The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-09 00:00:00

lay, and it did not reach it from the place where you lay?—
No answer.
" How far does the Portuguese territory extend to the
S.E. or the S. S. from the Isle of Quintangonia ?—No
answer."
Now, I do not mean to give any opinion as to whether
the French captain was right or wrong. All I say is that
her Majesty's Government had during the progress of
those transactions—nay, have not up to this eleventh hour,
any data upon which a sound opinion in reference to this
question could be formed. The noble lord who has just
spoken has a great horror of the system of immigra-
tion with which these events are mixed up. lam as much
opposed to it as he can possibly be • but the question is not
a matter of mere feeling, it is whether we as responsible
Ministers of the Crown were to be led away by considera-
tions of that description, and not to form an unbiassed
judgment upon the rights themselves which were involved
m a case of this immense importance. You do net suppose,
my lords, that I was ignorant of the treaties which existed
between this country and Portugal ; nor can you, I am sure,
fail to be of opinion that before we resolved to commit our-
selves to a course involving serious consequences it was
our duty to make ourselves perfectly certain that Portugal
was in the right and France in the wrong in the dispute in
which they were engaged. (Hear, hear.) And, my lords,
I repeat that even up to the present moment we have been
furnished with no data upon which such a decision could
fairly be pronounced. (Hear, hear.) Now, what, let me
ask, was the course which, under these circumstances, her
Majesty's Government adopted ? I am accused by the
noble lord opposite with respect to two points. He charges
me with .having lost time, and with not having written
enough. Well, the first intimation which I received that
this matter had assumed a serious aspect was upon the 18th
of September, when Mr. Howard wrote to me to the fol-
lowing effect :
"The affair of the French vessel Charles et Georges,
condemned at Mozambique as a slaver, treated of in my
despatches of the 6th and 7th inst., has assumed a very
serious aspect."
That despatch wag received oEthe 24th, and I might per-
haps have telegraphed on thatday fo Lord Cowley. But be
that as it may, I lost scarcely any Eine in the matter, inas-
much as I telegraphed to th4:noble lord on the 25th. Now
Lord Cowley, as your lordshiPi are aware, is one of those
Ministers who do not require that a long rigmarole, if I may,
so term it, of phrases and instructions—which are gene-
rally, I believe, written rather for Parliament than for the
Minister—should be addressed to him. It was therefore
quite sufficient, I am sure you will think in this instance,
to inform him that our good offices were offered for the set-
tlement of the misunderstanding between France and Por-
tugal, and that to enter upon any lengthened explanation
as to what the words good offices " meant would be as
useless as absurd. 'Well, my lords, I telegraphed, as I
mentioned, to Lord Cowley on the 25th, and within five
days from that time he informs us—as you will observe by
referring to page 17 of the papers—that the case, he be-
lieves, may be settled. He writes :
" Count Vv-alewski's language was very conciliatory. I
feel certain he regrets that the cause has arisen, and will
gladly see it settled.
But the noble lord seems to think that, having received that
announcement on the 30th Sept., her Majesty's Govern-
ment ought to have writtensome eloquent despatch, threat-
ening the; French Government with the treaty, and ex-
pressing in strong language the views which we entertained.
Now, I do not pretend to know human nature so well as the
noble lord, who is a diplomatist, and has represented this
country in that capacity at one of the ()Teat courts of
Europe; but I doubt whether, in using the petulant lan-
guage which the noble lord appears to regret we did not use,
aro should be acting wisely, particularly when we were told
that the language employed by the French Minister was of
a most conciliatory character. (Hear.) But to proceed, my
lords, her Majesty's Government had every reason to be-
lieve on the 30th of September that this question would be
satisfactorily settled. Upon the 3d of October, however,
Lord Cowley complained that a change had taken place in
the language of the French Government. He says :
"It seems now that at a Council of Ministers held yester-
day morning, and presided over by the Emperor, the fact
that the vessel had been condemned as a slaver was first
broached, and it was decided that the condemnation as a
slaver of a French ship having a Government delegate on
board, authorised to hire African labourers, was tantamount
to connecting the Imperial Government with the traffic in
slaves, and was derogatory to the honour of France. It was
resolved, therefore, that the release of the Charles et Georges
and of her captain should be peremptorily demanded and
insisted upon."
