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

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).
(Continued from the Sun of last night.)
THE CHARLES ET GEORGES.

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-
sonally fur having brought forward this subject, which has
been more mistaken and misapprehended than any other I
ever remember. lam therefore obliged to 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 lord 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 sentjnents 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 he 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 ono
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 issned 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 28th 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. Tavares d'Almeida was sent out as
governor by the Viscount de Sa for the express purpose of
enforcingsuppressing
that prohibition, and of otherwise 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 8 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 received orders
from 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 Government
to furnish negroes for emigration. He went there accord-
ingly, and the 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 mini
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, as alleged. In
support of that view I would refer to the evidence of the
captain himself, which has never been refuted.. .by the Go.;
vernor of Mozambique, or by any one else, and which has_
been published by the Portuguese
4t These " alluding to the negro labourers, "which I took
at Matibane and Conducia were procured forme by the
Sheik named Ali Kery, who holds an authorisation of his
Excellency the Governor-General of Mozambique, dated
1856, and who has taken a commission of
September
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 ex 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 not part of the continent.
" Captain, was your gun shotted ?—Yes, captain.
" Did the ball touch the shore ?—Almost.

66 But did you send the ball from the spot when you
dropp9d 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 in 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 streamerk 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 aro pretty certain that the ball would
not have reached the coast if fired from the place where I

lay:and it did not reach it from the place where you lay ?
No answer.
" How far does the Portuguese territory extend to th
S.E. or the S. S. from the Isle of Quintangonia ?—No
answer."
Now, I do not moan to give any opinion ns 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 nu. 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
in a case of this immense importance. You do not suppose,
my lords, that I was ignorant of the treaties which existed
between this country and Portugal ; noua.n you, I am sure,
fail to be of opinion that before we resurfed to commit our-
selves to a course involving serious consequences it was
our dqty 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
ir.irly be pronounced. (Hear, hear.) Now, what, let me
w;k, was the course which, under these _circumstances, her
`lajesty'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 Gth and 7th inst., has assumed a very
serious aspect." .
That despatch was received on the 24th, and I might per-
haps have telegraphed on that day to Lord Cowley. 13 tit be
that as it may, I lost scarcely any time in the matter, inas-
much as I telegraphed to that noble lord on the 25th. Now
Lord Cowley, as your lordships are aware, is one of those
Ministers who l° 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 Walewski'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 written some eloquent despatch, threat-
ening the: French Government with the treaty, and ex-
pressing in strong language the views which we entertained.
Now, fdo 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 great courts of
Europe ; but I doubt whether, in using the petulant lan-
guage which the noble lord appears to regret we did not use,
we 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 lias been in almost every
instance, constant disputes would bo 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 the 3d of October a change took place in the
language of Count Walewski. I felt it my duty on the in-
stant to put forward the protocol of 185 G, 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 one 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), lam 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 Lavredio 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 remards 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, ter
that on inquiry being made of hint, he had stated that the
only point on which his instructions would permit hint to
accept the principle of mediation was that of the amount of
the indemnity to be paid for the detention of the Charles et
Georges. Count Walewski replied that it was true that the
instructions addressed to M. de Lisle only mentioned in-
demnity as the subject for mediation, but that it stood to
reason that the question of indemnity carried with it the
question of right, since before a mediator could say what
amount of indemnity was due, he must satisfy himself that
the right to receive en indemnity existed. I rejoined that
although it was of little value now as regarded the main
question, I rejoiced to receive this assurance front 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
oofetaobdeer.spatch which I wrote subsequently on the 16th of
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 come 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
-upoir, and has no bearing whatever upon the results which
-followed. Having received the assurance that a mediation
-.would be admitted by the French Ministry, I do not deny
that the Government were greatly astonished when a weer
afterwards they heard that the question had been suddenly
and summarily settled. The noble lord says Mr. Howard
d
Was without any instructions. Of course he was. We
not give him instructions upon a case which we
esercould
be expected to foresee. We could not frame his instructions
in this sense : "If the French Government eat theirwords
eeeld
—if the French Minister makes a mistake—You
_yright in
must do so
and so." When, at last, Mr. Howard's advice
was sought
for by the Portuguese Government he
es"-aarf 1
matter of common
giving it as he did, and in suggesting
a nipeat .
the offer to
rn
sense that they would do well to accept
at once
8
refer the question of indenit withhoouultd athtempetquestoay down
nlof right.
This is the last place in which
any principles with regard either to individual or national
themth ia
honour. A man's honour can bestnot
bleleamj nod
thegeir Portuguese
Government I
and so it is with a nation. Ido
wouuldcabluie r and
en luide
aided s
tterested
Government if they thoughtthNavtauthaetonllzthonourable course
was to refuse the offer which
of
~as right in saying, " accept the mediation;
but when they asked theinadis?ocre
it is impossible that they can avoid the question of right,
fAilire.nldiomwatrdhe 'EnglishM.
for no damages at all can be given by the mediator unless
he decides first that Portugal is in the wrong." In that
point of view Portugal would have lost nothing by
Cession svhieh Mr. Howard suggested ; and thiswas the
view which, 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 might, 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 Sardini a.did.tlot