^ 1^^ '^' «o. h>^ IMAGE EVALUATtON TEST TARGET (MT-3) // / 1.0 I.I 11.25 2|8 1 2.5 ■^ 1^ i2.2 •^ -->. I u 124 Its I L£ 12.0 MJ4 U 11.6 P^ o 7 f ^>. <^# % V O 7 V Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST M;JN STP1:ET WEBSTER, N.Y. :4>80 (716) 872-4103 ^ \ A rv v-gU <\ O^ > CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CiHM/iCIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibiiographlcally unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur j I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e r~~] Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certalnes pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, male, iorsque cela 6talt possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. L'Institut a microfilm^ le mellleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibllographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de fllmage sont indlqute cl-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur D D D D Pages damaged/ Pages endommastos Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pelllculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^colortes. tacheties ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d^tachtes Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule MItlon dlsponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible Image/ Les pages totalement ou partieliement obscurcles par un feulllet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 fllmtes A nouveau de fa9on d obtenir la mellleure Image possible. The tot The pos oft film Ori| beg the sioi oth firs sioi ori The sha TIN whi Ma diff ent beg rigf req me' Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mehtalres: Fold out ii a photoreproduction. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fllmi au taux de rMuctlon IndiquA cl-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X v^ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmt fut reproduit grAce A la g6n4rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The Imafjfic appearing here are the best quelity possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les Images suivantes ont 4t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet^k de rexemplaire f iimi, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impression. Les exemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont fiim^s en commen9ant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui compote une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par Ie second plat, salon ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires orlginaux sont filmte en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles sulvants apparaftra sur la derniire Image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbols —► signifie "A SUIVRE". Ie symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmte A des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cilch6, 11 est film6 d psrtir de Tangle sup6rleur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant Ie nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes sulvants lllustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 CASE OF W M'LEOD, c / CASE OF M? M'LEOD, m WHOSE PEKSON THE CROWN OF GREAT BRITAIN IS ARRAIGNED FOR FELONY. ** ^arliameikts may ruin, but never s4ve a State." Sir W. Temple. Wtn lEHmon^ (rebi^eH.) BY DAVID URQUHART, Esq. COUPLAND AND Co., SOUTHAMPTON; AND LONGMAN AND Co., LONDON. V " m 1841. LONDON : PRINTED BY T. BRETTELL, nUVERT STREET, HAYMARKET. 7 NB. — The case of Mr. M^I^eod is subsidiary to the ques- tion of the Boundary Diflerences. It is a link in a chain; it is of importance solely in connection with that chain. Taken by itself it can only bewilder and confuse. By itself (as every other diplomatic transaction) it is in- comprehensible. /. CONTENTS. PAGE Preface to the Second Edition vii Note to the Third Edition . xix PART I. Statement of the Case of Mr. M'^Leod 22 PART II. Correspondence between the British Envoy and the American Secretary of State, relative to the Seizure of Mr. McLeod , . . 32 PART III. Debate in the House of Commons 53 PART IV. Pjiralfel Case of Boundary Differences 72 PART V. Interests compromised Abroad, Constitution subverted at Home, by the House of Commons 82 Postscript . 113 VI I'oNTlENTS. APPENDIX. PAGE N„, !.__« The gigantic sclicmes of ambition revealed by England in every quarter of the Globe." No. II. -Extract from Mr. Adams's Letter to the Spanish Government, November 28, 1818 .... No Ill.-Contemporary Statement of the Case of the Caroline, in a New York Newspaper, the " Courier and Inquirer No. IV.- Papers presented to Congress relative to the Arrest of Mr. M'Leod, on account of the Burning of the Steamer " Caroline" No. v.— Discussion in Pariiament, House of Lords, Feb. 8, 1P41 ^0. VI. — Boundary Question, House of Commons, July 13th, 1840 • No. VII.— Negociations respecting the Boundary sub- sequently to breaking the Award, as given in Papers marked I. and II No. VIII.— Extract Trom " The Crisis" L57 125 127 128 131 137 151 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. The seizure oi Mr. M'^Leod appears to Great Britain merely as an accident. It is not in any degree attributed to human will ; it is not dreamed of as conducing to further any existing political design. It is believed that the British Minister had, in this matter, nothing further to do than to consider that which the American Government had done. In the following pages it is shown that this event is not an accident ; that it has been prepared for, and therefore has been brought about, and that not by the will of the United States— that it does tend to the advancement of a political design — not a design of the United States ; that it is the British Minister who has prepared this position; and his object in doing so is explained by the interests of Russia — he, by the examination of other facts, having been shown to be the instrument of that ii VIU iMa:i'A( i') 10 power, it is then inferred that the object, with II view to which tlie United States' Government was inveigled into this position, was to furnish the British Minister with the opportunity of driving it back again; by this to augment the ill-will already implanted in the breasts of the two nations, and to increase the complications in which the two Governments have already been involved, by a similar process brought to bear upon the Boundary Differences. . It is for the reader to weigh well tlie conse- quences of such a position, if that, here assumed, is true ; and then it is for him to examine the proof upon which it rests. The debate of the 8th and 9th February, ex- hibited the Foreign Minister as justifying the proceedings of the United States, and informed this nation that the steps which the Government had taken, were nothing more than the repetition of the dispatches already sent to America, which amounted solely to the admission of the legality of the pro- ceedings, and of the authority of the tribunal. In face of these facts, I declared that the British Minister was not about to submit but was only enticing the American Government on. A few days after this declination was in print,, was it made m THE SECOND EDITION. IX known that the British Government had taken a decided line — had dttermined to enforce the liberation of Mr. M<=Leod without trial*, and that it was about to send out a squadron to enforce that demand. Now that this intelligence has been made public, war is supposed to be inevitable. I have already asserted in these pages, my belief that the moment for war was not comef. I have said this, observing the attitude of Russia, knowing that it was in a just estimate of her movements that I could alone find the means of anticipating events. * See the words of Sir R. Peel in the House of Commons on the 5th of March — or is this too a false rumour ? t The time is not come for war, both because the cup of hatred is not full, and because the means of destruction are not sufficient. But now will come on — arming of America — raising of fortresses — drawing out of militia — founding of cannon — equipping and building of ships— augmentation of troops; and this load of military preparations, while preparing for inter-destruction with neighbours, will also be preparing for political dissolution at home. The Treaty of the 15th of July has already added more than 500,000 men to the peace establishments of Central Europe, (Germany, Italy, and France). It has already cost Europe £.50,000,000, and has added ten millions yearly to the regular expenditure of those states. The pretext for this measure was the maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire — which the act itself dismembers^ and the Divan is now no more than the counterpart of the secret Muscovite Conclave in Downing Street, tliat for ten years has tortured the world. B %^ PREFACE TO Intelligence of a final settlement of the Eastern question was spread abroad at the same moment that it was allowed to become known that these decisive measures were taken with respect to the United States ; it was also at the same time spread abroad, that, in the new adjustment of the affairs of the East, France would be a consenting party. A few days after, we learn that the affairs of the East are as unsettled as ever, and another cloud has passed over the French alliance. The moment of sunshine was then called in for a purpose — the purpose of reconciling England to the decided measures against the United States, and of overawing the United States by the ap- pearance of the union of Europe with England, when she expected to hear of rupture and collision. These will be followed soon by rumours in another sense, for the end is to confuse the minds of men, and to complicate affairs. To France (from whom a recent Quadruple Treaty was withheld) the English Government com- municated first (so at least the public press informs us), its intention of requiring imperatively from the United States the liberation of Mr. M'^Leod, with- out trial, and of sending a squadron to enforce that demand. A few days afterwards the Paris papers THE SECOND EDITION. 1^ mention long and frequent conferences between tlie United States Envoy and the French Minister. Independently of the progressive march of hos- tility between the United States and England, ob- serve the effect of this blow, levelled by England at her own friends — at the very moment of their accession. The new administration, the new Pre- sident, the party which in the United States is the natural ally of England, comprising the men of worth, and known for the thoughts of value, are at once placed in flagrant opposition to England, and through them is to be levelled by England this immedicable wound. So in the Treaty of the 15th July was the blow struck by England at the Minister in France, who, before his nation, in the most extraordinary and absolute manner, had committed himself to an " English Alliance," and to an " English Alliance alone*." * M. Thiers, in replying to the proposition that it was the in- terest of France to ally herself with Russia in her projects of partition, uses these words :— " In this state of our affairs, with whom was it our duty to have allied ourselves ? With England, and ONLY WITH Eng: and. * * What nation is interested in preventing Russia obtaining possession of Constantinople ? Is it not England ? In the resistance, therefore, of France to Russia, England becomes, and necessarily must remain, our ally. When France is united to England, who can resist, and what can en- ■;,?■ xn PREFACE TO At the period of M. Thiers*s accession to office, I prognosticated his fall by the act of England, I did so knowing the objects of Russia, and her instruments. It was important to strike a blow at any friend of England, and how much more at the friend of England in France, It was important to make England injure France any how ; but how much more so in the person of the man who had compromised himself as the friend of England. Then, by the same blow, is France alienated from England — is the chief friend of England in France destroyed — is he converted into a foe — and foreign influence gains the power to make and to unmake a Government*! These words will not be now danger ? Our joint standard will float over the world, inscribed with the motto * Liberty and Peace.* " Debate^ \Oth January^ 1840. * " Thus the French Government, in assaulting England (by the blockade of Mexico), has violated its own laws— has defied the power of its own tribunals, and, in this course of iniquity, it is supported by the Minister of England. The Eitssian Minister of England finds means to support the Russian faction at Paris against the violation of French law, as against the infraction of British rights ; against the decisions of a French tribunal, as against the law of nations ; against the people and the parlia- ment of France, he supports them by the people and the parlia- ment of England, whom he appears to represent, and whom he moulds to his will. Thus does England render triumphant her enemies in the French councils. Thus does she confirm France in a course of hostility to England. Thus does she render THE SECOND EDITION. XIU I I understood, but they stand on record for the time when they will. Look now at the contrast. Under Marshal Soult, before the accession of M. Thiers, France has prepared alone to resist Russia ; the successor of M. Thiers, brought in by England, is actually taking the lead in the accomplishment of that pro- ject of Russia (the exclusion of Europe from the Dardanelles), which, when first whispered in the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, united France and Eng- land in a protest against her ! Again it will be asked, as on every such occa- sion, " how is it, even if we could admit the guilt " of the minister, that the chiefs of the other party " and his colleagues can be blind to such danger, or " can be ignomnt of such facts ? " No step can be taken by the Foreign Minister except in as far as he blinds these men, but these men are blind — the it impossible for any French statesman* friendly to England to come into power, or coming into power, to remain her friend. No one can remain friendly to a power that has become the enemy of itself. Therefore, those who have been the friends of England must now become her bitterest foes because betrayed, and her foes become possessed of her senseless people's unsus- pecting confidence." — Conversation 8M Fehruarj/^ 1840. Diplo- macy t il it d )f ;t d 1, a d It it n PART III. DEBATE IN THE H0US3 OF COMMONS. *' What is the condition of a country, whose representatives depend for a knowledge of its position on vague rumours, that reach it from abroad ?" — ^Lord Palmerrton, June \%t^ 1829. Supposing a citizen of the United States seized by England, put in prison, brought to trial for his liic.. because, being an officer of the United States Government, he hvad executed an act commanded him by authority — how many hours would elapse be- tween the arrival of the intelligence in the United States, and a message from the President to Congress ? What would be the movements throughout the wide belt intervening between the Gulphs of Mexico and the St. La^^^rence, as the intelligence rolled across from the Atlantic to the Pacific ? What would be the terms of the address of the Senate, — what the language of the dispatch of the Government,— what the celerity of the flight of the messenger ? Mr. M'^Leod is arrested on the twelfth of No- vember, the British Government must; have received intelligence of the fact in the beginning of December. The Parliament opens January 26th . No message is sent down from the Crown, — no declaration is made by the Minister ! Correspondence connected 54 Debate in the House of Commons. with the transaction is giv^n to the House of Con- gress — it reaches this country by the public press; and questions are thereupon put to the Minister in the House of Commons on the 8th of Feb- ruary. The trial, on which hung the life of the individual, in whose person this whole nation was to be brought to judgment, was to take place in the beginning of March, and on the 8th of February, the Foreign Secretary being then, for more than two months, in possession of the fact, no instructions had been sent, and the instructions to be sent that night were declared to be the repetition only of instructions which were already in America, in face of which the act had been committed, and the full effect of which had been already tried in vain ! What words do our language possess to give utterance to the thoughts which such acts inspire ? What use of comment? what need of analysis ? Why call in documents ? Why trace collateral proof ? That which is in evidence, alas ! is not the intentions of the man, but it is the perfect imbecility of the race in the midst of whom such a position can be revealed, without one explosion of indigna- tion from shore to shore. It is in the following words that the British Minister replies : — " The subject was one of extreme interest, and which, from the great delicacy of its nature, involving considerations of a very grave and se- rious character between two great countries, " should be touched upon with great reserve." <( (( « Debate in the House of Commons. 