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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVIIINING, JULY 17, 1863

which the honour and cl,gnity of the country were concerned
di icussed in so small a house as that before him, he felt
some misgiving, as to their being any justificaion for thr
strong expression of opinion which had fallen from his hon.
friend. (Hear, hear.) He repeated that he was au a loss to
understand the object of the diseursion, unless it was that
the hon. gentleman wished the country to understand what
be and his friends would have done inid they been in the
position of the Government; that, althourh a British ship
was wrt eked 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-

went 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 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 morel doubt as to them he en-
tirely denied. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman alleged
that tee ship went down at her anchors. But where was
the evidence of that ? The probl was all the other way.
The hon. gentleman forgot that not only was the ship Steli
several days atter the wreck, but that three boats and their
oars had been found on the shore, and Admiral Warren was
of ep'nion from their position that they must nave used them
several times in bt inging goods from the vessel. But it' it
were true that the ehfp went down at her anchors, howdid the
hon. gentleman explain the findieg of barrels of nails onshore
—still more the condition of the Manchester goods which
were found unwet and unr,amaged by sea water ? (Hear )
If the object of the hon. gentlemen were not, as he hail
already said, to show what be ana his friends would have
done under the circumstances, it might be that it was to em-
bat rass lair Majesty's Government and injure British inte-
rest in Sou h America. if that were nis 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 Biitish interests there to a very great even,. 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 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 adopt. d, on the Brazilian
Government refusing to inquire into the circumstances, of
referring it to the Queen's Advccete, and although his Ma-
jesty the King of the Belgians had decided that no insult
was intended in the vase 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 protewed
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,ivern-
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 'ct known as the "Aberdeen Act,"
reed asserted that no measure had ever done so much
for .he sup pression 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 twocountries. 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 other dis-
tinguished members of the Conservarive 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. 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 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 tormer
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-
tuous 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 aiter 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 Russel], after the rupture, addressed a circular, which
was on the table of the heuce, 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
part of British merchants ; and, on the other hand, ttterehad
been several claims made on this country by individuals in
Brazil which were pressed ou the Foreign-office by the
to have the claims on both
Brazilian Government ; these claims arising under the
Aberdeen Act and the Admiralty Court. In the year 1857-
58 Lord Clarendon proposed
sides referred to a mixed commission composed of Brazilians
and British subjects; and the convention recited that all
claims remaining uneettlee in the opinion of either Govern
went should be referred to the commission. But while the
ain informed
Mr. Scarlett, the Eng-
lish them that he had
commission was considering the claims (here being Si
British claims Minister
a awlt
Rio
108
Janeiro,B r zili
received a despatch trom home directing him to tu,p nd
'he further sitting of the commission. He believed that this
act of the English Government had done great injury to
in
several commercial men this c untry, for, if the commis-
shin had not been broken up before its natural time of ex.
go about
pßarraaz.ni
ol
ti; for,to
t the let hsvoruognlag h
dune,w asst
still
ti
piration, their claims would be settled and the money paid.
He was not surprisedtheGGiorvve7rnmmeenlittshhaodunldotbsehunwilling
with sheme and regret upon
to have discuisnsimenainb
copinion
ni
detrhnga,3:it theavußrazilian
io
„king
id
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 hid been done, that there had been
sufficient cense for this Government to exact redress from
the Governneeet f Brazil. But the hon. member for Hor-
sham, in spite of all that had taken piece, 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. (Heir, 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
dtheemasnudmes claimed by Mr. Stephens, the owner of the ves-
sel. the
500 and the £1,025, but that these were
Mr, Christie stated that her kajesty's Government
were willing to have these claims and the whole question
referred ; but in point of tact it was the Brazilian Govern-
ment objectedeson to arbitration, and refused to admit the
principle who
of rsibility. (Cheers.) The hon, and learned
gentleman then proceeded to say that after ;he peremptory
ultimatum of the Brazilian G 'veil:meat, 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 moat inexplicable.
It had been said that war had been made against Brazil. but
in fact all reprisals were pro lane° 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 prop,-edings 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 ben 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
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, if not openly
denied, had rarely fairly been granted by the Bra.
zilian Government. lie contended that her Maje-ty's
Government had acted in a pi oper 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
of Stare for Foreign Affairs, and the Solicitor-General, re-
lative to the arbitration of the liarg o the Belgians, that
the English naval officers had been harshly used by the
Brazilian Government, according to the lawsof that country.
The SOLICITOR-GENEttAL 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. MILNES 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. (Rear.)
Mr. B. MOORE, on the other hand, again impugned the