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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY la: V ENING, JULY 11, 1863

which the honour and dignity of the country were concerned
discussed in so small a house as that before him, he telt
some misgiving as to their being any justification for the
strong expression of opinion which had fallen from his hon.
t
of
acwtb.
uirnfrhroen.
aei
deßmesdw andnherdwtdi
rmoohtsni
the Opp
a.
hhcorongki
tesdeheeunpdr:
bnrjet.
thej,(Hear,edgeeoe:
no nmt
fita dousaunasrn.dobjectf.hear.)tw;hwr o:eiedu
would
protection
repeatedoedeenetsadbe:tah vde sue
o oe countrythat.olh3
:toduhtnehl
eeunderstands wasbi
etae wtnaains losstthhat
what
e
position of the Government; that, although a British ship
tssrath
eh:iu coast,refused,ealhdr ,e, itstwnth
fiheect
eyhi
confess
srpcwgrr,
would
uepaspl
property
tutfrhyne
,emd,
aNenar
doend,
idle,,
voi
lives
as
Govern-
ment which now held office was not inclined to adopt that
view of their duty—(hear)—and they were not prepared
to admit that a foreign Government was not responsible for
outrages perpetrated on 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 bad 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 proof's of the
facts, but that there was any moral doubt as to them he en-
tirely denied. (Hear, bear.) Ihe hon. gentleman alleged
that tne 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 opinion from their position that they must nave used them
several times in bringing goods from the vessel. But if it
were true that the ship went down ether anchors, howdid the
hon. gentleman explain the finding of barrels of nails onshore
—still more the condition of the Manchester goods which
were found unwet and unoamaged 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. lf that were ins object he had suc-
ceeded. He had embarrassed her Majesty's Government in
dealing with the States of S .uth America, and had jeopar-
dised British interests there to a very great eaten.. Already
a great change had taken place in their tone as well as that
of Brazil, and fer this the country was indebted to the hon.
gentleman and his friends. The case of Paraguay showed
that the Government 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 beau adopt. d, on the Brazilian
Government refusing to inquire into the circumstances, of
referring it to the Queen's Advccate, and although his Ma-
jesty the King of the Belgians had decided that no insult
was intended in the case of the imprisonment of the Forte,
yet no one could deny that their treatment of the officers 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 G ,vern-
ment of our intention to make 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 reprisals, although in the manner least
offensive to the Brazilian Government, In the next
place, he referred to the act known as the "Aberdeen Act,"
and asserted that no measure had ever done so much
for he suepression of the slave trade. No doubt it was a
very extreme measure; but in declarine that all Brazilian
veesels engaged in the slave trade were to be dealt with as
engaged in piracy, it merely ratified the articles o' the treaty
uetween the twoccuntries. And, moreover, he would remind
the hon. gentleman opposite that the act received the warm
.upport of Sir F, Thesiger, of Sir R. Peel, and other die-
anguished members ot the Conserve ive 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 nor by the course
taken by the hon. member. Tne hon member must be aware
that the King of Portugal had offered to mediate between
the two countries, and tha England had accepted the
offer, If, however, those good services were to be rendered
unavailing, the hon. member had only to persevere in his
present course, and his object 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, hear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS pointed out that the question before the
house was by no means the same as that upon a termer
evening; nevertheless, the Under Secretary for Foreign Af-
fairs had endeavoured to revert to the previous discussion.
He had come to the conclusion that the rude and contemp-
tth9llB tone pervading the correspondence of our Minister
could only have led to the creation of a bad fe ling between
the two countries. The hole and learned member then asked,
was it becoming that the Under Secretary should hold such
language, and reiterate the accusations against the Brazi-
lian Government atter the whole matter had been submit-
ted to the award of the King of the Belgians, and after that
award had been made? He now came to another point, for
Lord Russell, after the rurture, addressed a circular, which
was on the table of the house, explaining the reasons which
had led to it, and stating it was a mistake to suppose that
there were not other outstand ng claims besides the Prince
of Wales. There had been various claims on Brazil on the
bp
ea
er
nt of B
severalrish t
claims
ami
me rsc hmaandt
es
o;
na ntd, hi
so ne
ot
uhne
tortyh ebryhiannddi
v,
itdnue
ar e h a d
l si
Braiil which were pressed on the Foreign-office by the
Brazilian Government ; these claims arising under the
Aberdeen Act and the Admiralty Court. In the year 1857-
58 Lord Clarendon proposed to have the claims on both
sides refer red to a mixed commission composed of Brazilians
and British subjects; and the convention recited that all
claims remaining unsettle" in the
snofi eihEietuhrteerwhGheoiinivegetrnhs7
ghethcoe
Mr. Scarlett, the Eng-
leßu erenhint mitahsi
Ministershaeojlnuanilni wabaeaat sn
Rd e referredinotn sJBiadßnet reroiai nrztoi ia ni
n);0 r med them that he had
received a despatch from home directing him to eu.p nd
the further sitting of the commission. He believed that this
act of the English Government had done great injury to
several commercial men in this c untry, for, if the commis..
gun had not been 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 unwilling
to have discussiens about. Brazil ; for, although he was of
opinion • that the Brazilian Government had nut shown suffi-
cient energy in eneking reparation toi the wrong dune, still
he could not avoid looking with sh,me and regret upon
every step taken by the Government of this country in their
negotiations with the Government of Brazil.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said there were two dis-
tinct subjects introduced into the present discussion; and
with regard to that one which had been he subject of de-
bate n, the Indno.naen, dth
learned
there
for this Government to exact redress from
who had last spoken expressed his opinion, while objecting
rnmcgreiunesent f Brazil. But the hon. member for Hor-
benadtieb:aenn
on a formevirtioicechaieti
tst to
effi theoc i
Government
etr
Btarkaeznil itself, and the confes-
place, and in the teeth
hfbeayldt it his duty to come down to
ossthatihfean'mhhee, of inu
house andiresdape zinitlen
evidence
a stateno aaglle
producedThatta
publicly that the vessel had not been
sacked, while Brazil confessed 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 not 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 point ot fact 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 cvernmeat, 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 tanto 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 be 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
conclusi .n 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, it not openly
denied, had rarely fairly been granted by the Bra-
zilian Government. e contended th it her Maki-Leos
Government had acted in a proper and becoming manner in
every particular.

Mr. HENLEY doubted it 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
of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Solicitor-General, re-
lative to the arbitration of the King 0 the Belgians, that
the English naval officers bad bean harshly used by the
Brazilian Government, according to the lawsot that country.
The SOLICITOR- GENEHAL said her Majesty's Go
vernment accepted the at biiration, and were of opinion that
no 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 defended the conduct of Mr. Christie
n his dea►ing with the Brazilian Government. and con-
tended that every allowance should be made for one eo de-
licately situated as he had been at Rio. (Hear.)
Mr, B. MOORE, on the other hand, again impugned the