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

TB E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1859.

Kington Railway, Shepton Mallet Water, and Swansea
Vale Railway.

ANCHORS,

Mr. BENTINCK moved for a copy of the report of the
anchor committee, nominated by the Admiralty, "to deter-
mine the relative merits of different descriptions of anchors,"
dated the Ist of February, 1853 ; of contracts for anchors
and chain cables, specifying whether the result of
public competition or otherwise ; of particulars of an-
chors broken, and otherwise disabled in use, on board
various of her Majesty's ships employed in the Baltic in
1854, 1855, and 1856 ; of Capt. Wm. Peel's application for
Trotman's anchor to be supplied to her Majesty's frigate
Diamond, when fitting out at Sheerness in 1853, and offi-
cial answer thereto ; of any correspondence between the
Admiralty and Mr. Trotman, commencing the 27th day of
January, 1859.—Agreed to.

STEAM VESSELS.
Mr. T. BARING moved for a return, in a tabular form,
with consecutive numbers; of the whole of the steam ves-
sels registered in the United Kingdom on or before the Ist
day of January, 1858, stating, in separate columns, the
following particulars :—Official number of vessel; vessel's
name, port of registry; date of registry ; date of build ;
registered owners; dimensions of vessels in length and
breadth, and depth of hold ; tonnage (exclusive of engine
room), an gross tonnage, distinguishing vessels built of
iron and vessels having screw propellers ; also distinguish-
ing vessels measured under the Merchant Shipping Act of
1854 from those measured under previous acts; and esti-
mated horse power of their engines, and giving the aggre-
gate number of vessels and amount of tonnage, with an
index for easy reference attached to it, giving the names of
the vessels in alphabetical order, with numbers to each,
corresponding with the consecutive numbers in the return
(in continuation of Parliamentary paper, No. 488, of ses-
sion 1858).—Agreed to.

for the observations of the hon. gentleman who had just
spoken were to a great extent an answer to the hon. gentle-
man who brought forward the motion. (Hear, hear.) The
position of the hon. gentleman was that the action of the
Government was not spirited enough and had not asserted
sufficiently the position which this country was bound to
adopt as a guaranteeing power towards Portugal, and which
required them under any circumstances to draw the sword if
necessary in her defence. (No, no.) But the hon. gentle-
man who had just spoken said that they would deserve
grievous bLame if they had at any time put forward such a
provision, or taken any course that should peril the peace of
Europe. He agreed with the hon. gentleman that nothing
was so inc-ambent on the Government as to take care that not
only the letter but the spirit of treaties was fulfilled. And
if this was true in ordinary circumstances, it was doubly true
when it applied to their conduct towards one of the smaller
powers of Europe, whose course of action might be influenced
or modified by the counsel or assistance of England. He did
not, therefore, complain of the motion, for it was not only
the right but the duty of Parliament to watch with jealousy
the conduct of those who were entrusted with the adminis-
tration of affairs, and to see that the honour of the country
and the fulfilment of its engagements had not suffered in
their hands. He thought that they should look not merely
to the dry facts of the case as they appeared in the blue-
books, but to realise as far as possible all the surrounding
circumstances which could not but influence the conduct
and decision of the Government. The question before the
house was simply whether her Majesty's Government were
right. (Hear.) It was not a question of the free emigra-
tion scheme which had been patronised by the French Go-
vernment, because her Majesty's Government uniformly
and uncompromisingly spoke of that scheme in language of
condemnation and remonstrance. (Hear.) The question
was, had the Government acted in the best manner for the
interests they were bound to consider ? (Hear.) What
was the accusation brought against the' Government ? It
was twofold ; first, that they had not acted with proper
fidelity to the letter and spirit of the treaty with Portugal ;
and secondly, that they did not show sufficient energy and
promptitude on the occasion, or exhibit that sympathy
which was due to Portugal, our ancient ally, and which
was more especially due to her on this occasion, because the
collision had to a certain extent been caused in consequence
of the urgent solicitations of England with regard to the
slave trade. He would take thetissue on both points. With
regard to the treaty of 1661, which was conceived in very
large terms, the King of England by that treaty engaged
to take the interest of Portugal and all her dominions to
heart, to defend them to the utmost of his power by sea and
land, even as England itself. The treaty of 1703 was in
very different language. It said that if ever the Kings of
Spain and France together or separately should make war
upon, or give occasion to suspect that they intended to
make war on Portugal, or on her dominions beyond sea, her
Majesty the Queen of Great Britain should use her friendly
offices with the said kings to persuade them to terms of
peace. The first treaty bound this country to defend Por-
tugal in case of a direct invasion of Portugal, and the second
did not extend beyond the employment of friendly offices.
