The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-01 00:00:00

not see one single good purpose that it would effect. It
appeared to be unnecessary for the purpose of bringing
about a co-operation of the Brazilian Government, because
they had measures already in progress with regard to
the slave trade, and they should see what effect they
may have. That afforded another reason why, even if
they had public law on their side, they should ab-
stain from this measure as a measure of bad policy ;
and he could not but once more enter his protest against
it, and absolve himself from any share whatever in the
responsibility of this measure. He begged now to make
the inquiries of which he gave notice. He wished to
know whether the Brazilians in this country had addressed
to her Majesty's Government any remonstrance or com-
munication relative to this Bill. If such a communica-
tion had been received by the Government, he thought
that the House was entitled to see the communica-
tion, and that they should be laid before Parliament.
He thought that as they were called upon to share in
the responsibility of the Executive, the Executive Go-
vernment should place the House in the same position
in which they stood th, mselves—in the position that
they should have a full opportunity of judging both
of the law and the policy of this measure. He
would ask him, then, if a remonstrance had been re-
ceived, and if it had, whether he could lay it on the table
of the House. If it had been received why should they not
delay this measure till they had printed this remon-
strance ? The report was brought up on Monday last
and the matter was postponed till this day, and he was
not chargeable with that delay. lle did think that they
should not be judging properly, anl that they should
not be doing what was required, if they acted without
the fullest information. He would conclude by request.
ing her Majesty's Government to inform them whether
they had received that information.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was much obliged to the
Hon. Gentleman fur the question which he proposed.
He postponed the Bill in order to have a full oppor-
tunity of considering some suggestions that had been
made. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman that he had
again considered this subject, and he had authority in
stating, that under the first article of the convention of
1826, the Sovereign of this country had a right to con-
sider the earring on of the slave trade by Brazilian
subjects, and act upon that consideration. According
to the convention, at the expiration of three years it
should not be lawful for the subjects of Brazil to be
concerned in the carrying on of the African slave trade,
under any pretext, or in any manner whatever, and the
carrying on of such slave trade should be deemed and
treated as piracy. The carrying on of the slave trade
by the law of nations was not an act of piracy. The
carrying on the slave trade by the subjects of certain
Powers had been made piracy by their own municipal
laws. Let it be said to the honour of the United States
that it was the first country which passed a law, making
the carrying on of the slave trade piracy by the
subjects of the United States. In the year 1824,
this country made it piracy, and subjected its
own subjects to the penalties of piracy.—(Hear.)
Brazil adopted the convention of 1817, which continued
in force till the convention of 1829, when the mixed
Commission was appointed, which continued in existence
down to 1841, when the Braz:lian Minister asked the
English Government to do away with that Commission, be
cause the Brazilian Government had declared all Brazilian
subjects who might be found engaged in the slave trade
to be guilty of piracy, and rendered liable to be
punished by the ordinary tribunals of the country.
The mixed courts at Sierra Leone and Rio
de Janeiro were abolished, and both British
and Brazilian subjects found trafficking in
slaves were declared to be guilty of piracy.
The Brazilian Government was willing that its subjects
engaged in the slave trade should be treated as pirates ;
but it was stipulated that vessels in the direct trade from
Africa to Brazil, before the 13th March, 1830, sh mid
not be molested by tha British cruisers.—(Hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet then read at length, but in a
very low tone, extracts from the treaty, which were to
the effect stated. The treaty gave a clear right of search,
which was not so much intended against Brazlian ves-
sels, as against pirates and slave-ships which might make
use of the Brazilian flag. There was nothing in the pre-
sent treaty at variance with international law. It was
merely a recognition of a principle which had been
already incorporated in previous treaties and acted upon
by other nations.
The report was then brought up and received.
Mr. HUTT said he wished to make a few re marks
on the present question. He would not, however, occupy
their attention for any length of time, at that period of
the session, only he could not allow the opportunity to
pass without expressing his sentiments. He thought
they ought to pause in their proceedings. If it was found
hereafter that they had not proceeded on a firm and
legal basis, the worst evils might result from it. Were
anything of an injurious character to proceed from the
treaty, it would produce feelings of the deepest regret in
his mind. This ought to be sufficient to induce them to
pause in their proceedings. The other evening, after listen-
ing to the arguments of the Hon. Member for Manchester,
and the 'Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), he was in-
clined to agree Nith the view which the latter took of
the question. Since then, however, he had carefully
weighed the arguments and examined into the merits of
the question, from which he had seen reason to alter his
opinion; and now he thought the Right Hon. Baronet
had gone too far. There were two points in the treaty;
first, it made the slave trade unlawful; and second, it
provided that those engaged in it should be considered
as pirates. By the construction of the treaty, British
subjects who might be engaged in the slave trade might
be handed over to the Brazilian Government for trial
and punishment.
