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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY).
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
The Bishop of LONDON presented two petitions from
the president and fellows of Zion College, one against the
Marriage Amendment Bill, and the other against the aboli-
tion of church-rates.
Lord FAVERSHAM presented a petition from the East
Riding of Yorkshire against the abolition of church-rates.
The Lord CHANCELLOR gave notice that on Thurs-
lay next he should introduce a bill upon the subject of
rlriminal charges and indictments before grand juries.
PURDAY'S DISABILITIES BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
TRADING COMPANIES WINDING-UP BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
THE CHARLES ET GEORGES.
Lord WODEHOUSE rose to move that a humble
address be presented to her Majesty for a copy of
the telegraphic despatch of the 16th of October,
1858, referred to in Mr. Howard's despatch of the
27th of October to the Earl of Malmesbury,
as printed in the correspondence respecting the Charles et
Georges. The noble lord said, in bringing this subject
under the attention of their lordships, he must notice an
important omission in the blue book that had been presented
on the subject, viz., the absence of dates in many instances
of several of those despatches. In the observations he
should have to address to their lordships he should have to
refer to the French Government in terms of condemnation.
It was known that the French Government h:.d
entered into a plan for supplying labour to her
colonies which, no doubt, was sure to degenerate into a
practical revival of the slave trade. Having stated
then, in outline, the affair of the Charles et
Georges, the noble lord said it would be remem-
bered, that a gentleman named Macleod, the British
consul at Mozambique, had drawn the attention of the Por-
tuguese to the fact that French ships were sent to their
territory apparently for the purpose of prosecuting the
slave trade. The Portuguese Government despatched a
vessel to the place mentioned, when the ship was seized,
and 110 ne.groes having been discovered on board, some of
them were interrogated, and it was elicited that they had
been brought there against heir will. The defence of the
French was that the vessels were not in Portuguese waters,
and also that there was an official on board which legalised
whatever business the ships were engaged in. The
noble lord then quoted several passages from
" Wheaton's International Law" to show that the mere
presence of a French delegate was not sufficient to justify
the ship engaging in an illegal traffic. It had been said
that the presence of such a personage would prevent
illegal conduct on the part of the crew, but this was
absurd, as slaves were actually found, and they had been
brought there against their will. The conduct of Govern-
ment had been such, that if proper measures had been taken
that which now presented a very serious aspect might
have been very easily settled. During the whole of the
negotiations that had been carried on Lord Cowley had
been lett entirely without instructions, and, there-
fore, he was entirely precluded from taking any
decided course, and the French Government was I
left to, pursue its original line of conduct, as if the British
Government had taken no steps whatever. There was the
same want of instruction in the case of the British Resident
at Lisbon, and the Portuguese Government was eventually
advised to accept a miserable subterfuge, and compelled to
get out of the difficulty in the most ignominious manner
possible to imagine. He concluded by moving that a
humble address be presented to her Majesty for copy of the
telegraphic despatch of the 16th of October, 1858, referred
to in Mr. Howard's despatch of the 27th of October to the
Earl of Malmesbury

The Earl of MALMESBURY said—My lords, I am
sure, as a member of her Majesty's Government, I do not
at all find fault with the noble lord for bringing forward
this subject. It is his duty, as a member of the Opposition,

to watch carefully whether the Ministers of the Crown
faithfully maintain the honour of the country and the faith
of treaties. I will go further, and thank the noble lord per-
smally for having brought forward this subject, which has
been more mistaken and misapprehended than any other I
ever remember. lam therefore obliged ao him for giving
me an opportunity of setting the house and the country
right upon many points involved in this case, upon which,
as I have said, there have been grave misapprehensions. I
will begin by explaining why the despatch for which the
noble lore has moved was omitted from the papers placed
before Parliament. The explanation is very simple. That
despatch was in the same sense as the one of the 15th of
Oct., to which the noble lord has referred, and was, in fact,
a telegraphic despatch, which anticipated the other, con-
taining the same sentiments in a necessarily abbreviated
form. Your lordships are aware that our diplomatic corres-
pondence is now conducted somewhat differently to what
used to be the case, much of it being conveyed through the
telegraph. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for any
Minister to produce to Parliament entire and faithful copies
of those despatches, for this reason, that he would run a
very great risk of allowing our cipher to be discovered—a
consequence of too great importance not to be deeply con-
sidered. (Hear, hear.) In laying such papers before Par-
liament, therefore, a Minister is obliged to alter the terms
and expressions, at the same time that he furnishes, as far
as possible, a true and faithful outline of the terms of the
despatch. (Hear, hear.) In that, of course, Parliament
must trust to the honour of the Minister to give the real
sense ; and I am sure any Minister of this country will be
always willing, if it be supposed that ho has mistaken or
imperfectly stated the sense of a particular despatch, to show
the exact terms to any member who may desire it. But it is
much more difficult to alter the terms of any despatch,
if written at any length and placed in juxtaposition
with another despatch, as this was with that of the 15th of
October. I can only say that if the noble lord wishes to see
that despatch, which I hold in my hand at this moment, it
is at his service, and that of any noble lord opposite; or if
it should be thought likely to prove of public service, I will
have it printed and added to the papers before Parliament.
I will now enter upon the case of the Charles et Georges,
to which the noble lord has called attention. In the first
place I must remark that if the Government is to be judged
justly, they must be judged according to the knowledge
which they had at the time, and not by the facts which
have become subsequently known to them. The noble lord
has alluded to several points connected with the case of the
Charles et Georges which have become known since the
period when those matters were under discussion. The
whole conduct of the Government depends upon the truth
of their allegation—and truth it is—that the case was at the
time utterly obscure and uncertain. They had only one
side of the case, and that full of contradiction from begin-
ning to end, so that it was impossible to find any evidence
upon which to decide whether Portugal had entirely right
on her side, or whether she could justify the peremptory
step she had taken of seizing the ship and imprisoning the
captain. When the point first came before me I could not
discover at the time whether the captain of the vessel was
aware of the new proclamation that had been issued against
the slave trade. It is probable, indeed, that he was not, for
that proclamation was not issued until the 20th of Nov.,
and the vessel was seized on the 27th of that month. Here

