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

which the honotir and dignity of the country were concerned
discussed in so small a house as that before him, he felt
opiniontheir beingwhieh anyhad jfaulslteinficfartoimonhfiosrhtohne.
ssotrmonegmeixsgpirveisnsronasofto
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
positionh ea n d o
hifs
the Government;
friends
wouldhattehadt:naeltht
although
a British ship
hey been in theip
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 hat a foreign Government was not responsible for
outrages perpetrated ..n 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.) 'I he hon. gentleman alleged
that the ship went down at her anchors. 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 e p.nion 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 aown at her anchors, how did the
hon. gentleman explain the finding of barrels of nail. onshore
—still more the condition of the Manchester goods which
were found unwet and un. amaged by sea water ? (Hear.)
It the object of the hon. gentlemen were not, as he hag
already said, to show what be 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 nis object he had suc-
ceeded. He has embarrassed her Majesty's Government in
dealing with the States of Seuth 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 fur 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 hankand 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 Advecete, and although his Ma-
jesty the King of the Belgians had decided twit no insult
was intended in the ease of the imprisonment of the I' orte,
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-
moat 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 -et known as the " Aberdeen Act,"
sod 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 slave trade were to be dealt with as
engaged in piracy, it merely ratified the articles of the treaty
between the two countries. And, moreover, he would remind
the hon. gentleman opposite that the act received the warm
support of Sir F, Thesiger, of Sir R. Peel, and oiher 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 hon. member. Toe hon member must be aware
that the King of Portugal had offered to mediate between
the two countries, and they. 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 object would be gained. In conclu-
sion, he asserted his belief that if 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 former
evening; nevertheless, the Under Secretary tor Foreign Af-
fairs had endeavoured to revert to the previous discussion.
He had come to the conclusion that the rude and contemp-
tueus tone pervading the correspondence of our Minister
could only have led to the creation of a bad fe ling between
the two countries. Thehme. 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 alter 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 rupture, addressed a circular, which
was on the table of the he-11-e, explaining the reasons which
had led to it, and stating ft 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
part of British merchants ; and, on the other hand, therehad
been several claims made on this country by individuals ir.
Brazii which were pressed oa 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 referred to a mixed commission composed of Brazilians
and British subjects; and the convention recited that all
claims remaining unsettled in the opinion of either Govern
went should be referred to the commission. But while the
commission was considering the claims (here being 5
British claims and 108 Brazilian), Mr. Scarlett, the Eng-
lish Minister at Rio Janeiro, informed them that he had
received a despatch from home directing him to eu-p nd
he 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-.
lion 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 tt
opinion that the Brazilian Government had not shown suffi-
cient energy in reeking reparation for 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 SOLICITOR GENERAL 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-
bate on a former occasi n, the hon. and learned gentleman
who had last spoken expressed his opinion, while objecting
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 had taken place, 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 not been
sacked, while Brazil confessed it had been. (He .r, hear.)
made at the Pads Conferences with regard to arbitration
but on the Bth October Lord Russeli wrote to say that if the
principle of responsibility were admitted by Brazil, Mr.
Christie was to accept it. Mr. hriatie 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 point 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 iveintnent, the admiral had
no option but to make the reprisals in toe 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 beantuade 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 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 b• en 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 teen, with but few
exceptions, systematically violated from the time of its
conclusion 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. h e contended th it her Maje Sty's
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 had been harshly nand by the
Brazilian Government, according to the lawsof that country.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said her Majesty's Go-
vernment accepted the arbitration, 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. MIMES defended the conduct of Mr. Christie
n his dealing 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