(Hear.) He apprehended that no one in that house would
contend that that they were bound to support Portugal,
whether she was right or wrong, and if the treaties bore
any such interpretation the sooner they got rid of such a
perilous and indefinite liability the better. (Hear.) The
Minister of Portugal himself put that point very promi-
nently, and he remarked that the hon. gentleman never
once ventured to say that Portugal was in a position to have
called on this country to act on the treaties he referred to
if Portugal was not in the right. Now, he was not going
to argue whether Portugal was in the right or not. The
case of the Portuguese was this, that a French ship had
been captured in Portuguese waters, and condemned for
slave trading. How far were we in a position to say that that
position had been established or not ? The first question
which presented itself was whether the vessel had been cap-
tured in Portuguese waters at all. It might be all very well
for those who took the Portuguese view of the case to say
that she was. But that was denied by the French Govern-
ment. Was it a matter of small importance to know if the
vessel had been captured in Portuguese waters or not ? In
the case of the Cagliari, the whole point turned on the ques-
tion whether she was captured in the Neapolitan waters or
not. (Hear, hear.) How were they to decide that question,
which lay at the basis of the whole matter? In the next
place there was a doubt whether the vessel had been en-
gaged in the slave trade. In the despatch of Mr. Howard
of the 6th Sept. he stated that he doubted whether the
papers of the captain of the Charles et Georges were
not forgeries, showing the legality of the transaction.
But could the British. Government act on the mere
suspicion of the Portuguese Minister that these papers
were forgeries ? What we said was, here are points
of difference on the merits of which we cannot decide, but
we think the whole question ought to be referred to some
third party. That was the course taken by her Majesty's
Government. (Mr. Kinglake—When ?) He should come to
that part of the case presently, and did not intend to flinch
from or blink any part of it. (Cheers.) He was ready to meet
the hon. gentleman on all points. (Cheers.) The hon. gen-
tleman began by a reference to the 6th March. It was true
that we knew there was a cause of misunderstanding at that
time, but our knowledge at that time was such as by no
means called for, or, indeed, would. have justified a demand
for arbitration. It was not till the 28th August they re-
ceived any information that the case was one which called
for any particular attention. But in that despatch Mr.
Howard stated that it was one which was treated both by
the Portuguese Government and M. de Lisle as being ca-
pable of settlement between themselves. There was no ma-
nifestation of that irritation endanger that would lead them
to believe that any dangerous consequences would ensue.
The despatch of the 18th Sept. first disclosed to them the
serious aspect which the case was assuming. That de-
spatch was received on the 24th; and on the 25th, the day
after—before any demand or request whatever had been
made by the Portuguese Government, before any suggestion
had been made by Portugal that our good offices were de-
sired—her Majesty's Government stepped forward, and in a
despatch to Mr. Howard declared that the friendly offices of
England would not be wanting to the Portuguese Govern-
ment for the purpose of bringing the matter to an amicable
settlement. Lord Cowley had received information of the
fact that such a communication had been sent; and that the
letter to Lord Cowley was not in the blue-book was owing
to a mere printer's mistake. That letter was forthcoming.
But every despatch from Lord Cowley which succeeded
showed that he had received the information, and that he
acted on it. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman said there was
nothing in the papers to show that Lord Cowley had exerted
himself to use his friendly offices to obtain a settlement.
The hon. gentleman when he stated that must have omitted
to read the observations of the Marquis de Louie, himself
(p. 75) in which he conveyed the thanks of the Portuguese
Government to Lord Makaesbury for the tender and em-
ployment of the good offices of her Majesty's Government;
and also to Lord Cowley for his exertions to induce the
French Government to consent to mediation ; yet, with that
paper in his hand at the time, the hon. gentleman stated
that there was nothing to show that Lord Cowley had
exerted himself to use his good offices. The despatch was
acted en by Lord Cowley, but they had no reason to sup-
pose the case would have assumed that angry complexion
which it afterwards assumed, because Lord Cowley, in page
16, says that the Count Walewski's language was concilia-
tory, that he felt certain he regretted that the case had
arisen, and that he cordially wished to see it settled. He
would now proceed to show how they had been frustrated
in their intentions. On the 2d of October, they had reason
to see that the French Government had changed their view of
the case, and that it had become a very serious question, im-
mediately upon which they desired Lord Cowley to urge in
the strongest way the adoption of the Paris protocol. The
hon. gentleman asked why they had not advised its
adoption before. The reason was that the Paris protocol
would have been inapplicable at any previous time, for it
was not to be applied except in the last resort, and when all
other means of settlement had failed. (Hear.) If the hon.
gentleman would refer to the terms of the protocol he would
find the plenipotentiaries did not hesitate to express, in the
name of their governments, the wish that states between
which any serious misunderstanding might arise, should,
before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circum-
stances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly power.
