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

the French Government came, and should have placed
serious obstacles in the way of the abandonment of the
traffic complained of. (Hettr, hear.) The question is, has
England faithfully and duly performed her . ty to her
ally, Portugal ? I think that the noble lord who com-
menced the debate began by admitting that no violation of
our treaties with Portugal had occurred. [Lord WODE-
ROUSE—I admitted that a casus fiederis d not arisen.]
That is to say that Portugal had not, under her treaties
with this country, the right to ask for the good offices of
her Majesty's Government under the circumstances that
had arisen, much less to claim our arms. [Lord WODE-
HOUSE made a remark which did not reach the gallery.]
It would be under the treaty that Portugal would have
claimed our good offices if the necessity had arisen, and un-
der the same treaty that she would have claimed our arms.
The authority of the Prime Minister of Portugal himself,
had been quoted upon this point, and he distinctly stated
when he was charged with not applying to England, thathe
had not done so because in his judgment the casus feederis
had not arisen. We may, then, set aside every question in
regard to any treaty obligation existing between us and
Portugal. The question was one between Portugal and
France, both of whom were on terms of amity and friend-
ship with this country, and to both of whom in any diffi-
culty that might arise her Majesty's Government would be,
willing and ready to tender their good offices. But Portu-
gal was not entitled to demand either our good offices or
intervention. These transactions commenced in Dec., 1857,
and from that time to the month of August, 1858,although
much correspondence took place between. Portugal
and France, no single reference was made to this country
by either Portugal or France with reference to any part of
these transactions. (Hear, hear.) Some noble lords have
asked why we did not take part in the negotiations at an
earlier period ? In the first place, the matter in dispute did
not touch this country, because it was a difference between
two independent countries, and neither of them asked for
our interference ; and in the next place, because they had
not furnished us with the information and evidence, with-
out which we could not form a judgment. Up to this mo-
ment we have not the meaus of forming a judgment on the
whole of this transaction. We have not the French state-
ment, or the results of the inquiry instituted by the Comite
des Contentieux, to whom the case was referred, and which
had pronounced an opinion seriatim on the points referred
to it. If we had been called upon to act as arbitrators or
mediators there would have been much cqnflicting evidence
on points essential to a just decision in the case, for it was
admitted that if the French vessel at the time of the seizure
was beyond the Portuguese waters, credit queestio, and the
Portuguese Government were guilty of a wrong, there
was much contradictory evidence on other points, and that
point with regard to the position of the vessel was not
brought forward until a late period. Up to September no
communication was made to us. The nobie earl says that
this French vessel was not of a character to claim the pri-
vileges of a ship of war. But that is a doubtful question.
The French Government assert that she was a French
vessel—that she was, in fact, freighted by the French Go-
vernment--that she had a French a delegate on board, was
responsible for the conduct of the persons who carried on
the traffic. Those were the statements of the Freneh
Government, and they were not denied. Even if
the vessel were within the limits of Portuguese waters I
would not go so far as to say that she was withdrawn from
all interference of municipal law ; but admitting that she
was within the Portuguese waters, it was only the munici-
pal law she was violating and not any treaty between. Por-
tugal and France. The comity of nations required not that
she should be dealt with as a slayer, but that she should bo
given over to the French Government, and the matter made
the subject of diplomatic negotiations. But supposing she
had been carrying on this trade, not under the sanction of
the French Government, and supposing she had been in
Portuguese waters, the Portuguese tribunals, by their own
confession, did not take the course which they were bound
to take. If she was not a slaver they had no right to deal
with her in the manner they did. If she was a 'slaver they
were bound to adjudicate on the case, not at Mhzambique,
but in the Prize Court at Loando. The course taken was
utterly irreconcileable under any circumstances with the
comity of nations, and absolutely contrary to international
law. This case having occurred, and a long correspondence
having taken place upon it, towards the latter end of
August the French Government were found to be taking a
decisive and energetic part in it, and the matter began to be
serious. On the lath of September, I think, Mr. Howard
writes to us from Lisbon :—" The Marquis de Louie begged
me to point out more particularly to your lordship that this
was shown to be a case not of the engagement of free la-
bourers, but of the actual purchase of slaves. His Excellency
did not make any application to me for your lordship's
valuable assistance, but I feel persuaded that he would be
very grateful should your lordship be able to afford the
Portuguese Government any aid in the treatment of the
question with the French Government." By return of
post, on the 25th of the same month, my noble friend wrote
back saying he should be happy, although not, requested by
the Portuguese Government, to offer the good offices of her
Majesty's Government in the settlement of the matter in
issue; and it was not till three or four days after he had
' done so that an application was made by the Portuguese
Government for the employment of those good offices
which he had already tendered. (Hear, hear.) The
noble earl who has spoken last says in dealing with the
French Government we ought to have remonstrated with
them, that we ought to have shown the French Govern-
ment that they were entirely in the wrong, and that Por-
tugal was in the right. But, in order to show them that we
ought to have been quite satisfied ourselves of it in the first
instance. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) If a course could
have been devised so entirely calculated altogether to defeat
the possibility of coming to a satisfactory conclusion, and
to prevent the French Government listening to what we
might have to say, it was that recommended by the wisdom
and judgment of the noble lord who spoke last. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) But what did we do ? We offered
our good offices for the purpose of mediation. We have
been told that a long despatch ought to have been addressed
to Lord Cowley as to how he was to act. I think, knowing
