New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-08-02
BBAZGL, AND
SLAvR.TRADE.

duced in the English Parliament by the motion
for vote of censure, has been followed, as was
To be expected, by great calm. Once only,
during the subsequent week. the House OF
Commons came near having another scene.
Lord Palmerston, whom advancing years are
making fretful and impatient Of opposition,
again lost his temper, and if the Opposition had
seen fit to have another test of strength. 1t Is
very likely that the Cabinet would have met
with very decisive defeat. The cause for this
transient disturbance of the calm Of the House
was discussion on the relations between En-
gland and Brazil.
Soon after the independence OF Brazil, o
treaty was concluded with Great Britain Tin
1926 for the suppression Of the slave-trade,
which provided that three years after the ex-
change of notifications, the carrying on OF the
African saye-trade by the Brazilans should be
altogether illegal and " be deemed and treated
as piracy" The treaty contained other clauses
of temporary character, providing, in case
they should not be continued by agreement,
for right of search and visit, and mixed CON-
missions for adjudication of captured vessels.
These provisions expired in 1s45 Brazil refused
10 renew them, and Lord Aberdeen proposed to
Parliament a measure giving jurisdiction as to
captured Brazilian slave vessels to the English
Admiralty Courts, under the permanent clause
Of the slave TRADE treaty, which provided that
Brazilian slaye.trade should be treaty as piracy.
The passage Of this measure did not, however,
check the Brazilian slave-trade. Sixty thousand
slaves year were imported into Brazil in the
years ls47, ls45 and ls49. Negroes were openly
landed at Rio de Janeiro, and no measures, at
least no open measures, were taken by the
BRAZILIAN Government to repress the traffic.
This lasted until 1850, when Lord Palmerston
directed the execution of the rights of search
and seizure in Brazilian ports and waters. Two
years later, in 1852, the Brazilian Government
passed law supressing the trade, and since
then 1t has not been revived.
The neglect Of tho Brazilian Government
from 1881, when the Importation Of slaves be-
came illegal under the treaty of 1926, till 1852.
whom It ceased, led to large increase OF the
slave population Of the empire. 1t Is calculated
that during this time about million of slaves
wee illegally imported, and it is further calcu-
lated that the survivors of these imported slaves
and their offspring, who still continue In Illegal
slavery also number million.
The Aberdeen act" still remains In force.
Lord Brougham, in the House of Lords. recent
" urged Lord Russell to trust TO the good faith
of the Brazilian Government and repeal the
Aberdeen act. He landed the Brazilian Gov
eminent for what.they had done for the suppress
sion of tho slave.trsde and paving the way for
emancipation. 1t was this same subject which,
on the 10th of July, led to the animated discus
sion in the Honse of Commons, to which We
have referred. Mr.. Hardcastle asked the first
Lord Of the Treasury whether the Brazilian
Government had fulfilled their obligations with
regard to the Africans liberated by British cruis.
srs, as to whom Earl Russell stated in dis.
patch Of the 9th Of june 1868, that "some
thousands Of negroes, captured in elave-trading
vessels, and decreed many years ago by the
Mixed Commission ut Rio TO be entitled to free
dom, are up to the present time held in bond
age, contrary to law. and in violation of
treaty engagements" In reply, Lord Palmer
ston denounced the conduct of the Brazilian
Government in the most vehement and, at least
partly, unfair manner; and declared that the
English Government had no intention to repeal
the aberdeen act" Mr.. Bright was sur
prised that Lord Palmerston should have
learned nothing from the unanimous condemna-
ton Of the offensive and irritating policy Of
the Foreign Office" by the House of Commons
during the preceding week. He thought that
Lord Palmerston ight consent now TO DO what
would, in his opinion, meet with the unanimous
concurrence Of the House, namely, to repeal
law indefensiblc when passed, and having now
no reference to the existing circumstances of the
case, and not only calculated but certain to
create, ns long as it was on the statute-book,
unpleasant relations and chickering's between
England and Brazil The views of Mr.. Bright
were concurrcd in by the speakers Of the Tory
party, and it WAS manifest that if motion had
been made, the Government could not have
possibly escaped defeat by large majority.
Lord Palmerston, pressed by the arguments
of Mr.. Bright md other speakers, made strong
bid for the sympathy Of the anti-slavery senti-
ments of the House. lie denounced the abon-
nations of Slavery and slave-.rading with
youthful iervor, and wound up with saying that
if the friendship of Brazil was put in one
scale and the suppression Of the slave-trade in
the other, he should prefer the latter.