The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-20 00:00:00

merit of Brazil did not then do so, and it was not till the end
of December, 1862, that measures of coercion were taken.
The noble earl had taken an exception to the ui nner in
which those reprisals had been carried out, and he drew a
distinction different from that drawn by every wi iter on the
subject. The noble earl (Russell) defended Elle course pur-
sued by her Majesty's Government as the I:ie most likely
to attain the object in view without inflicting the greatest
amount of injury; and it was only when the reprisals com-
menced that the Brizilian Government consented to arbitra-
tion. He thought it unbecoming in a member of that house
to make an attack upon this case, and try to diminish the
value of our complaint by the apprehension he seemed to
possess that the King of the Belgians would give a decision
in favour of the British Government. He was content, with-
out saying a word more respecting what the Brazilian Go-
vernment had done, to leave the matter to the judgment and
decision of that eminent, enlightened, and impartial sove-
reign. The noble lord, in conclusion, denied that her Ma-
jesty's Government had acted in an oppressive manner
towards a weak state. The same course was lately adopted
towards the American Government, who though conscious of
their strength, did justice to our arms withouthesitation ; and
why did not the Brazilian government act in the same way.
It often happened that a weak power considered it could
commit aggressive acts with impunity, and the only way to
make the British name respected all over the world was
to demand and enforce redress wherever and whenever
necessary. The noble earl said he should have no obj, c-
lion to produce that portion of the correspondence men-
tioned in the first part of the motion, but not the other
part, and he expressed a hope that they should shortly
find M. Mereira resuming his diplomatic relations with this
country.

Lord CHELMSFORD said he had arrived at the painful

conviction that the unhappy differences that had arisen be-
tween this country and Brazil were mainly, if not entirely,
owing to the conduct of our diplomatic agents in Brazil, the
whole of whose conduct had been sanctioned and approved

by the noble earl, and that our treatment of Brazil had been
from the beginning to the end, harsh, overbearing, and un•
just. We had made a most injurious use of our superior
power against a State that was comparatively weak and un-
able to offer any opposition but moral resistance. The noble
lord proceeded to argue that it was a case that did not jus-
tify reprisals, and that the manner in which they had been
carried out was both unjust and improper. Having recapi-
tulated the circumstances of the loss of the Prince of Wales,
the noble lord proceeded to argue that the very nature of
the cargo, which consisted chiefly of iron in bars and nails,
together with soda ash and some casks of beer, precluded
the possibility of much of it having been cast ashore or
saved. He then went through the correspondence, com-
menting upon the letters, and censuring the conduct of the
Secretary of State for having adopted so strong a line of
proceeding upon the representations of Consul Vereker and
the demands of Mr. Stephens. He begged their lordships'
special attention to the manner in which the arrival of
Capt. Saumarez was announced to the President of the Court.
Mr. Christie wrote a letter to the President, in which he
stated that Capt. Saumarez, of her Majesty's frigate Forte,
of 51 guns, had arrived, and would be happy to assist at the
inquiry into the affair of the ship the Prince of Wales. He
(Lord Chelmeford) contended that the mention of the force
of the ship which Capt. Saumarez commanded was palpa•
bly made as a threat. (Hear.) The Brazilian authorities
allowed Capt, Saumarez to go away without communicating
with him; and it seemed that he felt himself aggrieved in
consequence. But the Brazilian Government said that the
people of Brazil would have been offended if they had
allowed an inquiry to be entered upon under the apparent
threat of the presence of the captain of a British man. of-
war. That reply was in his (Lord Chelmsford's) opinion
very reasonable; and he considered that the Brazilian
authorities had shown sufficient desire to follow up the in-
quiry to deprive her Majesty's Government of the right to
make reprisals. (Hear.) As to Senor Soarez, there was no
proof whatsoever that he was in the neighbourhood at the
time of the wreck. The whole ground upon which the
charge against him of being a chief of lawless plunderers
and wreckers was founded was the discovery by Consul
Vereker of two English Bibles in his house, which Bibles
were the property of the captain of the lost ship. But these
Bibles were seen by Consul Vereker upon Senor Soarez's
drawing•room table. Surely, if he were a plunderer, he
would have hidden his plunder, but those books were seen
openly displayed in the most remarkable place in his house.
The Brazilian Minister, in answer to the modest demand
that Senor Soarez should be put in jail and tried or openly
disgraced, replied that there was no proof whatsoever
offered against him upon which he could be placed on trial.
How could they try a man against whom no charge could
be sustained? (Hear.) But how was the claim for com-
pensation made up ? Mr. Stephens claimed something over
£5,500 for cargo, and £1,025 or more for freight. Did the
noble lord take any measures to test the claims of Mr. Ste-
phens ? Did he demand particulars of his claim ? No, he for-
warded the claim, and merely said that her Majesty's Govern-
ment would leave the precise sum open, to be afterwards as-
certained and proved by the owners. Did their lordships re-
member the celebrated case of Don Pacifico, in which this
country had interfered and demanded compensation ? Mr.
Pacifico's claim was for £21,200, and the tribunal to which
the case was referred awarded him finally the sum of £l5O.
(Loud laughter.) Surely the noble lord ought to have
ascertained at least the value of the cargo as shipped. He
I believed the cost of the cargo was about £3,200, and the
£5,500 was the estimated selling price, that is, the profit
added to the coat. (Hear, hear.) He thought he had
shown that the conduct of the noble earl was harsh and
oppressive towards a weak State. Mr. Christie seewad
to have his own reasons for acting as harshly as he had,
and the noble earl had certainly acted very harshly and
oppressively. It was not a case for reprisals. There was
no denial of justice on the part of the Brazilian Govern •