You will perceive from this despatch, my lords, that the
affair had assumed the aspect in the eyes of the French
Minister of one in which a point of national honour was
involved. The noble lord opposite, however, seems to sneer
at the axiom laid down by the Government of France—for
it is laid down—that if a vessel has a French agent on board
her, who is responsible for his acts to the Government which
he represents, she is no longer to be looked upon in
the light of a mere private ship, liable to be confis-
cated for an infringement of municipal law. That is an
axiom which is borne out by international law, and the
noble lord will find that it is supported by much higher au-
thority than mine. But there is involved in this view of
the subject another point, which is of considerable impor-
tance ; it is that in the case of a vessel seized for an infrac-
tion of municipal or international law, if she be a Govern-
ment ship the question at issue must be solved by diplomacy,
and not by a peremptory act such as that which was re-
sorted to by the Portuguese Government. Such I believe
to be the opinion of the best lawyers of our day, and if that
practice were not followed, as it has been in almost every
instance, constant disputes would be the result. (Hear.)
The Portuguese themselves have not always been so prudent
on these points as they may perhaps expect others to be,
and one of the greatest outrages committed of late years
upon a British ship, has at this moment been committed
by them not far from this very sea. The fact is that this
system of negro immigration is not to be put down by force ;
and I feel sure, that had her Majesty's Government acted
in the spirit which characterised the noble lord's speech, the
result would have been very different, and we should not
now have been able to enter into negotiations which it may
be hoped will lead to the abandonment of this system. I
said that on tke 3d of October a change took place in the
language of Count Walewski. I felt it my duty on th e in-
stant to put forward the protocol of 1856, which, I submit,
was quite sufficient, inasmuch as Lord Cowley was present
when it was signed, and must have known its sense and its
full value ; and I am rather surprised that the noble lord
should have treated so very cavalierly my reference to so
important a document, your lordships well knowing that
that protocol was ono of the most beneficent and useful
public acts on record. It is a document which lam sure
will prevent a great effusion of blood hereafter, and it has
already tended to put an end to more than one dispute be-
tween nations. I say I am surprised that the noble lord
should treat so cavalierly the instructions given by me with
reference to the protocol, and considering that he may be
regarded :in some sort as the political pupil of the noble
earl (Clarendon), I am still less able to understand the
views he has expressed on this point. Acting, then, on the
instructions which he received to insist on the protocol of
Paris, Lord Cowley put himself in communication with
Count Lavradio and the Marquis de Paiva, and on the 13th
he reports that an amicable solution will be arrived at.
Her Majesty's Government were induced by his despatches
to believe that if the Charles et Georges were given up
and the Captain released, the French Ministry would ad-
mit the mediation of a friendly Power, both as regards the
legality of the seizure and the question of indemnity. There
is no doubt that the French Government acceded to this
proposed arrangement, for Count Walewski himself says he
did so. Lord Cowley, in reporting (November 9) an inter-
view which he had with the French Minister says,—
" I said that the 23d protocol was exactly framed to meet
questions of this nature, where both parties claimed to
be in the right ; but Count Walewski interrupted me by
declaring that the' French Government had never de-
clined to submit the question of right to friendly mediation.
