The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF

SPECTATOR.—No one who reads through the
papers presented to Parliament can help feeling
that the Government of Brazil has been remiss in
its duty, not from any malicious purpose, but be-
cause the Government of Brazil is not equal to its
duty. The Prince of Wales was wrecked on the
coast of Brazil, in the district of Albardao, which
belongs to the province of Rio Grande do Sul, on
the 6th or 7th June, 1861. There was admitted
delay in the proceedings of the provincial officers on
the spot. The inspector did not communicate the
fact of the wreck, as the Brazilian Government
admits, for two days after he might, and ought
to have done so, to the Sub-delegate of the pro-
vince. Again, the Sub-delegate was accused of
acts so questionable that the Brazilian Government,
though denying that there was any evidence at all of
his guilt, thought it necessary to dismiss him, on the
ground that by these unfounded accusations "he had
lost the prestige necessary to the fulfilment of his
duties. Finally, Senhor Bento Soares, a magistrate
of the district of Albardao, whose house immedi-
ately adjoined the scene of the wreck, was impli-
cated in the suspicion of plunder by the discovery
of property from the wreck (unitjured by immer-
sion in the sea) in his house. Yet t his man's bro-
ther-in-law was one of those employed to hold the
inquest over the bodies of the dead Englishmen.
These are the principal circumstances wh'ch, taken
with a number of others of minor importance, bat
all tending in the same direction, go to show cul-
pable neglect on the part of the Brazilian officials.
And thus much is admitted, we must remember, by
the Brazilian Foreign Minister himself. He says,
the Brazilian Minister "ascertained that the In
spector had been negligent, delaying one or two
days the communication of the event (the
wreck) to the competent authority ; and that the
Sub-Delegate, from accusations (unfounded), had
lost the prestige necessary to the fulfilment of his
duties. Consequently both were dismissed, not for
culpable neglect, which would have had to be
punished by legal means, but the first for wilful
negligence of the short delay in announcing the
event, from which neglect no prejudice or harm
arose to the action of justice; and the second, for
not possessing moral strength enough for his charge.
Thus there was no culpable neglect; and as to the
Justice of the Peace (Senhor Bento ,Snares), the
fact of his not having been convicted of the conni-
vance attributed to him by Mr. Vereker ought
necessarily to exempt him from all and every cen-
sure." It is obvious that these admissions go a
long way towards proving that our wrecked sailors,
or (if they were really drowned) their property,
had not the earliest and fullest protection which
the Brazilian law could have given them ; and,
as we have said, many of the minor and incidental
evidences elicited, confirm this into a moral cer-
tainty. There can, then, be little doubt that our
Government had a legal claim on that of Brazil for
compensation for any additional loss suffered in
consequence of this negligence (whether culpable or
not, and, of course. all such negligence is culpable)
in the Brazilian officials. The only question that
really arises is as to whether this loss was fairly es-
timated; and next, whether our claim was decently
or indecently enforced. As to the first point, Mr.
Christie was duly instructed that if the Brazilian
Government admitted the principle of compensation
" Her Majesty's Government are prepared to ac-
cept a fair arbitration on the question as to the
actual amount of compensation to be made,"
—and though, therefore, the estimate was cer-
tainly rather calculated as if Brazil were
wholly responsible both for the sea's destrue•
tiveness and for the plundering of the wreck—
no reproach arises on this head. As to the second
point,—the mode in which our claim was enforced,
—we cannot but think that it was unnecessarily
arbitrary and humiliating. The claim for com-
pensation was made by Mr. Christi. , on Lord Rus
sell's instructions, on the 6th December last; and
The British Government did not, it seems, give time
even to receive and consider the answer of Brazil
before enforcing the demand. Lord Russell's de-
spatch of October Bth, directing the claim to be ,trade,
was followed very quickly by his despatch of No-
vember 4t n, directing reprisals to be made by Ad-
miral Warren, in case the Brazilian Government
should refuse. Accordingly, when Mr. Christie
first asked for compensation, on the sth December,
he was already authorized to compel it, and before
the la-t day of the month Admiral Warren had,
in fact, made the reprisals agreed upon. Now
we submit that this is rather insolent diplo-
macy. It may be true that the Brazilian Govern-
ment had shown but languid interest in the
vindication of its own proceedings. The affair had
been hanging on for a year and a half before the
final demand. Still, the demand for compensation
was not made till the end of that period, and it was
scarcely decent to make this demand for a some-
what doubtful claim and enforce it without leaving
space for a discussion, almost in the same breath.