05 This semblance of fear and of alarm, allows the American Government to think they have made the discovery of consciousness in Lord Palmerston, of weakness in his case, and of powerlessness in nls position. He then boldly proceeds to justify the American Government. ** The American Government undoubtedly might " have considered this transaction either as a " transaction to be dealt with between the two Governments, by demand for redress by one, to be granted or refused by the other, and dealt with accordingly; or, it might have been con- " sidered as the British authorities consider pro- " ceedings between American citizens on the " British side of the border, as matter to be dealt " with by the local authorities*." A Minister of the Crown opens his mouth to establish a parallel between outlaws and its meri- torious servants, — establishes that parallel in face of proceedings against them by a foreign government as felons ! — and a senate listens ! Has not England possessions — has she not subjects and citizens in America ? Is not the principal portion of her strength beyond these islands, rooted on the continent of America ? What i< it t( * '* When it is asserted that the case of McLeod is similar to that of the fellows who without orders from any lesponsible authority — ^nay, in direct violation of your laws, — made hostile incursions into Canada, there must be a great lack of discrimina- tion, or something worse." New York Journal of Commerce. 58 Debate in the House of Commons. m in- § .. 1 will be the effect of these words to the north of the frontiers of the United States ? What the effect of this comparison upon the men to whom the de- fence of the British possessions was entrusted — on the body to which these volurteers belonged, — on the provincial governments which they obeyed — on the North American colonies which they defended, and of which they constitute a part ? I shrink from the attempt of calling up in my own mind the feeling with which as a North American subject of the British Crown, I should read those words as spoken by an Englishman, uttered on the soil of England, echoing within the precincts of St. Ste- phen's, and listened to by those possessed of fche respect of millions, and ruling the destinies of the mightiest empire beneath the sun. The Foreign Secretary proceeds : — " But the " American Government chose the former course " by treating the matter as one to be def»ided " between the two Governments — " What continuation could there be to the passage but this? " and having adopted that course, it is impossible for it now to proceed against indi- viduals." No, the phrase concludes : " — and this is the ground on which they are ENTITLED to demand redress from the British Government, for the acts of its srBJECTS." Is not then this man, the nominal Minister of the British nation — the advocate of the United States ? But this is the man who has led the United States into the actual hazard of its existence, he must, there- at (( u «< Debate in the House of Commons. 57 a n fore, be its enemy — he is both ! He is the foe of its peace — and for that purpose is he the advocate of its injustice. He is for the United States that which he is for England — that which he is for the world. Having, in these few sentences, given the explicit sanction of the British Government to the act of America ; having given, by pronouncing them, in its presence, the sanction to these transactions of the House of Commons, he then concludes with saying that he was " sure the House wo\dd think with him, that the matter was one of such extreme difficulty, that it would be improper for him to enter into " further remarks or observations.** Mr. Hume then rises, and declares that the state- ments the noble Lord has made " are not exactly '* consistent" with the information of which he is in possession, and entreats the House not to go further in the matter until they pre possessed of all the facts ; and he expresses his surprise that the British Government had not given a reply to the demand of America. To this Lord Palmerston answers, by saying that the American Government had instructed its Minister " not to press for a " reply.'* The British Government, in replying, must either have given satisfaction or refused it ; and in either case further proceedings were barred. By leaving the demand without reply, the United States Go- vernment becan\e possessed of the power, dangerous, but not, theref'^ .e, less desired, of proceeding against British citizens, of exacting redress, or even of E 58 Debate, in the House of Commons. making reprisals against the State. Time and pre- scription became no bar, because, while the British Government withheld a reply, it was not in its power to plead either. From the moment the Ame- rican Government obtains this position, it preserves it ; that is to say, it does not press for that reply, which, once given, would annihilate this power. It suffices for Lord Palmerston to quote this proof of the advantage he had yielded to a state which he was engaged in the process of converting into an enemy, to close the mouth of those who questioned. He accounts for the injury, by saying that it is done; and those who charge him with neglitfence, he meets— knowing them — by daring them to dis- cover his intention. He further declares, that " The American Government had disavowed the acts of those citizens who had taken part in these proceedings, and that, until, therefore, the British " Government disowned those persons, as the " American Government disavowed their citizens in the other case, he conceived that the American Government had adopted an international respon- sibility in the late detention of Mr. M^'Leod, and could not, therefore, change their ground upon this question." He had taken the ground at Washington, that the American Government had not the right to proceed against the individuals. He then declares in the House of Commons that it has the right to proceed in the one or the other manner ; but he has practically ti it li iC €( t( it w Debate in the fff'use of Commons. 59 sanctioned both ; he has not treated the seizure of Mr. M«Leod as an outrage upon England* ; and he has admitted, by silence, the demand of redress against the Government. Mr. Forsyth has, more- over, put forward the explicit declaration, that the American Government has a right to proceed by both methods. That declaration officially made, and published to the world, is met by Lord Palmerston with the declaration that unquestionably the Ame- rican Government had the right of proceeding in either one or the other manner. If the American Government had the right of proceeding at all, it had the faculty of choice. Lord Palmerston further declares that the instructions which he had now sent to Mr. Fox were the same as those which had already drawn from Mr. Forsyth this very declaration, to which, under those instructions, Mr. Fox had had nothing to reply. Thus has Lord Palmerston managed at once to sanction (for the moment) the proceedings against Mr. M«Leod in America, and to leave grounds for after-proceedings against the American Government for that act. This is the object of this ambiguity ; his ambiguous words being interpreted in different ways by the American Government and by the British Parliament. But both these proceedings are against the Eng- lish Government since the act was the English Government's: there was an alternative as to the Vi r" ji * Not until the United States Govemment was committed. I' 60 Dehalo in the Home of Commons. modes of proceeding — nor was this an alternative — there were two modes of procedure ; but there was only one party proceeded against. Lord Pal- merston confounds his hearers by simulated alter- natives in a dilemma which had no existence. His hearers, confounded in this maze, and unable to see, labour to find a justification for his acts so as to justify thei*' own blindness ; hence the expression recently current amongst Members of Parliament, " Lord Palmerston has hung the " American Government between the horns of a " dilemma." But let us look at the separate terms emi)loyed in this wonderful sentence. It is not the seizure of Mr. M<=Leod, but his " detention r it is not his " detention" alone, but /a^e," as if the time were gone by. " Until those persons were disavowed," as if there was a ques- tion respecting their disavowal ; then he doubtingly " conceives'^ that the United States had " adopted''' a " responsibility," and then the responsibility is " international." There is international justice and injustice ; but international responsibility cannot be, because responsibility has reference to superiors. Let us set down the words which the hearer was to suppose he heard — ** The American Government has " been guilty of international injustice ; it cannot, " therefore, justly change its ground." Is comment requisite here ? — or do you think that accident has arranged these terms — an(i that there is no intention in any thing which is above your comprehension ? <( it Debate in the House of Commons. 61 The American Government had changed no ground — had never spoken or thought of any such thing. The American Government had originally taken criminal steps against the agents of the British Crown ; that was its first, as that had been its last step ; the first which it threatened, and tlie last which it executed, which England had not resisted, but which she had encouraged. But no sooner have the words, " The American Govern- " ment cannot^ I conceive, change their ground," fallen from the lips of the Foreign Secretary, than the House of Commons calls out " hear, hear !" These sounds were not to be lost upon the American Government* — and at this point the defence of the Foreign Secretary was cu*. short by the leader of the opposition, who arose to his rescue, by putting an irrelevant question upon another subject. On the following day, the debate is resumed in the House of Commons, and the Foreign Secretary then puts it in possession of further information ; he tells it that " a case of a somewhat similar nature ** had happened, or was about to happen, a year " or a year and a half ago," on which occasion he had sent out instructions to the Envoy at Washing- ton, '* laying down what he conceived to be sound " principles in such an emergency ! " Has not Britain reason to rejoice in the activity oi her servants, in the foresight of her Government ? * See Portfolio, Vol. I., Despatch of Prince Lieven to Count Nesselrode, 1st June, 1829, where another " hear, hear," of the House of Commons, is quoted in triumph and exultation. 62 Debate in the House of Commons. Il If dis&sters befall her, or disgrace overwhelm her, it is surely not because she has been deficient in activity, in charities, and in doctrine ; and if she has reason to complain of aught, it is that human nature is perverse, and that fortune is her debtor. During the first day's debate, Lord Palraerston avoids to recognise the destruction of the Caroline as an act of the British Government. By the mere fact of keeping them in suspense during four-and- twenty hours, he converts a public act, simple and notorious, which had happened three years before, into the leading object of interest and of attention, at this critical moment ; every other portion of the transaction is thus obscured before their eyes, and no one thinks of inquiring why he had not replied to the demand of the American Government, >vhy, in anticipating this case, he had not sent such instructions as were fitting, &c. He holds up to them the doubt of the recognition of the destruc- tion of the Caroline; and at this target are aimed the shafts of his nerveless adversaries. On the second day he avows that act, quells opposition, and gathers in his antagonists' weapons. On the avowal of the destruction of the Caroline, a cheer immediately ascends from both sides of the House, the one party glorying in the decision of its leader, the other exulting in the energy which it has displayed in compelling from him this admission^ All are ready again to treat with ridicule and con- tempt any one who ventur^^s to doubt, or who dares to gainsay ; and another sound issuing from w Di'Oi'te in the House of Commons. 63 that brainless organ of an infatuated people, is blown across the Atlantic, to confirm the belief of that insanity in the British State, which always precedes, because it alone can bring — a nation's fall. But this is not the sole reason for which he has withheld, on the first day of the debate, the recog- nition by the Government of the destruction of the Caroline. These two debates, though following for England at the interval of a few hours, will follow for America at the end of two weeks*. Look then at the eflfect of leaving the United States in that suspense for a fortnight in which the House of Commons had been left for a day. The debate on this second day closes with a declaration by Lord Palmerston, that the recog- nition of the destruction of the Caroline had been officially made through the British Envoy at Washington to the United States Government, and to the United States Minister in London. Without any knowledge upon the subject, I should judge these assertions to be false, because it would not occur to Lord Palmerston, in speaking to the Bri- tish Nation, to say that which is true. But we know the falsehood of both statements, from the documents given to the American Congress. But the * Th'i two debates did reach America together. This does not alter the fact, that on the night of the 9th it was not anticipated, that the morning papers of the 10th would be in time for the steamer. in ■m 04 Debate in the House of Commons. House of Commons was perfectly satisfied with the declaration, and there the matter ended, without a motion for impeachment — for inquiry, without a vote of censure, without an address to the crown, without a demand for papers, without a suggestion, and the subject was dismissed because there was no question before the House ! It comes before the House of Commons in these two nights* discussion : — That no reply had been given by Lord Pal- merston during three years to a demand of the United States, which allowed the charge of arson and murder to hang over the Crown of Great Britain — and there was Jiot a Member of the House found to see the meaning of such silence, or to utter one word of reproach or of indignation :— . That the case of the seizure by the United States of a servant of the British Crown, as justi- ciable under that charge, had been anticipated, and that Instructions were sent out specially to plead before the United States. There was not a J^Tember found in the House to understand the meaning of that Instruction, or to express one word of reproach or of indignation : — That the Government had sanctioned the act of the destruction of the Caroline, and had not made use ol that sanction for the only purpose for which it was required, the declaration of it to the United States; and further, a false statement that it had been so communicated, and there was not a man in the House to understand the meaning of that suppres- m Debate in the House of Commons. 65 sion or that falsehood — not one found to utter one word of reproach or of indignation : — That hours, days, weeks, and months, must have elapsed from the receipt of the intelligence of the seizure of that subject of the British Crown, without a communication made to Parliament, and without a step taken with respect to the United States ; and there was not a man in that House to understand the meaning of that delay, or to utter one word of reproach or of indignation : — That the Minister placed servants of the Crown who had exposed their life in performance of duty, on the same level with the bandits and the outlaws, against whom they had been employed, and exposed by this declaration these servants to be tried as felons by a foreign judicatory ; and there was not found in that House a single head to comprehciid the object of that declaration, or a tongue to utter one word of reproach or of indig- nation ! Before that Senate came the most atrocious out- rage ever recorded in the page of history — committed by a foreign state against a British subject ; judi- cially asserted by a foreign court against a func- tionary of the British Empire ; diplomatically asserted by the United States against Great Britain. Before it came evidence that this had been brought about by its own Minister, through a process. Before it comes proof of reiterated falsehood of that Minister in the process itself, and in the explanation respecting that process given to the House. In its i ■ C 1 n I 66 Debate in the House of Commons, verv presence ire directed to the United States words of sanction and encouragement — and these men, lying shadows of life, knowing not what they did, and accounting not what they were, sit {.round unmoved; they lister with ears of flesh but with hearts of stone — nay ! they exult and rejoice, making a noise wi^b their tongues — a noise to fill the fiends with laughter, and to make angels weep. Must not that state perish, whose fate is yielded into such hands ? or, rather, is not that state unworthy to live where such are to be found ? Yet at that moment one awful word pro- nounced, the cry of alarm raised by a single voice, and the traitorous spell might have been broken, and this people's trnnce dissolved. But England is divided into two parties ; if the one party supports, the other party opposes the Government. How is it, then, that we have here the opponents of the Government not coming for- ward as a body to denounce this act ? If it is a party, if it is an opposition, was this not the time to appear as such? Was not this the moment when resistance was not faction — when union was a crime ? Far from that, it is the leader of the opposition who interposes to save the Minister from his own supporters. Not interposes by argument or by state- ment, but by bald interruption. Sir Robert Peel interrupts the discussion; first, by questions re- specting the reward of officers wounded in that Debate in the House of Commons. 