is the statement of Mr. Howard on the ISth of August
upon that point :
"It is necessary that I should here state that the late
Governor of Mozambique, Senhor Menezes, not having
given due effect to the prohibition of the exportation of ne-
groes as free labourers, contained in the Portarias of the
Minister of Marine and Colonies of February 27, 1855, and
July 30, 1856, was recalled on that account, as I reported
at the time, and Col. Tavarez d'Almeida was sent out as
governor by the Viscount de Sa for the express purpose of
enforcing that prohibition, and of otherwise suppressing the
slave trade. Colonel Almeida arrived, it appears, at Mo-
zambique about 15 days, or three weeks, before the affair
of the Charles et Georges took place, and it was under his
directions that the measures for her apprehension were
taken."

Your lordships perceive that the new governor only arrived
a fortnight or three weeks before, and it was by his direction
that these measures were taken. At page S your lordships
will find that the date of the proclamation was November
20, and the vessel was seized on the 27th, many miles away
from the Mozambique. It struck me that the first point to
consider was, whether the captain might not have been
ignorant of the policy of the new governor, the former
governor having been dismissed for not only conniving at
the slave trade, but actually taking part in it. At page 48
of the papers there is the French account of the matter :
"What had happened, his Excellency said, was this :
The captain of the Charles et Georges had receis'ed orders
front the Governor of Reunion to procure negroes under the
emigration system; but he was expressly forbidden by his
instructions to take any from Mozambique, the Portuguese
Government having prohibited all emigration from thence.
The captain, however, received information that this prohi-
bition did not extend to the district of Matabane the Sheik
of which had authority from the Portuguese dovernment
to furnish negroes for emigration. He went there accord-
ingly, and th Sheik furnished a certain number."
Well, then there was the custom-house question; for your
lordships must remember that there were two complaints
made by the Portuguese Government,—first, that the muni-
cipal laws had been violated by the ship anchoring in a place
where vessels were forbidden to enter ; and next,that she was
engaged in the slave trade. It must also be borne in mind
that the Portuguese Government subsequently dropped the
first ground of complaint, and confined themselves to the
latter. Now, my lords, if I may refer to subsequent proof, it
seems to me to be extremely doubtful even at this moment
whether the French captain violated the municipal law of
Portugal—that is to say, whether his vessel was ever
'
anchored within three miles of the shore, a!alleo-ed. In
support of that view I would refer to the evidence of
Gthe
captain himself, which has never been refuted by he o-
any one else, and which has
vernor of Mozambique, or by
been published by the Portuguese
" These," alluding to the negro labourers, " which I took
at Matibane and Conducia Were procured for me by the
Sheik named Ali lierY, who holds an authorisation of his
Excellency the Governor-G e.nera 1 of
.Mozambique, dated
September 25, 1856 and who has taken a commission of
6 piastres, or 30f. per,head."Now, it is true that the authorisation in question is said to
have been a forgery, but there was at the time nothing to
prove to us that such was the case, and her Majesty's Go-
vernment could only form a judgment on the matter from
the cx parte reports. The statements made by the Portu-
guese were met by counter statements by the French, so
that your lordships will perceive her Majesty's Govern-
ment had no data upon which they could rely in order to
enable them to arrive at a correct decision as to which of
the contending parties was in the right and which was in
the wrong. (Hear, hear, from Lord Grey.) The noble
earl cheers because, no doubt, it is in accordance with his
opinion that a rapid, and therefore, in all probability, a
rash decision should be arrived at on a question of this
nature. But what, my lords, does the French captain say
in answer to the questions put to him by the commander of
the Portuguese cruiser? He was asked :
" Was the Charles et Georges above a gunshot from the
shore ?—Most assuredly, if you take in the Island of Quin-
tangonia, which is net part of the continent.
" Captain, was your gun shotted ?—Yes, captain.
" Did the ball touch the shore ?—Almost.
" But did you send the ball from. the spot when you
dropped your anchor ?—I am not compelled to do that ; the
rule is, when you are within range you fire your gun and
board the ship.
"My impression has always been that when a man-of-
war is m sight of several ships or boats and also in sight of
land, and if he does not hoist his flag, he ought at least to
have the streamers of his nation ?—True, but nevertheless
not obligatory.
" But would the ball have reached the shore if fired from
the place where I was anchored ?—No ; but you lay on
Portuguese ground with 11 or 12 fathoms of water.
" The fact is, you are pretty certain that the ball would
not have reached the coast if fired from the place where I