volution in another, stood beyond all dispute. England herself had exercised the right not long ago, by acknowledging the revolutionary government of France. In fact, we had virtually acknowledged the independence of Colombia. We had acknowledged it by the commerce which we had carried on with her; and it would not be very creditable to the character of England, to have it said that she did justice in the case only where she was interested in doing it. America had already acknowledged the independence of Colombia; and it was to be regretted that in so honourable a course, America should have been allowed to take the lead of us. There were other circumstances which gave the South American colonies a peculiar claim upon England for the recognition of their rights. This country, in point of fact, had urged on the colonies to the attainment of the rights and liberties which they now possessed. In 1797, the governors of our West India possessions had been instructed to excite the South American States to throw off the yoke of Spain; and those states had only now adopted that advice which they were too weak to adopt at the precise time when it was first urged to them. Nor would he confine himself to the mere question of justice. England was, in truth, interested in the decision of the present question. Colombia had published a proclamation, declaring that no country should share her commerce which refused to admit her independence. Both for the sake of this country and of Colombia, therefore, Government was bound to come to a speedy decision.

Lord Londonderry observed in reply, that it was not the custom to lay before the House proceedings which had not arrived at any result; and Parliament would be placing itself in a rather embarrassing situation, if it inter

VOL. XIV, PART I.

fered with arrangements in the stage of those in question, and took upon itself a responsibility which regularly belonged to Government. His Majesty's Ministers had never refused to entertain any agents of what was called the Colombian government, although such persons had not been received officially; and the representations of such agents had been discussed by Government, and made the subject of communication with Spain; not, however, that our treaties with Spain bound us in every possible new situation which might arise in the world. As to the documents moved for, they were already public; but it would be impossible to make the general subject intelligible to the House at the present moment. The conduct of England towards Spain now, would never be regulated by what had been the conduct of Spain towards England under a similar emergency. There had been every desire upon the part of Government to cultivate good understanding and friendly intercourse with the provinces of South America. Every right of real value, as regarded their ships and their commerce especially, had been conceded to them; and upon measures of that character Spain could have no right to interfere with this country. As long as South America continued de facto a government, so long was England entitled to cultivate, de facto, a friendly feeling and communication with her. Whether it would be advisable at the present moment to establish formal diplomatic arrangements with that country, became another question; and he doubted whether the facts of the case were sufficiently within the possession of the mover, to enable him to arrive at a just conclusion upon the point. It would be better, he submitted, for the House not to call for information until it was prepared to adopt some course upon that information when received,

At the same time he declared, that the recognition of Colombian independence was purely a British question, and the Government of this country was not fettered in coming to a decision on this point, by any existing treaties with foreign states. The motion was accordingly negatived.

Several petitions were presented to Parliament, towards the close of the session, complaining of the alarming increase of piracy in the West Indian seas, and calling upon Government to interfere for the protection of our commerce in that quarter of the globe, and for the extirpation of these "hostes humani generis," whose outrages were characterised by much of the ferocity that had, of old, distinguished the buccaneers. In presenting the petition of the merchants, ship-owners, and underwriters of Liverpool, Mr Canning, after having detailed the petition, added some facts which he had been furnished with regarding outrages committed on British shipping.

On the 13th December 1821, when within five miles of Cape San Antonio, a British ship bound for Liverpool, had been stopped by a crew of armed men, who boarded her, and demanded of the steward if there were any specie on board. The answer being in the negative, the man was instantly stabbed by the pirates. They then endeavoured to extort a confession from the Captain, and compelled his own crew to hoist him up by the neck to the yard-arm, where he entreated his own mate to fasten weights to his feet that his misery might be more speedily terminated. Of course, this was not allowed; and when taken down, and while lying on the deck in a state of almost total insensibility, the wretch who had stabbed the steward blew out the brains of the Captain. The pirates were all either Spaniards or Portuguese. The right honourable gentleman mentioned some similar particulars, and observed

that the petitioners had first applied to the Admiralty, which had represented the matter to the Court of Spain. No doubt, every step had been taken on the part of the British executive to remedy an evil so outrageous; but the petitioners felt that a time would arrive, if it had not arrived, when the mother country would be unable to redress the grievances committed under the flag of her colonies, and when it would therefore be necessary for this Government to adopt some course for the protection of the trade of the empire.

Sir G. Cockburn said, that when these transactions came to the knowledge of Government, it sent out instructions to the Admiral on the sta tion to seize all vessels which could not prove their nationality, and which had committed depredations on our trade : A statement was sent in answer to Government, that no actual proof could be made of depredations committed by any particular vessel. Government sent out fresh orders to the Admiral, requiring him to seize all vessels against which reasonable cause of suspicion existed. With respect to the depredation committed off Cape St Antonio, the moment the Government heard of that transaction it excited their attention. It appeared that the pirates lay at the point of St Antonio in watch for vessels; that they anxiously looked out in order to distinguish merchant-men from ships of war; and that sometimes they made their attack in schooners, and sometimes in small boats. So long as our men of war were near the coast, these pirates did not come out; but as soon as they were driven off by winds or currents, the pirates came out in their schooners, and boarded vessels that happened to pass. The land on the west coast of Cuba was jungle, only intersected by small paths; so that if our ships landed their crews, the pirates would disperse through the country,

and all that could be done would be, to burn their huts, which were of no value. If, however, Spain would send down a force from the Havannah, to at tack their piratical settlements on the land side, while we sent a force against them on the sea side, we might bring them to the condign punishment which he would do the Spanish Government the justice of supposing that it wished to inflict. As to the giving convoy to foreign ships, this was what the Admiralty always set their faces against; because it was impossible for the Admiralty to be acquainted with the arrangements between foreign nations as to the right of search, &c., and to give directions, in following which the commanders of our ships could be secure against violations of the law. Before Government could take any farther step, it was necessary to wait a reasonable time, to see in what way the Spaniards

meant to act.

