The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-07 00:00:00

DESTRUCTION OF TILE CAROLINE.

Mr. HUM E moved for a copy of the correspondence
between the Legation of the United States in London and
the S.cre:nry of State for the Foreign Department, in re-
lation to the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline;
also a copy of the correspondence between Mr. Fox,
the British Minister at Washington, and the Secretary
of the United States, in relation to the destruction of
the steam-boat Caroline ; and also a copy of all the
correspondence between the Lieutenant-Governors of
Upper Canada and the Governor-General of the Canadas,
and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in relation

to the destruction of the steamboat Caroline. The Ho-
nourable Gentleman said he believed that if this info!. •
minion had been before the public at an earlier period of
the digpute, it would have prevented much of the excite-
ment on both sides of the Atlantic. We understood the
Hon. Gentlemen to complain that the Government had
been dilatory in not submitting the correspondence to the
House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the motion was so en-
rely unusual, the matter being yet under negociation, that
to hoped the House would not require the production of
he correspondence. The Hon. Gentleman had com-
plained of the conduct of the Government with respect to
this question. He (Lord John Russell) would state how
the muter stood. The Government of the United
Stat,s had made a complaint of the conduct of
certain individuals and officers who were said to have taken
part in the dcstruetion of the steam-boat Caroline. The
tainusawnteirtyto
otifiatcocrormespploainndtewncaes. the
andtroafnsvmairaisoiuosn ostfaatemgerenatst
made by the Governor of Upper Canada, and by
a number of individuals who were concerned in the trans-
action ; the American Government sent counter state-
ments, but they did rim persist in asking for a final answer
aswner to
cb their mands. The effect of their not asking for
an-
swer was, that the act of the British Government ceased
to be matter of discussion, and it was not for the British
Government to complain of that conduct. He Vise
convinced that the matter would have entirely
dropped as between the two Governments, if it had
not been for the unfortunate affair of Mr. M'Lcod.
That had revived the sulject, and produced diqcussians
with regard to the recent case of the steam-boat Caroline.
That arrest had unfortunately revived the subject, anti
had produced a renewed discussion between the two Go.
vernmcnts. With regard to the production of the corre-
spondence asked for, be had to state that it would be' in-
convenient to the public service, and tend to embarrass
the negotiation that was now going on in an amicable
spirit, and might tend to militate against the peace of two
great and intelligent nations.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. H UME wanted 'the papers in order to prove that
an assertion made by the Noble Secretary for the Foreign
Department was net founded in fact. Ha said that the
American Government had not persisted in demanding an
answer to their remonstrance of March, 1838 ; while Mr.
Forsyth distinctly said that Mr. Stevenson was not
to preys the Government here because lie had been
enured by Mr. Fox that in a few days they would have
communication from the Government direct
an answer Or e
wstaantetomdenttheofpLapoerdrs
Palmer_
purpose of seeln, -
from this cou.ntryw.
hellthoewr thehe
ston in his allega'ion were correct. The Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth said some time ago
that there might be a limit to the complaisance of the
!louse in putting up wit;; the refusal of papers—in his
Opinion that time had now arrived. Had be
been furnished with the papers respecting Syria,
the affairs of the East would have been settled
long before they were, -and the peace of Europe would
not have been endangered. So, had he been fur-
nished with these papers respecting the Caroline, the
question would have been forced upon the attention of
the Government,
He therefore submitted that as he merely wanted a pri-
and would have been settled long ago.
vote correspondence, and no secrets that could interfere
with the negotiations between the two coantriea, ho was
entitled to the information which he required.

