Viscount Strangfordwould take the liberty of asking the noble Earl opposite, who had replied in a very satisfactory manner to a question put by a noble Friend of his on a former evening, relative to the forcible removal of a pilot from a British vessel at Vera Cruz by the commander of a French corvette, whether, at the time that transaction took place, there was a single British vessel of war in the Gulf of Mexico?
The Earl of Mintowas not able to answer the question so satisfactorily as he could have wished; but he believed that at the time alluded to there was one British vessel, if not more, at Vera Cruz. He had seen letters from officers so immediately afterwards, as to lead him to believe there must have been one, if not more, British ships there at the time.
Viscount Strangfordinquired, what steps had been taken for the protection of British commerce in that quarter?
The Earl of Mintosaid, that as soon as it was found that France had adopted hostile proceedings against Mexico, orders were despatched to the commander in the West Indies to make arrangements for the protection of the British commerce. The answer was, that measures to that effect had been taken. As it appeared obvious, that there were events likely to lead to war between France and Mexico, a considerable addition to the force was required, and reinforcements were sent from England to that station, where the commander-in-chief had taken such measures as he conceived to be sufficient for the protection of British interests.
§ Lord Wharncliffeinquired whether, when the officer of the French corvette went on board the British vessel, he was remonstrated with? It appeared, that an apology had subsequently been made, but he wished to know, whether the man who was thus forcibly taken from under British protection was released?
The Earl of Mintosaid, he could not answer the latter part of the noble Lord's question. When the French officer went on board the British vessel, the captain of that vessel cautioned him not to take the 701 man out of her. He, however, persevered on his own responsibility. The French admiral, however, at once saw the impropriety of the proceeding, and without hesitation or delay sent to Commodore Douglas an ample and satisfactory apology. If Commodore Douglas had thought the man required his protection, or that his interposition was necessary to obtain the man's release, he had not the slightest doubt he would have demanded and effected his liberation. It gave him much satisfaction to say, and he derived his information from Sir Charles Paget and Commodore Douglas, that the greatest harmony and good feeling prevailed between the officers in the French and British service on the station. They had opportunities of rendering each other service, and in every instance they had eagerly availed themselves of those opportunities.
§ Lord Lyndhurstinquired, whether the noble Earl had any objection to lay before the House the despatch of Commodore Douglas and the letter received from Sir Charles Paget?
The Earl of Mintosaid, that he did not exactly know what was in those papers, but he would look at them, and he did not believe there would be any objection.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty seemed to make a distinction between taking a man out of a British merchant ship and a British vessel of war. But no French officer could have a right to board a British merchant vessel and take a man from her. A British merchant ship was as much under the protection of the British flag as one of her Majesty's vessels.
The Earl of Mintohoped it would not be imagined, that he rose to excuse this transaction. On the contrary, he had before stated, that it was highly improper; and as a proof that he thought so, he had requested his noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to make a representation to the French government on the subject. But before that representation could be made, the French admiral had offered that reparation which, under the circumstances, every honourable-minded man would be anxious to afford.
§ Lord Lyndhurstasked whether Admiral Baudin had not ascribed the occurrence to the inexperience of the person commanding the French ship, and whether there were not at the time signals going from the French admiral's vessels?
The Earl of Mintosaid it was possible, 702 but he could not at tha moment speak positively. He would, however, inquire. In truth, he was not aware, as the matter had occurred so suddenly, that their Lordships would have inquired minutely into it.
§ Lord LyndhurstI really am surprised, that the noble Earl should not have expected that minute inquiry would be made into the matter. I hope the noble Earl will lay all the papers on the subject before the House.
Lord Broughamsaid, the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty must have misunderstood the remarks of his noble Friend opposite (Lord Ellenborough.) His noble Friend never suspected, that any person, much less the First Lord of the Admiralty, would vindicate or extenuate such a proceeding as this; for which, however, a satisfactory apology appeared to have been made. But what his noble Friend said, and what he conceived to be very material, was, that he felt surprised, that the First Lord of the Admiralty should stand up in his place and say, when a pilot had been taken out of a British vessel, "If Commodore Douglas had understood the pilot to be under the protection of the British flag, then he had no doubt the Commodore would have interfered." His noble Friend most naturally and properly expressed his surprise at this new doctrine in the law of nations, this new provision in our naval discipline, that her Majesty's naval officers could only consider those under their protection who were actually on board the Queen's vessels; whereas any man on board an English merchantman was as much under the protection of the Queen's flag as if he were actually on board the Queen's ship. The gravamen of the charge was, not that a man had been taken, but that he had been taken from on board an English ship, and he hoped it would never be understood, that there was any difference whether a man was taken from a merchantman or a Queen's ship, if it were an English vessel.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the moment it was ascertained, that the French meditated designs against Mexico, Commodore Douglas was most properly sent out with specific instructions to protect the trade of England on that coast; and no doubt Commodore Douglas would take due care of every interest intrusted to him. It was not to be supposed, that he would act otherwise. Now, it would appear from what had occurred, that they reflected on Commodore Douglas for not having dis- 703 charged his duty in this matter. He, however, believed, that Commodore Douglas had discharged his duty most completely in every point to which his attention had been directed.
Lord Ellenboroughhad not reflected on the gallant officer alluded to. What he said was, that he did not understand the First Lord of the Admiralty when he made a distinction, as to protection, between a man on board a British merchant ship and a man on board one of her Majesty's ships, both of whom were equally under the protection of the British flag.
Lord Broughamsaid, the whole matter rested on the use of the word "if." The noble Earl said, "If Commodore Douglas thought the man came under his protection, he would no doubt interpose." Now, could there be the least doubt, that the protection of the British flag extended to a man on board of a British merchant ship as strongly as if he were on board one of her Majesty's vessels?
The Earl of Mintosaid, he entertained not the slightest doubt, that if the man applied for it, Commodore Douglas would interpose for his protection. He never doubted, that the individual was under the protection of Commodore Douglas, who would, if it were deemed necessary interfere.