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

FITZGERALD—Not in Brazil. Mr. LAYAR was sorry to differ from his hon. friend, but he would point out two or three matters which led him to form the opinion he had expressed. There had been claimed from Brazil the sum of £350,000. His hon. friend just now said that the present Government had broken up the commission that was to inquire into those claims; but his hon. friend must have certainly known the true history of that transaction. The Brazilian Government brought forward claims which had been settled by courts of law, whose decisions they themselves had recognised, and they insisted upon their knowing that the English Government would never consent to their being reopened, and, as they would not hear of anything else till these claims were admitted, the British Government were compelled to break up the commission. The English Government would have been only too glad to have settled the vast amount of claims, many of which had been hanging over for the last 40 years. What happened only four or five years ago, and  still formed the subject of correspondence between the two Governments ? Without rhyme or reason a triple tax was _ _ _ _ .  imposed on all British commerce in Bahia—(hear, hear)— that enactment was still in existence, and though it had  not been acted on recently, calls were constantly being made upon the Brazilian Government to ropes, this unjust and iniquitous law, In the papers reference was made by Mr. Christie to intimidation and to the purchase of justice. That allusion referred to a letter which had fallen into Mr Christie's hands from an influential officer, between whom and Mr. Reed a suit was pending, calling on the judge who was to decide in the suit to decide against Mr. Reed. It was said that Brazil had abolished the slave trade. He did not want to go into a history of that question, but he knew that if credit was to 'no taken for that measure it was due, not to the Brazilian Government, but to the noble lord now at the head of the Government _(hear, hear)—who had put down the slave trade there as he had put it down elsewhere. (Cheers.) What were the actual facts at this moment ? The Brazilian Government had entered into distinct agreements that the negroes now in that country shall be liberated at the end of a certain period of apprenticeship. That period had elapsed some years since, and, notwithstanding the remonstrances 1 of the British Government, those negroes were still used as slaves ; it was impossible to obtain a list of them, or to trace what had become of them. These were some of the causes of complaint existing against Brazil. Were the British Government to stand with their arms folded ? Were they to rest satisfied with the plausible and, he must add, disingenuous notes of the Brazilian Minister? Would those who had been robbed, and the relatives of those who had been murdered, rest satisfied with such an explanation ? He ventured to say no Government could have acted otherwise than her Majesty's Government had done. The noble lord opposite had quoted a paragraph from a well known legal author, ty, Dr. Phillimore, who, it was well known, was the legal adviser of the Government, and as the Government acted on his opinion, it was likely to be in favour of reprisals in this case. Allusion had been made to the strong and the weak. Nothing could be more reprehensible than for a strong Government unnecessarily to use its strength against a weak State, and according to the noble lord we had the reputation all over the world of bullying small Governments. (Hear, hear.) But was it not astounding to hear from his noble friend opposite that there was not a great powe- in Europe which we had not insulted and bullied within the last 18 months. We had written threateningly to France, insultingly to Cenmark, to Tlnagia likowiso, in fact, according to the hon. gentleman, there was not a great State which we had not insulted and bullied in turn. Mr. S.