67 assault, which leads to a reply from Lord John Russell that he knows nothing on the subject. Sir R. Peel again interposes with questions regarding the affairs of Persia. Mr. O'Connell, amidst the cheers of both sides of the House, calls it back to the question before it ; and then again does Sir R. Peel, with the assistance of the Speaker, carry the House back again to the affairs of Persia. He interrupts the discussion upon a subject, pressing and instant, to introduce one distant, remote, long known, and equally long neglected. Were the affairs of Persia those in which Sir Robert Peel had habitually shown interest, upon which he had ex- pressed conviction, or regarding which he had taken care ? The interruption can, therefore, be accounted for neither by indifference to the subject interrupted, nor by the importance of that introduced. If not, was this sudden interruption prompted by a consciousness of the necessity of attending to our diffi ilties in the East, by this evidence of the insecurity of our interests in the West ? The thorough examination of that which was be- fore them, alone could afford the means for the restoration, or the comprehension > of either. If we can find nothing in the transaction, which can account for the interruption, we must look for the cause elsewhere ; we must suppose either that he acted through the consciousness of a common responsibility with the Minister, or through con- sciousness of so much danger in the state, as to make it a matter of expediency to prevent 68 Debate in the House of Commons. the eyes of the nation from being opened to its danger ? If so, that condition in which Athens stood, when the commonwealth was betrayed, " neither willingly, nor ignorantly, but from a " desperate purpose of yielding to the fate of a " constitution judged to be irrevocably lost" — has come for England ? A condition in which the defenders of the state, some from intention, and some from misjudging, become alike its enemies and its destroyers. The debate closed by an assertion of Lord Palmer- ston, that the recognition, by the British Government, of the destruction of the Caroline, had been officially announced to the representative of the United States in this country. This statement is false j but if it is false, how is it that that gentleman does not expose it ? It is currently reported, that Mr. Stevenson had declared that he would expose this falsehood*. But could any man, in the slightest degree conversant with diplomatic transactions, — in the slightest degree understanding the position to which America has been brought, — in any degree understanding the man who is the Minister of England, suppose that such an exposure was possible ? A diplomatic servant cannot act upon his own * On the arrival of the first intelligence of the destruction of the Caroline, Lord Palmerston casually remarked to Mr. Steven- son, that he supposed the English Government would adopt the act ; when the matter came officially before him, he refused all explanation. Such is understood to be the result of the explana- tions between the American Envoy and the British Secretary. T Debate in the House of Commons. 69 impulse; and to have exposed Lord Palmerston, Mr. Stevenson would have required instructions from his own Government. Could the American Government act in such a case? Men, as govern- ments, that are led, can venture to do nothing. He who prepares events, ventures, and acts — not he who is taken aback by events, and is unpre- pared for results which another has designed and executed. Besides, the American Government, is it not now brought into a position of hostility to Great Britain ? Unable to conceive the design of restoring harmony by conquering that hostility in its source, it remains for it only to become the enemy of England, and to look on any thing that will injure England as a benefit to itself. It sees, then, that this British Minister has by pusillanimity, as it will suppose, in one case, and by falsehood in another, given to itself a position of strength as against Great Britain, not seeing that he is the cause of the danger to both. It will consider that the same imbecility and false- hood must rouse up foes to England throughout the world. Before minds thus doubting and thus inimi- cal, the long Disputed Territory will arise ; and in more distant perspective, those magnificent posses- sions of England in North America, containing, within themselves, elements of manufacturing and maritime greatness, inferior to those only which have given empire to these Isles:- — which once possessed, the United States is lelieved from all control on the continent of America, and a trans- fer is effected, from the Old World to the New, 70 Debate in the House of Commotes. of greatness, power, and dominion. All these under-currents of thought are carrying the Ame- rican Government day by day into a position more and more favourable to the Minister of this coun- try, whether as to awakening ambitious thoughts, whether as to confirming hostile acts, whether as to the inspiring of sentiments inimical to Great Britain, and as rendering difficult, if not impossible, to retract from the steps into which they have been led. Therein is triumph, for the designs of which he is the instrument, and security to himself. In other crimes, danger is increased by its perpetra- tion ; but in treason, it is the very accomplishment that gives security. He is secure from exposure by any state that he makes the foe of Britain ; he is secure from all inquiry in his own country, when the hatred with which he has inspired any Foreign State will have roused up counter hostility and passion in his own: Lord Palmerston can be ex- posed by none, except by the friend of England, and having wielded the power of England during eleven years, he has left no chance throughout the wide world of such exposure. And that which is the chief danger is this, that state after state, by England's act, is linked together in mutual sympathies ; they join in a tacit recogni- tion that the day of reckoning for England with all is at hand — thence the growth of reciprocal confi- dence — hence the habit of common concealment from England, alike of their thoughts and of their intentions. But what needs the tracing of con«e- ^ Debate in the House of Commons. 71 quences— if it be that the Minister of England is the instrument of Russia ? Can there be any diffi- culty, if this is so, in confusing every state in the world, and in making every state England's foe ? That collusion is the sole question to be examined ; that collusion is to be established, not by glancing at events passing, but by examining such as are concluded; proved in one instance, it is proved in all. 72 PART IV. PARALLEL CASE OF BOUNDARY DIFFERENCES. " Such a man is a public enemy, who saps the foundations of the peace and common safety of nations." — Vattel. But does this transaction stand alone ? No ; the greatest of international differences, one of disputed Territory, pends between the United States and England — difference such as cannot long remain between nations*, without rousing up every latent element of ill-will, sowing the seed of war, and destroying the value of peace ; such differences are dangerous alike in their origin as in their effects ; because they can exist only by some criminal design, or by some inability to manage public affairs. If there is the suspicion of intentional incitement of America in regard to the affair of Mr. M*^Leod, we must turn to examine this long-agitated ques- tion, respecting which voluminous documents are in our hands. With two such transactions before us, we surely may be able to arrive at a just estimate of the character, and a clear percep- * " The tranquillity of people, the safety of states, the hap- piness of the human race, do not allow that the frontiers * * * of nations should remain uncertain, subject to dispute, and ever ready to occasion bloody wars." — Vattel, Law of Nations. ' 5f!::ii Parallel Case of Boundary Differences. 73 tion of the intentions of the single individual who acts for England. The differences between the United States and {jreat Britain have been adjusted by a double inter' national transaction — the one, a solemn Convention between England and the United States ; the other, a sovereign Award rendered according to the terms of that Convention. How then can there l)e here a question open between the two countries ? In January 1831, was that Award rendered. The Minister of the British Crown refused that Award to the House of Commons ; told that House, after the Award had been rendered, and accepted by the Crown of England, that the question was one regarding which " negociations were pending" and called upon it to place reliance in the declaration which he made in his ministerial capacity, that the motion for its production could not be safely ^' assented to*." This minister then avoided taking any steps to obtain the recognition of the Award by the United States, and did take steps multi- farious and complicated, to obtain its rejection. This transaction I have already exposed in detailf ; Xi «« * parliamentary Debates, March 14, 1831. f Howe of Commons, Avgutt 26, 1839. — '^ Mr. D'Isbaeli : I beg to present a petition. Sir, from certain merchants and ship- owners of the city of London. It is most respectably signed ; and, among others, by gentlemen who are now, and several who have been, Members of this House ; by the Committee of the North American Association ; by the President of the South American Association ; and other firms of great respectability, stating — F 74 Parallel Case of Boundary IHffereHcvs. and as that exposition is within the reach of who- ever desires to examine it, I shall here content myself with asserting that during six years of negociation, every line, every act, every statement, every omission, coincides systematically to reach the same end, that of abrogating the Award — re- opening the question — inviting the American Go- vernment to advance pretences, and the Border population to commit aggression*. In that case, as in the present, every word uttered by the Foreign Secretary was false ; and the House of Commons on that, as on this occasion, submitted alike to his falsehoods and to his denial of information. Just a month before the burning of the Caroline, Lord Palmerston had completely shaken off the Award of the King of Holland. On the 19th No- * That the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to whose intelligence and integrity are entrusted the honour and interests of this country, ■ has been publicly charged with criminality of the gravest charac- ter, in an " Exposition op the Boundary Difpebences BETWEEN Great Britain and the United States. By David Urqdhart, Esq." The petitioners, therefore, pray this Ho- nourable House to institute an inquiry into these allegations, demanded alike by the honour of the Minister, and the interests of the nation.' " — Mirror of Parliament. * Sir John Harvey declares to Lord Glenelg that the vexatious proceedings of the State of Maine, " if they did not actually arise, received an increased degree of confidence from some (doubtless wilful) misconception on the part of the people of Maine, of a declaration imputed to Lord Palmerston in his place in the House of Commons." Could the Governor of a Province, speaking of a minister, express himself more significantly ? « it Parallel Case of Boundary Differences. 75 vember, 1837, he writes thus : — '* The two govern- ments are AS FREE, in respect to this settlement, as they were before this reference to the King of " the Netherlands had been made !" " Free /" Weigh the word, and consider who the man is who uses it. But supposing that the Award of the King of Holland could be set aside, you had the Convention of 1827 to regulate the proceedings, and that Con- vention was again but explanatory of the Treaty of Ghent of 1814, which stipulates the appointment of a judge and arbiter. Having broken up the award, the minister pro- ceeds to new negociations without any Convention to bind the parties to abide by a new award, or to adjust, by some common agreement, the terms of the settlement? What would be said of such a proceeding if no bonds or treaties were in existence ? If the Award had not been set aside with the view of preventing a settlement, he would have now pro- posed a readjudication under the Convention, which they pretended had not been adhered to with suf- ficient strictness in the decision of the King of Hol- land*. The Convention is never heard of again — it * The ground assumed for setting aside the award of the King of Holland is, that, instead of selecting one of the two lines, the arbiter had laid down another line. The Conven- tion of September 29, 1837, declares, in the first article, *' That the points of diflFerence which have arisen in the settle- 76 Parallel Case of Boundary Differences, passes away as the Award has passed. Can tliere, then, be a doubt as to the motive ? Then the two ment of tho Boundary between British and American dominions, shall be referred to some friendly Sovereign or State, who shall bo invited to investigate and make a decision upon such points of difference." Again, in tho Treaty of Ghent, of 1814, the words are as clear as words can be, and die intertion as evident, that whatever differences should arise, were to be irrevocably settled by the decision of the arbiter. It says, in article 4, which adjusts the mode of proceeding in regard to the Boundary specified in article 5 — " In the event of the Commissioners differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them * * * His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States agree to refer the Reporter Reports of the Commissioners to the Sovereign of some friendly State, who shall be requested to decide upon the differ- ences which shall be stated in the said Report or Reports. * And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States engage to consider the decisioii of such friendly Sovereign or State as final and conclusive on all the matters so referred." The Convention of the 27th September, 1829, under which the King of Holland was chosen for the arbiter, stipulates, in Article 7> " That the decision of the arbiter, when given, shall be taken as final and conclusive, and shall be carried without reserve into immediate effect." It is further assumed that the King of Holland had not given a decision, but only pronounced an opinion. Why then did the English Government address to the King of Holland its acceptance of the award? The statement is too nonsensical to merit a reply. The words used are " notM sommes d'avis" which is the form of such arbitration — which is the term used in the arbitra- tion of tho Emperor of Russia on the question of slaves referred to him, equally under the Treaty of Ghent, and which imposed Parallel Case of Boundary Differences. 77 Governments enter into that exchange of words, which was characterised by Sir Robert Peel, in the House of Commons, as ** a series of propositions " reciprocally made and rejected," but which was a series of propositions, so made to the United States by the British Minister, as to invite rejection, and invited by him from the United States, to be re- jected*. The Foreign Minister, in his urgency to settle this matter, sends out the British commission without settling any mode of decision, or even waiting for that of America. But theAmerican commission not having proceeded to the same task conjointly with that of Britain, this haste could noways advance the settle- ment, even if, under such circumstances, a settlement was possible. The commissioners conclude their task, they come home, they make a report; the Foreign Secretary, who communicates no documents while " negociations are pending," publishes the report! The cases on both sides, had they not to be simultaneously presented ? In the former adjustment, the most special care had been taken upon England a heavy pecuniary loss, without our statesmen having then discovered that " avis" was an opinion, and not a decision. The words of the Russian award are less formal than those of the King of Holland. The King of Holland says, " nous sommes cTavit" rendering the award in his own person. The Russian Government rendering the award in the name of the Minister, thus, " VEmpermr eat ^avU." * See Appendix, No. VII. 78 Parallel Case of Boundary Differences, to settle by an international act the mode of proce- dure, so that the reports should be simultaneously presented. But here British Commissioners are sent out alone, and their report is published to the world, before any steps are taken to adjust the matter with America; before it was settled under what authority it was to be adjusted, and without even there being any commission appointed by Ame- rica. What could avail all the Reports that the in- genuity of men could furnish, unless presented to the arbiter who had to decide ? And this report is made public by the very minister who had refused to parlia- ment the Award of the King of Holland ! Perhaps it was that this Report should produce a favourable impression upon the feelings of America — that it could facilitate the negociation, by the concurrence which it held out, and the favourableness of the conclusions to America at which it had arrived. Let us open the Report, and see what it proposes : The Report claims the whole matter in dispute : nay — it goes further — it claims a portion of the territory of the United States! Supposing this a bond fide transaction, the publication of the Report must have enlightened the American Government with respect to the arguments which England would use ; and exasperated the American people with respect to the pretensions which she advanced, and tended necessarily to unite the whole of the American people in a common cause with the state of Maine. Contrast, then, these two acts — ^^a solemn Award w%\ Parallel Case of Boundary Differences. 