So that the case provided for by it had not arrived. It was
on the 6th that her Majesty's Government received the in-
formation, and on the 7th the orders were given on the part
of the British Government to send the ships to Lisbon. He
must say he did not know where the hon. gentleman re-
ceived his information, but he said he was led to believe
that the vessels ordered to Lisbon to watch the proceedings
of the French and to protect British interests did not sail
from the English coast until the middle of November. He
did not know how the hon. gentleman got his information,
but it was different from that possessed by every member of
the government. If the hon. gentleman would refer to the
letter addressed to him (Mr. Fitzgerald), on the Bth Octo-
ber, by the Secretary of the Admiralty, he would find that
the Victor Emmanuel and the Racoon were ordered the day
, before to be in readiness to proceed to sea that day in execu-
tion of the service, and their departure was inserted in the
public journals of the next day. (Hear.) [Mr. Sergeant
KINGLAKE—" When did they arrive ?"] He was unable to
say. The hon. gentleman, at least, was now changing his
ground. In his speech he did not refer to the time of their
arrival, but stated that, owing to some fault of the Foreign-
office, the vessels did not leave the English coast until the
middle of November. The hon. gentleman complained that
there had been no communication between Lord Cowleyand
Count Walewski. If he looked to the papers he would find
that Lord Cowley had seen the count on the subject three
times in one week, and was in constAnt Communication with.
him. He had received the thanks of the Portuguese Govern-
ment for his exertions. He received the first intimation on the
6th Oct. From that time, day by day, nay, by hour by hour, he
was sedulously attending to the matter; and it was mainly
by his exertions that the agreement was come to by Count
Walewski to refer the matter to the arbitration of a third
party. On the 13th of October, he wrote. (The hon. gen-
tleman then read the despatch of October 15.) On this the
hon. gentleman makes rather a curious observation; he re-
marks that the proposal for a settlement came not from Lord
Cowley, but from the Portuguese Government. He (Mr.
Fitzgerald) would appeal to any gentleman acquainted with
the mode in which affairs were transacted, whether it would
have been possible for an English Minister to make such a
proposition when there was a Portuguese ambassador on
the spot assisted by a most able and accomplished diploma..
tist? If the hon gentleman looked to the despatch he
would see when Count Walewski saw Lord Cowley he told
him there was no desire to impose terms on Portugal, that
the honour of France would be satisfied by the release of
the ship and her captain, and that instructions would be
sent that evening to M. de Lisle, at Lisbon, to enter into an
arrangement for the settlement of the affair. It was not
until a despatch of the 3d of October, which reached them
on the 4th, that her Majesty's Government became aware
that the affair was likely to assume a serious, or rather a
dangerous character.; and yet on the 13th, only nine days
after, the Marquis de Paiva and M. de Lavradio had agreed
on terms, and full instructions were sent to M. de Lisle to
make arrangements for the settlement of the details by re-
ference to a third party. (Hear,) That was the case which
the hon. gentleman had ventured to represent to the house
as one in which the Government had been guilty of negli-
gence, incompetency, and delay. He thought he had gone
over the whole case as it appeared in the indictment pre-
ferred against the Government. He had shown that in
a moment of doubt, embarrassment, and difficulty, they
had taken that course which could best secure a pro-
per solution of the difficulties between the Go-
vernments of France and Portugal. They had taken
a course which consulted the honour of France and of
England, and which would best secure the peace of
Europe and the world. He would once more refer the house
to the speech of the Marquis de Louie in the. Portuguese
chamber. Ho said, "England is not bound to support us in
every circumstance. We did not formally demand the as-
sistance of England ; if it had been granted the result might
have been a European war—that was a result which we, as
a member of the European family, were bound to prevent."
The hon. gentleman is more Portuguese than the Portuguese
themselves. Her Majesty's Government have received the
thanks of that court for the tender and employment of their
good offices. (Hear, hear.) They had the assurance of the
Portuguese Minister that he had not formally demanded
their assistance in the first place, because he was not sure
a case had arisen in which he had a right to demand it;

and, in the second place, if it was given, it might be at the
cost of a European war; that was a consideration for the
Portuguese Ministry, and would have been for her Majesty's
Government if the demand had been made. He believed
her Majesty's Government had performed their duty to their
allies, that they had maintained unimpaired the honour and
dignity of their own country, and preserved the peace of
Europe. (Cheers.)