The Marquis of Londonderry said, that if the cases of aggression complained of were mere cases of undisguised piracy, there would be no difficulty in dealing with them; but the peculiarity was, that the piracy was perpetrated by vessels having commissions. At the commencement of the contest between Spain and her colonies, these commissions had been issued, not only by the provinces which carried on war against Spain on the sea-coast, but by powers which had no ports, particularly by Artigas, whose commissions were sold to cover piracies. In consequence of this, the Government had issued orders to seize all vessels sailing under commissions from governments in whose ports they were not fitted out. As to the local governments in South America, they had shown every disposition to keep their cruisers within bounds; and, considering the difficulties of the case, had made great efforts to do justice. But when the vessels sailing under the commissions he had described

He

were seized, it was necessary to prove that they had committed acts of hostility. These orders were at last enlarged, and our ships were authorised to seize vessels of the description mentioned on suspicion. He now came to the particular acts of piracy complained of, which had taken place near Cape St Antonio, and which were first brought under the notice of his Majesty's Government in March last. The facts were first communicated to him in a letter from the Admiralty, of the 23d of March 1822. The first was the case of the Martha; the second was that of the Harborough; the third was the case of the Alexander of Greenock, seized by a piratical vessel, and the master and his crew murdered. lost no time in transmitting a statement of the accounts that had been received from the Admiralty to Mr Hervey, our Ambassador at the Court of Spain. The letter, which was dated the first of April, directed Mr Hervey to take an immediate opportunity of calling the serious attention of the Spanish Ministry to the circumstances narrated, and to impress on them the necessity of putting an end to this disgraceful system. On the 14th of May, the Spanish Minister for foreign affairs intimated, that directions had been given for the immediate discovery and punishment of the guilty parties. If, in the end, it should be found, that the Spanish Government were not able to put down this system, it would then devolve on the British Government to take steps for that purpose. But it would have led to very great difficulty, and would have involved considerable loss of property, if hitherto they had taken stronger steps than they had done.

On the 30th of July, Mr Marryat presented a petition from the Shipowners of London, complaining that British shipping was not sufficiently protected in the South Sea. The Governments of Chili and Peru being at

variance, each had declared the coast of its enemy in a state of blockade. British shipping was thus placed between two fires; and the consequence was, that many of them had been captured by each of the hostile parties. The books at Lloyd's exhibited numerous proofs of the depredations com. mitted on British Commerce; and it was known that the Lord Collingwood had been captured and condemned at Porto Rico. These, conjoined with the incessant depredations committed in the West Indian Seas, loudly called for prompt interference. Negociations were accordingly entered into with Spain; and orders were sent to the officers commanding those seas, to afford our shipping all the protection in their power; but the pirates nevertheless

continued their outrages during the whole year; which led to many complaints of the supineness of the Admiralty, and the inadequacy of the measures which had been adopted for extirpating these miscreants. It was even alleged that the commanders of our ships of war on the West Indian station, tempted by the profits arising from the freight of bullion, were much more occupied in transporting bullion from the adjoining parts of South America, than in protecting our shipping from piratical depredations, or in exerting themselves to discover the retreats of these miscreants, and to visit them with the punishment prescribed by the law of nations for the common enemies of mankind.

SIR Robert Wilson's dismissal from the Army, in consequence of the part he acted, or was alleged to have acted, on the occasion of the late Queen's Funeral, having excited a considerable sensation in the country, and that officer having considered himself aggrieved by the summary manner in which he had been cashiered, being thereby deprived of the opportunity of knowing exactly the charges preferred against him, and of meeting his accusers face to face in an open trial, determined to bring the subject before Parliament; not so much, we should suppose, from any hope of redress in that quarter, as for the purpose of putting himself on his defence before the country, and of enabling the public to judge between him and those who had advised his removal from the army by a peremptory exercise of prerogative alone. Accordingly, on the 13th of February, Sir Robert, after entering into a full explanation of his conduct on the 14th of August preceding, and reading a number of documents in corroboration of his state

ments, moved, that copies of the correspondence which had taken place between the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Sidmouth, and himself, on the subject of his removal from the Army, should be laid before the House. This proposition was resisted by Ministers, on the ground that, without the possession of such a prerogative on the part of the Crown, it would be impossible to preserve the discipline of the army, whether with reference to its internal subordination, or to the intercourse of the military with the civil population; that the circumstance of officers having purchased their commissions in no degree affected the exercise of this constitutional prerogative of the Crown; that in the present instance there was no presumption of abuse in the exercise of it; but that Sir Robert Wilson's own statement had furnished a presumption which led to a directly contrary conclusion. In support of this doctrine, they referred to the opinions of several lawyers on the subject, and contended, that, laying the merits or demerits of Sir Robert Wilson entirely out of the