The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-17 00:00:00

.THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 11, 1863,

which the honour and dignity of the country were concerned
discussed in so small a house as that before him, he felt
some misgiving as to their being any justification for the
strong expression of oeinion which had fallen from his hon.
friend. (Hear, hear.) He repeated that he was at a loss to
understand the object of the discussion, unless it was that
the hon. gentleman wished the country to understand what
he and his friends would have done had they been in the
position of the Government; that, although a British ship
was wrecked on a foreign coast, its cargo plundered, its
crew murdered, and redress refused, they would remain idle,
and do nothing for the protection of the property and lives
of British subjects. ('' Hear, hear," with cries of " No, no"
from the Opposition.) He should confess that the Govern-
ment which now held office was not inclined to adopt that
view of their duty—(hear)--and they were not prepared
to admit ihat a foreign Government was not responsible for
outrages perpetrated en its coast by its own subjects. (Hear,
hear.) And such was unquestionably the case in this in-
stance. (Hear, hear, and No, no, from the Opposition.)
He stated positively that that was the case, and he defied
any gentleman who had read the papers to say that a moral
doubt could be entertained with regard to the murder of the
crew. He admitted that there were not legal proofs of the
facts, but that there was any moral doubt as to them he en-
tirely denied. (Hear, hear,) '1 he hon. gentleman alleged
that the ship went down at her ancbors. But where was
the evidence of that ? The proof was all the other way.
The hon. gentleman forgot that not only was the ship seen
several days after the wreck, but that three boats and their
oars had been found on the shore, and Admiral Warren was
of plaion from their position that they must have used them
several times in bringing goods from the vessel. But if it
were true that the ship went aown at her anchors, how did the
hon. gentleman explain thefindieg of barrels of nail,. onshore
—still more the condition of the Manchester goods which
were found unwet and unttamaged by sea water? (Hear.)
If the object of the hon. gentlemen were not, as he had
already said, to show what he and his friends would have
done under the circumstances, it might be that it was to em-
barrass her Majesty's Government and injure British inte-
rest in Sou h America. If that were his object he had suc-
ceeded. He had embarrassed her Majesty's Government in
dealing with the States of South America, and had jeopar-
dised British interests there to a very great extent. Already
a great change had taken place in their tone as well as that
of Brazil, and I.r this the country was indebted to the hon,
gentleman and his friends. The case of Paraguay showed
that the Goveimment did not desire to treat those matters
with a high hand, and it Brazil had but imitated the example
of that State, the difficulty which was now complained of
would never have arisen. In regard to the compensation
awarded, the usual course had been adopted, on the Brazilian
Government refusing to inquire into the circumstances, of
referring it to the Queen's Advocate, and although his Ma-
jesty the King of the Belgians had decided that no insult
was intended in the ease of the imprisonment of the forte,
yet no one could deny that their treatment of the officer's was
of a gross nature, and that if the admiral had not protested
against it he would have been negligent in his duty. The
hon. member next proceeded to rebut the accusation that no
sufficient warning had been given to the Brazilian Gevern-
went of our intention to mate reprisals, by reading extracts
from the correspondence to show that Mr. Christie had
given if not publicly, certainly in private, the amplest notice
to the Brazilian Minister, that Admiral Warren had received
instructions to make reprisels, although in the manner least
offensive to the Brazilian Government. In the next
place, he referred to the ectknown as the "Aberdeen Act,"
cud asserted that no measure had ever done so much
for ,he suppression of the slave trade. No doubt It was a
very extreme measure but in declaring that all Brazilian
vessels engaged in the slaw trade were to be dealt with as
engaged in piracy, it merely ratified the articles of the treaty
between the twocountries. And, moreover, he would remind
the hon. gentleman opposite that the act received the'warm
support of Sir F, Thesiget, of Sir R. Peel, and oth6r dis-
tinguished members of the Conservative party. He himself
most earnestly desired the re-establishment of amicable re-
lations between England and Brazil; but he must say, if
they were to be re-established, it was not by the course
taken by the lion. member, Tne hon member must be aware
that the King of Portugil had offered to mediate between
the two countries, and tha.. England had accepted the
offer, It, however, those good services were to be rendered
unavailing, the hon. member had only to persevere in his
present course, and his coject would be gained. In conclu-
sion, he asserted his belief that it' ever again the British Go-
vernment found itself placed in similar circumstances, its
duty would be to follow precisely the same course as upon
this occasion. (Hear, Dear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS pointed out that the question before the
house was by no means the same as that upon a former
evening; nevertheless, the Under Secretary for Foreign Af-
fairs had endeavoured to revert to the previous dischssion.
He had come to the corclusion that the rude and contemp-
tuous tone pervading tie correspondence of our Minister
could only have led to the creation of a bad fe ling between
the two countries. Thetion.. and learned member then asked,
l
was it becoming that the 'Under Secretary should hold suchanguage, and reiterate the accusations against the Brazi-