79 rendered by a Sovereign Arbiter refused to Parlia- ment, and a portici; of a case that had to be submitted to arbitration — made public. Observe the false declaration to justify the withholding of the Award, namely, that negociations were pending where no negociations were pending. There could be here no matter of negociation ; the Treaty of Ghent expressly put aside all negociations upon such a subject, except with reference to the selection of the Arbiter, and the mode of presenting the case to that Arbiter. Observe the falsehood of the pre- text for publishing the Report of the Commis- sioners — that of hastening the settlement of the question, when the commission itself was but a means of postponing a reply to the American Government, and did suspend the negociation during a period of two years. The effect of this publication in England is equally conducive to the same purpose. Men would account for the rejection of the award of the King of Holland by Lord Palmerston*s desire to gain for England better terms. Nothing then in the natural objects of the transaction can explain the publi- cation ; but that publication leads so directly to the excitement of violence and animosity in the United States— leads so directly to the perversion of the integrity and knowledge of the British public, as evidently to have been the calculated objects which the British Minister had in view. But the pretence of sending out the commission without the American commission was to hasten 80 Parallel Case of Boundary Differences. the adjustment*. A similar pretext must also have existed for publishing the report. How is it then that the report, if publicity for it was required, and if haste was so urgent, was not published at the time the commission came home ? Weeks — months *~more than half-a-year elapses before it is pub- lished. And what is the period selected for that purpose ? July 1840, when a treaty was signed which made France the foe of England — when a treaty was signed that renders Russia mistress in Europe and in Asia ; then too was this report pub- lished, equally to render the United States the foe of England ; and thus, at once in Asia, in Europe, and in Amevica, call forth that hostility against England which, in each and in all, should enable the policy of the Brunow Treaty to triumph. Thus after an award had been rendered, the ques- tion has been re-opened — every step taken has led to increase of difficulties — no steps have been taken that can be accounted for by desire to bring the matter to a conclusion—the question is, at this hour, unsettled, and each hour increases the im- probability of a settlement. In the Appendix will be found p concise statement of the propositions and the counter-propositions since the parties have affected to have got id of the award. There also will be found the discussions upon the subject * Tlie commissioners performed thtir task with the greatest haste, heing required to finish their labours within the season, although they only received their instructions in the month of July. Parallel Case of Boundary Differences. 81 in the House of Commons, in which the reader will find, by comparing Lord Palmerston's state- ments with himself and with the details given, that he has falsely represented the facts. The reader will make the application of these facts to the case of Mr. M<=Leod ; he will carry back what he has learned from this case as light by which to read the intentions of the Minister who has re-opened the Boundary Differences between Great Britain and the United States. 82 PART V. INTERESTS COMPROMISED ABROAD, CONSTITUTION SUBVERTED AT HOME, BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. " Other people, Athenians, deliberate, while ajOPairs are still pending ; you deliberate, when the event has made counsel of no avail." Demosthenes. In face of circumstances the most suspicious, and surrounded by events the most alarming, a nation is tranquil and secure, and no thought of causes, and no apprehension of consequences, disturb the frivolity of their pursuits, or interrupt the agitation of their factions. Men calling themselves instructed, living in an age which they term enlightened, travel about from subject to subject, and from interest to interest, forming opinions without heed or care, and passing from opinion to opinion, as from subject to subject, as if believing their minds to \h' of no value — their thoughts of no import; as if their actM entailed no consequences, their freedom confe/red no rights, and that nothing they could do or say a^« ';tt d their existence, or that of others ? Ajh'r rui avpni has occurred, the whole nation 10 full of potty details respecting it, but never fur an instant ■H^ ConstituHoji subverted at Home. 83 bends its mind to examine the causes which have led to that incident — the consequences that may flow from it — the purpose for which it is designed. Events come upon them like hail or rain, like sunshine or storm, as things that they may judge good or bad, pleasing to look at or painful to endure ; but into the causes of which they can- not inquire, and over the event of which they have no control. How is it that it is necessary to seize and to grapple with each man before you can get him to look at any fact in itself, or to conceive that any two acts of his country can have a common origin ? Although he knows that one man directs the policy of England, no Englishman conceives that there can be any connection between a mea- sure of England in China, and one in Guatemala ; or that there is no understanding the onv^ unless the other is also understood ; that there can be any conne^i'on between submission to an illegal block- ade on i\e coast of South America, and the esta- blishment of one on the coast of the Morea, and that both must be designed for the same purpose ? Notwithii tanding this repugnance to examine, is there any backwardness to form, any slowness to express opinion ? Notwithstanding this multiplicity and pertinacity of opinion, 1 never found a man who did not admit his inability to solve each difficulty thcit was successively presented to him — who shrunk from advihtin^ that lie did not compre- hend the policy of his <'oi(ntry. Notwithstanding 81 Interests compromised Abroad, this consciousness of ignorance, I found none who conceived either ignorance to be criminal, or the expression of opinions upon subjects he was conscious he did not comprehend, to be dangerous or base. Yet it appears to me that no suspicion of guilt or perception of danger ought to be requisite to arouse a reasoning being to reflection, and to impose upon a citizen the duty of investigation. It appears to me that it is enough that there should be in the public transactions of the state, that which is enigmatic — that there should be in the words of a Minisl*r that which is contradictory — that there should be in public opinion that which is at variance, for any rational being to conclude — that the intention of the actor was the thing to be sought — that it was the knowledge of that intention, which alone could solve such difficulties as were to be found — that it was only in as far as the intention was criminal that dif- ficulties could exist, or that fahe semblances could be presented. Diplomatic coni .sion must, there- fore, spring from crime, and danger must arise, both from the complications that have been produced, and by the crime from which they sprung ; so that, at once, the criminality of the intention becomes the solution of the difficulty, and knowledge of the crime the means of averting the danger. Yet, when this solution is presented to the men of whom this nation is actually composed, they recoil as if it were criminal to denounce crime — as if it were not cri- minal to disregard such a denunciation ! The cause is, that tlit»y are not aware that there is ^^ Constitution subverted at Home. 85 difficulty to solve, or that there is danger in presence. Their own thoughts crumbled down, how can they see system ?— and knowing nothing of those things that constitute a nation, how can they understand danger ? It is not by exposing the mere symptoms of mental malady that that disease can be rendered perceptible. Disease of the mind ceases when it is seen, and nations would not perish if such disease could be exposed by the speech or the pen. The time will come, when a few words will j^uffice to establish the fact of the existence of that same malady in us, by which other states have perished ; but it is posterity that will listen to the exposition. That exposition will be easy when the history of this people will have been summed up; when it will be — the British Empire has perished, because the people was inconstant, factious, corrupt; when long mismanagement brought about intentional betrayal, and Russiu enacted on a grander scale the tragedy of Poland, with this difference, that she had in the first drama many accomplices, and one " victim ; and in the latter, the actors were many, and were reciprocally victims and accomplices." Still there may be things which, when pointed out to men, rnay give rise to reflection. Englishmen ' elieve that they combine in their form of governmtjit, the special excellencies of those various forniH that have given splendour, power, beauty, and permanence, to the mightiest empires and rei)ublics of ancient ^\^dys. They believe that in (( i( n n a a a 86 Interests compromised Abroad ^ It'!' England there is monarchical power, limited by representative wisdom ; they believe, therefore, in the existence at once of power and of wisdom, and are satisfied that they possess the means by which to defend the rights of the state and to maintain the liberty of the citizens. And with this faith rooted in their minds, they repudiate the idea of crime in the highest office of the state, above all, international crime — that is to say — the betrayal of the whole state by the very authority constituted for the maintenance of its rights, because such can be conceived to exist only in a constitution the most debased, and amongst men the most depraved. From this difficulty, common to my fellow- countrymen, I have been relieved by having come to the knowledge of the existence of this betrayal, without having lost myself in speculating on its possibility. The idea was not one placed before me to induce me to examine facts, but it came to me as the solution of difficulties presented by facts in my possession. With this knowledge did I com- mence the investigation of the practice of other governments, in ancient and modern times ; and the comparison of these with England would now lead me to look for treason, as a necessary con- sequence of the changes effected in the British Constitution and in the mind of the British Nation, if the knowledge of its existence had not been that which had IH me to this inquiry, or which had given me the means of prosecuting it. I now per- ceive, in the habits of my country, characters which mm. Constitution subverted at Home. 87 coincide with those which are to be detected in every state that has perished. These are, of course, not connected with any form of government, for if so, the opportunity of examining them would never present itself. Under every form of govern- ment nations have been great, as under every form nations have decayed. What we have to look for is, then, the disease which destroys every constitu- tion. That disease is disagreement between citizens ; but each has wandered before a multitude operates, and that because none see their way. Out of disa- greement arises quarrel, that is faction — dangerous in proportion as the opportunities for increasing confusion are afforded by speech, by writing, and by making laws. The multiplicity of laws will re-act upon the disease, to aggravate it — by their very weight, they destroy the power of the Government, while the intensity of faction places the nation with- out the power of acting. Then do men forget those things, and lose those thoughts, that have given them the name of a piece of earth for a common appellation, and which have constituted them one people ; namely, their rights as a people, the defence of those rights against all other people ; namely, i..e mutual affections that spring from these com- mon necessities, and the duties that spring from these mutual affections. Unity is the effect and evidence of the health of a constitution, since it is found only when the thoughts of the men are simple ; and unity is found where each man sees as 88 Interests compromised Abroad, his neighbour sees, that is, where the common faculty of vision is unimpaired. Where the seeds of disease can spring, health has been im- paired, and the disease having reached maturity, life becomes extinct. In England, this malady has long afflicted the state, and has grown rapidly. The amount of health which remains to be destroyed within is fearfully reduced*, and the dangers that oppress the weakened body from without, have more than in equal proportion in- creased in magnitude and number. The body, it is true, is not weak in arms, in riches, in men, in dominion ; it is great in all those things that are the physical characters of power ; but these, when misused , it is dangerous and not profitable to possess. The House of Commons, in Great Britain, has increased in power, and, gradually pressing on the prerogatives of the highest branch of the constitu- tion, has ceased to be that which it originally was, the controller of the expenditure ; it has now become a governing body. It has destroyed the functions of the Crown in the appointment of its Minister. It has also set itself up in opposition to the Law. This body has thus become the sovereign of the state, and lias destroyed the authority of the Crown, in regard * " The rapid fall of England is a very remarkable and melancholy phenomenon; it is a deathlike sickness, without remedy." — Neibuhb. " When schism and faction abound in a state, it is near its ruin, and ought to be invaded." — Institutes op Timour. Constitulion subverted at Home. 89 to those matters— FOREIGN relations, that have been more specially entrusted to its care. Regarding these matters, the Parliament is kept in ignorance while " negociations are pending." If negociations are pending, it is that there are complications of which the issue is doubtful ; that differences do exist which are dangerous, and it is sufficient for a British Parliament to be told that doubt and danger exist, for it to abstain from all inquiry I If it assumed to know nothing upon the subject, the nation would not trust to its care, nor confide in its responsibility ; a monarch might think of the safety of his people, and of the security of his crown; Foreign states, allied in interests to Britain, endangered or assailed by the Minister, might trust in some happy revulsion of the public mind as a means of safety and redress. But by its assumption of knowledge, all energy sinks, and even such chances as might be afforded to a state without a government, are lost for us ; false care — ^hollow responsibility, render all within heedless, and all without hostile. The doctrine that information is to be withheld while negociations are pending, invites from the Minister that mismanage- ment which places each member of that assembly in the obliged position of an accomplice. " While negociations are pending, we may pass votes of censure on the body of the Ministry, but we will believe nothing, and ask nothing, respecting the acts of the Foreign Secretary ; we will know nothing concerning such matters as that Minister G t( << « t( 90 Interests compromised Abroad, " declares to be unsettled :" — Is not this to hold out a bonus for incapacity ? Mismanagement has taken place ; — complicate affairs, and you escape detection. The mismanagement is by design; — what matters the intention, when the very fact of mismanagement secures immunity 1 But while external interests are those alone which are important, they are also those upon which alone the executive has any action. All internal matters are settled by a vote in Parliament, and it matters not who is your minister ; indeed it little matters that there should be a government, since it is the majority of the Parliament that decides. In every internal transaction every information is granted, when demanded, and a whole government is held responsible. In regard to external affairs, so im- portant, regarding which information is excluded, all is left to one man. These are the matters which are difficult, these are the matters in which a premium may be offered for corruption, in which incapacity gives to a minister for defence, every foreign influence hostile to the commonwealth, and in which even a bribe can be offered with safety and accepted with impunity. On these matters a House of Com- mons is satiyfied to wait until matters are no longer pending — that is to say- — until the evil has been accomplished, and defers its knowledge until the period when no knowledge can be of any avail. Knowledge after events would be useless if obtained, but the obtaining of it is then impracti- cable ; and to assert that it is desired, or that it is Constitution subverted at Home, {i\ obtained, after events are no longer pending, is to lie to the nation wliich has ah-eady been betrayed. If the Parliament honestly avowed that it knew nothing upon such subjects, men might think, and hope, and inquire, and their spirits would be aleri and their senses awake. But as it is, the Parliament extinguishes our nation's common sense, while supposed to be the representative of its opinions ; thus it is that no single individual throughout that whole people, can be brought to make the efTort even of thought, until, by heavy blows, dealt upon him, or a long and studious process applied to him, all his convictions have been shaken. For any Minister of England not to seek publicilij, is to prove himself guilty of all that can render a Minister dangerous ; that is a total miscomprehen- sion of the power and the interests of the country whose destiny he wields. There is no object which Britain has to desire, to the furtherance of which publicity is not a means. What then is the Minister that seeks to conceal ^ — ^What then is » lie Parliament to which that conceali/»<'nt can be otii -^d as a reason for withholding from it knowledge of acts by which it is bound, and for which it is responsible ? The House of Commons, by appointing the Minis- ter, or at least the faction from which that Minister is chosen, becomes, in fact, the Sovereign of the State, and that sovereign body suffers that the know- ledge of all public transact!