The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-13 00:00:00

The judge refers the petitioner to his own clerk, and orders
letters of freedom to be given, but keeps the letter until
the party has paid the respective emoluments to the officers
engaged in these proceedings. 16th. He is made over to
the r.lief of police. 17th. The chief of police communicates
with the governor of the House of Correction, and orders
t.ne applicant to appear before him. 18th. The governor
sends for him—that is, for the applicant—at d the chief of
police designates his future place of residence ; for he is not
allowed to go where he likes as a free man, but is fixed to a
particular spot. 19. The chief of police communicates with
chief of divisional police at the place designated, and hands
the applicant to that officer. 20th. The chief of the provin-
cial police hands him over to the chief of police at Rio, and
he is removed from the place where for 14 years he had
been residing, and had established connections. All the
treaties we have made to obtain justice for the emancipakm
have failed, and we have not been able to obtain any list of
them. We know that when the slave of one of tie owners
died, the emancipado was put in his place, and it was re-
ported that the emancipado had died, arid not the slave.
Mr S. FITZGERALD would liktl to know whether these
20 steps were pointed out in the Brazilian documents, or
whether the noble lord had obtained from other sources the
explanation of the course by which the emancipado should
be freerl. With respect to the Brazilian Government, he
would ask whether that Government had not put down the
slave trade, and whether Lord Brougham, than whom no
warmer advocate of emancipation existed, had not expressed
ids gratitude to that Government?
Lord PALMERSTON—This string has not been
obtained from the Government. I extracted it from a
Brazilian newspaper, which gave it as an official document,
and I believe it is co:erect. With regard to the other
question of the hon. member, the Brazilian Government
have of late years., since 1852, put an end to the slave trade.
That has been by compulsion, not by conviction. The Act
Of 1.845 was long a dead letter. In 1851-2 the provisions of
that Act were brought into force, and I believe from that
time to this the Brazilian slave trade has been put an end
to. They gave fresh orders to their officers, and, in spite
of bribes to them, I believe that from that time to this the
Brazilian slave trade has ceased. I take great c;redit to
myself for having brought about that.

Mr BRIGHT protested against the Wale lord making a
speech on a matter of this nature, where other members
could not reply. He should mow the adjournment of the
house, in order to make one or two observations upon it,
He was not aware that a question was going to be put
upon that subject that night—but on a previous occasion
the noble lord had stated much the same as he had stated
that evening. He would like to know whether the noble
lord was not awars of the opinion of Lord Aberdeen
that the Brazilian Act ought to be repudiated. That Act,
he meant to say, was one of the greatest offences to the
Brazilian Government, Legislature, and people ; and he
might quote the opinion of the late Lord Truro, who
was no mean lawyer, that a more unjustifiable Act, and
one more in eeefiance of international law, never was
passed by e.ny legislature. If that were so, and if the
state of wings upon which that Act was justified had en-
tirely passed away, and if, as we knew the relations of
alba country with Brazil had been of a most unpleasant
hind from the time of the passing of this Act, and if we
knew that until that Act was repealed the relations between
the two countries would have no chance of being placed upon
a proper basis, he thought the noble lord should give up his
adherence to what was originally an indefensible law. And
he should think, after the vote of last week, when, if the
house did not come to a vote of censure, at least he never
knew an occasion upon which they had approached more
nearly to it, and never did he know an occasion where the
house had denounced so strongly theirritating and offensive
policy of the Foreign Offiee—(hear, hear)—the noble lord
might have learned something from that ; and if the noble
lord would consent even now to repeal an Act which had
no reference to the existing state of things, but which as
long as it was maintained was certain to produce bitterness
between this country and Brazil—a nation with whom we
had extensive relations, which might ba more extensive if
we had a Government ready to meet them in a friendly
spirit—he believed he would be carrying out the opinion
prevailing in that house, and the opinion prevailing among
all classes of this country who had anything to de with
Brazil and its people. It might be too late to do anything
of the kind this session, but if the noble lord was not pre-
pared to do so at the beginning of next session, he hoped
some hon. member would move for a committee to examine
into the question, and he believed no committee of that
house would support the policy of the noble lord. Between
this and next session no doubt there would be affairs before
the Foreign Office relating to Brazil and the King of Por-
tugal. If so, the noble lord need not wait until next session,
but he might promise what he would do in order to esta-
blish friendly relations between England and Brazil.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE would support the appoint-
ment of a committee, but would not have its labours
confined entirely to the trade with Brazil. At this time
the situation of our troops on the unhealthy coast of
Africa, where vast numbers of them were dying of fever,
was perfectly appalling. (Hear, hear.) The answers they
had heard from the Government were most evasive ; but
nevertheless he believed the troops were dying from starva-
tion, and the country was in a state of famine. These were
questions calling for the consideration of Parliament, and
which could not long be deferred. Another question which
forced itself upon the attention of the Government, and
which could not long be avoided, was that the maintenance
of the squadron on that coast cost £G0,003 per annum, and
there was not one of the ships, except the commodore's,
which could go more than eight knots. As he understood,
blockade slave-runners were now employed in the slave
trade, and these vessels had simply to turn their heads to
the wind to escape from our cruisers. Well, these were our
beet cruisers on the coast of Africa, and it was for the house
to say what means had we, should any difficulty arise with
a foreign country, to protect the commerce of this country.
Vessels of the Confederate States of America, carrying a
cargo, were able to make 15 or 16 knots, while our ships,
upon which depended the protection of our corameree in
time of war, could not make above eight knots.
_ _

