Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-04 00:00:00

BEWARE OF ENTRANCE TO A QUARREL

THIS sage advice of Polonius to Laertes appears
to' have been very judiciously followed by her

Majesty's Ministers, in the case of the quarrel of
France and Portugal, about the seizure by the
officials of the latter Power of the French ship the
Chai•les-et-Georges, about which so much has been
said. The papers recently presented to Parliament
on the subject give a full history of the case; and

it must, in common candour and fairness, the
admitted, that Ministers acted wisely and well,
under the circumstances,— certainly for the interests
of this country, which they properly considered
their first concern ; and at the same time with a
due regard for those of her ancient ally, Portugal.
It was just one of those opportunities in which an
impulsive and injudicious Minister might have got
his Government into a difficulty, or his country

into trouble. There was presented, very promi-

nently, if not also very temptingly, the " entrance

to a quarrel." But they forbore. They had
evidently " charactered in their memory " the
precept we have quoted; and in what followed
upon their conduct on that occasion, they did not
forget that other and kindred injunction, which

"Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judiment."
The case was one which required more than

ordinary attention, from the circumstance of
England being bound by treaty of long standing,
if not to protect Portugal, at any rate to interpose
its good offices in her behalf. It is expressly
declared, for instance, in the treaty to which we
refer, made, in the year 1703, that " if ever it shall
happen that the Kings of Spain or France shall
make war, or give occasion to
,suspect that they
intend to make war, upon the kingdom of Portugal,
either on the continent of Europe, or on its
dominions beyond the seas, her Majesty the
Queen of Great Britain shall use her friendly
offices with the said Kings, or either of them, in
order to persuade them to observe the terms of
peace towards Portugal, and not to make war
upon it." And it appears from the papers which
have been laid before Parliament, containing the
correspondence that took place upon the subject,
at the time, that this duty her Majesty's Ministers
very carefully fulfilled ; and at the same time did
not neglect to give their counsel to Portugal also.
Under such an obligation, therefore, there was
nothing officious, nothing meddlesome, in the
interference they undertook to institute. For
although there was perhaps no immediate appre-
hension of any intention on the part of France to
make war upon Portugal, yet hostilities were not
unlikely to have arisen out of the transaction, had
it gone much further in the course of resist-
ance which Portugal was threatening to offer to
France—or had not France been persuaded "to
observe the terms of peace towards Portugal," as
far as it was possible, while enforcing her demand.
Our Ambassador at the French Court, it appears
from the papers we allude to, was instructed to
proffer the mediation of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, which, though at first refused, was after-
wards accepted. The question was by this means
reduced to one of right and indemnity, on condition
of the release of the ship. We learn that Count
WALEWSEI stated, " the honour of France would
be satisfied by the release of the ship and her
captain." In a conversation with Lord COWLEY,
the French Minister further declared' that if tie
ship and captain were released, the mediation of a
friendly power might be employed for the adjust-
ment of questions arising out of the seizure."
Subsequently, however, and somewhat unaccount-
ably, this mediation was restricted to the amount
of indemnity. The advice of our Minister at
Lisbon was asked, who, as well as the Portuguese
Government, was naturally surprised at the
restriction. But he had no opportunity of
referring for instructions ; and acting, therefore,
on his own responsibility, he advised them to yield
the point, because he perceived that, practically,
the question of indemnity was involved in that of
right. It was impossible to separate the two, and
the suit for damages could not have been decided
without a complete investigation of the facts.
But the Portuguese Government refused to follow
that advice, and assumed Et tone and bearing
which doubtless had,,, much to do in provoking
France to be so peremptory in her final demand.
There was evidently some misunderstanding
on