Lord JOHN -RUSSELL said that the production of
the correspondence could not enable the lion. Gentleman
to attain the end which he proposed. The American Go-
vernment had eked for redress for the burning of the Ca-
relice, hut to that request her Majesty's Government delibe-
rtvely, and not through any neglect, did not think it proper
to give a final answer. But his Miele Friend the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, bad since informed the American Mi-
nister at the Court of London, that the British Govern.
ment had justified the destruction of the Caroline, upon
which the American Minister had made such communica-
tion to his Government, as he thought expedient, but that
communication had riot yet transpired.
Mr. HUM E said that since the month of May,
1838, when the American Government had inquired
into the unfortunate transaction, and had requested
satisfaction from the British Government, no answer
whatever had been given, until a very late period, to the
American Minister, either verbally or by letter. He
thought that this was an improper delay, and that Minis-
ters were now abusing the patience of the House.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny hal made a motion calling for an extensive corre-
spondence, which the Noble Lord met by a declaration made
in his cap icity of. responsible Minister of the Crown
that negotiations connected with the subject
were now pending between the two countries,
negotiations conducted in an amicable spirit—and that pre-
judice to the interests of the country might arise by the pro-
duction of the correspondence. Now, in his ( Sir R. P.'s)
opinion, such a statement, on the part of a Minister of
the Crown, was conclusive in the case. During
negotiations pending with foreign countries it would cer-
tainly be unwise to force a Minister of the Crown to pre-
judice the public interests by the production of papers.
Ile wished, however, to ask the Noble Lord in
what position the question now stood ? He be-
lieved the British Government had avowed the
burning of the Caroline as a public act, and had called on
the Government of the United States for the release of
Colonel M'Lcod. tie wished to know from the Noble
Lord what had since occurred.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the statement made in
answer to the application of Mr. Fox was, that the At-
torney-General to the United States Government
would proceed to the place where the trial was to
be held, and that he had instructions given him as to
his mode of proceeding, which he ( Lord J. R.) did not think
it necessary or proper to state at that momont. It appeared
that the Attorney_ General proceeded to the place of trial, but
did not take any course himself. The counsel for Mr. M'Leod
declared that one of the defences of Mr. M'Leod was
that the act had been authorised by the British Govern-
ment, and he, therefore, moved that the case should be re-
moved to a Federal Court. That application had been
complied with, and the cause had been removed
into a Federal Court, and that Court would
judge of the defence of Mr. M'Leod. In that Court no
doubt the Attorney- General of the United States could do
that which he (Lord John R.) supposed it was impossible
for him to du in the Court of the State of New York.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN hoped the Noble Lord would not
refuse the production of those documents which bad already
appeared in the American papers. If there were any other
in existence, he would not ask for them, but he could not
see how the public service could be prejudiced by the pro-
duction of papers which had already been published in

America. -
Sir ROBERT PEEL hoped the Noble Lord would
not accede to any such proposition. Independently of the
precedent being a very bad one, he considered it would
be derogatory to the dignity of Parliament to ask for just
so much information, because it happened to be given to
other countries. But let them observe the consequence.
The statements alluded to might be ex parte,
and might give a most unfavourable view of the
case as regarded this country, and yet by adopting
the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, they would be
giving their sanction to these unfavourable, and it might
be unjust, statements —( Cheers.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS could not understand what
object there could be in pressing for these papers, which
were already published, and to which every Gentle-
man could procure access. The only consequence of
their production would be to embarrass a complicated ne-
gotiation, which was now proceeding in an amicable man-
ner. He hoped his Hon. Friend would not press the
motion.

Mr. P. HOWARD thought that at a time when this
country, as well as the United States, were deploring
the loss of the able Chief Magistrate of that country,
it was highly indelicate to press such a motion as this, just
as the new Governor was undertaking the management of
the United States.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that
there was a strong feeling on both sides of the Atlantic
for the preservation of the amicable relations between
the two countries.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The great
commercial body was particularly anxious on the subject,
and was particularly desirous that the greatest delibera-
tion should attend the conducting of those negotiations.
He trusted that the motion would not be pressed.
Mr. T. D UNCOMBE said that according to the doc-
trine of the Right Honourable Baronet, the country had
no right to the possession of the same information
as was possessed by other countries. They only asked
for papers up to the time of the arrest of M'Leod, and
he wished to know why the British Parliament should
not have full information as well as the Congress
of the United States. The Right Honourable Baronet
was assisting in smothering this information. What he
wanted to know was why a British subject, Mr.
M'Leod, was detained a prisoner in the United
States ? He wished to ask did they mean to allow
the trial of Mr. 14PLeod to proceed ?—(Cheers.) The
feeling of the country was, that the national honour was
compromised by Mr. M'Leod being detained a prisoner.
The question of his guilt had nothing to do with the case.
The general opinion was that they would escape from their
dilemma by its being incontrovertibly proved that at the
time of the destruction of the Caroline Mr. M'Leod was not
present. But that had nothing to do with the ques-
tion. Mr. M'Leod had been arrested, and was detained.
Now, if they a right to detain him, they had a right
to try him, and if they had a right to try ben,
they had a right to execute him, in the event of his being
found guilty. Did they intend to allow Mr. M'Le )d to
be executed in such a case? If they were right Mr. M'Leod
ought nut to be imprisoned at all. Would they insist
upon his release ?—( Cheers.) It was an important ques-
tion. Suppose Captain Brown, who had commanded
the expedition which had destroyed the Caroline, and
which had most justly and properly destroyed her,
in his opinion--suppose Captain Brown were travelling in
the United States, l►e would be allowed to be arrested.
Suppose ho was to be arrested and tried, and the conse-
quence would be that he was found guilty, were the
people of England to submit to that ? Were the people
of Engl Ind to allow one of its officers to be put on his
trial for obeying their orders ? That was the question. lie
would ask the Noble Lord did he mean to let Mr.
M'Leod's trial proceed? That gentleman was imprisoned
now six months, and he ( Mr. T. Duncombe) would repeat
it, the people of England ought to know why their fellow-
subject wss impr soned. Certainly if the Hon. Member
would divide the House on the question, he (Mr. D.)
would vote with him.
Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to explain. The
question asked was whether Mr. M'Leod would be re-
leased or not. Ile. ( Sir R. Peel) gave no opinion on that ;
what he said was that when the Hon. Gentleman moved for
the papers referred to, the production of which it was stated
would be prejudicial to the public interest, he ( Sir Robert
Peel) said that it was his opinion that they ought not to
be produced.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the mo-
tion was negatived without a division.
MR. VIZ ARD.