There is no analogy between such a case as this and
that of the Trent. Here, at lelst, there was no
question of an insult to the British flag. The Bra-
zilian Ministry had taken many steps to bring the
offenders to justice, and had disgraced two officials
for their inadequate or unsatisfactory conduct. The
claim for compensation was, we think, good, and
doubtless it would have been essential firmly to en-
force it, if only to make the Brazilian Government
morekcareful in future for the lives and property of
English ships. But the manner of the proceeding,
for a case of mere pecuniary claims, was more than
imperious, and has, we think, overleaped itself.
LONDON REVIEW.—It is not for the interest of
Europe that the Polish nation should once more be
crushed to the ground by the iron heel of Russia.
The Cossack nightmare, which used so heavily to
bestride the breasts of European statesmen,
is becoming, it is true, a thing of the
past. The Sheffield Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee and the coterie of wiseacres on whom
Mr. Urquhart's mantle has descended, are
left almost alone. Nobody believes that it is re-
served for some coming Czar to make a mouthful of
modern civilization. But the future power of Rus-
sia must continue to be a source of disquieting spe-
culation to all English and continental politicians
who are interested either in the politics of the East
or in the general progress of freedom. Russia is
now passing through a crisis. What will be the
character or the tendency of the Russia of the
future it is difficult to say. But one thing is cer-
tain, that the Russia of the future will be powerful;
and that—unless it departs very widely from the
traditions of the old Russian school—it will be, upon
the whole, aggressive and pushing. Yet the bar-
rier which Europe has hitherto been content to
raise against the Cossack is one that seems only
half-suited to the age. Turkey, said Napoleon the
Great, is a marsh which defends our right flank. It
would be unwise to look upon the marsh as
permanent, or to regard it as a satisfactory
guarantee against all the chances and
changes that may befall the world. It is a
grave question how far the Turkish Empire is
capable of reformation. Its very existence is
threatened both from without and from within;
and the day is perhaps not indefinitely distant when
the public opinion of the Continent will refuse any
longer to tolerate the maintenance for merely
material purposes of a Power at once unchristian,
semi-barbarous, and tyrannical. Great Britain in
particular has already begun to excite the murmurs
of foreign nations on account of her loyalty to the
Lurks. She seems to jealous foreign eyes to care
more for the high road to India and for the Sultan,
than for the oppressed Maronites, or for the name of
the Redeemer of mankind. The position is a false
one for a great and generous nation. It brings us
into continual conflict with the religious sentiment
of Europe. It istrue that the Christians of the East
are distinguished neither for their piety, their guile-
lessness, nor their honesty. If Religion is to be
found on the side of the true believer, Justice some-
times takes up her abode with the Mahommedan.
But only the imperative exigencies of policy can
reconcile us to a state of things for the security of
which it is necessary that Christianity should
not advance too swiftly or suddenly in the East.
The right of England and France to interfere be-
tween Russia and her victim rests upon indisputa-
ble ground ; it is only the expediency of interfer-
ence which can be questioned. For moral purposes
the two great Powers of the West are the legally
constituted protectors of the Polish race ; for it is
idle to draw the fine distinction that our original
compacts authorise us to intervene, when
wwe wish,
without binding us to interfere when e ought.
Powerful empires are bound by the clearest of
moral obligations to use all lawful opportunities to
succour the oppressed, and redress wrong ; nor to
intervention is legitimate according to the
strict letter of Euorpean treaties—is it anything but
a Christian duty to intervene. Even if Poland stood
to us in no nearer relation than any other suffering
people, it would be possible to press the theory of
non-intervention too tar. Non-intervention, rightly
understood, is the only safe rule of political con-
duct. But non-intervention certainly does not
mean a passive endurance of allspectacles, however
repulsive, provided they are are enacted within
the frontiers of a foreign State. All that we signify
by the term is, that nations should be free to regu-
late their internal concerns, and to choose their own
forms of government. It cannot be seriously main-
tained that we are bound to look on silently while
hordes of Russian soldiery sweep over Poland with
the announced programme of extermination, blood-
shed, and plunder; while they slaughter the inno-
cent, torture the guilty, and indiscriminately out-
rage the women. Non-intervention is a sacred
principie, but it does not bid its adherents to
acquiesce in sights at which humanity revolts. There
is a limit to the patience of England and of France.
The question is simply whether that limit has been