* ;.s should be withheld from itself ! Figure to yourself the Minister of the Emperor of Austria, or of liie King of Prussia, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) fe {./ l! A^ A < ^" % ,V4 ^ 4i. Z ^ 1.0 1^ 128 1 2.5 Kt m 112.2 £ lit I.I I '- i^ L25 i 1.4 1.8 1.6 Photugraphic ^Sciences Corporation ^v rv ■^ o ■<«\ ^. -^ ^ ; :i WEST MAIM STREET WEBSTSR.N.Y. 14580 !716) e72»503 ^.^ "«. i)2 Interests compromised Abroad, v/ithholding from his sovereign knowledge of the international transactions in which the Government was involved ! Would you not say, even if this has not arisen from some perfidious design, that the state was in peril, and that it would be well for it if it had no government? What has been the danger of states from imbecile monarchs, but this — that the Minister became irresponsible* ? The governing body of England is not en- trusted by the Minister of England with his intentions ; indeed, the servant and the mas- ter concur in thinking that it would not be safe for the master to know what the servant was about to do until it was done; that is to say, the servant and the master have changed places. The Parliament has taken the power from the Crown, the Minister from the Parliament. Yet by an appear- ance of attending to matters over which they do in reality exercise no control, they relieve the nation from care, and therefore from all interest in their affairs ; while the whole power and influence of England, united in its Parliamentf , shares against the nation the responsibility of mismanagement, leading in its ultimate consequences to the gravest of dangers that can afflict from within or menace from without — betrayal and war. ♦ " When a Sovereign does evil, the State may be preserved by the wisdom of a Minister ; but when a Minister does evil, what protection remains ?" — Institutes op Timour. t " The House of Commons is the curse of EnglanJ." — Expression of Genz^ in 1815. w Constitution subverted at Home. 93 No. IV. Papers presented to Congrctm relative to the Arrest of Mr. M'^Lkoi), oti account of the Burning of the Steamer ^ " Caroline:' ME. FOX TO MR. FORSYTH. Washington, Dec. 13, 1840. Sir, — I am informed by liis Excellency the Lieutenant- Governor of the Province of Upper Canada, that Mr. Alex- ander M'^Leod, a British subject, the late deputy sheriff'of the Niagara district in Upper Canada, was arrested at Lewiston, in the state of New York, on the 12th of last month, on a pretended charge of murder and arson, as having been engaged in the capture and destruction oi i\\e piratical steam-boat Caroline, in the month of December 1837. After a tedious and vexatious examination, Mr. M^'Leod was committed for trial, and he is now imprisoned in Lock- port gaol. I feel it my duty to call upon the Government of the United States to take prompt and effectual steps for the liberation of Mr. M^'Leod. It is well known that the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline was a public act of persons in Her Majesty"'s service, obeying tbo order of their superior authorities. That act, therefore, according to the usages of nations, can only he the subject of discussion between the two national Governments. It cannot justly be made the ground of legal proceedings in the United States against the individuals concerned, who were bound to obey the authorities appointed by their own Government. I may add that I believe it is quite notorious that Mr. M^Leod was. not one of the party engaged in the des- truction of the steam-boat Caroline, and that the pretended charge upon which he has been imprisoned, rests only upon the perjured testimony of certain Canadian outlaws and their abettors, who, unfortunately for the peace of that neighbourhood, are still per.xutted by the authorities of the state of New York to infest the Canadian frontier. 132 AppemUjc. m It lion, and of the uniformity with which it has been evinced in the many delicate and difficult questions which have arisen between the two countries in the last few years, no one can be more convinced than yourself. It is tlien with unfeigned regret that the President finds himself unable to recognise the validity of a demand, a compliance with which you deem so material to the preservation of the good un- derstanding which h^s hitherto been manifested between the two countries. The jurisdiction of the several states which constitute the union is, within its appropriate sphere, perfectly inde- peadent of the Federal Government. The offence with which Mr. M*'Leod is charged, was committed within the territory and against the laws and citizens of the state of New York, and is one that comes clearly within the com- petency of her tribunals. It does nor, therefore, present an occasion where, under the constitution and laws of the u-.ion, the interposition called for would be proper, or for which a warrant can be fiund in the powers with which the federal executive is invested. Nor would the circum- stances to which you have referred, or the reasons you have urged, } .istify the exertion of such a power, if it existed. The transaction out of which the question arises, presents the case of a most unjustifiable invasion, in time of peace, of a portion of the territory of the United States, by a band of armed men from the adjacenf territory of Canada, the 134 AppendLr. & '3. forcible capture by them within our own waters, and the subseque t destruction of a steam-boat, the property of a citizen of the United States, and the murder of one or more American citizens. If arrested at the time, the offenders might unquestionably have been brought to justice by the judicial authorities of the state within whose acknowledged territory these crimes were committed, and their subsequent voluntary entrance within that territory places them in the same situation. The President is not aware of any principle of international law, or indeed of reason or justice, which entitles such offenders to impunity before the legal tribu- nals, when coming voluntarily within their independent and undoiabted iurisdiction, because they acted in obedience to their superior authorities, or because their acts have become the subject of diplomatic discussion between the two go- vernments. These methods of redress, the legal prosecu- tion of the offenders, and the application of their govern- ment for satisfactioYi, are independent of each other, and may be separately and simultaneously pursued. The avowal or justification of the outrage by the British autho- rities might be a ground of complaint with the Government of the Jnited States, distinct from the violation of the ter- ritory and laws of the state of New York. The application of the government of the 'iuion to that of Great Britain, for the redress of an authorised outrage of the peace, dig- nity, and rights of the United States, cannot deprive the state of New York of her undoubted right of vindicating, through the exercise of her judicial power, the property and lives of her citizens. You have very properly regarded the alleged absence of Mr. M^^Leod from the scene of the viifence at the time it was committed, as not mu serial to the decision of the present question. That is a matter to be decided by legal evidence; and the sincere desire of the President is, that it may be satisfactorily established, {f the destruction of the Caroline was a public act of persons in Her Majesty's service, obeying the order of their supe- rior authorities, this fact has not been before communi- cated to the Government nf the United States by a person authorised to make the admission, and it will be for the Appendix. 135 Wi\ court, which has taken cognisance of the offence with whicli Mr. M'^Leod is charged, to decide upon its validity, when legally established before it. The President deems this to be a proper occasion to re- mind the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, that the case of the Caroline has been long since brought to the attention of Her Majesty s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, up to this day, has not commu- nicated his decision thereupon. It is hoped that ♦he Go- vernment of Her Majesty will perceive the importance of no longer leaving the Government of the United States unin- formed of its views and intentions upon a subject which has naturif'ly produced much exasperation, and which has led to such grave consequences. I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the as- surance of my distinguished consideration. H. S. Fox, Esq., &c. John Foesyth. MR. FOX TO MR. FORSTflTH. Washington, Dec. 29, 1840. Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th inst., in which, in reply to a letter which I had addressed to you on the 13th, you acquaint me that the President is not prepared to comply with my de- mand for the liberation of Mr. Alexander M'^Leod, of Upper Canada, now imprisoned at Lockport, in the state of New York, on a pretended charge of murder and arson, as having been engaged iu the destructiofi of the piratical 8tear> hnat Caroline on the 29th of December, 1837. I >*■ ' ' with deep regret that such is the decision of the ' ' V id nt of the United States, for I cannot but foresee the very j,mve and serious consequences that must ensue, if, besides the injury already inflicted upon Mr. M^'Leod, of a vexatious and unjust imprisonment, any further harm should be done to him in the progress of this extraordinary proceeding. I have lost no time in forwarding to Her Majesty's Go- \v Timent in England the correspondence that has taken p?p e, and shall await the further orders of Her Majesty''s 136 Appendir. Goverament with respect to the important question which that correspondence involves. But I feel it my duty not to close this communication without likewise testifying my vast regret and surprise at the expressions which I find repeated in your letter, with reference to the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline. I had confidently hoped that the^rst erroneous impressions of the character of that event, imposed upon the mind of the United States' Government by partial and exaggerated representations, would long since been effaced by a m^re strict and accurate eccamination of the facts. Such an investigation must even yet, I am willing to believe, lead the United States' Government to the same conviction with which Her Majesty's authorities on the spot were impressed, that the act was or?, in th<> strictest sense of self-defence, rendered absolutely necessai^ ' ihe circumstances of the occasion, for the safety and protc . n of Her Majesty's sub- jects, and justified by the same motives and principles which, upon similar and well-known occasions, have go- verned the conduct of illustrious officers of the United States. The steam-boat Caroline was a hostile vessel, engaged in piratical war against Her Majesty's people, hired from her owners for that express purpose, and known to be so beyond the possibility of doubt. The place where the vessel was destroyed was nomi- nally, it is true, within the territory of a friendly power ; but the friendly power had been deprived, through over- bearing piratical violence, of the use of its proper authority over that portion of territory. The authorities of New York had not even been able to prevent the artillery of the state from being carried off publicly, at mid-day, to be used as instruments of war against Her Majesty's subjects. It was under such circumstances, which it is to be hoped will never recur, that the vessel was attacked by a party of Her Majesty's people, captured, and destroyed. A remonstrance against the act in question has been addressed by the United States to Her Majesty's Govern- ment in England. I am not authorised to pronounce the Appendix. 137 decision of Her Majesty's Grovernmeiit upon that remon- strance, but I have felt myself bound to record, in the mean time, the above opinion, in order to protest in the most solemn manner against the spirited and loyal conduct of a party of Her Majesty's officers and people being qualified, through an unfortunate misapprehension, as I believe, of the facts, with the appellation of outrage or of murder. I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the assurance of my distinguished consideration. H. S. Fox. ME. FOESYTH TO ME. FOX. department of State, Washington, Dec. 31, 1840. Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the ^rd inst., in reply to mine of the ^6th, on the subject of the arrest and detention of Alexander M'^Leod, as one of the perpetrators of the outrage committed in New York, when the steam-boat Caroline was seized and burnt. ^uU evidence of that outrage has been presented to Her Majesty's Government with a demand for redress, and of course no discussion of the circumstances here can be either useful or prop», nor can I suppose it to be your desire to invite it. I take leave of the subject with this single re- mark, that the opinion so strongly expressed by you on the jfacts and principles involved in the demand for reparation on Her Majesty's Government by the United States, would hardly have been hazarded had you been possessed of the carefully-collected testimony which has been presented to your government in support of that demand. I avail myself of the occasion to renew to you the as- surance of my distinguished consideration>. John Forsyth. Vo. V. DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LOEDS. Feb. 8th, 1841. Lord MouNTCASHEL having put some questions rela- tive to Mr. M'Leod, K • 138 Appendix. 1^ Viscount Melbourne said he would not enter into the statement and arguments made use of by the noble lord, but simply confine himself to answer the questions — (hear). Her Majesty's Government certainly received information that an individual of the name of M^Leod, a British subject, had been arrested by the authorities of New York, on a charge of arson and murder, stated to have been committed by him on the occasion of the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline. Immediately on hearing of the charge made against this individual, Mr. Fox, our minister at Washing- ton, had demanded his liberation from the general Govern- ment. He had received a reply, stating that the matter entirely rested with the authorities of the state of New York, and that it was neither in the power, nor was it the intention of the general Government to procure his libera- tion. That was the position in which the matter at present stood. As to what Her IMajesty's Government meant to do under these circumstances, he (Lord Melbourne) was sure their lordships would not, in the present state of the subject, consider that he was called upon to give any answer — {hear^ hear). At the same time, he could assure the noble lord and the House that Her Majesty's Ministers had taken every means in their power to secure the safety of Her Ma- jesty's subjects, and the preservation of the honour of the British nation — {hear, hear). HOUSE OF COMMONS. February 8th, 1841. Lord Stanley having stated the case of Mr. M^Leod, said, that inasmuch as negociation had commenced upon the subject of the burning of the Caroline, since January 1838, between Her Majesty's Government and the Govern- ment of the United States, he wished to ask, in the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government would have any objection to lay on the table the entire of the correspond- ence which had taken place upon the subject of the destruc- tion of the Caroline ? and, also, whether the despatches had all been received, which had been referred to by Mr. Fox in the recent accounts, and particulaily that which had been transmitted on the S9th of December last, announcing the apprehension of Mr. M^'Leod. He (Lord Stanley) Appendix. 