Mr. LOWE disputed many of the positions of Mr, Fitz-
gerald, contending that the ground had totally failed him.
In replying to Mr. Kinglakehe had left out all the essential
points. The real issue before the house was what Lord
Malmesbury did. The Charles et Georges was convicted, he
observed, as a slaver, and he cited facts to show that she
was justly convicted. He contended that the British
Government were bound, without loss of time, to have
made up their minds whether this was a case of slave
trading or not, and, if Portugal was in the right, to have
advised her as to the course she ought to pursue. No defi-
nite course was recommended to her, however, but one of
dishonour. Referring to what had been done by Lord
Malmesbury, the question, he said,waswhether he had done
what he ought to have done, and whether he ought not to
have done more. He maintained that he ought to have
done more, and he asked on what principle a Govern-
ment could be justified in a case like this in stand-
ing aside without the courage to give an opinion of its own.
Mr. BOVILL complained of the terms in which Mr.
Lowe had spoken of Lord Malmesbury, whom he defended
against the charge that he had shrunk from the performance
of his duty. He insisted that the Charles et Georges had
not been condemned simply for slave trading, but for in-
fringing fiscal regulations, and he questioned whether the
vessel was ever within the jurisdiction of Portugal. If so,
the French Government was entitled to demand her resti-
tution. He contended that there was no clear and distinct
statement or admission in the papers from which our Go-
vernment were bound to conclude that the vessel was
within the Portuguese jurisdiction. Then the presence of
a French delegate on board placed the vessel, by the comity
of nations, within the scope of diplomacy. The proceedings
at Mozambique were not such as, by the law of nations, the
French Government were bound to respect, and there were
other irregularities in the case which he pointed
out from the papers, and which, he said, cast a doubt on
the legality of the seizure. Such a 'state of circumstances
disabled the British Government from 'acting upon the
treaty in the material - support of Portugal. He did not
approve the conduct of France in this matter; he discussed
the question on the principles of international law. If a
breach of treaty was charged, he asserted that Portugal had
never complained, and• our good offices, required by the
treaty, were not only not withheld from Portugal, but were
volunteered. The result of the policy recommended by Mr.
Lowe would have been a cases belli with France, and the
plunging of the whole of Europe in war.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he did not wish to take
any exaggerated view of this case, but he did not think the
hon. member for Bridgwater need fear the censures of
the lion. and learned member who had just sat down.
That hon. gentleman seemed to say that in any case, for
a member of this house to find fault with the conduct of
a Minister in the high position of Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, was to sacrifice the honour of England,
and to expose this country to be blamed by other nations as
a country which had lost its honour. (Laughter and ap-
plause.) He (Lord John Russell) had always understood
that the way to preserve the honour of the country was,
that if at any time it was a question whether that honour
and dignity•-had been duly maintained and defended, the
house should be at liberty to inquire, to criticise, and, if
need be, to censure the Minister. (Hear,' hear.) But the
'hon. and learned gentleman thought that henceforth, de-
parting from the custom of our ancestors and from what
had hitherto been- our own custom, whenever a Minister
said that a certain thing was right, we should say, " To be
sure it is right, for the Minister has said it." (Laughter,
and hear, hear.) With regard to this question he (Lord J.
Russell) thought there was a great deal to be said on be-
half of the Government on many points. He thought that
the Minister would be quite wrong if he advised Portugal
to resist by force of arms the demand of France. He con-
sidered that demand to be a very violent one, and one that
ought not to have been made, but when France had made
that demand, and had said that compliance was necessary
for her hon Our, he thought it would create a risk to which
we ought not to expose Portugal to which we ought not
to expose ourselves, and to which we ought not to expose
Europe, if we had advised Portugal to take up arms
upon this matter. It was not a question for censure, and
the hon. gentleman, had not made a motion for censure ,
but it was a fair matter for comment and of inquiry as to
the manner in which the negotiations had been conducted.
Passing over all that occurred in March or May, or up to
September, he would take the despatch of Mr. Howard of
the 18th September, in which he said that the case of the
Charles et Georges was assuming a serious aspedt.' Lird
Malmesbury then desired Mr. Howard to tell the Portuguese
Government that we would use our good offices. But what
was the despatch which he wrote the same day to Lord
Cowley ? Did he tell him that the case was becoming a
very serious one, that we were bound by treaty to offer our
good offices to Portugal, that he desired Lord Cowley to ten-
der our good offices, to know what was the complaint of the
French Government, and to state that he was ready to offer
any explanations, if explanations were needed, to prevent a
rupture or serious difference between France and Portugal?
