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

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 nut effected in Brazil, it was not from want
of will but of power on the part of the Brazilian Go-
vernment. lie was sorry to be deprived on this occasion
of the services of the lion. 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 1828 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 skive
trade, if subjects of either country, should be declared
guilty of piracy, and treated as such. That treaty was to
last for 15 years, rnd subj,cted 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 1845 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
prop: r, 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 en independent empire.— (Hear, hear.)
Before this was done, however, the opinions of Mr. A.
D. hill and the lion, 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 Bth 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 fur 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 lion. Friend, dated
in Marcia 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 load 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 far 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 ex.cu-
dun 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
Brazd 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.
meat of Brazil, in executing it, blockaded British ports,
and watched the Channel, heedless of what was done in
this country. Would that be just, or proper, or politic?
—(Hear' hear)—and yet that was the conduct now pur-
sued by England towards Brazil. When he thus brought
before them the opinion of Mr. Hill, of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Youghal, when he brought before
the house the solemn protesto!u we thesll uolreeLootr.d‘sV in the -
ton, or' Lord Lyndhurst, in th
case of the Portugivse, which was exactly similar, he
exonerated himself from the charge of hay-
thought he exonera
before the attention of
thei uhr:uusgol.t the subject
(flour, lightlyhear.)
were bringing Brazi-
liansh
t;yia
trying
i_tdfloorrne
ina tar i bl
ill a
gwon
which
i eti they clid
did not rc ougitinadi,e7r.-
satsanrde,garadnedd btehte'oErne, judges
fgaeatsil l‘tvdlhittot,,
,tiloaod, independent cnsototat
state.
rcyuNsvtasos .111:14eti
rights and privileges
thesue such
object
coursetot the
ymhoarde
ilni kveiloywt,o
to
teal cir.oearltl t
ett thrertriistuat otpip,t)irnc
sao3neillbi
asodhf
feeling, and to extend the
twrlyii?ch
Nsuocwh,gwreiatiti sraecgraifirde.estt!it'tavidliebecnegnatmt,.
if the treaty was not fulfilled, it was anit eeh roibtmys ttoloifi si
Bneccaauzi
imnatonitiehre matter—nthean dsame
t
t:n proceedordinat•yi in
dispute u soicnceuirsir occurred,
take
recollectthe nt-Tattteritinttoookth
thirty-two
4hoin dyse.a
tioeyeaoriurgyhrt)titioe
ebolition of the slave trade in England—Wear, lea
care} sat
esyhect
athmateatslitlereßraazililiaatn
oGneoe-
vanerlaiu":,iirlyt cshollildeat
through their Legislature, and in the face of innumer-
able difficulties? The slave trade was abolished by the
slow progress of public opinion, and be was confident

that if, while that opinion was in prog-ress, they had
had an enemy on their ahurce, seizing their ships and
committing other anti of hostility,. Cmy never would
have had that slave trade abolished. Ile Mievel that.
the present policy was not a sound one. When this Act
was passed, distinct declarations were mada by tthey
Foreig,n Secretary that nothing would give him
greater pleasure than to repeal this Act, and since that
time, as he was informe3, the Brazilians had sub-
mitted such a project as would have satsfieil Lord
Aberdeen. The project subrailted, he was informed,
was satisfactory to both partite s, hut was not carried
out in consequence of a change of Administration,
when Lord Palmerston wrote a dispatch which imme•
diately put an end to the whole negotiation. Lord
Palmerston proraised to prepare a draft of a treaty, but
his intimation was that it was not to be questioned, and
that they had nothing to do but to sign it. Ten months
afterwards came out this draft, and in June, 1847, it
was forwarded. Lord Hosvden was instructed that he
was not to alter a letter in that treaty. The Right Hon.
Gentleman read the dispatch. He ventured humbly to
say that these instructions, affording no ground for negu-
tiation, was not calculated to be successful. The plan, as
might have bef n anticipated, had entirely failed, and to
that Sir Charles Hotham, the ec.mmander of the squad-
ron there, had borne his testimony. His opinion was that
they should be met halfway, particularly as there was a
varty, especially among the younger men, who were
favourable to this prcject. But Lord Pahnerston's in-
structions had armed against us the whole population.
He had stated sufficieut reasons, he hoped, to induce the
House to agree to a Bill, which he wished to bring in to
repsal so much of the present law as was obnoxious to
the renewal of amicable relations with the empire of
Brazil. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal
the Act 8 and 9 Vic., c. 122.
Mr. URQUHART said that if the Government of this
country- was anxious to find out new channels to advance
the trade of this country, nothing could more facilitate
that object than opening up amicable relations with the
southern continent of America, and especially with the
Brazilian empire. Yet that was the empire which, from
the clear and explicit statement they had just heard,
they had the worst understanding. Our measures, from
the testimony of Sir C. Hotham, were the chief support
of the slave trade in that country. The Portuguese
Government had been treated in a similar manner. The
Hon. Member concluded by saying, that for the reasons
he bad stated he felt pleasure in seconding the Right
Hon. Gentleman's motion.