139 beggetl to ask further, whether Her Majesty''s Government had taken any steps towards procuring the release of Mr. IVfLeod from his present confinement ? and, if so, whether they would lay upon the table the nature of those steps, and the correspondence which had passed upon this subject between the Government of the United States and Her Majesty's Ministers. Viscount Palmerston rose and said, the noble lord had adverted at much length to a subject of extreme in- terest, and which, from the great delicacy of its nature, involved considerations of a grave and serious character to two great countries — {hear). He (Viscount Palmerston) was sure that this House would think with him that this sub- ject should be touched very lightly and with great delicacy — (* hear, hear , from the ministerialists). With reference to the statement which had just been made by the noble lord, the member for North Lancashire, as to the proceed- ings which had taken place relating to the subject before them, and the particular circumstances which preceded the apprehension of Mr. M^Leod, they were strictly correct. He (Viscount Palmerston) would first answer the question which the noble lord (Stanley) had put to him, before he would state one word in explanation. He thought it would not be expedient in the present state of the question to lay upon the table the correspondence relating to the capture and destruction of the Caroline, until that correspondence was brought to a final close — (* hear, hear^ from the mi- nisterialists). He begged to inform the noble lord that despatches had been received, enclosing copies of the cor- respondence which had taken place between Mr. Fox and Mr. Forsyth, the Foreign Minister of the United States Government. These notes had been already published in the American papers, and he (Viscount Palmerston) would, of course, have no objection to lay those documents which had been already published on the table — (laughter). But this was a departure from what he considered an important rule in regard to international affairs — (hear, hear) — and one which might operate injuriously to national interests, to lay before parliament documents relating to pending discus- ii! ;i| mi lit' •ii 140 Appendix. l\ m sions. He thought it important to make, with reference to the notice to Mr. Forsyth, one observation. The noble lord (Stanley) had said, that he believed Mr. M^Leod was not one of the party by whom the Caroline had been attacked. His (Lord Palmerston^s) information went pre- cisely to the same conclusion — that he, Mr. M'^Leod, was not a member of the party that was concerned in the de- struction of the Caroline ; but with regard to the ground taken by Mr. Forsyth in replying to Mr. Fox, he (Lord Falmerston) thought it right to say that the American Go- vernment undoubtedly might have considered this transact Hon either as a transaction to he dealt with between the two Governments, by demands Jhr redress, on the one hand to be granted, or refused on the other, and to be dealt with accordingly ; or it might have been considered as the British authorities consider proceedings between American citizens on the British side of the border, as matter to be dealt with by the local authorities. But the American Government had chosen the former course, by treating this matter as one to be decided between the two Governments, and this was the ground on which they were entitled to demand redress from the British Government for the acts of its subjects. He was sure the House would think with him, that in a matter of such extreme difficulty it would be improper foi him to enter into any ftlrther re* marks or observations, and he would therefore content him^ self with answering the noble lord's questions by stating those important facts which he had then mentioned. Lord Stanley said that the noble lord who had just sat down had omitted to answer one question which he (Lord Stanley) considered to be of the deepest interest. That question was, whether the noble lord (Falmerston) had taken any steps, and if so, what those steps were, for the protection and liberation of Mr. M^Leod— (Aear, hear). Viscount Falmerston said that a case somewhat simi- lar in principle to the present was expected about a year and a half ago, and instructions were s^nt at that time to Mr. Fox, on which he founded the communication he made to the American authorities. Of course the House would Appendix, 141 suppose, he trusted, that Her Majesty^s Government had already sent certain instructions, but until the correspond- ence upon the subject had concluded it was impossible to send any instructions that could be considered final. He hoped the House would believe that the Government would send to Mr. Fox such further instructions as they might think it their duty to do ; at the same time he was not pre- pared to state what the nature of those instructions were— ^ {hear). Mr. Hume said he wished to ask the House to suspend their opinion upon the subject until they had the whole of the papers laid before the House. He had himself papers in his possession that would explain many things connected with this question, and which, by-the-bye, were not exactly consistent with the statement which had just been made. By the statement which had taken place in the House of Congress, it appeared that the Government of the United States had been ignorant of any information that could lead them to suppose that the enterprise against the Caroline had been undertaken by the orders of the British Govern- ment or by British authority. That he belie\ cd was the ground upon which Mr. Forsyth had acted as he had done. He takes his objections, and denies the allegation of Mr. Fox, that neither had he nor Her Majesty's Government made any communication to him or the authorities of the United States that the British Government had authorised the destruction of the Caroline. He (Mr. Hume) therefore hoped that no discussion would take place until all the pa- pers connected with the matter were laid before the House. He wished to know what the nature of those communica- tions were with Mr. Stevenson and Her Majesty's Govern- ment which had induced him to act as he had done ? Viscount Palmekston said that he rather thought his hon. friend would find in that correspondence that instruc- tions had been given by the American Government to Mr. Stevenson to abstain from pressing the subject further — (hear). With regard to the letter of Mr. Forsyth, he (Viscount Palmerston) begged leave to say that the case 142 Appcndiv. stood thus : — In the case of the American citizens engaged in invading Canada, the American Government disavowed the acts of those citizens, and stated that the British autho- rities might deal with them as they pleased — {heatj hear), and that there were persons concerned in this undertaking who were not in any degree entitled to the protection of the United States — (hear). But in the other case they treated the affair of the Caroline as one to be considered as that of the Government, and in fact assumed it to be altoget^.er a Government transaction, and not to be left upon the respon- sibility of individuals. Until, therefore, the British Go- vernment disowned those persons concerned in the destruc- tion of the Caroline in the same manner as the American Government had disavowed their citizens in the other case, he conceived that the American Government had adopted an international responsibility in the late detention of Mr. M'^Leod, and could not therefore change their ground upon this question — (hear, hear). Sir R. Peel wished to a. ': the noble lord a question relating to a matter of fact. He believed that, in the ex- pedition which had been formed for the destruction of the Caroline, certain officers who held commissions in Her Ma- jesty^s army and navy were concerned in that affair, and that some of these officers had, in the execution of the orders which were issued, received wounds. The question he wished to ask was, whether or not Her Majesty^s Govern- ment had thought proper to award pensions to those officers corresponding in amount with those which were usually granted for wounds received in the regular service of Her Majesty ? Lord J. Russell said that he was not aware of any pen- sions having been granted to those officers who were wound- ed in the expedition against the Caroline. Sir R. Feel, in proposing another interrogatory, read a passage from the speech which had been delivered by Her Majesty on the opening of Parliament in 1 839, which stated that differences which had arisen had occasioned the retire- ment of her minister from the court of Teheran, but Her W: Appendix. 143 Majesty hoped that a satisfactory adjustment of those differ- ences would allow of the re-establishment of her relations with Persia on their former footing of friendship. Mr. 0'*CoNKELL begged pardon for interrupting the right hon. baronet^ but he thought they ought to leave all other subjects until they had been satisfactorily informed upon the subject of Mr. M*Leod — {hear and cheers). Let it be recollected that perhaps the life of a British subject was at present at stake, and he was sorry that his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had taken such a course, because he (Mr. O'Connell) thought that upon this subject, at all events, there ought to be a unanimity of feeling — (Aear, hear). He thought that every exertion should be made to have Mr. M°Leod saved, as he had acted nnder the command of the officers of Her Majesty''s Government, and it was in the strict performance of his duty he had incurred the danger with which he was threatened — {hear, hear). Whether those orders had been right or wrong, this Government was bound to give him every protection possible. {Cheers from all parts of the House.) Mr. S. O^BaiEN here rose to address the House, but was interrupted by The Speaker, who observed, that at present there was no question before the Chair ; but he begged leave to remind the hon. member that the right hon. baronet had risen to ask a question, under which circumstances he considered that the right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth was then in possession of the Chair. Sir R. Peel said he had been reading a passage from the speech from the throne in 18d9> and he would now read a passage from the royal speech at the opening of the session in 1840: ** I have not yet been enabled to establish my *< diplomatic relations with the court of Teheran, but com- " munications which I have lately received from the Persian " Government inspire me with the confident expectation '* that the differences which occasioned a suspension of those '< relations will soon be satisfactorily adjusted." He now wished to ask the noble lord (Palmerston) whether those differences had been satisfactorily adjusted, and whether 144 Appendix^. they had renewed their diplomatic relations with the court of Persia ? Viscount Palmeeston said he was sorry to inform the right hon. baronet that those differences had not yet been finally or satisfactorily adjusted. The House was aware that Her Majesty^s Government had made certain demands on the Persian Government for redress of certain wrongs^ which consisted in ilUtreatment visited towards those con- nected with the British mission, and certtun British autho- rities ; and another ground of complaint was that Persia still maintained possession of the city of Heratf which belonged to the Indian territory (!) Ou the several points of individual grievances, they had received explanations and assurances, which if they did not amount altogether to a literal fulfilment of the demands, yet appeared to them such as that they might, without derogating from the honour of the country, say they had received sufficient satisfaction. It was on the territorial claims alone that there lay any differences between the two Governments. As to the missions, they would henceforward not be in any way unduly interfered with. Sir R. Peel wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay before the House such information^ as might enable them to form some judgment on the present state of our relations with Persia ? Lord Palmekston said he had stated the substance of the communications, and he had no objection to lay them before the House. February 9. Lord Stakley begged to ask the noble lord for a more explicit imd satisfactory answer, as to the question which he (Lord Stanley) had put to the noble lord, which was, whether any steps had been taken by Her Majesty^s Government, and if so, what steps were, for the liberation of Mr. M^Leod ? The noble lord (Palmerston) had cer- tainly answered him by saying, that they * will take, and < indeed have taken, such steps as they deemed necessary * for the purpose.' These he (Lord Stanley) believed were the actual words w^ by the noble lord, the Secretary w. Appendix. 145 for Foreign Affairs. Ke (Lord Stanley) did not, of course, ask him further as to what the nature of those steps were, if that noble lord thought proper to withhold that information, but he did ask him whether he had taken such steps for the protection and liberation of Mr. M'^Leod (who had been apprehended on the 12th of November, 1840), as would be effectual in point of time in reference to the proceed- ings then going on? He distinctly wished to ask that question. Lord Palmerston — ^With respect to the other question, what he had to state was this. A case of a somewhat similar nature happened, or was about to happen, a year or a year and a half ago ; and upon that occasion instructions were sent out to Mr. Fox, laying down what the Government thought were aotmd principles in the emergency. At that time it was rendered unnecessary to act upon the instruction ; but the case having now actually occurred, Mr. Fox, with- out waiting for further instructions from home, acted upon the former instructions, and made the demand upon the American Government for »,he liberation of M- M^'Leod. He then reported the whole case to the Grovernment, but from various causes that communication had been much longer on its passage than usual, and it was only a few days ago that he had received the final portion of what had taken place between Mr. Fox and the American Grovernment ; it was, therefore, only that day that an opportunity had pre- sented itself for sending out final and conclusive instructions — they were then ready prepared, and were on the point of being sent off; but what the nature of those instructions was, neither the noble lord nor the House would then expect bim to say. Mr. Fox had founded his remonstrances with the American Government upon instructions sent him by the Government respecting a case of a similar nature, which it was feared would have occurred. Lord Stanley — The noble lord had not as yet an- swered iiis question. He (Lord Stanley) wished to ask the noble lori again, whether subsequent to the information which had been received of the apprehension of Mr. M^Leod, he, or any member of Her Majesty's Government, had 1 146 Appendix. taken any immediate steps on the subject, and had forwarded any communication to their minister at V^'ashmgton ? Lord Palmeeston — Yes; and the instructions which were given were precisely to the same effect as ihose which were stated as having been given in the former case. It was not until Saturday last that the Government had received from Mr. Fox the last communication respecting the result of his correspondence with the authorities of the United States. Mr. Httme said he wished to put a question to the noble lord. He (Mr. Hume) hdd in his hand t'ue r^der which had been issued in 1837 by the Commander-in-Chief in America, which announced his Excellency s great satis- faction at the destruction of the Caroline, which the order stated was effected in a manner highly creditable to those engaged in that expedition ; that the result had met with his Excellency's unqualified approbation, and he would think it his duty to make known the whole affair to Her Majesty^s Government. He (Mr. Hume) wished now to ask the question — whether there evei had been a communi- cation to Her Majesty's Government upon the subject, and whether they had ever signified their approbation of that act? Lord J. Russ£LL acknowledged that such a communi- cation had been made by order of the Lieutenant-Governor, who was then Sir Francis Head, who had entirely approved of what h&d been done, and had informed Her Majesty's Governrient of all the circumstances connected with it. He (Lord J. Russell) believed the purport of the hon. gentlemaa's question to be, whether the Lieutenant-Governor had represented the view which Her Majesty's Government hail taken of the case. He thought that his no%le friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had already answered that quetition. (Cheers.) Mr. Hume again attempted to speak, but was antici- pated by Mr. T. DuNCOMBE, who begged to ask a question of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which he thought was highly necessary to complete the discussipn Appendix. 