On the contrary, he merely transmitted to him, without any
instructions whatever, copies of Mr. Howard's despatches.
He (Lord John Russell) thought that Lord Cowley should
have been directed to call Count Walewski's attention to
the treaties between England and Portugal, and to the
obligations which were imposed upon England, and to have
seriously impressed upon him the anxiety we felt that Por-
tugal should not be wronged or injured in any manner. In-
stead of this, he merely sent Mr. Howard's despatches.
Nothing could be colder or more neglectful. With regard to
the question itself, he by no means asserted that it was a
simple one, or one in which great difficulty did not exist.
He could not, indeed, admit the first allegation of the French
Government that the Charles et Georges was four miles from
the shore when she was captured; because itwas evident from
the statement of the commander of the ship, Capt. Broussel,
that at that time she was anchored in the Conducia, and e vi-
dently near the shore. That statement supported the asser-
tion of the Portuguese commander, that she was, in
I fact, within ;cannon shot of the shore. But, besides that,
although the French Government had at first relied on this
ground, they had afterwards abandoned it, and had ceased
to pretend that the vessel, at the time of her capture, was out
of the Portuguese jurisdiction. On the 2d October the
French Government came to a decision to ask for the sur-
render on the ground that there was a delegate of France on
board, and Count Walewski stated that the Comite des
Contenieux had considered the question for three weeks,
and had decided that France was right. Well, it might be
that that was a ground for treating the matter diplomati-
cally. He owned that it appeared to him (Lord J. Russell)
to be a matter of great doubt. If a French man-of-war
had gone to Mozambique, and taken slaves on board, no
doubt the Government of Mozambique would not have in-
terfered with him. He would have sent home a despatch
complaining that French men-of-war were carrying on the
slay 'l' trade in Portuguese ports. If, on the other hand, a
merchant ship had been slave-trading in the ports of Por-
tugal contrary to the laws of Portugal, no doubt the go-
vernor would have been justified in seizing a merchant
vessel so laden with slaves. This was a case of a mixed
character. The ship was a merchant ship, but there was
on board an officer of the French Government. The reason
why a man-of -war would not be interfered with was that
the commander is responsible to his Government, and had
complete command over his ship, officers, and crew; and
for that reason he could not be brought before the court of
a foreign nation on such a charge. But in this case the
delegate of the French nation seemed to have had no such
power as the captain of a man-of-war. On the contrary, he
stated that he disapproved of the conduct of the captain,
and that the captain had bought slaves from a shiek de-
pendent on the Government of Mozambique. Was that a
reason why the French Government should use violent means
to obtain the surrender of the ship ? On the oontrary, it
seemed to him that it was one of those doubtful cases re-
ferred to in the protocols of Paris in which the honour of
both parties was concerned, and which was the very kind
of case in which there should be arbitration. It was also a
case, he thought, in which, if the English Government had
had the proper influence with her ally, if Lord Malmesbury
had spoken fairly and firmly, and in conciliatory language,
instead of that extremely bombastic style about immortal
truths, he would have readily been listened to by our ally.
Let it be remembered that the mode in which the Portuguese
Minister proposed that the affair should be settled was that
the vessel should be given up, but that the whole case, in-
cluding the question of the legality or illegality of the cap-
ture, should be referred to the arbitration of a friendly
Power. No proposition made by Count Lavradio was likely
-to be wanting in• good sense or good temper, or in regard to
the dignity of either nation. And that was the proposition
which Lord Malmesbury should have supported with all the
interest and influence of this country. But instead of this,
the noble lord, from the time of his first despatch of Sept.
25, down to the close of •the correspondence was, at one
time apparently indifferent, at another neglectful. He was,
above all, found constantly suggesting, both at Paris and
Lisbon, that the Portuguese Government must be in the
wrong, and that there must be, somewhere or other, an in-
formality, which he took for granted. That showed an evi-
dent wish on the part of Lord Malmesbury to make out a
casein favour of the strong Power and against the weak one.