the character of Lord Cowley, my noble friend acted much
more wisely by informing him that we had offered our good
offices in the matter, and leaving it to him, with the influ-
ence which he deservedly possesses at the French Court,
to do what appeared to him right under the circumstances.
It is assumed Lord Cowley did nothing in the matter, ex-
cept make a representation to Count Walewski, the result
of which was: unsatisfactory. But during the whole time
that Count Lavradio was in Paris ho was engaged with
Baron Paiva in negotiating with Count Walewski, and
constantly in the presence and with the assistance of Lord
Cowley, with the view to their arriving at a common un-
derstanding. And they undoubtedly came to a common
understandi g. They came to an agreement with regard
to a mediation which, if it had been carried into effect, as
has been admitted by the noble lord who has brought this
question under your lordships' censideration, would have
been a wise, honourable, and satisfactory solution of the
question (Heir.) I thank him for that admission. But
it is said the French Minister at Lisbon, either not having
sufficient instructions or misconceiving his instructions,
declared he could only deal with the question as to the
atuount of the indemnity to be offered, and not to the lega-
lity of the seizure. All I can say is thot Count Walewski
and Lord Cowley are at one on the Marqvis de Lisle hav-
ing mistaken his instructions. What did Mr. Howard do?
When he was informed, on the part of the Portuguese Go-
vernment, that the Marquis de Louie had stated he could
only deal with the question of the indemnity, and not with
that of the legality of the seizure, Mr. Howard
said, very judiciously and wisely, that he had no
instructions to enable him to meet that state of things,
that that was not the way inwhich the case had been repre-
sented to him ; but that, as the question had been put in
that way, he—speaking for himself alone, and not for
the Government he represented—would recommend an
endeavour to be made with the view to an arrangement
of the dispute. I think that under that state of circum-
stances no charge can be made against my noble friend
for not giving instructions in a case that could not
be foreseen. I have always been of opinion that when
one party places his honour in the hands of another he is
bound to place himself in the hands of that other person
unrestrictedly and unreservedly. (Hear, hear.) In the
present case from ancient friendship Portugal asked us what
wNs best to be done. We advised them to accept the
mediation that was offered, because it involved all that it
was desirable to obtain. The noble earl who spoke last said
something about England having had to submit to an insult.
I know nothing of any insult to which England has been
subjected in this matter. It was no question of hers—(hear,
hear)--it was no question between her and France. What
she did was to give this disinterested advice to an ally
as to the mode of extricating that ally from a difficulty;
and if Portugal had taken that advice the negotiation would
have been conducted in a manner which would have been
satisfactory to all parties. Here is a case preented of a
vote of censure against the GovernMent, though it has
wisely not been put forward exactly in that form. The ob-
jection is that we have lowered ourselves in the estimation
of the world. . I say we had arrived at a point, late as it was
before ourintervention was sought, at which the matter was
likely to have been brought to an honourable solution. It
was only by an incomprehensible accident that that solution
was interfered with, and that solution would still have been
arrived at if Portugal had not repudiated our advice. (Hear.)
I say more. I say, considering the difficult course which
her Xajesty's Government had to pursue I believe we
adopted the course- most consistent with prudence and with
honour; we avoided entangling ourselves in a hostile con-
troversy between Portugal and France, by which we were
enabled to hold the position we were bound to hold as the
friend of both parties, and our moderation has had the effect
not only of convincing France of the unsoundness of her
system of so-called free immigration, but has disposed her
to allow fair play to her own reason, and to have yielded by
the force of her own reason that which she would never
have yieided to unfriendly remonstrances pressed on her in
a hostile spirit. (Cheers.) Out of that difficulty, serious
as it was, we have come with honour to ourselves and ad-
vantage to the general peace of Europe, and until our con-
duct has been condemned- by a vote of Parliament, which
the noble lord does not think it desirable to ask at present,
I shall be satisfied with the course we have pursued, and,
if again placed in the same circumstances, I could rejoice
to follow the same course, and to have it attended by the
same results. (Hear, hear.)
Lord CRANWORTH said—At that late hour of the
!tight he would not detain their lordships; but he thought
t
clai
iieNevraest: legitimate complaint to urge that the noble lord the
m
, &for Foreign Affairs, immediately oirreceiving this
at th
noto see consult his noble and learned (the Lord
Chancellor) t
whether the view of the Portuguese Go-
vernment was consistent with the views of that house, or,
rather, th
or say to theme3:'
u cl
might either enter their protest against it
Lord WEN SLEYDA must not take us as advocating doc-
trines for which we find no in international law."
documents in this case, and he said he had looked over the
could not see that the Por-
tuguese Governmen
He thoughtclear there such clear viola-
tion of international law on the pa'A'aost.:
of this coon=
as would have justified the Government
it would to agree
with
the French Govern-.
try proceeding to extremities in the matter.
the re-
mark
of Lord
have, perhaps, been '
Earl ST.
more in comformity with usage had t
ti the
GERMANS
w e Cowley, that was
he Charles et Georges
been allowed to go free,an
in questi on. as to whether
she had been captured Portuguesewaters had
hen such doubts exi been
treated diplomatically. W ste baseo the
Government would not
legality of the capture, been
justified in holding strong language to France in support of
their views. (Hear.) One subject of congratulation in con-
nection with the question was the the
spontaneous act of
Emperor of France abolishing the traffic in what had been

called free immigrants.
Lord WODEHOUSE replied, and the motion was with-
drawn.
The Ecton and Welton Exchange Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Burial Places Bill was read a third time and passed

Their lordships adjourned at a quarter past ten.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. GLADSTONE, who was reeeived.with cheers, took the
oaths and his seat for the University of Cambridge.

. -
The following PRIVATE
bills were BU
consiSl de red S
and ordered for
third reading :—Banfr, Macduff, and Turiff Junction Rail-
way, Wfxrutine and Buchan Railway, Leominster and