147 upon this subject. He wished to ask the Foreign Secretary whether the Government had adopted the act of Captain Drew and the capture of the Caroline as their owuj and thereby, of course, approved of same ? Lord Palmebston — If the hon. member meant to ask whether Her Majesty's Government did or did not consider tht captu** ' the Caroline a just proceeding, he (the noble lord) would say that undoubtedly Her Majesty's Govern- ment did consider it a proceeding perfectly justified ; for it was one deemed necessary for the defence of Her Majesty's rights — {immense cheering from the ministeriaJiats, echoed back by the opposition side of the House). Mr. Hume theu asked whether the nobie lord or Her Majesty's Government had ever signified that opinion to the Government of the United States. Lord Palmerston said that such opinion was com- munic£.ted both to Mr. Stevenson, the ministe.r of the United States here, and also to the American Government, through Mr. Fox. March 5th. Mr. S. O'Brien said, that before the Speaker left the Chair he was anxious to say a few words on the state of our relations with the United States of America. Two cir<:um- stances were stated in tiie newspapers to have occurred recently, which if true deserved the immediate notice of the House of Comraonp. The first was that a true bill had been found in the United Stated against Colonel M'^Leod for murder and arson, on the allegation that he had been present at a transaction ordered by the colonial authorities of Canada; and the second was that the Legislature of Maine had recently passed these two resolutions : — " That ** the Governor be authorised to take immediate measures '* to remove the troops of the Queen of Great Britain now " quartered on the territory called * disputed' by the " British Government ; that the resources of this state be, *' and they are hereby, placed at the disposal of the << Governor, and the specific sum of 400,000 dollars be 148 Appendix* cc C( \t and the same hereby is, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury, for the purpose of carrying the said " resolutions into effect.''^ He did not know what authority there was for believing these resolutions to be genuine ; but if they were authentic, they amounted to nothing else than a declaration of war against Great Britain. (Hear, hear.) He was more adverse to war than any individual in that House. He looked upon a war with the United States as one more to be deprecated than any other, inasmuch as it must be of a fratricidal character. {Hear, hear.) He likewise saw that the vast commercial interests of this country must be exposed to disaster by its continu- ance. Still, if war did take place on the present occasion, it would not be a war of our seeking. Besides, we ^'hould lose our high character as a nation, if we did not defend our colonies, when attacked ; neither could we claim their alle- giance, if we did not give them protection, when they were acting under our authority. (Hear, hear.) He had seen a great exertion of our vigour under the auspices of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs in another part of the globe, where the exercise of our vigour was of a more ambiguous character than it would be on the present occasion ; and he trusted that the noble lord would on this emergency display the same vigour which he had displayed elsewhere. His movements, however, were so secret ; and he did not blame the noble lord for it ; that the House had no opportunity of forming an opinion upon the efficacy of his directions. {Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches^ It was, however, his duty, as a member of Parliament, to say that our interests would be better secured than they were at present in case we had a strong fleet in front of the harbours of the United States, and a strong army on the frontiers of British America. He left it to the Government to say whether the naval and military estimates were on a sufficiently large scale to meet every contingency that might arise in that quarter of the globe. (Hear, hear.) If they were not. Ministers would be wanting in their duty if they did not come down to Parliament and ask for such sums as v\ i Appendix. 149 woulrl enable them to meet every contingency. (Hear, hear.) He was sure that the Rouse would willingly com- ply with any demand which would enable them to secure the honour and interests of the country. {HenVf hear.) Mr. EwART did not see the necessity for anticipatmg dif- ferences between the two countries. He believed that the great body of Americans were inclined to peace with this country ; they knew their own interest too well, he believed, to wish for war. He trusted that the unhappy discord which it appeared existed at present might pass off without evil results ; and he was confident that if it did, not only the interests, but the wishes, of both nations would be satisfied. Mr. Hume hoped that the noble lord 'Vould be able to satisfy the House and the country by some statement on this subject (cries of * Oh /"*) and remove any prejudice which might be occasioned by silence. He (Mr. Hume) was of opinion that there was no ground for immediate interference. He thought that nothing had taken place in America but what had been done under the civil law. It was manifestly too soon to appeal to war when they were not informed that any thing had taken place which was not in accordance with the laws of those countries in which they had taken place. The House then went into Committee. Sir R. Peel — But, when he looked to the United States, and beheld the state of feeling which existed there — when he viewed their proceedings against, and coi uied deten- tention of, Mr. M*'Leod — when he heard from the noble lord that a representation had been made to the Amer-can Government that the destruction of the Caroline must b' regarded as the act of the English Government — when he understood that orders had been sent out to demand peremptorily the liberation of Mr. M°Leod — and when he thought on what had since occurred, without, as had been observed by the noble lord, entering into recriminations in reply to observations made in the Congress of America, that great country which he always treated with the most sincere respect, and an interruption in our amicable relations with n 160 Appendix. which he should most deeply deplore ; when he thought on all these nircumstances, he could not think that a sound policy which would seek to purchase a hollow truce by unjust concessions. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that we should never forget the claims which the North American provinces, who had shown themislves so faithful to British connexion, had on this country ; and whilst he would sin- cerely deplore a war with any country, and more especially with that country, which had so many claims on us, sharing the same descent and speaking the same language, yet, if the interests of his country required the vindication of British honour in resistance against wrong, all his desires l:bi' peace would vanish before his determination to stand by the cause of his country. (The right hon. baronet, who towards the conclusion of his sentences occasionally dropped his voice to so low a pitch as to be nearly inaudible in the gallery, resumed his seat amidst great cheering.) [addition to third edition.] April 6th. Lord Palmebston observed that his honorable friend the Member for Kilkenny, had a notice on the paper for copies of the correspondence that had taken place between the Agents of the United States and Her Majesty's Grovern- ment respecting the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline. He (Lord Palmerston) had to request that his honorable friend would not now pr<;ss the question on the consideration of the House — (hear, hear). He (Lord Palmerston) trusted that, on the part of both Governments, thpre was an anxioup desire that the negociations respecting this matter should be brought to an amicable and satisfactory termination — (hear, hear). But still there were points connected with it which had excited a very strong feeling, both in this country and on the other side of the Atlantic ; he would therefore put Appendix. 151 it to the consideration of his honorable friend, whether it would not be advisable at present, while the question was still the subject of communication between the two Govern- ments, to abstain from introducing any motion which must necessarily be followed by a discussion on details that would most likely have the effect of defeating the wish, not only of his honorable friend, but also the desire of the English Government and the Government of the United States — {heart hear). He hoped, therefore, his honorable friend would agree to postpone his motion until a later period of the session, before which time, probably, the ne- gociations now pending between the two countries would have come to an issue — (hear, hear). Mr. Hume had no objection to acquiesce; he would, therefore, postpone his motion till after the recess, by which time he trusted the noble lord would be able to communi- cate to the House information upon this painful subject, of a conclusive and satisfactory description — {hear, hear). No. VI. BOUNDARY QUESTION. HOUSE OF COMMONS. July ISthy 1840. Sir R. Peel said that early in the present Session of Parliament, he had called the attention of the noble lord opposite, to the necessity of laying before the House certain papers then in the hands of Government, with respect to the Boundary Question. On that occasion he had received a positive assurance from the noble lord that they should be laid on the table of the House immediately before the hoH> days. Viscour* Palmerston admitted that he must take upon himself all the responsibility of the delay. The / I 152 Appendix, report was not yet ready*, and he was anxious that the report should be presented to the House at the same time as the papers to which the right hon. baronet referred. Sir R. Peel asks if they will be given in eastenao ? The answer is yes ; and that fresh surveyors have been sent for part of the line which had not been well surveyed. Another question is then put on quite another subject to Lord J. Russell, after which Lord Palmerston again rose, and said that he thought it might be satisfac- tory to the House to know that Her Majesty'*8 Govern- ment had sent out a proposition in answer to one which had proceeded from the United States, and which had reached this country in the course of last year. The proposition thus transmitted was accompanied by the draft of a Con- vention, which he had no douhi would have tfie effect of bringing the whole question to a final and satisfactory issue. Sir R4 Peel inquired if the terms of the proposition to which the noWe lord referred, took for its basis any other proposition which had proceeded from the United States, or was altogether a new proposition, which the American Government were at liberty to accept or reject as they thought proper ? Lord Palmerston said that the proposition sent out was founded on that received last year from the American Grovemment. HOUSE OF COMMONS. February \%th, 1841. Sir R. Peel wished to ask the noble lord what the precise dtate of our relations with the Government of the United States of America were, in regard to the dispute relative to the north east boundary. He did not wishj of * The Report is dated April 18th. It is communicated to the United States' Government by a despatch dated '' Foreign Office, 3rd June !" The day after this debate, the London press announced, as news from Washington, the arrival there of the printed Report ! — See Parallel case in ^^ Statements regarding the Sulphur Monopoly." V- Appendix, 153 course, * to provoke discussion, or to ask prematurely* for information.* A report had recently been published, by two commissioners who had been appointed by the Government of this country to inquire into the subject relative to the boundary line between the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick, and he wished to know whether, since that time, any steps had been taken in concert, by the Go- vernment of the United States and the British Government, to put an end to that long litigated question. Viscount Palmebston said the British Government had, last year, proposed to the Government of the United States a draft of a convention for the settlement of the Boundary question, another draft having been proposed the year previous. That draft was not accepted by the Government of the United States, but a counter-draft was returned. The British Government could not agree to the counter-draft ; but they last year made a proposal to the Grovomment of the United States upon the subject of the Boundary, which the United States Government re- fused to agree to. The United States Government, how- ever, sent a counter-proposal, but to that proposal the Bri- tish Government could not consent. He was not prepared to enter further on the subject. The survey to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, was totally independent of the negociation. In order to save time, and to gain all the information possible on the geographical part of the question, the British Government sent out a commission for exploring the disputed territory. It was not a joint com- mission between the two Governments, and the statements -in the report were to be considered as only eof-partef, the €k>vernment of the United States being in no way bound by them. The United States Government had also sent a commission, with a view to obtain information, still he believed no material progress has yet been made by the commissioners. Sir R. Peel was then to understand that the commission * N.B. — ^Ten years since these negociations commenced, t The minister declares his own case ex~parte, and that after saying the commission was sen*, to examine the geography. L 154 Appendix, which had been sent from this country, was sent without any concert with the Grovernment of the United States, and that that Government was in no way bound by the report which had been made. He was to understand that there had been no joint proceedings between the two govern- ments—no concert — and in point of fact, that all the mea- sures which had been proposed by either Government had been reciprocally rejected ? Viscount Palmebsto"^-— not exactly (!) rejected. The two governments had agreed to a form of commission, but not to all the details by which it was to be carried out. When Colonel Mudge and Mr. Featherstonhaugh were appointed commissioners the American Grovernment was informed of the fact, and those gentlemen had received from that Go- vernment every facility for obtaining infmnation which could be given by a friendly state. Sir R. Feel wished to know whether the United States Government had agreed to the commission to which the noble lord alluded P Would the commission proposed have power to decide the question at issue ; and if it could, had the Government of the United States agreed to that prin- ciple P Viscount Falmerston said the Grovernment of the United States had first proposed a commission of one cha- racter and to that commission the British Government had agreed, but proposed certain modifications in the arrange- ments. The American Grovernment then proposed a com- mission of a different character, which connected with it an arrangement for arbitration in case disputes should arise. The first commission contained no arrangement for arbi- tration. The British Government had agreed to that pro- posal. The Grovernment of the United States, however, changed their minds, and said, they wished to have a com- mission coupled with an arrangement for arbitration. He would not enter upon the points still unsettled, but he might say that the difference existing between the two go- vernments was not relative to the principle, but to the mode in which the commission should be carried out The conversation here dropped. ..A-»-, Appejiidix. 155 No. VII. Negociationa* respecting (he Boundary subsequently to breaking the Award, as given in Papers marked /. <§• //. Second series of negociations open 10th January, 1838, by a declaration from the British to the American Govern- ment that both governments were as f^ee as before the reference had been made to the King of Holland. The United States Government had previously proposed to that of England a joint commission, to survey the terri- tory, and a proposition for the appointment of an umpire. January 10th* 1838. — The British Representative com- municates the assent of the British Government to the principle of a joint commission and to the appointment of an umpire; but proposing that the State of Maine should be an assenting party to any arrangement. The American Government replies that it is impracti- cable to ascertain what are the real views and intentions of Her Majesty's Goveriiment. Fifteen months elapse. April 6th, 1839. — ^A draft of a convention*!* is transmitted to Washington by Lord Palmerston. In this convention there is no mention made of an umpire. May 10th. — It is communicated to the United States Government and rejected on the 16th by the President. July 9Qth, 1889.— A counter-draft is sent by the United States, containing an arrangement for arbitration, with a letter urging the necessity of the adoption of such measures as might, " under some form, result in a final settlement.* July 30M, 1839.— Mr. Fox informs the United States' Gx>vemment that Commissioners had been sent from England to survey ihe frontier before the pending nego« 'ciations for the establishment of a new joint commission could be terminated. February l^th, 1840. — Lord Palmerston commimicates * The Report and Correspondence are published in two parts, marked Part I., Pcirt II. Who would suspect that there werp other papers relating to the Boundary ? These are marked A and B. t Referring in the preamble to the proposals made by the United States in the months of April, May, and June, 1833. ; 'I 1 1&6 Appendix, to the United States' Government that Her Majesty's Minis- ters will send an answer to the last communication of the American Government when the report of the Commis- sioners is prepared. June Shrd, 1840.-~Lord Palmerston gives his consent to the principles of the United States draft for a convention, communicated on the 29th of July, 18d9 ; but rejects it on account of some of the details; promises that an amended draft will be sent out to the United States by an eaiiy opportunity. This reply was kept back, on the plea that the report of the Commissioners was not ready. That report is dated 16th April. The answer, which is not an answer, 3rd June, 1840. On the 27th April, 1838, Mr. Fox is invited to a confer- ence by Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Fox has no powers to neffociate, but transmits the invitation he receivers to Lord Palmerston. 