The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-07 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 7, 1863.

could find, and to furnish all the evidence he could pro-
cure concerning the Wreck to Ihe consul. Ihe officer failed
in that duty ; in fact, all the legal authorities did fail in
their duties ; and he contended that the BraZilian. Govern-
ment, bY dismissit4 two of those officers, although after-
wards explaining away the reasons for such dismissal, had
admitted them to be culpable. Until the 22d no inquest
was held, and then an inquiry was held at Albardao, and
two days later at Rio Grande. There was a remarkable
fact connected with that examination which to his mind
carried great weight ; the authorities who signed the report
as having been present were not present,Mr. Vereker sign-
ing the report under protest merely, as vouching for his
presence, and not for his admission of the truth of the report.
The next step would naturally have been to have given Mr.
Vereker a copy of the report, but although he applied for it
over and over again it was not until the year following-12
months after the event—that he succeeded in obtaining a
copy. No one who calmly read Admiral Warren's able
summary of the evidence furnished to him by Mr. Vereker
and the report of Capt. Saumarez on the spot could avoid
the moral conviction that the men had been murdered.
(Hear, hear.) If they had not been murdered, why were
not the other bodies produced ? Some vague excuses were
made about the drifting of the sand and the erasure of all
traces, but how was three of the bodies found a consider-
able distance from the shore ? He must say that Consul
Vereker had been dealt with most unfairly in this debate.
(Hear. hear.) He regretted to hear what fell from the
noble lord the member for Stamford in reference to that
honourable public servant, who had done everything in his
power to discharge his duty, and who, in consequence of
his great exertions and exposure, several months afterwards
suffered severe illness, which for a moment deranged his
brain. And after what had been stated as to life being
jeopardized it was not wonderful that he should have been
under considerable apprehensions. Then as to the action
of the Government—what did they do on receiving a re-
port of what had occurred ? He was much surprised to
hear the hon. gentleman who sp ;ke last say that those
who taunted the Brazilian Government with neg-
ligence had themselves been guilty of it. But what did the
British Government do ? They wrote to Mr. Baillie, our
Charge d'Affaires, and expressed their conviction that the
Brazilian Government would institute a proper inquiry.
Nobody had been arrested but some miserable Indian, who
was not even a Brazilian subject. The hon. gentleman said
compensation was not demanded till the Bth of February.
If it had been the Government would have justly exposed
themselves to the taunts of the hon. gentleman. They did
not demand compensation till they had given the Brazilian
Government an opportunity of doing justice. The hon gen-
tleman was not particularly happy in hit speech. He said
we did not understand how justice was administered in
Brazil any more than Brazilians knew how justice was ad-
ministered in this country. But had they done all they
could to arrest the guilty parties ? If the Government could
have been convinced that a fair investigation and trial had
taken place he did not believe they would have insisted in
the reparation they thought it their duty to do. Why did
not the Brazilian Government send a vessel of war to the
coast of Albardao, which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bramley-
Moore) stated was so wild, end an exception to every other
part of Brazil? One of two things might be expected—
either the Brazilian Government would assert their autho-
rity, or if they were unable to protect foreigners whose ves-
sels had been wrecked on their coast the British Govern-
ment must protect their own subjects. What was the use
of our fleet and our consulsif not to take action in such a case
as this ? The action of her Majesty's Government had
been strictly within diplomatic usage. The Brazilian
Government stated that eleven persons had been con-
' demned and punished, but it turned out that such was
not the case. We therefore had a right to demand
compensation for the loss sustained. His honourable
friend had endeavoured to prove that we demanded
compensation for murder. Now, we might have been
morally convinced that murder did not take place, but we
carefully avoided mixing up that with the demand for com-
pensation. The hon. gentleman had adverted to M. Mo-
reira's notes. M. Moreira assumed somewhat offensively
that the British Government had demanded compensation
for the vessel or freight; compensation was demanded for
the plunder of the cargo, and for the negligence shown by
the Brazilian authorities in their inquiries to ascertain the
delinquency of the supposed malefactors. Even after the
weeck the persons on the coast spoke of the body of the cap-
tain, and how could they have identified the body without
some distinguishing part of his dress ? It was said we had
left no opening for arbitration, but if hon. gentlemen would
turn to page 99 of the printed papers they would find from
Earl Russell's despatch to Mr. Christie that the principle
of arbitration was admitted; and again, on the 4th Nov., it
was stated that her Majesty's Government were very re-
luctant to proceed to extremes, except as a last resource, and
to the offer of arbitration no condition was then attached.
Mr. Christie, in his despatch, spoke of arbitration as an
amicable solution of the question. It was not for the party
who demanded redress, but for the party of whom it was
asked to offer arbitration; and Mr, Christie was authorised
to accept the offer. Now, as to the question of reprisals, he
would leave it to be dealt with by those who were more