lian Government alter the whole matter had been submit-
ted to the award of the King of the Belgians, and after that
award had been made I' He now came to another pojnt, for
Lord Russell, after the rueture, addressed a circular, which
was on the table of the heu-e, explaining the reasons which
had led to it, and stating it was a mistake to suppOse that
there were not other outstared ng claims besides the Prince
of Wales. There had been various claims on Brazil on the
part of British merchants ; and, on the other hand, ttlerehad
been several claims made on this country by indivic uals
Brazil which were pressed ou the Foreign-officel
:iby the
Government; these claims arising un er he
BAberdeenrazdai
n Act and the Admiralty Court. In the yeirr
l 57-
58 Lord Clarendon proposes to have the claims On both
uneettlee in the opinion of either Govern.
sides referred to a mixed commission composed of Brazilians
remainingreterred to the commission. But while the
and British subjects; and the convention recited that all
commission was considering the claims (.here being 5
Ed onegpricaiitscahhi
mGrreoonvnitirna
British claims and 108 Brazilian), Mr. Scarlett, the Eng-
lishof the commission. He believed that this
Minister at Rio Janeiro, maimed them that he had
Government hdiardectdionnge hgirmeatteiDuj -upryntdo
s
r
home
c untry, for, if the commis-
casrwa hielecaucevetni received
ort
should
f tdhtshchoeeaue odinB t bt
beeng broken up before its natural time of ex-
piration, their claims would be settled and the money paid.
He was not surprised the Government should be moray
to have discussions about Brazil ; for, although hb was et
opinion that. the Brazilian Government had not shoien suffi-
cient energy in reeking reparation tot the wrong done, still
he could not avoid looking with shame and regret, upon
every step taken by the Government of this country in their
negotiations with the Government of Brazil. '
The SOLICI"I'OR•GENI RA L said there were two dis-
tinct subjects introduced into the present discussion; and
with regard to that one which had been the subject of de-
bateoon
had a
last form
spokene r oce asi
expressedu, th the
hisho on.painndionle,awrnheidlo r gtteloetlmoagn
h
to the form in which it h d been done, that there had been
sufficient cause for this Government to exact redress from
the Government f Brazil. But the hon. member for Hor-
sham, in spite of all that
w
had taken peace, and in the teeth
of the evidence produced by Brazil itself, and the confes-
sion of Brazilian agents, felt it his duty to come down to
that house and state publicly that the vessel had hot been
sacked, while Brazil contested it had been. (He r, hear.)
made at the Paris Conferences with regard to arbitration
but on the Bth October Lord Russell wrote to say that if the
principle of responsibility were admitted by Brazil, Mr.
Christie was to accept it. Mr. • hristie told the Brazilian
Government that it was net the British Government who
demanded the £5,500 and the £1,025, but that these were
the sums claimed by Mr. Stephens, the owner of the ves-
sel. Mr, Christie stated that her Majesty's Government
were willing to have these claims and the whole question
referred ; but in pint of tact it was the Brazilian' Govern-
ment who objected to arbitration, and refused to admit the
principle of responsibility. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned
gentleman then proceeded to say that after the peremptory
ultimatum of the Brazilian G rvernment, the admiral had
no option but to make the reprisals in the manner that had
been adopted, and that to say these reprisals were taken in
an unreasonable or improper way was most inexplicable.
It had been said that war had been made against Brazil, but
in fact all reprisals were pro Canto war on a small scale.
But with regard to the amount demanded, he thought it
had been made at a very moderate rate. The proposed
method of appropriating the money when received he con-
sidered very reasonable, seeing that it Was not known
which of the crew had been murdered and which had not.
The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to the con-
vention between the British and Brazilian Governments,
and contended that the whole of the proceedings of the
British Government had been not only proper in them-
selves, but strictly in accordance with the terms of the con-
vention. If there had been any bad faith shown it had
been on the side of Brazil and not of Great Britain. Lord
Aberdeen had aid that the treaty had been, with but few
exceptions, systematically violated from the time of its
conclusien up to he period when he spoke. British officers,
his lordship said, were maltreated and assassinated whilst
in the execution of their duty ; and justice, if not openly
denied, had rarely fairly been granted by the Bra-
zilian Government. H e contended th it her Maje-ty's
Government had acted in a pr open and becoming manner in
every particular.
Mr. HENLEY doubted if the Government had acted
wisely in bringing to light again the bad practices of the
Brazilian Government. Such conduct was not likely to
bring about friendly relations between the two countries
He was sorry to hear the remarks of the Under-Secretary
o f State for Foreign Affairs, and the Solicitor-General, re-
lative
to the arbitration of the King o the Belgians, that
the English naval officers had been harshly used by the
Brazilian Government, a •
coording to the law s of that country.
The SOLICITOR-GENE) AL said her Majesty's Go-
vernment accepted the arbitration, and were of opinion that
Ino offence was intended by the Brazilian Government to
the British navy.

Mr. HENLEY said it was to be regretted these disputes
had arisen, and he was afraid the discussion would have the
effect of irritating rather than conciliating the Brazilian
overnment.
Mr. M MILNES defenr'ed the conduct of Mr. Christie
11 his dealing with the Br..zilian Government. arid con-
tended that every allowance should be made for one so de-
licately situated as he had been at Rio. (Hear.)
Mr. B. MOORE, on the other hand, again impugned the