Sir F. THESIGER said, the motion of the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) was for the repeal of the
Bth and 9th Vic., chap. 122; and after what they had
hoard in its support, he trusted the House would give no
encouragement to the motion. The Right Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) had introduced the
motion with great clearness and force, but he had fallen
into a few errors, which it would be necessary to correct
before he applied himself to a consideration of the ques-
tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman had spoken of the
Bth and 9th Victoria as if they had power ucder that
Act to deal with Brazilian subjects. Now, there was
nothing in the Act which gave power over the subject of
Brazil. It gave power merely to the Admiralty to ad-
judicate respecting the cargo and vessels of Brazilian
subjects.—(Hear, hear.) He would call th'e attention
of the House to the convention of 1826, which incorpo-
rated into it all the powers of the treaty with Portugal
in 1817; and in the first article of the treaty of '26 it
was provided, that in three years after the exchange
of the ratification of the treaty the slave trade should
be entirely abolished, and that any subject of Brazil
railing in slaves after the treaty should be guilty
of piracy.—(Hear, hear.) The three years expired in
1830; but under the treaty with Portugal in 1817, it
was provided, that after the slave trade should be abo
lished, the treaty should exist for 17 years. It there-
fore lasted for 15 years after 1830, and it expired
accordingly in March, 1845. There was then the Act
of 7 and 8 Geo. IV., to give effect to that treaty. So
stood the law till March, 1845, when the treaty came
to an end according to the stipulations of the original
treaty. Inasmuch as the Act of Geo. IV. prohibited
any proceedings in the Courts of Admiralty, and as
the slave-trade came to an end in 1830, and there being
no mixed Commission Courts, it became necessary to
consider the condition in which this country stood
by the treaty with the Brazilian Government, that the
slave-trade should be entirely abolished. In 1830
the representative of the Brazilian Court ex-
pressed it as his opinion that there was no occasion
for the mixed Commission Courts, and that parties
might be left to be dealt with by the ordinary tribunals
of their respective countries for violation of the treaty.
No one could doubt that the slave trade was perma-
nently abolished by the treaty referred to. The Hon.
and Learned Member then entered into an examination
of the case of the Brazilian ship Felicidade and her Ma-
jesty's ship Wasp, which had come under the considera-
tion of the thirteen judges, and in which the crew of
the Brazilian ship were charged with the murder of
some of the crew of the Wasp, who had been put oa
board in charge of the ship. It appeared, however, that
the ship was not taken with slaves on board, and the
men were accordingly acquitted of the charge of mur-
der. After commenting at some length upon the case,
the Hon. and Learned Member said the question was
whether the House would agree to the repeal of the Bth
and 9th Vic., cap. 122. lie thought it most undesirable
that the Act should be repealed; for, if so, the treaty of
1826 would be a dead letter.