What they had refused was mediation of any kind so long
as the Charles et Georges was detained, but he could give
me the positive assurance that if, even at the eleventh
hour, the Portuguese Government had released the ship,
and proposed to settle the question of right and wrong,
through a mediator, the proposal would have met with the
assent of the Imperial Government. But Portugal could
not retain the ship and propose mediation at the same time ;
at all events, it was impossible for the Imperial Govern-
ment to entertain such a proposition. I remarked to Count
Walewski that it was to be regretted that M. de Lisle had
not better understood the sentiments of his Government, for
that on inquiry being made of him, he had stated that that the
o
only point on which his instructions would
the amounthim to
accept of
accept the principle of mediation was that of oun
was true
the indemnity to be paid for the detention of the Charles
et
Georges. Count Walewski replied that it
instructions addressed to M. de
edoolawid'tsah
yitwthhaet
demnity as the subject for mediation,
Lislehuotnlythnoitenittiosntedoodinto-
question of right, s
reason that the question of obfe indemnityfore
m e d icaat or nr
amount of indemnity was due, he must satisfy himself that
the right to receive an indemnity existed. I rejoined that
although it was of little value now as regarded the main
question, I rejoiced to receive this assurance from his Ex-
cellency, because it showed that I had faithfully reported
his intentions to her Majesty's Government in saying, that
if the ship was released the French Government would con-
sent to submit all the questions arising out of it to friendly
mediation. Beyond doubt, said Count Walewski, ' such
was our intention.' " Now, what blame can be attached to
her Majesty's Government for not expecting that that
agreement would be fulfilled ? (Hear.) We did not possess
the gift of prophecy, and could not predict that the French
Minister at Lisbon would mistake his orders. Lord
Cowley, as I have said, obtained a positive assurance that
an arrangement would be come to, and surely we were
justified in crediting it. A great deal has been made
of a despatch which I wrote subsequently on the 16th of
October. My explanation with regard to this despatch is
very simple. I was out of town at the time, and when I
wrote it I had not received the letter of the 13th stating that
an amicable solution would be conic to. I wrote that des-
patch, thinking its contents might be useful in the way of
suggestion to Lord Cowley if he failed in his offer of the
good offices of this country ; but as it was it was never acted
upon, and has no bearing whatever upon the results which
followed. Having receivd the assurance that a mediation
would be admitted by the French Ministry, I do not deny
that the Government were greatly astonished when a week
afterwards they heard that the question had been suddenly
and summarily settled. The noble lord:says Mr. Howard
was without any instructions. Of course he was. We could
not give him instructions upon a case which we never could
in this sense : " If the French Government eat their words
be expected to foresee. We could not frame his instructions
—if the French Minister makes a mistake—you must do so_
and so." When, at last, Mr. Howard's advice was sought
for by the Portuguese Government he was perfectlyeroighmtoin
giving it as he did, and in suggesting as a mattertefe
offerin
sense that they would do well to accept at oncteonh
ofto
ques to
refer the questionof indemnitywithout the i
down
This is the last place in which I sheuld attempt lay right.
dual or national
any principles with regard
be judged by himself,
honour. A man's honour can best
blame the Portuguese
and so it is with a nation. Ido not
either' to individual
was at last made to them ,•
was to refuse the offer which
accept the mediation;
Government ifthey thought that the onlyl honourabled.t course
ea
• ister would regarded, I think
can avoid id the question of right,
friend, as
easn
tthhoeyEasoglcleidshth3emadsavic.e of a eahomtin ism erest
at all can be given by the mediator unless
d have. lost nothingg.by thlne
that Portugal is in the wron "
M
i
he decides first that fpOrr: ns.ntiHomo ofdPwalas viewsrdai bg
lweFes mao Portugal
ulaigtgliahtl oth‘wweiyonauird suggested ; and this wa that
s the
con-
cession which r.
viewwhich, as, I have shown, Count Walewski himsel
took on the question. (Hear.) We have been blamed for
not acting with sufficient vigour and decision. Well, there
certainly was another alternative, and I really only know of
one, which would have been if, feeling certain that Portugal
was right (of which at this moment we are not convinced),
or not caring whether Portugal was right or wrong, we had
said—" We will stand by you according to the treaty of
1703, and if you will resist France we will support you."
We miqht, indeed, have said this, but should we have been
acting in accordance with a case very analogous—the case
of the Cagliari ? The French Government denied from the
beginning the jurisdiction both of the first court in which
the Charles et Georges was condemned, and of the Court of
Appeal to which the case was afterwards carried. They
denied the
jurisdiction of Portugal just as Sardinia did that