The Sun. — 1863-06-20 (London, England)

RUSSELL—I think it must be allowed by your lordships that it is a part of the general law of nations—that it is a part of the municipal law allowed by all civilised countries—that the persons and property of foreign subjects should be respected by them. Now, this is the only principle upon which the proceedings of the Government hove been founded. We have not thought it right to connive at the plunder of British subjects—at the suspected murder of British subjects—without asking from the foreign government in whose country the outrages took place all the reparation in their power. That has been the principle upon which we have proceeded ; and I do hope that the commercial importance of Brazil will not be put forward by the noble earl as a reason for not asking some remedy for these grievances. I am ready to admit that it was a serious matter to make any demand upon Brazil with which she might hesitate to comply ; I am quite ready to admit that it is most desirable that we should be on the most friendly terms with Brazil; but I cannot admit that its commercial importance, or our desire to be on friendly terms with it, should make us blind or indifferent to the wrongs of British subjects experienced at its hands. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord and some organs of the public press seem to maintain that it did not signify what outrages our fellow-subjects were exposed to abroad, in comparison to the millions of property which were imperilled by misunderstanding. I cannot argue the question upon that foundation. I must argue it upon the foundation upon which we have always acted=that where a wrong has been committed a remedy should be asked in firm and temperate terms, and, if refused, should be exacted by some measure of force. I find that since 1831 up to the present time there have been 21 cases in which France has adopted coercive measures in order to obtain redress ; that there have been 22 cases in which Great Britain has adopted coercive measures in order to obtain redress; and that there have been 23 cases in which the United States have adopted like measures to obtain redress. This shows at least that in the opinion of those great maritime countries measures of coercion are sometimes necessary, and that you cannot obtain redress without them. What was the case with regard to this perticular matter of the shipwreck of the Prince Of Wales? The noble lord here detailed the circumstances of the shipwreck, which are now familiar to the public, and contended that at the time when Mr. Consul Vereker proceeded to the coast to institute inquiries concerning them, his mind was sane and unclouded. The noble earl (Mal, mesbury) had treated with some pleasantry Mr. Vereker's going to the house of the justice of the peace in order to investigate the matter. He (Earl Russell) owned that it did not appear to him to be a matter for pleasantry, but rather of commendation, and he was glad that a British officer so well performed his duty. (Hear, hear.) Having found the ship's boat and oars, and seen in the magistrate's house chests which were not wet inside, but which were empty of  their contents, Mr. Vereker asked where the bodies of the  sailors were who were said to have been buried. If there had been no foul play, the natural answer would have been to point out the spot, and to facilitate the inquest which was demanded of them. The noble earl (Malmesbury) stated that four bodies had been produced for the inquest, but he entirely suppressed the fact that there were six other bodies which were not produced. Earl of