The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-25 00:00:00

oyeil!iy

ii

.;-1‘,•11 t.) 11.011.
exploits have been performed, not by veterans inured
to the serviee, but by young min, assuming great re-
Qpon- ibilittes, and 2iving examples worthy of the name
01 Englishinen.—(itenewed cheering.) When such
things are d ,ne by the aged, and such examples are set
by the young, I never will despair of the security of our
Indian empire.—(Cheers.) I trust the House will excuse
me—(Hear, hear)—ior bearing testimony to the services
of Lord Gough.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot permit his
military services in India to.close without taking advan-
tag%2 of a fifth occasion to repeat the satisfaction which
I have derived from the contemplation of his services.—
(Much cheering.)
Sir JAMES HOGG said that the result of the last
battle was doubly gratifying, because it gave them the
assurance of the complete subjection of the enemy, and
also the glory of a brilliant victory. A more complete
one was never fought, either more complete as a victory,
or more complete in its final results. If any evidence
were required by the House upon its completeness, it
was to be found in a letter describing it, which was
written by Lord Gough to a private friend of his, and in
which it was mentioned, amongst other matters, that, to
make good the light, into which the engagement speedily
turned, the Seikhs threw off their native costume to
escape detection. There was now not the slightest
chance that the Seikhs could ever re-assemble in forces
sufficient to enable them to compete with the British
apmy. Lord Gough would never have applied to the Duke
of Wellington to relieve him of his office if he had supposed
that anything yet remained to be done. Ha would now
soon return to his home, and he hoped his life would long
be spared to enjoy the rewards bestowed upon him
by a gracious Sovereign and a grateful country.—(Hear,
hear.) Whilst they were disgusted with the ungenerous
conduct of the Seikhs in return for the kind treatment
they had experienced, it would be gratifying to reflect
upon the steadiness with which the four Seikh regiments
had adhered to their cause. Subsequently to 1846 it was
Lord Hardinge's policy to enlist the Seikhs under the
Dumber and command them by the British officers, and
he believed that the four regiments so disciplined might
confidently be pronounced as most faithful soldiers. He
was glad to hear of the useful services performed by so
many young men. No one unacquainted with India
could tell the responsibility of acting in that country
under trying circumstances, far away from friends to
support and encourage them. By the recognition of
their value by the House they would henceforth know
that however distant might be the field of their labours,
or however humble the station in which they were act-
ing, still the eyes of the country were upon them, and
that they would not fail to meet with tho notice of a
grateful Sovereign.—(Elear.)
Sir H. INGLIS said, that whilst thanks and honours
were being lavished on the distinguished officers of whose
great merits he also entertained the highest opinion, the
House ought not to forget how much they were indebted
to a higher power. He would also take the liberty of
referring very briefly to the services of Sir John Thack-
well, whose exploits, he thought, had not been touched
upon by his Right Hon. Friend as much as justice re-
quired.
Mr. HUME regretted to say that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had not the power to confer any honours on
the officers of the Indian army but to a limited extent.
He hoped the Government would remedy the effects of
this ill-advised regulation. He hoped that something
would be done for those who survived those who fell in
these engagements.
Mr. GLADSTONE said it was an error to suppose
that there was a regulation by which the honour of the
Bath could not be conferred upon the officers of the In-
dian army.
Mr. HUME wished to explain that only 200 officers
could obtain the honour.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if extraordinary con-
duct called for it, the party might be rewarded with the
honour of the Bath, although the honour was limited in
extent.

Mr. MANGLES said the officers of the Company were
the officers of the Crown, and ought to be placed upon
an equality with every other branch of the service. He
was astonished that any apprehension should have been
entertained by the Government of this country of the re-
sult of the campaign.
Lord J. RUSSELL disclaimed having ever entertained
any doubts of the result of the campaign.
Mr. GRATTAN said it was very gratifying to Iton.
Members who came from Ireland, that a vote of thanks
had been given to the Noble Lord. The objection to Lim
was that he was a Tipperary man.
Colunel DUNNE concurred in the vote, and drew at-
tentio❑ to the services of General Thackwell.
Sir. R. PEEL bore testimony to the ability of Lord
Dalhousie's conduct in India.
The resolutions were then agreed to.
Mr. AGLIONBT presented a petition from Cocker-
mouth against granting bounties to parties importing
slaves into the West Indies.
BRAZIL.

