noble Viscount on the cross-benches, had better state the terms of the motion which he wished to make.
Viscount Strangfordaccordingly moved for copies of any notices given by the French government on the subject of the blockade established by a French naval force of the Mexican or Brazilian ports; also for the date of any application which might have been made by the Mexican or Brazilian government for the mediation of England in relation to this question.
§ Viscount Melbournehad no objection to the first part of the noble Viscount's motion, nor to the second, if any such documents existed. With respect to the general tenour of the noble Lord's speech, he must say, that a blockade was very much to be lamented, very injurious to trade, and fell very heavily on those who 1206 were subjected to its operation. At the same time, every nation possessed the right of making war, and blockade was one mode which had been adopted by every nation—by ourselves amongst others—of obtaining satisfaction for injury, and we ought not hastily to act as judges, and declare whether a blockade was legal or not. He perfectly concurred with the noble Duke, that the British authority in Mexico ought to be in a position to see that the blockade was kept in a proper form and with sufficient force; but still the Government would not be justified in constituting itself a judge between the government of Mexico and the government of France. He understood that the government of Mexico had been willing to have the settlement and arrangement of the matter referred to the Government of Great Britain; but the French authorities had refused to allow such interference, and, therefore, it would not have been proper for this country to make a direct offer of mediation between the two parties—at the same time Mexico might rest assured of the good offices of this country whenever she might think proper to avail herself of them. The noble Viscount had also spoken of an invasion by the French of part of the Brazilian territory, namely, Portuguese Guiana, and had alluded to certain maps which were in the Foreign-office, showing that the French occupied a province called Macau, or Macauba, on the left bank of the river Amazon. This possession by the French had been settled by the treaty of Utrecht, and by several other treaties on the subject. It was again settled, by the treaty of Vienna, stating the limits of the possession, stating the name of the river bounding it on one side (a strange sort of name), and the exact degree of latitude in which the mouth of the river (which was to be the boundary), was situated. The matter was, however, to be settled between France and Portugal, by a subsequent convention, and in 1817, that convention was negociated, and by it the mouth of the same river was retained as one boundary point, but the latitude was altered, and gave to the French a greater extent of territory than France had before possessed. To make out the boundaries of the increased territory, commissioners were to be appointed; and if they could not agree, it was arranged that the mediation of Great Britain was to be resorted to. Now, whe- 1207 ther or not those commissioners had settled the boundaries he did not know; but as there had been no demand made upon this country to interfere, without which demand the country could not act as mediator, he presumed the question as to boundaries had been arranged by the commissioners acting under the authority of the convention. Under these circumstances, it was serious matter for consideration, whether or not this country ought to interfere at all.
§ Motion carried.