ment. They had succeeded in bringing to justice and in
punishing two officials, and they had convicted eleven
other persons. And what was the course adopted by the
British Government They had done an act of almost war.
Lord KINGSDOWN—It is war. (Rear, hear from the
Earl of Derby.)

Lord CHELMSFORD—His noble friend said it was war
and such it certainly was. The English admiral was sent
with a fleet to Rio Janeiro, which he blockaded for six
days, and he finally captured five Brazilian ships. That
act of open war had destroyed the good feeling which had
grown up during so many years between this country and
Brazil. He deeply regretted the course which had been
pursued, and ne felt it to
.be his duty to declare that opi-
nion openly.

Lord LYTTLETON briefly defended Mr. Christie, to
whose honour and fidelity he bore testimony.

After a few words had been exchanged across the table
between the Earl of Malmesbury and Earl Russell, the
debate terminated.

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES BILL.

This bill went through committee.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
This bill likewise passed through committee.
Their lordships adjourned at nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter after twelve
o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Great Eastern Railway (Additional Powers) and Great
Northern Railway (Cheshire Lines).
ALKALI WORKS REGISTRATION BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
_ _

Mr. BRUCE entered into an explanation of the various
provisions of the measure. The object of the bill is to compel
the more effectual condensation of muriatic acid gas in
alkali works, which it appears from the general opinion of
practical chemists, is eliminated in immense bodies from
these works, and has proved most injurious to human life
and destructive to vegetation of all kinds. An eminent
inspector and sub-inspectors were proposed to be appointed
to visit works, and manufacturers not complying with the
behests of the bill would be prosecuted at quarter sessions,
and heavy penalties imposed on proprietors and workmen as
well. The bill, it may be recollected, originated with the
Earl of Derby, and has already received the approbation of
the House of Lords.

Mr. VIVIAN explained the large interests identified
with the production of alkali and the various manufactures
with which it was interested, and trusted all parties would
be permitted ample means of appeal against what they
might consider unjust prosecutions.
Mr. BOUVERIE deprecated the interference with trade
proposed by the bill, and believed it would have been better
to have strengthened the common law, which he considered
ample for every purpose. Besides, the manufacturers had
of their own option adopted every means which science
could suggest for mitigating the evils incidental to their
pursuits. At a future stage he should propose that the
operation of the bill be limited to a certain number of years,
so that it might soon come again under the review of the
house.

Lord STANLEY said the owners of land in the neigh-
bourhood of large manufacturing towns had great reason to
complain, because the vegetation was being destroyed to
a greater extent every year. The law was not, at present,
equal to the emergency.
Mr. HEADLAM intimated that the great body of the
manufacturers, to their credit, were not opposed to the bill,
and thus all their reasonable requirements should be ac-
ceded to.
Mr. HENLEY considered quarter sessions thevery
worst court to decide in such cases.
wreqrneartz sessions.
reeeedd with, and seve-
Lord STANLEY
said probably it would be well to sub-
s t i
sub-
The uht ee cvoeur
ine
et y
anaee courts fo
ral verbal amendments introduced.
Mr, PULLER proposed an addition to clause 4 to the
effect that masters would not be responsible for the un-
authorised and unjustifiable acts of th • eir workmen, who
should be alone responsible.

Mr. VIVIAN said he had lazed in the paper ranking
the owner of mills liable in the first instae.
Mr. BRUCE recommended the hon. member to with,
draw the amendment, so that its purpose might be embo.
died in a special clause.