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

f Naples in the case of the Cagliari, and just as we denied '
the competency of the Neapolitan tribunals to deal with
Watt and Park, so the French Government would not
recognise the right of the Portuguese tribunals to punigh
Captain Rouxel. (Hear.) Did we in that case carry things
with a rough hand? I know some persons were of opinion
that we ought to have sent a fleet into the Bay of Naples ;
but I do not think the noble earl opposite was one of those
persons: We appealed to the protocols of Paris to settle
that question, and 'we recommended that the same
course should be pursued as between France and Portugal.
Her Majesty's Government, then, were perfectly consistent
n what they did in both those cases, and they could not,
without the greatest inconsistency, to say nothing of the
danger, have recommended Portugal to take violent measures.
Another accusation might be made against us—that we had
not fulfilled our treaties, but Portugal never in the
most distant manner alluded to the treaties, and the Por-
tuguese Minister himself stated that nothing but the good
offices of England were needed. The treaty of 1703 ran,
that whenever the Kin&of Spain, or the King of France,
or both of them, shall slow any disposition to make war on
Portugal, the British Government shall "use their friendly
offices to persuade them to observe terms of peace towards
Portugal, and not to make war."
Lord WODEHOUSE—Read on. It goes on to say, if
our "good offices" fail, that we should go to war on behalf
of Portugal.
The Earl of MALMESBURY—It says that if our good
offices tail we are to send a force of 6,000 men for the de-
fence of Portugal. Is that what the noble earl recommends
to the house ? (Hear, hear.) I have heard a great many
sug"estions as to what we ought to have done in this mat-
ter, but that is a perfectly new one. (Hear, hear.) It is
about as astonishing to me as the piece of poetry which the
noble lord quoted just now—of which nobody could under-
stand the point, and which had no possible reference to the
question. Does the noble lord mean that we were to send
these 6,000 men over whether the Portuguese liked it or
not ? and I can assure the noble lord that the Portuguese
Government showed no disposition for a second Peninsular
war. If your lordships wish to know what were the senti-
ments of the Portuguese Government on this point I can
easily lay them before you. When the affair was all over,
the Portuguese Opposition—no doubt conscientiously ful-
filling their duty, like her Majesty's Opposition/id home—
(a laugh) —found fault with the Government for not having
appealed to the treaty with England. In answer to this the
Marquis de Louie said :
" Some members of the Chamber are of opinion that the
intervention of England should have been asked for, but it
was not very clear that the cams fcederiB had arisen. (Hear,
hear.) England is not bound to support us in every quarrel,
and besides the circumstances were not of a nature to lead
us to fear a war or to demand formally the assistance of
England, for if she acceded to our request, a European
war might be the result, which on our part, as one of the
members of the European family, and interested in the
continuance of peace, we ought to avoid, and not to bring
upon ourselves an affront and a difficulty ; and it was re-
quisite to weigh all the circumstances, not to look at things
th,rough the prism of our desires."
Your lordships would not have had us more Portuguese
than the Portuguese themselves. Ido not agree with the
noble lord that the good offices of England failed. They
obtained what they professed to obtain—mediation—which
was cut in two by an accident which it was impossible for
any man to foresee, the restriction of its limits, which M. de
Lisle, the French Minister at Lisbon, placed upon it. I am
at a loss to know what more we could have done when,
having asked our advice, the Portuguese Government re-
fused to follow it, and took an independent line of their own.
I am obliged to the noble lord for having brought this
matter. forward. Ido not regret having acted as I did, and
I am perfectly certain that justice will be done to her Ma-
jesty's Government by the people when they calmly consi-
der the position in which we were placed. Any other line
taken with France at that moment might have produced
the most serious results. If we had gone beyond the line
of good offices we should have entered on another chapter,
and, bound as we were by treaty, it is impossible to say
what consequences might have followed. If the Govern
ment had called Parliament together in the autumn,
and announced to them that, in consequence of some ob-
scure quarrel on the rights of which the Government could
not clearly decide, the relations of Fiance and England
were in a state of great tension, I should have been blamed
for not having talked and written too little, but for having
written too much. (Cheers.) •
Earl GRANVILLE thought her Majesty's Government
had not dealt fairly either with Portugal or France in this
matter. He had no doubt that France was in the wrong,
but considered She had been much irritated by the conduct
of the Portuguese Government. The instructions sent to
Lord Cowley were not sufficiently definitive ; they ought to
have been more positive, The Portuguese Government
had done, with one exception, what it was their duty to do,
and had exhibited as strong a sense of honour as the greatest
nation which exists. Having alluded jocularly to the con-
versation which had taken place between Lord Malmesbury
and the French Ambassador, he asked in what part of
these papers the French had laid down the principle that
, the presence of a French delegate on board the ship gave
an official character to the Charles et Georges. It was a
principle with which he could not agree. He thought this
transaction would leave a most unfavourable impression,
not only in this country, but on the whole of Europe and
the civilised world, and would prove that the Government
had not shown either the requisite activity or judgment.
Lord KINGSDOWN would confine himself to the law of
the case, for it was by the rights that might or might not
exist that her Majesty's Ministers must be judged. (Hear.)
He considered whether the principle that a ship with an
agent on board responsible to his Government was amen-
able or not to municipal law, and decided that by no means
could she be brought under it. Now, Count Walewski had
stated that the agent on board the Charles et Georges was a
delegate appointed by the French Government, so the
question immediately fell into the hands of diplomatists.
He considered that the Portuguese Government had, by its
own rashness, involved itself in great peril, from which
they had been extricated by the prudence and forbearance
of Lord Malmesbury.