He was constantly suggesting, "Why, you are a weak
Power ; yield at once ; pretend anything, true or false; only
give up your case, and yield to the demands of France. '
He must say that it appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) that
the Portuguese Government had a much better sense of
their own honour and dignity. The proposition laid before
them by the French Minister at Lisbon was this—" Let the
Charles et Georges be surrendered, and let the question of
indemnity be afterwards referred to the King of the Nether-
lands." But what was this but giving up the whole ques-
tion of right with their own acquiescence and by their own
good will ? It was saying, "We give up the question of
right, but as to the question of whether there is to be an in-
demnity of £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000, we refer that to the
King of the Netherlands." It was below the dignity of Por-
tugal to make such a reference. What was serious to Portu-
gal was the question of honour • whether they had been
right or wrong; and upon that the French Government in-
sisted upon a total surrender, and the English Govern-
ment advised them to make that surrender. The Portuguese
Government said, " We cannot admit ourselves to be in the

wrong, we cannot make any surrender of what V
we believe

to be our honour, but we will yield openly and avowedly
to force." That was the conduct of Portugal. He wished
he could say that the conduct of England had been at all
commensurate in
.oignity and character with that which this
weak State had pursued, and he was, he confessed, some-
what shocked at the argument which Mr. Howard used at

Lisbon. After quoting Mr. Howard's despatch of Oct. 21,
giving an account of the advice which he had tendered to
the Portuguese Government, the noble lord said he never
heard such degrading advice given to any foreign country.
England might well advise that the ship should be given
up, but to do this upon the ground that more serious de-
mands might otherwise be put forth! Why, even supposing
the French Government were quite right in this case, those
more serious demands would have been a gross abuse of
power, against which we should have been clp•iged to inter-
fere by our treaties with Portugal. Suppose that they had
demanded that the forts of Lisbon should be put into the
possession of the French troops, was the British Minister
to tell the Portuguese to comply ? Was he to say, " If you
do not yield to this you will have to yield to further de
mands, and there is no demand in which England will as-
sist you, and to which you must not yield ?" Would that
have been proper language ? He expected that the lan-
guage used by Mr. Howard would have called forth the cm-
sure of Lord Mahnesbury, but when he turned to the de-
spatch he found that ," Her Majesty's Government entirely
approve of the judicious course you have pursued." (A
laugh.) The use of such a discussion as that was to pre-
vent a British Minister using such language, and he trusted
that in future more dignified language would be used. Per-
haps the worst feature in this correspondence was the indis-
position which the French Government showed to adopt
the spirit of that protocol of Paris. It was, as the Minister
of France said, a matter of goodwill whether that protocol
should be followed. But if in such a case as this, where the
question itself was not of great importance, where it was
really more a matter of punctilio on both sides than any-
thing elm), if a powerful CroyerAraeht like that of France

refused to submit to arbitration a case like this, there 'c us
little ground for hope that this protocol could be of muck
use. Ile had considered that that protocol was a probable
means of bringing to arbitration those questions, often
trifling in themselves, but in
.which thefeelings and opinions
of Governments got engaged, and often from apparently
trivial beginnings led to most bloody controversies. One
could not hope that in more serious cases such a protocol
would be of any use whatever. If one nation attacked the
independence of another—if it was a matter of conquest on
the one side, and of independence on the other—no one could
suppose that such a question could be referred to arbitra-
tion; and he could not but be convinced from a perusal of
these papers, that if Lord Malmesbury, instead of taking
the question in the way he did, instead of always advising
Portugal to yield on some futile and false pretence, had
seriously undertaken the cause of the Portuguese Govern-
ment at Paris, and pointed out to the French Government
how much their reputation in Europe must suffer from
the use of violence against a small State unable to cope with
France, in that case he (Lord John Russell) could not
but think the French Government would have yielded to
his remonstrances. He did not gather from this come •
spondence—not that the Government were wrong or not in
making the question one of peace or war—in that he thought
they were quite right—but he thought that the Govern-
ment of this countryhad not at Paris that influence which
as faithful allies they ought to have, which a Government
so powerful as Great Britain should have with one who
professed such a wish for our friendship, and such a regard
for our welfare. (Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that one advantage
of bringing forward a question in the form adopted by the
hon. member for Bridgwater was, that each hon. member
could deal with it from his own point of view. The hon.
gentleman himself, who represented the warlike view of the
case, said that of only one step which the Government took
throughout these negotiations did he approve, and that, he
remarked, the Government rendered useless, because, al-
though they directed the Admiralty to send a fleet to the
Tagus, they took care that it should be a small one. And
the hon. gentleman said that the Government should have
taken care to send vessels that would have answered the
purpose. But what purpose ? (Cheers.) It was evidently
unnecessary that he should answer the question. The hon.
member for Newport regarded this motion as an opportu-
nity for expressing regret that the mediation offered under
the treaty of Paris was not attended to. But he forgot that
the most serious objections to mediation came from Portu-
gal herself, who said that the question was pending before
the court of appeal, and that the Government had no power
under the constitution to withdraw it from the jurisdiction
of that court. Then the right hon. member for Kidder-
minster (Mr. Lowe) supported the resolution as a personal
matter between himself and Lord Malmesbury. He con-
tended that everything that had been done had been done
by Lord Cowley, and nothing by Lord Malmesbury ; and
finally adverting to a quotation made by the Under Secre-
tary of State, from the statements of Mr. M`Leed, our con-
sul at Mozambique to the effect that had he known the
Charles et Georges to be a French vessel, he should not have
advised her seizure, the right hon. gentleman said that Mr.