Colonel SIBT HO It P moved that the attention of the
House be called to the appointment of Colonel Vizard to
the office of Solicitor to the Home Department. The
Hon. and Gallant Member said he thought it a duty he
owed the country to bring forward that motion. He
meant to move also for certain papers relative to that ap-
pointment. He conceived he was bound to take the sense
of the floase on this subject, on account of the corres-
pondence which emanated, both from the Home-office
. .

and the Treasury, relative to the matter. For the space
of forty-three years the duti.:s of the Home-office had
been satisfactorily discharged without the assistance of a
solicitor. He was inclined, for his part, to attribute the
appointment to the want of energy, good conduct, and
proper management of the Members of the present Go-
vernment. He moved for a third return of the appoint-
ment of this gentleman as Secretary of Bankrupts, f.ar he
found this gentleman, who held a lucrative iitu-
ntion of 1,5001 a-year, held this situation also.
If it was necessary to appoint a Solicitor to the Home-office,
a gentleman should be selected who wool.] be able to
give his undivided attention to the business. , The Hon.
Gentlemen said he would take the sense of the llouse on
every occasion when the vote was proposed for the pay-
ment of this salary. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by
moving a resolution to the effect, that the appointment of
Mr. Vizard to the office of Solicitor to the Home-office
was unnecessary and ought to be cancelled.
Mr. F. M AUL E said that the appointment of Mr.
Vizard, as Solicitor to the Home Department, arose out
of the great increase of business, in consequence of the
passing of various Acts of Parliament. Almost every other
department had its separate solicitor. There were many
contracts entered into by the Home Department, in which
such advice was necessary. The expense arising, out of
the want of a legal adviser, in the case of the Police Com-
missioners, had been 8001. a-year ; that was another of
the grounds upon which the appointment was made. With
re2pect to the other situation which Mr. Vizard held, it
was no unusual course for a gentleman to hold two or
more offices under the Crown. He trusted that the House
would be satisfied as to the propriety of the appointment,
both on account of the pecuniary saving, and also from the
advantage which must be derive! from such assistance.
As to the necessity
"
office, he thought that two opinions could not exist. He
of appointing a Solicitor to the Home-
would confidently leave the matter in the hands of the
House.—( Cries of
Divide, divide.")
Col. SIFT HO RP was at a loss to know why Mr. Vi-
zard had been selected, when so many other competent
persons might have been appointed to fill the office. The
whole affair was a job.
Mr. 11 UM E said he would take this opportunity of ask-
ing whether the Government intended to intro.luce a Bill
for the reenlation of the Court of Bankruptcy ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Lord Chan-
cellor was about to bring in a Bill on that subject. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman then made a few observa-
tions in defence of Mr. Viz ird's appointment.
Mr. GOULRURN would support bin Hon. and Gal-
lant Friend's motion in case it went to a division, but ho
would recommend him ti withdraw.
Colonel SIBTHORP—The present is an unfortunate
hour..—( Loud cries of " Spoke, splice," " Chair, chair,"
" Divide, divide," and much laughter, in the midst of which
the Hon. and Gallant Member said he would not trouble
the House with a division.
FINE ARTS.
On the motion of Mr. HAWES the following Members
were appointed the Select Cosmittee on the Fine Arts:—
Mr. Hawes, Mr. Labouehere, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gaily
Knight, Mr. Hume, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Blake, Sir Robert
Harry hulls, Lord Brabazon, Lord Francis Egerton, Mr-
kwart, Mr. Manes, Colonel Rawdon, Mr. Henry Thomas
Hope, and Mr. Pusey,