Lord GREY said the French Government knew well
that it was contrary to Portuguese law to export negroes
from the Portuguese African possessions, for much corres-
pondence had taken place between the French and Portu-
guese Gevernments on the subject. The Portuguese Go-
vernment was informed by France that the system of pro-
curing negroes from the Portuguese dominions should be
abandoned. Subsequently to this French vessels were de-
tected carrying on the trade, and he thought that the Por-
tuguese Governor in lookins, to the correspondence which
had taken place, was warranted insupposingthat difficulties
might arise unless they acted with vigour. Under these
circumstances the Charles et Georges was seized and con-
demned. He admitted the principle that a ship acting un-
der the authority of a State is not subject to the municipal
law of a foreign country; but denied that there was a
single despatch in which the French Government puts for-
ward that claim in the case of the Charles et Georges ?
France only asserts that the presence of her agent ought to
have exempted the vessel from the suspicion of being en-
gaged in the slave trade. Moreover, there was no evidence
to show that the ship had any claim to a public character.
There was every reason to believe the Portuguese claim was
right, but supposing it doubtful there was a clear case for
reference. Be thought the Government ought to have
presented a formal note to the French Government, stating
that there were serious grounds for thinking that France
might not be entirely in the right. No man had a greater
horror of war than himself, but he did not think that the
best way of securing peace was to abandon an ally for too
faithfully following the advice we gave her ; nor did. he
think so ill of the Emperor of the French as to deem that
a firm remonstrance from this country would have pro-
duced war. He felt convinced that if the facts of
the case had been properly represented to the Emperor the
difficulty would never have arisen. The conduct of the
Government in this matter had sensibly lowered this coun-
try in the opinion of Europe.
The Earl of DERBY said—l am also very much obliged
to the noble lord who has brought this question forward,
•
and I concur in commending the judgment of the noble
lord in framing the motion in such a manner as renders it
impossible for the house to come to any conclusion on the
merits of the question involved in it. I think the noble
lord has shown excellent judgment- in so framing the mo-
tion ; but certainly if he had entertained the view which
the noble earl seems to entertain, that the course which the
British Government has pursued has reflected discredit on
them, and lowered their character in Portugal and through-
out Europe, it would have been his duty not to have con-
tented himself with moving for a paper to which there is
not the slightest objection, except what has been stated by
my noble friend, and which, in point of fact, is absolutely
immaterial, but to have called on Parliament to pronounce
a verdict against a Government which had so grossly
neglected its duty. (Hear.) I listened with attention and
some interest to the speech of the noble lord (Wodehouse),
although that interest was somewhat diminished by the fact
that on Saturday last the greater portion of the noble lord's
speech might be read in a publication of a laudatory cha-
racter with regard to everything and everybody, and sin-
gularly discriminating and candid in everything relating to
my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
(A laugh.) After the speeches of my friend (Lord Mal-
mesbury) and my noble and learned friend (Lord Kings-
down), who has for the first time addressed your lordships,
and who reminded me to-night of the triumphs which he
achieved while he and I were members of the other hous
e—
(hear)—I should have left the question to those two speeches
if it had not been for some remarks which have fallen from
the noble earl
(Grey). My lords, those who debate this ques-
tion on the part of the Government labour under very con-
siderable difficultieS, because with the question of the con-
duct of the Government, which is alone properly under
your lordships' consideration, various other questions are
complicated in regard to the conduct of the French and
Portuguese Governments to each other, and the merits of
the transaction which gave rise to the dispute between
them. All the sympathies of Parliament and of the country
are in favour of what is supposed to be the case of Portugal.
Here you have Portugal incited by England to take part in
the suppression of the slave trade, exerting herselffor that
suppression, incurring the hostility of a powerful neighbour,
and then deserted by the friend and ally whose instigation
had caused the active part she had taken, The tis a very
plausible way of putting the question, and it enlists all the
sympathies of Parliament and the country in favour of the
State that so laudably exerts itself for the suppression of the
slave trade. But, my lords, that is not the case we have to
argue. The question on which the decision of Parliament
is to be taken is not whether the proceedings of France
in regard to Portugal are to be altogether defended
or supported —not whether the system of French emigra-
tion from the coast of Africa is connected with the slave
trade—but whether, under the circumstances in which the
Government were placed, they did their duty between the
two parties, and took the curse consistent with the honour
and interests of this country. (Hear.) The difficulty of the
position in which they were placed was increased by the fact
that none had more vigorously contended thatthe system of,
tree emigration, as it was carried on with the best intentions
y France, was inseparably, indissolubly connected with the
revival of the slave trade. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, we
were compelled to admit the perfect right of France to carry
on that traffic if she thought fit. We have no treaty with
France against such a traffic ; it is not in itself contrary to
international law or illegal ; annod aisalithough we never
ceased to contend that there was
free trade emigration and a bona fade ion between this
distinction
carriede rit trade that is the
purchase of persons formerly slaves
their will—yet we could not but confess thatwe
power or justification to interfere to prevent tt?atlatrafid lco
y France. We represented to the Government of the
Emperor the cases that had arisen, and the consequences
likely to follow from that traffic, and I rejoice to say,
that partly owing to the prudent and conciliatory course
taken by my noble friend—(eheers)--the Emperor of the
French took a course which must be gratifying to this
country and favourable to the interests of humanity.
(Hear,
hear.) And, my lords, it is my confident belief, that if we
had taken a different course, we should have interposed the
greatest difficulty in the way of the conclusion to which