M'Leod rightly interpreted the spirit of the Government
that employed him. But this occurred in November, 1857,
(Hear, and a laugh.) He had heard remarks made with
respect to the spirit of the Government of that day in regard
to our foreign relations with some States of Europe, but he
was surprised to hear those remarks endorsed by the right
hon. gentleman, who was a member of that Government.
The noble lord the member for the city of London said that
the question was not one for censure, but for criticism. He
(the Solicitor-General) trusted that he should be able to
show that some, at any rate, of the noble lord's criticisms,
were founded on an erroneous apprehension of the facts. Let
Min first call the attention of the house to the treaties be-
tween England and Portugal, and especially to that of 1703,
upon which the right of Portugal to demand the assistance
of England must ultimately depend. That was a tripartite
treaty between England, Holland, and Portugal. It was to
the effect that if the Kings of France and Spain threatened
war, or gave cause to suspect that they intended to make war
on Portugal, England and Holland should use their good
offices with the said Kings to prevent war, and that if war
was made, England and Holland would assist Portugal to
defend itself. Now there had been no appeal to us for the
aid stipulated to be given by this treaty. What was done in
1826, when it was wanted ? The Princess Regent of Por-
tugal sent a message to our Government stating that she
had reason to apprehend invasion from Spain, and that,
indeed, armed bands had entered the country, and that
she, therefore, required our assistance. Upon that Mr.
Canning came down to that house and made a speechwhich
many members had no doubt read. He stated certain facts,
which2ie said made out that a cants fiederis had arisen, and
he asked that house to enable the Government to assist
Portugal. But on this occasion the Government of Portugal
had never appealed to our Government for assistance, and
therefore there was an end to the complaint that the letter
of the treaty had been violated. But even supposing that
a casur titclois had arisen, there still remained the ques-
tion whether our ally was right or wrong in the matters in
dispute. Now, there were many points involved in the
case, which surrounded it with difficulty. There was the
proclamation of the govemor'of Mozambique, drawing a
clear distinction between slavers and ships like the Charles
et Georges engaged in the conveyance of emigrants, and
having a French delegate on board ; and there was originally
the doubt whether the ship was captured in the Portuguese
waters. But the only ground on which the French Govern-
ment ultimately relied was the presence on board of a French
delegate. Now, he would not decide upon this point one way
or :the other; but it evidently could not be ruled against
France as one on which there was no doubt. The French
delegate was on board as a Government officer to " guarantee
that she should not be engaged in the slave trade." He was
an officer of the French Government ; and nothing could be
clearer than that immediately the French Government
adopted his acts the matter was withdrawn from the
,juris-
diction of a municipal court, and became one for negotiation.
Having quoted the opinions of the Supreme Court of the
'United States in the case of the Invincible, and of Mr. Jus-
tice Story in favour of this position, the hon. and learned
gentleman asked what did Lord Cowley say ? Again and
again he said, " I do not absolve the Portuguese from
blame. I think that having had a delegate on board, and
the French Government having recognised that delegate,
the matter is one which should not have been made matter
of investigation before the Portuguese courts. In the case
`of the Caroline, in 1841, the noble lord the member for
Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), who was the Foreign Secre-
tary, Mr. M‘Leod was arrested in the United States, and
the noble lord contended that the arrest was illegal; that
the British Government entirely approved of the course
taken by Mr. M'Leod in the detention of the Caroline,
and the British Minister was instructed to apply imme-
diately, for the release of Mr. M'Leod. That was a most
spirited and proper remonstrance, and Mr. Webster ad-
mitted that, after this public avowal of the act of Mr.