competent than he was to deal with legal points ; but he
might call the attention of the hon. member for Horsham
to the action of his own Government on a question of re-
prisals. There was a case in which his hon. friend had
justly claimed some credit—the case of the Cagliari, which
was seized by the Neapolitan Government, and Lord
Malmesbury gave that Government ten days' notice within
which he required they should give up the British engineers,
with a threat that if the Neapolitan Government still per-
sisted in refusing reparation reprisals should follow. If
hon. members would refer to Hansard they would find
that Lord George Bentinck in 1847 brought forward a
motion in which he pressed on the noble lord now at the
head of the Government that, unless the claims of the
Spanish bondholders were paid, the British Government
should have recourse to reprisals; and his noble friend on
that occasion made an admirable speech, in which he showed
that the doctrine of reprisals was not applicable to the cir-
cumstances. (Hear, hear.) It was said the action taken by
the present Government was an unheard-of proceeding; he
hoped to show that there were good precedents for what
they had done. The noble lord the member for Stamford
asked somewhat querulously why nothing was said about
the case of the officers of the Forte. The hon. member for
Lincolnshire, who brought forward this motion with taste
and good feeling, which he should have been glad if the
noble lord the member for Stamford had imitated, omitted
all reference to this question because it had been submitted
to the arbitration of the King of the Belgians. Her Ma
jesty's Government had entire reliance on the wisdom and
justice of that monarch, and therefore it would ill become
him to say a word upon a question which was still under
consideration. But anything more unfair than the state-
ment made by the noble lord he had never heard. The
noble lord of course might put the honour and veracity of
English officers as high as he thought proper; but for him
only to state a fragment of their case—(hear, hear)—and
to conceal the whole of that part of the narrative on which
the British Government had taken action, was unfair alike
to those officers, to the Government, and to the house.
(Cheers.) It was not for their arrest at the guardhouse
that reparation had been demanded. The Government did
not assume that English gentlemen necessarily got drunk
after dinner; and when three English gentlemen assured
them that they did not get drunk and did not assault the
guard, they took their evidence (cheers) in preference to the
swearing of a hotel-keeper and a common soldier. (Cheers.)
They were confined to prison, marched manacled through
the town, and refused a conveyance, and it was for
these indignities and not for the arrest, which might have
been a mistake, that the British Government demanded
reparation. (Hear, hear.) The policy of her Majesty's
Government had beat very much condemned by gentlemen
on the other side but he had not heard from them any
alternative. Where vas the evidence of the facts so much
condemned ? Eighteen months had been given to the Go-
vernment of Brazil. Suppose her Majesty's Government
had not adopted the course which was taken; suppose they
had not answered those energetic letters of Mr. Stephens,
who, like a thor. ugh Briton, believed it was the duty of
the Government ti look after his property—what would
that gentleman heve done ? He would certainly have gone
to his hon. friene opposite—(cheers)—and his hon. friend
—assuming that tone of solemn remonstrance which he
could put on so well when occasion required—would as
certainly have charged the Government with apathy, have
dwelt upon the facts of British subjects murdered and
British property plundered, and held that the Government
which suffered sash wrongs deserved the reprobation of the
house and the ccuntry. (Cheers.) It had been said that
there was much British property in Brazil, in banks, mines,
railways, and public works. But his experience of foreign
affairs had satisfied him that it was exceedingly easy to get
British capital into Brazil, but it was exceedingly difficult
to get it out again. His hon. friend's acquaintance with the
Foreign-office would doubtless enable him to corroborate
the statement that the most troublesome business of that
department arose from transactions relating to the Southern
States of America.
Mr. S. FITZre'ERA.LD—Not Brazil,

Mr. LAYARD said hon, gentlemen were always coming
to the Foreign-office and asking how the claims of their
clients were progressing, and all the reply the department
were able to give was, "We have written again," " We
have given instructions ;" and that sort of thing went on
year after year. And what description of claims were those
so constantly u-ged ? Denial of justice, outrages on the
person, and infraction of treaties. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S, FITZGERALD—Not in Brazil.

Mr. LAYARD was sorry to differ from his hon. friend,
but he would point out, two or three matters which led him
to form the opinion ho had expressed. There had been
claimed from Erazil the sum of £350,000. His hon. friend
just now said that the present Government had broken up
the commission that was to inquire into those claims; but
his hon. friend must have certainly known the true history
of that transaction. The Brazilian Government brought
forward claims which had been settled by courts of law,
whose decisions they themselves had recognised, and they
insisted upon their knowing that the English Government
would never consent to their being reopened, and, as they
would not hear of anything else till these claims were ad-
mitted, the British Government were compelled to break up
the commission. The English government would have
been only too glad to have settled the vast amount of claims,
many of which had been hanging. over for the last 40
years. What happened only four or five years ago, and