30th March, 1839. — Mr. Stevenson reproaches Lord Palmerston for his not having sent instructions, as he had repeatedly given assurances that he would, to Mr. Fox, con- veying powers to negociate, and oiTering, on behalf of his Crovernment, to remove the negociation from Washington to London. On the 16th May, 1839> Mr. Fox acknowledges having received a despatch, 22nd March, giving him powers to negociate for the arrangement of any dispute between the two Governments. 3rd Aprily 1839. — Lord Palmerston refuses to remove the negociations from Washington to London. \Qth May, 1839. — Mr. Fox transmits to Mr. Forsyth a draft of a convention, and states that he has powers to sign it, should it he accepted by the Government of the United States. 9Qth July, 1839.— He receives a counter-draft from Mr. Forsyth, which he transmits on the 4th August to London, returning no answer to the United States' Government, and making no offer to nesociate. Every session has the Minister expressed his expectation of an approaching settlement and has the House of Commons concurred in that expectation, and of course not being able to see beforehand what was coming, how can they understand it after it has occurred ? Appendix. 157 Effect of the Publication of the Report. — Unanimous Resolution of the Legislature of Massachusetts f^-n^Yiai the late Report made to the Grovernment of Great Britain, by their commissioners of survey, Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, though not to be regarded as having yet re- ceived the sanction of that government, is calculated to produce, in every part of the United States where it is examined, a state of the public mind highly unfavourable to that conciliatory temper, and to that mutual confidence in the good intentions of each other, without which it is hopeless to expect a satisfactory result to controversies between nations. No. VIII. See Preface, p. xvi. Ewtract from " The Crisis."" While these pages were passing through the press, I have learned the details of proposals made to France by Russia in 1830, and which concluded in an arrangement, by which France was to suffer Russia to add Constantinople to her dominions, and consented to concur in the measures which Russia might take to bring about this result. Russia was not in any manner to proceed by violent means, but as the Turkish empire was falling to pieces by itSi'Jf, Russia was only to assist this dissolution, and in a pacific manner, that is to say, by a succession of TREATIES. Prussia and Austria were to be brought t^ take part in this arrangement. Russia was to protect France agaikist the maritime power of England. The possession of the Rhenish provinces, Antwerp and Belgium, were guaranteed to her; Holland was however to keep Luxembourg; Prussia would be Offered a compensation in Hanover, and in the whole or in a part of Saxony; Austria would receive for her share the Turkish provinces on the Danube. This negociation was revealed by Prince Polignac him- self during the revolution of July, to prove that he had served the interests of France. It is known that certain dscuments, relative to this transaction, were at the time charitably thrown in the fire by the distinguished His- \6B Appindh:, lorian of French diplonmcf^ ai he judged that th^ might have brought Prince PoUgnac to the Mock. To prepare Ibr the abandonment by the Britiih Cabinet of the alliance with France, Euwa invited from the pre- ceding administration, that of M. Mol^ propodtioQa ilmi- lar to those above detailed. Theie having at length assuioed a deBuite shapes M. Brunow waa tent to London, armed with those proofs of the treachery of France. Thus was liord Palmerston able to do what he has done*. It would appear, however, that some of the colleagues of Iiord Palmerston are beginning to be alarmed, and think of arresting him in his career. But what can they do ? Dismiss him ? The treaty would remain and would weigli upon England only a heavier burden in the hands of the ministo* who would succeed him, in the midst of compli- cations which he would bv^ unable to unravel or to com- prehend, and having Lord Palmerston in opposition. SaVKTY is OHI.V TO BC FOUND IN THB PKOOF THAT THE BAND WBICB HAS SIQNKD THIS DXXD |S A GUII.TY HAND. It is the only means which wi4' permit the light of day to break in on this infamous series of wholesale treason. The danger would be now immensely increased by the accession to power of unconscious agents. The system can be destroyed only in the criminaL— ^page Ift.) (And what matters the exposure of nich things after^ wards 9 The point is gained, men do not go back to examine how and why they have come to adopt a dedsion ; and the very suspicion of deception leads them to use every means to stifle inquiry).. *■ The British and Fieaoh imhassadois at St Peteisburgh have been sltaroataly* treated with marked attentkm by the JSmpexor, or with marked coldness. On one ocoanon. Lord Duriiam invited from the Emperor a more oourteoiis demeanour for the French ambassador. On his retmn to England he used these wofds : ** My embassy has been important and saccearfal, if it had had no other result than this, that it has proved to . Russia that her efforts to break the I^lish and French aIH> ance were vain * rRINTKD BY T. UHKtV&bL, RUP|(iT SfRBBT, UAYNAHK.£T» I.0MQ9ir. I tht kissi Ifrai in ktil del exj its and I I col iG ip '. ha( ce ish: iTEL UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA TO M Mnnh 4lh, 1841. REMARKS. Since tlie last war, the following great inter- national events have occurred, in all of which Rus- sia has stood on the one side, acting or prompting, Enghind on the other, complaining or resisting. 1 . The Holy Alliance. 2. 'I'he occupation of Naples hv Austria. 'i. In\asion of Spain hy France. 4. Insurrection of Cireoce. .'). Treaty of the 0th .July, 1827, for the dismemberment of Turkey (5. War of Russia against Persia. 7. War of Russia against Turkey. 8. War of Russia against Circassia. 0. War of Russia against Poland. 10. Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi offensive against England. 1. England stood alone without, and opposed to the Holy Alliance. 2. The Aijstrian occupation of Naples was prompted by Russia, England alone standing aloof. 3. The invasion of Spain by France was prompted by Russia, who had recourse even to menaces. Against this invasion, it was a question whetlier or not England should interfere by arms. 4. The insurrection of Greece was conducted by Russia as a conspiracy chiefly alarming to England. .'). The Treaty of the 6th .July, 1837, England engaged in avowedly for the purpose of re- straining Russia. 0. The war of Russia against Persia was a di- rect assault against England, who was bound by treaty to protect Persia. 7. The war of Russia against Turkey again placed England and Russia in direct opposition. 5. So the war against Circnssia. 0. So the war with Poland. 10. Fin;illy, on the revelation of the secret Treaty imposed by Russia on Turkey, that of Unkiar Skelessi, England protested against Russia's act. Thus England stood as the sole opponent, in Europe as in Asia, at once of the objects which Russia |)ursued, and of the doctrines which she laboured to propagate. Hostility, more grave in its character, gigantic in its objects, inveterate in its activity (on one side at least), never was preseni>^d before between nation and nation. Such being the reciprocal position of the two Governments, namely, that of constant aggression of Russia, of constant resistance on the part of England, we discover, in the year 1838, by the publication of these diplomatic documents, that Jour yeni's before, the two ffoix'rumentfi had scvreth/ (Declaration of the Ambassador oi II, B. M. at i he Olynthians could mention many Things now, which, liiul tlicy known ii I'KRSIA. AFFGHAN- ISTAN. Up to 1833. 1834. 183.5. Dofvnsh'o. Trrnti/ between Gnat Britain and Persia A (J A INST Jlussia. Defensive Treaty between England and the Art'ghans — Invasion by a Pretender from the British Territorv. Turkey appeals to England for Succour, is compelled by her to accept Russian Succour. Secret Union of Great Brittiin with Russia respecting Persia. (.June lOth.) British Envoy instructed to warn Persia AGAINST Russia. (July 25th.) 1836. British Envoy instructed to acquiesce in Persia's assault on Herat. (*) The Indian Government opens Commu- nications with Cabool formutual Defence against Persia and Russia. 1837. British Envoy instructed from India to counteract the Assault upon Herat. 1838. England annuls the Defensive Treaty between herself and Persia because Persia is united to Russia. The AfTghan Princes informed by Russia of the intention of the British Govern- ment to set up the same Pretender. The Indian Government dis- avows any Intention of setting up a Pretender. The Indian Go- vernment invades Affghanistan ! without Decla- | ration of War, and sets up the Pretender. TURKEY. EGYPT. GREECE. Revolt of F.gypt jirepared b)' Russia, suffered by England, brings Russian Intervention. Union of Russia niid England to dismember Tur- key of Greece, through the appeal of Greece to Entjland. Protest of Eng- land against the Treaty between Russia and Tur key ; the Price of that Succour. Majority of the Royal Regency expelled from Greece by Eng- land on the plea that they were Russian. Submission by England to exe- cution ofa Treaty, declared by herself to be ofTensive against /J,, her. (*) Measures adopted ostensibly by British Govern- ment to defend Turkey against Russia. Boast that England had overthrown the Influence of Russia in Greece. Act of Parlia- ment to separate l"]ngland from Russia, that Eng- 1 ud might pay t.c Loan which 1 ussia refused \o advunce. Sacrifice of those measures. Union of the two Courts. Alteration of a Treaty, adopted to defend Turkey against Russia, into a means of convulsing and diijmembering Turkey (1). Pacha of Egypt warned so as to be invited to declare his Inde- pendence, to afford the oppor^ tunitj' for the Treaty of the l.'ith Julv. Russia piodominant. Vehement (lissentions between England and Greece. F.irvi->t nnrns A TO MAINTAIN THE PEACE OF THE WORLD. oil ui II, B. M. AT St. Petersburg II — May, 1836.) 1, had tliey known in Time, their State had not perished." Demosthenes. GREECE. CIRCASSIA. i. nil n. Union of Russia I and Enghmd to (lisnicmber Tur- key of Greece, through the ai)i)eal of Greece to Enyland. Indepen- dence : guaranteed I against i Russia hv i Treaty of Julv 1827. Majority of the Royal Regency expelled from Greece by Eng- land on the plea that they were Russian. Boast that England had overthrown the Influence of Russia in Greece. Appealofthe (^'ircassians against Russia ac- cepted by the King of England. Act of Parlia- ment to separate lOngland from lUissia, that Eng- ! md might pay li.e Loan which 1 ussia refused Kn aflvunce. pt to de- tor le e Russia predominant. Vehement dissentions between England and Greece. Sacrifice of those measures. Measvii-es ' adopled l)y ; the British ; Government' to maintain ■ the lude- I)endenoe of Circassia. i rJ2 POLAND. Submission to Incor- poration by Russia of a Kingdom, the Inde- pendence of which is guaranteed England. CRACOW Infraction by Russia of Treaty with England, (Decla- ration of the Law- Officers of the Crown that all Treaties between Russia and England have ceased to be binding.) ; HOLLAND AND BELGIUM. SPAIN. I Union of the two Courts Union of the two Courts Russia privately counteracts the proposals which she joins with England to sign. Declaration of the fact made to the Conference of Iiondon by Holland — Russia and Great Britain continue united — England continues to pay Interest on Ru so- Dutch Loan, after violation by Russia of Treaties. Union of the two Courts. Quadruple Treaty (2) — Assumed Policy of Opposition on the part of England to the Policy of Russia. N.B. -Boast that the Influence of Russia in the Peninsula was overthrown BRITISH EMPIRE. NORTH AME- RICAN COLO- NIES. THE UNITED KINGDOM. Oppo- sition of the two Courts. Insur- rection openly patro- nised by Russia. INDIAN DOMI- NION. INDIAN GOVERNMENT (4). Alarmed at designs of Russia. Chartists organised by Russian agents. Russia fomenting Dis- content within, and creating Hostility around, secret and avowed Emis- saries. Takes preventive measures to arrest Russian Influence. Negociations in Aflghanistan to resist Persia and Russia. Makes War in Central Asia against Russia's Influence. Makes War on Persia. Jour yenrs before, the two ffovenimenls had scvretly EtrvDt opens KiiHjnised to each other tliat the interest^)nne two fountiics were the same in Persia, and liad agreed to concert their policy ! Ne\ertheless, the opposition between the two countries continues as helore to tiie eyes of England, of Europe, and of the East. This secret concert is established in Persia at a time when a public protest is made by flngland against Russia in regard to Turkey. At the time when England publicly protests against Russia in Turkey, she concurs with Russia in regard to the destinies of Poland. At the time that England concurs with Russia regarding Poland, she sends instructions to counteract Russia's intrigues in Greece. At the very time that England is counteracting her intrigues in Greece, is England paying to her the Russo- Dutch Loan, under a treaty which the legal au- thorities of the Crown declare to be no longer binding. In this same year a Quadruple Treat}' is framed for the assumed purpose of arresting the influence of Russia in the Peninsula. In the same year the Sovereign of England accepts the appeal of the Circassians against Russia ; and in the same year, the Indian Government proceeded to tcJce measures to arre?* her designs ft i.. .vihc'^ng that portion of the British territory. Opposition la ohovvn here, and uniou is declared there ; now the one, now the other, appears secre , now patent, till the whole becomes an inextricably mass of confusion, where no one can see his way, yet, respecting which, every man is perpetually expressing opinions. Thus is reason perverled, and honesty destroyed — a mist is spread over the senses of the nation, and the mechanism created for the conduct of public aflairs is converted into an engine for the destruction of the state. Could Russia have suffered England to an- iiounce INION between them, had England been pursuing objects of her own":' If so, this union would have given to England Russia's influence, to be employed against herself. It was f<.>r the advancement of Russia's ends, therefore, that this union was proclaimed. The union of England and Russia to maintain that peace which no one but Russia threatened, has, in four years, con- verted Europe into a vast camp of j)eruianent armaments, and spre.-.d war throughout Asia, from the Adriatic to the Yellow Sea. I Persia invading j Affghanistan, Local and pondering Effects. over the Conquest of India. Hostile Occupation of Central Asia by England. Conse-j quence] to 1 Lng- land. Persia, the Defence of India, converted into a Source of Danger to India. England and Russia changing places in Central Asia, Prostraiion of the Ottoman Empire. Decay of Turkey through union of England with her Foe. Commu- nications with Persia — Foments Insur- lection in the other Provinces of Turkey. Annihilation of internal Liberties, and of external Independence. Success as elsewhere of England in ruining England's Interests and Power. Sacrifice of Interests, Rights, and £'..*5i000,000. Fraudulent accounts pre- sented to Parliament. Gene- ii ral suits. England successfi l against England by submission to Injustice — b inflict injustice. Loss of allies, ruin of character, sacrifice of interests ( thereby, of Europe and the world ; gradual development of hatre< THEREFORE THE UNIOl f'nhn of Pkrsia ir'ith liugsia against England. The frontiers of the British ' power brought ' ONE thousand JULES NEARER TO Russia. Natura/, frontiers OF India OVER STEP I' ED. By England's act the Protectorate OF Russia, established over THE ONLY ANTAGONIST OF R( SSIAN AMHITION ! *'gyi>t pre[)ared to be the pretext of a COALITION for the dismember- ment OF TIIE Ottoman Empire. Greece had thrown herself on the protection of ''Ugland — England thr ws GrE. Et '^ UNDEH Ti'E FELT OF Russia. (*) ( ) Appointments in these years, as Envoy to Persia, and as Secretary of Embassy in Tiirkey ; of Authors of Works and Essays exposing the errors of the past policy of Great Dritaiii; proving the danger to Persia and to Turkey of the public policy and the secret nmchinatiuna of Russia ; proving the hostility of Russia to Great Britain ; and showing that the sole danger for Persia antl for Turkey, as for England, rested in the control which Russia possessed over the policy of Great Britain. Both these individuals were apfxiinted out of the ordinary course. They accepted these situations solely in the belief of the change which they conceivetl they Imd Ixen AniK- selves the instruments of cfl'ecting in the mind of the British Government. (No. 1.) The British Government had ostensibly adopted the project of a commercial treaty with Turkey. This instrument was framed to shield from Russia the internal prosperity <*f Turkey; also to counteract the designs of the Pacha of Egypt against his Sovereign. This Treaty, then proposed, was not carried into effect. Two years later it was conclude