M'Leod by the British Government, the Government of
the United States could not hold any private individual
acting under orders of the Government responsible for acts
so committed. He would also remind the hon. member for
Bridgwater of the case of the Cagliari. He remembered
what were the arguments on that occasion of the King of
Naples ; they were exactly similar to that of the honourable
member for Bridgwater on this occasion. The King of
Naples said that the Government had the Cagliari and that
the court of law had jurisdiction; but the British Govern-
ment demurred to that jurisdiction, and the Government of
Naples was compelled to give way. The main point of the
case was this--did the Government of this country and
Lord Malmesbury use fair, and proper, and reasonable
exertions to accommodate the matter in dispute between
France and Portugal ? The noble lord the member for the
city of London had said that if Lord Malmesbury had
adopted a firm and conciliatory course, the French Govern-
ment would have consented to have adopted the provisions
of the protocol of the Paris Congress. Now, it would be
found that up to the 2th of August not a word had been
said either of the demand of Portugal for assistance or of
France declining our good offices. Immediately on the re-
ceipt of the letter from Mr. Howard, hinting that probably
the Portuguese Government would be glad of the goo'd
offices of England, an offer was made of those good offices to
Portugal. At this time Portugall had not asked our good
offices, and the only course open to the Government was to
write to say that they should have their good offices if they
were desired, and at the same time Lord Malmesbury sent
to• Lord Cowley the documents which had been received at
the Foreign-office. Lord Cowley was not a child to be told
what was the exact tour se he was to adopt, but having this
correspondence he would take the first opportunity of
offering the good offices of England to France. Shortly
after Lord Cowley saw Count Walewski, and he stated, on
the 30th of September, that, as the result of his interview,
Count Walewski's lanpage was satisfactory, and that he
regretted that the difficulty had arisen. With respect
to the protocol to which reference had been made, the
noble lord the member for the city of London had con-
founded arbitration and mediation ; for it was the latter
inly that was provided for by that protocol, and no parties
were necessarily bound by the conclusion. The arbitration
having been refused by the French Government, and when
the refusal was telegraphed Lord Malmesbury proposed that
they should recommend the milder course of mediation ac-
cording to the protocol of Paris. That was on the 6th of
October, and on the same day a telegraph was received from
Portugal stating that the Government of that country was
ready to adopt the proposal of the mediation under the pro-
tocol. On the Bth of October, England and Portugal were
urging the mediation on Count Walewski. On the 9th the
letter from the Portuguese Government was received, ask-
ing our good offices, and the reply was sent that this Go-
vernment was not in possession of the facts of the case con-
nected with the ship. A now negotiation was commenced
on the 10th by Lord Cowley and Count Lavradio with
'Count Walewski, and on the 13th Lord Cowley wrote that
there was every prospect of an amicable settlement. Finally,
on the 16th Lord Malmesbury wrote the despatch to which
exception had been taken by the right hon. member for
Kidderminster, as being inconsistent with the alleged state
of the negotiations. The explanation was that the letter
was written while Lord Malmesbury was in Scotland, and
before he had received Lord Cowley's letter, stating the
basis of the negotiations. The right hon. gentleman the
member. for Kidderminster said that the course taken by
Lord Malmesbury was unstatesmanlike ; but it ought to
be remembered that the Portuguese Government could have
taken advantage of an informality in the proceedings, and
that the Portuguese Government desired so to take advan-
tage of such informality. On the 18th of October, Mr.
Howard, expressing the views of the Portuguese Govern-
ment, thanked Lord Malmesbury for his offer of mediation.
That was all the information which the Government at the
time possessed. From that date to the 25th there had
been no further information; but on the 25th a telegram
came to say that the ship had been given up, and the con-
struction of that announcement was that the surrender
had been effected in accordance with the arrangements
suggested: at Paris. Ho did not think the house had
sufficiently considered what subsequently took place at
Lisbon. It appeared that the Marquis De Lisle had re-
ceived a letter from Count Walewski, stating that although
he was ready to acquiesce in the withdrawal of the ship, he
would not give up the question of principle as to indemnity.
The Portuguese Government declined to accept mediation,
if the question of indemnity assumed the shape which
Count Walewski desired. The subsequent proposition for
mediation, which emanated from the Marquis de Lisle, was
quite different from the first one, as it extended the ground
far beyond the question of indemnity. The alteration was
a substantial alteration. The course thereupon taken by
the Portuguese Government he thought injudicious, as the
Portuguese Minister declined to accept. the new proposal
for mediation. He had heard no reason why Portugal had
declined to open new ground, or why she had said that she
had takekt up her position on tho question and would not
depart fMm it. It was Unfair to keep the public of Por-
tugal in the dark as to the second proposal for mediation,
and that such reticence had been practised was clear from
the incorrect version of the state of things following the
modified proposal which appeared in the Lisbon official organ.
The hon. member for Kidderminster had dwelt upon a pas-
sage of Mr. Howard's, in which that gentlemen said he was
then without instructions from the English Government.
This was not a correct representation,•as the right honour
able gentleman might ascertain if he referred to the whole
of the letter. Mr. Howard was in possession of instruc-
tions upon which to act. In conclusion, he (the Solicitor-
General) concurred as to the objectionable nature of the