The Sun. — 1863-03-07 (London, England)

LRAMLEY-MooRE called the attention of the house to the papers and correspondence laid upon the table with reference to Brazil, and moved the following resolution :—" That this house has learned with regret the interruption of amicable relations between this country and Brazil ;satyn,da thisao_ house expresses the desire that her Majesty's-vernment may take such measures to restore a cordial understanding between the two countries as may be consistent with the character and honour of this country, having at the same time Et just regard to the dignity and honour of a friendly a,,nd.independent Power." He contended that the difficulty" which had arisen might have been amicably sel:Aled if the British Minister at Rio de Janeiro had behaved with tact and discretion, and that the bad feeling which had been engendered, and which would probably endure for many years to come, might have been averted but for the part which 2,1 r, Consul Vereker and Mr. Christie had played in the matter. 31:-. COLLIER (who addressed the House repeat& Ily as " gentlemen") defended the course which to Government had taken, and having analysed %lav: evidence, gave it as his opinion that the crew of  the Prince of Wales had reached the shore alive, and had brought with them in their boats packages of goods, portions of which were subsequently found in the residence of Senhor Suarez, a lccal magistrate. The Brazilian authorities had declined to do justice, and bad delayed inquiry by every means in their power. Under these circumstances her Majesty's Government, in demanding reparation, had acted withi❑ international law and in accordance with the long-established policy of the country. Lord R. CECIL thought the question was not whether the vessel had been plundered, the crew murdered, or whether the tribunals of Brazil were similar to our own, b'it whether the Government of Brazil had done anything to justify us in adopting a measure of force which, if resisted, would have been a measure of war. He did not think they had. Mr. BUXTON was of opinion that Lord Russell had atoned for the severity of his despatches by offering to submit the question to arbitration. Mr. C. BENTINCK supported the resolution, and threw doubts upon the trustworthy character of Consul Vereker's statements. Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD contended there was nothing whatever to show that there had been any such negligence on the part of the Brazilian Government as would make them responsible. On the contrary, their conduct had been considerate, dignified, and legal. Mr. LAYARD spoke at length in opposition to the motion, contending that there could be no moral doubt but that the captain and crew of the Prince of Wales had been murdered. So far from having acted with precipitancy, her Majesty's Government had acted with the greatest forbearance and with the nicest regard for international law. The evidence upon which they had acted was to their minds conclusive, and if they had not sooner or later called the Brazilian Government to account, it would be impossible to expect that British life or property could be safe in the wide-spread territories of Brazil. _ _  Mr. COBDEN commented upon the speech of Mr. Collier, which he described as that of a counsel who had got his brief and had followed his instructions. Indeed, so entirely had he identified himself with the position of an advocate, that he had addressed the House of Commons as "gentlemen of the jury," He (Mr. Cobden) took exception to the evidence of Mr. Consul Vereker, and urged that that person had acted all through on a fixed and foregone conclusion that murder and robbery had taken place. But even if they had, no claim ought to have been made on the Brazilian Government, unless it could have been clearly shown that there was complicity on the part of the latter. The