Mr. M. GIBSON then called the attention of the
House to the state of our relations with the empire of
Brazil, and to submit a motion for the repeal of the
Brazilian Act, 8 and 9 Vic., c. 122. His object was to
effect a complete and perfect abolition of the slave trade,
and if it was not effected in Brazil, it was not from want
of will but of power on the part of the Brazilian (Go-
vernment. He was sorry to be deprived on this occasion
of the services of the Hon. Member for Gateshead, in
endeavouring to obtain the repeal of this Act. The
grounds upon which he sought it were, that this coun-
try maintained it by violating international laws. The
history of their treaty with the Brazilian Government
was this:—ln 1826 a treaty was entered into between
Brazil and Great Britain, by which it was declared :and
agreed to, that all persons found engaged in the si aye
trade, if subjects of either country, should be declared
guilty of piracy, and treated as such. That treaty was to
last for 15 years, and subjected the vessels of Brasil. to
the right of search, and the appointment of Mixed Com-
mission Courts to try all cases which might be deemed
necessary. In 1846 Lord Aberdeen declared, however,
that they did not want the privilege of a right of search,
or mixed commissions; that by the first article of the
treaty, Brazil agreed that persons guilty of slaving should
be treated as pirates, and therefore the Sovereign of
Great Britain was entitled to take every step she thought
proper, to punish Brazilians as such, who should be
found guilty. But whoever heard that the declaration
in a treaty created a criminal law, or the offence of
piracy? An Act of Parliament, was, however, passed,
founded on his Lordship's construction of that article,
which declared Brazilian or British subjects engaged
in slaving guilty of piracy. By that Act it was
declared that the subjects of an independent
country should be governed by a certain number of
Acts of Parliament, passed in England, which were, law
before that period; and it was contended that they were
liable to the punishments inflicted by those statutes.
But it should be recollected that a Brazilian ship, sailing
under a Brazilian flag, was to all intents and purposes
Brazilian territory, so that they were legislating for the
subjects of an independent empire.—(Hear, hear.)
Before this was done, however, the opinions of Al.r.
I). Hill and the Hon. and Learned Member for Youghal
—.who was well known to possess an extensive know-
ledge of the laws of nations—were taken, and they de-
cided that the treaty entered into with Brazil gave no
right to treat the subjects of a foreign state as pirates;
that the Sth and 9th Victoria, cap. 192, was founded on
an erroneous assumption of power, and therefore in-
operative; and, therefore, the seizure and condemnation
of Brazilian ships by British cruisers, or Bri-
tish authority, was unlawful. It would also be recol-
lected that at that time the present Lord Chief Jus-
tice of the Common Pleas brought the attention of Par-
liament to the subject, and that eminent personage had
recently informed his (Mr. Gibson's) Hon. and. Learned
Friend the Member for Gateshead, and authorised him
to state so, that, had he continued a Member of that

House, he would have deemed it an imperative duty to
seek the repeal of that Act of the Legislature.—(Hear,
hear.) In the communication to his Hon. Friend, dated
in March of the present year, his Lordship stated that
he always thought the conduct pursued towards Brazil
a national disgrace ; that it was manifestly done either
in ignorance of the law of nations, or by reason of an
immense assumption, calculated to lead to war, or to
render this country contemptible; for if redress were
demanded by a foreign nation, and refused, it
would be a just cause of war. The question, continued
his Lordship, was, what constituted piracy? Pi-
racy was a spoliation and violence committed on
the high seas, not against one nation, but against all, and
therefore any one nation may punish it; but particular
treaties entered into would not authorise the contracting
parties to punish as criminals the subjects of the other,
for neither of them were justified in legislating against
the subjects of an independent state. That was clear,
and, indeed, such a principle as enunciated in the Act
he (Mr. Gibson) referred to was plainly contrary to the
dictates of common sense. It went so fir as to say that
the Government of Brazil authorised the British Govern-
ment to punish its subjects as pirates, because of a treaty
which was entered into. Let them recollect that the
municipal law required in Brazil for the proper execu-
tion of the treaty was never carried into effect; and,
although his Noble Friend now at the head of the
Foreign Department was not responsible for that
Act, he would ask him, would the following case
be lawful or just, which was exactly similar with
the position in which the Executive Government of
Brazil was placed. Suppose the Noble Lord had en-
tered into a treaty with Brazil—which Parliament sub-
sequently refused to ratify—but the Executive Govern-
ment of Brazil, in executing it, blockaded British ports,
and watched ';he Channel, heedless of what was done in
this country. Would that be just, or proper, or politic?
—( I, lear hear)—and yet that was the conduct now pur-
sued by England towards Brazil. hen
HV il.rNbil, o
heelnf
theth liusborno.uagnhdt
before them the opinion
y
thel.ea ran
oe
uds
eM
tehnei Member
solemnfor p
rooutgehs
tahl ,0
fwathheen
Dhuekber eon? ht before
Welling-
ton,case ofot tLhoerpdoLrytungduheusres,t,wihniethewaosuesxeaocttlyLosridms,ilainr,thhee
nthought u
gh
he t etxhoen
subjecte rst e d himselflightly fhroefmorethtehcehaertge tenotifo'
nbaoy-if
the House.—(Hear, hear.) They were bringing Brazi-
lians
tryingbethfberme a
standi
in tariblaunngahl
awgehiwehhiethheythedyiddni
do
.t
not
ougandi
es er
setsa urde
g, a
radnedd beforethem, jaunddg easl whotht
thoaod,
enoon t
rieorcyus
toiithesh
rights not
such a
course
privileges slikely
n todefeatindependenta,
than
.ttoe.aeeWomasp
vtiheow,evtoil
d
fteheel ionbgj,ecat theyndto ehxatd in
end
which such great sacrifices had bcfrebeerantetmhlanrdriestnabPtiPorthsiassnicad,n)buanodf-
try? Now, with retgfauridallteodt,hiet
wenag3afgoermtehnemtys
toot'
ißhgraihi.,rle,
if the treaty was no
into the matter—to proceed in the business in the same
manner as when an ordinary dispute occurred, and not
taketake the matter into their own hands. They ought to
recollect that it took thirty-two years to carry the
abolition of the slave trade in England—(Hear, hear)—
and why should they expect that the Brazilian Go-
verntnent could carry such a measure all at once
through their Legislature, and in the face of innumer-
able difficulties? The slave trade was abolished by the
slow progress of public opinion, and he was confident