Sir H. PEEL—It does not so provide. It merely
says that Brazilian subjects, who may be found engaged
in the slave trade, should be considered as pirates.
Mr. uurr- Still the terms of the treaty woulp war-
rant such a construction as that he had put upon it.
And what would be the practical effect ? That parties
engaged in the slave trade—British subjects might be
taken to a country for punishment which was not so
civilised as this—where they would be made, not to
suffer the loss of life alone, but be subjected to be
broken on the wheel, or burned alive. The law against
pirates in this country was of a different character. So
far from even the punishment of death being now in-
flcted for this offence it had lately been commuted.
Sir R. PEEL—That is not the case.
Mr. HUTT—To some extent it had, at all events,
been commuted. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated
that the construction placed upon the treaty was, that
traders in slaves should be treated as pirates as far as
ships and goods were concerned. But they should not
stop here. The treaty should also apply to persons or
property. He thought that it was an incumbent duty
on the Government to induce the Ministry of Brazil to
render this declaration of the Executive a portion of
the municipal law of the country. At present such was
rot the case, and therefore it was utterly impossible for
the Executive to carry out the provisions of any treaty
which had not the sanction of the Legislature.
Captain PECHELL said that it was in the highest
degree unfair that a duty should be imposed on naval
officers of the highest responsibility, and yet without any
chance of their receiving any remuneration for
the position in which they were placed.—(Hear,
hear.) After the sum of 600,0001. and 300,0001.
had been paid to Portugal for the suppression of the
slave trade, he thought that that country was bound to
adhere to the terms of the treaty of 1839. The Right
Hon. Baronet very well knew that a line-of-battle ship
was a far more cogent argument than all the phrase-
ology in the world ; and he thought that if the Govern-
ment were sufficiently energetic, that all they desired
would be attained.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that by the Brazilian
code, the act of introducing Africans in'o the Brazilian
dominions for slaves was not recognised as piracy, al-
though a declaration to that effect had been made as
early as the 7th of November, 1831. The fact was, that
the Legislature would not sanction the acts of the execu-
tive, and he did not see how this country could declare
slave dealers to be pirates. The case was much the
same as that with France. In that instance the Go-
vernment had been obliged to recede, and he did not see
why they should not do so now.
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL and Mr. EWART,
The clause was added to the Bill.
The report was brought up, and the amendments con-
sidered, and the Bill ordered to be printed, and read a
hird time to-morrow.
GAMES AND WAGERS BILL.

On this Bill being brought on for further proceedings
on third reading,
Mr. HUME moved an amendment to the 15th clause,
to the effect that informers should have their full costs.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majcrity against it —34
EThe Bill was then read a third time and passed.
On the motion of going into Committee on the
FEES (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) BILL,
Mr. ESCOTT agreed in the general principle of the
Bill, and said that the officers of the Crown had no right
to receive any compensation for the performance of their
duties.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Bill had been drawn
up with the view of abolishing all fees hereafter,
After afew words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Mr. HUME said that he took the Bill as an instal-
ment, ar.d for so far he considered it would be of public
benefit.
The Bill then went through Committee, and the report
was ordered to brought up to-morrow.
On the motion of going into Committee on the
WASTE LAND (AUSTRALIA) BILL,
Mr. HAWES said that the Bill was now reduced to a
single clause, and was limited to the colony of Van Die-
men's Land. Let the Haus() recollect that there was
a redundancy of land and abundance of labour there,
and yet, for all this, there was great distress. This was
most extraordinary. Let them, however, extend the
principles of free trade to the colony, and hee had
no
hesitation in saying that this distress would greatly
alleviated, if not entirely removed. The Bill itself
stood self-condemned, I;ir it was now shorn down t()
single clause. Ile would oppose the further progress of
the Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON seconded the motion,
Mr. SCOTT expressed his surprise at the conduct of
the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) with respect to this
Bill, If a similar node of proceeding were continued to
he adopted in that House he did not think its dignity
would be raised in the estimation of the country. He
considered that their opposition was not at all disin-
terested. He thought they were lending themselves to
the New Zealand Company, and acting in a factious
spirit, for the purpose of thwarting this measure.
The interests of this important colony, from which they
received a great portion of their wool, was being sa-
crificed to a set of speculating individuals, The Bill as
amended would have caused much satisfaction in the
colony. but for the statement made by the Government
last night,
"1i IlltafE blamed the lion, Gentleman for bringing
charges against the New Zealand Company when those
who represented that important body were absent from
the Ilouse. If the Government gave facilities to the