Mr. BRIGHT said that he considered that the House
min the country were under great obligation to his Right
Hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) for having brought that
subject under their notice, because the more it would be
discussed the more it would be seen how flimsy and
useless was the character of that treaty. There were
two questions involved in that subject; one with regard
to the abolition of slavery, and the second respecting the
commercial relations of this country with Brazil. He
would wish to have the I-louse see what were the proceed-
ings onthe subject of slavery and piracy since the passing of
8 and 9 Victoria, but he regretted to say that they cou:d
not see those proceedings as there had been no returns
relative to the number of vessels engaged and captured
in piracy and the slaving trade. The people in his
(Mr. Bright's) county ware anxious for the repeal of
thin law, because they have capital to a large amount
in that country, and also because it was a one-
sided treaty, in consequence of which the duty
on their exports had risen from 15 per cent. to 30 per
cent.; and, moreover, there are other awkward circum•
stances, that the property of persons dying intestate is
generally wasted in the Brazil Courts, and that their
relatives have no means whatever of recovering that pro-
perty. In a word, the commercial relations of this
country are totally perplexed by attempting to perform
impossibilities, that is, to dragoon free nations into a
course which this country would not endure at the hands
of any other country, and he also thought that nothing
could be worse than to compel those nations into an abo-
lition of the slave•trade before they had made up their
mind fur such a measure; for the abolition of slavery in
this country was the result of many years' agitation.
Ho admitted that the Noble Lord (Lord J. Rassell)
thought that he had done good for the coast of Africa by
that law, but he (Mr. Bright) could assure him that such
-was not the opinion out of doors, for the Anti-Slavery
Society were at present strongly remonstrating against
the policy which Government wore pursuing on that
coast.—(clear, hear.)
Mr. C. ANSTEY said that he should differ from the
lion. and Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) on the
point to which he had alluded, respecting the cases of
the Felicidade and the Echo, for he considered that the
captors were the guilty party; at least in the case of the
latter ship. He said that one of the fifteen judges who
presided in that case declared that the treaty was use-
less, and that the Act 8 and 9 Vic. was null and void ;
and he, therefore, thought that the Right Ilor. Gentle-
man (Mr. M. Gibson) was perfectly right in the opinion
that he had to-night expressed. Lle was an enemy,
in the sincerest acceptation of the term, to the slave
trade; but he thought this country was bound to pursue
other means to put down that iniquity than in making
themselves gaolers and police in a very doubtful course
of policy. He wished to see the House united in sup.
port of the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman, for he
considered the treaty under consideration most unjust,
and one which he hoped to see put an end to.
Sir EDWARD F. BUXTON must confess his regret
that this motion had been brought forward to-night, be-
cause, as his Hon. Friend the Member for Manchester
must be awaro, a Committee at that moment sitting on
the question of the slave-trade; and he could. not but
also express his regret that his Right Hon. Friend had
been instigated by his constituents to this course; and
the more so as the greater part of tae goods which were
taken by the slaves, were manufactured at and sent out
from Manchester.—(hear, hear.) He could not but
regret the Act which we passed in 1846, that of admit-
ting foreign -grown sugar into this country, feeling, as
he did, that it acted directly as as an encouragement to
the production of slave-grown sugar. He could not also
but regret the notice of motion entered on the books by
the Hon. Member for Gateshead, for doing away alto-
gether with the cruisers on the coast of Africa, and he
hoped his Right Hon. Friend would not persevere in his
motion.

Mr. lIUME could not but express his surprise at the
line of argument of his Hon. Friend near him (Sir E.
N. Buxton), in condemning the people of Manchester
for sending out and selling goods for the use of the slaves.
Why, if that line of argument was to be pursued, there
was no man more chargeable than the lion. Member
himself, who prepared his liquors for the public. He should
like to see the Hon. Baronet, on his own principle, tried
by a jury of teetotallers—(Laughter)—and he thought
they would not acquit him. With respect to the
Honourable Baronet's condemnation of the proposed
withdrawal of the squadron from the coast of Africa,
he must disapprove of it. There were two things to
be considered in this question; first, did the means they
were using promote the object which they had in view?
tl Why,alxe, saa i
md theonuo. nwt
hnAogl ne d d
tom,
los,enocecioyon,
theyo lyoo,
Ldcai
collected
Idtehcuetpye
,dvdaofrr, aiosnm, y
wtgl o No.
eso ?
window
n
away in the maintaining this squadron, and the sooner
it was withdrawn the better.
Mr, JOIIN O'CONNELL was sorry to hear the Hon.
Member for Montrose express himselt as he he had on
the present occasion. He regretted that the motion now
before House was brought forward by the Hon. Gentle-
man, the Member for Manchester.
Sir H. PEEL said, that the case appeared to him to
stand on this ground. It might bo true that one na-
tion could not take upon itself to assert the muni-
cipal jurisdiction of another; but if a convention
were agreed upon between them to deem cer-
tain acts piracy, then by virtue of that convention,
the one country could interfere to punish the
subjects of the other fur the commission of that offence,
if the other refused to do it. It was said that the Act
of 1842, which was passed in order to give effect to the
tt eedn previouslythis
subject. to
principle of Liter g
convention with Braid,n ahtaicolnbaelelnaNpia:Esletdwienulodpiressittrioann to
every prt
some of the
mostemnte Bill in 1845 without a division,
House passed was
authoritiessub m
Chancellor and the Lord Chief
pre-
sence of the Lord
if that were so, becau.sneeintt
and in the House of Peers it was discussed in the pre-