Mr S. FITZGERALD endorsed most, cordially every
word which had been said by the hon. member for Birming-
ham, and expressed the regret which all in the house must
feel on seeing that the noble lord took every opportunity of
raakiag an attack of this kind upon a Government with
which for years, until lately, we had held most friendly re-
lations. The answer of the noble lord was simply an
amplification of the last despatch sent by the noble lord at
the head of the Foreign office to the Brazilian Government,
who had not, so far as that house was aware, yet sent a
reply to it. He entirely agreed with all that had fallen from
the hon. member for Birmingham.
Lord PALMERST,ON said he did not think he was open
to the reproaches of the hon. gentleman, as he did not
volunteer that statement. He (Lord Palmerston) was asked
a question, and the answer involved a statement which he
knew to be true. It would be useless for the hon. gentle-
man to deny its truth. He (Mr Fitzgerald) knew better.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore it was not worthy of him—
Mr FITZGER.ALD—I have said I did not know it.

Lord PALMERSTON—Then I am sorry you are so
ignorant. (Cries of Oh, oh,) What I stated is to be found
in papers which are laid upon the table of the house. The
noble lord proceeded to say that with regard to the remarks
of the hon. member for Birmingham and the hon. gentle•
man opposite, he would only remark that the act was the
exact counterpart of an act which it had been his (Lord
Palmerston's) duty to propose to the house in regard to
Portugal, and which, therefore, must have been approved
of by the law officers of two different Governments. The
justification of the acts was that Portugal and Brazil had
each, by the treaty of 1826, pledged the honour of their re-
spective countries to abolish the slave trade; that they
failed to fulfil their engagements ; and it was therefore
thought we ought to use our power in order to compel the
observance of the treaty. Everybody was aware that the
slave trade in Brazil amounted to a landing of about 7,000
negroes every year, and it was easy to imagine the misery
and suffering that was thereby caused. Everybody was also
aware that since the year 1815 the English Government
and the English nation had determined to put an end to
that abominable trade. (Hear, hear.) He maintained,
then, that the goodness of the object justified the means
which the Government had from time to time taken for
putting down that crime ; and he was convinced that if the
act were repealed the Brazilian slave trade would revive, as
it had in the case of Spain and Cuba. Spain was bound
by treaty to abolish the slave trade. That, indeed, was
the only reward we asked for our assistance in the war of
independence. Bat what was the result? Why, they
had heard in that house, time atter time, that the slave
trade to Cuba was carried on in spite of the treaty.
Then, take another example that of Portugal. She,
too, had made a slave treaty, but she still consented to
the exportation of slaves from ber settlements in Africa.
Now, in France, not only the slave trade, but slavery
itself, was nominally abolished; and yet, notwithstanding
this, about two years ago the slave trade was to all intents
and purposes begun and carried on for some time under the
pretext of exporting free labourers from Africa. The hon.
gentleman was correct in saying that the act had not been
enforced since 1852 ; but he (Lord Palmerston) was quite
aware that it was still a thorn in the side of the Brazilians,
It was an impediment to those who wished to carry on the
slave trade, and a reproach to those who did not. For his
part, he attached so much importance to it that, greatly as
he valued the friendship of the Brazilians, yet Ii these were
put into the two scales of the balance—the abolition of the
slave trade and the friendship of Brazil—he would sacrifice
the friendship of Brazil. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS wished to know why the noble lord
did not act in the same manner with regard to Spain.
(Hear, hear.) The fact was that he dared not. (Hear.)
lie would not enter into the question at any length, but he
could not help protesting against the language which had
been made use of by the noble lord towards an independent
member. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. RAY said that before the debate closed he wished
to say a few words upon what had fallen from the hon.
member for Portsmouth on the subject of the attempts
which had been made to suppress the save trade on the
coast of Africa. We maintained upon that coast a squadron
of 18 steam vessels
and he believed that only one of them
—viz,, the Rattlesnake—was capable of going 10f knots an
hour. The other day he was Wormed four of these vessels
gave chase to a slaver, but they could not succeed in effect-
ing her capture. He wished to know whether such a state
of things was to be continued.
Lord C PAGET said he thought that his hon. friend