§ MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Brazilian Government have fulfilled their obligations with regard to the Africans liberated by British Cruisers, as to whom Earl Russell stated in a Despatch of June 6, 1863, that
Some thousands of negroes, captured in slave-trading vessels, and decreed many years ago by the Mixed Commission at Rio to be entitled to freedom, are, there is good reason to believe, up to the present time held in bondage, contrary to Law, and in violation of Treaty engagements.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, I am sorry to be obliged to say that the conduct of the Brazilian Government in regard to the slave trade has invariably been marked by great neglect and violation of treaty engagements. That circumstance, as everybody knows, led first of all to the Act of 1845, and then to the proceedings under that Act in 1852. Their conduct in regard to the emancipados has been ns flagrant as any other part of their conduct in regard to the slave trade. By the Slave Trade Treaty, Mixed Commissions were appointed, one of which, sitting in Brazil, was composed in part of Brazilian Judges, and they were to decree liberty to negroes found in slave-trading vessels which might be condemned as such by the Mixed Court. These captured negroes were entitled to be free; but the Brazilian Government said that they would require preparation for freedom, and it was ordered that they should for fourteen years be subject to education by masters. Some were kept by the Brazilian Government, some were employed by private persons, and we have reason to believe that none of them have obtained that freedom to which they were entitled. This matter has been the subject of frequent representation on the part of the British Government, but these representations have not been attended to. We have asked for lists of those negroes, but we have not succeeded in obtaining them. It has, however, been said that there is a method by which those negroes may obtain their emancipation; and, if the House will permit me, I will state what that method is, and then hon. Members may judge how far it is in accordance with the engagements of the Brazilian Government. In the first place, the negro is to ask from the Chief Clerk of the African Department 1378 a positive attestation that the fourteen years of his service have expired; secondly, he is to petition the Government through the Minister of Justice; thirdly, the Minister of Justice refers the petition to the Judge of Orphans; fourthly, the Judge of Orphans gives information and returns the petition to the Minister of Justice; fifthly, the Minister of Justice refers the petition to the Chief of Police; sixthly, the Chief of Police refers the petition to the General Guardian of Negroes (Curador); seventhly, the Guardian gives information and returns the petition to the Chief of Police; eighthly, the Chief of Police refers the petition to the Director of the House of Correction; ninthly, the Director of the House of Correction gives information and sends the petition back to the Chief of Police; tenthly, the Chief of Police gives information and sends back the petition to the office of the Secretary of Justice; eleventhly, the office of the Secretary of Justice makes a précis of the information, which is to be acted upon by the Minister of Justice himself; twelfthly, the Minister of Justice acts and orders letters of freedom to be issued. Well, now, you would think that all was done and the negro free; but far from that; thirteenthly, the petition is returned to the Judge of Orphans fourteenthly, notification of the decision is sent to the Chief of Police; fifteenthly, the Judge of Orphans refers the petition to his own clerk, and orders letters of freedom to be given, but keeps the letters until the person applying for them shall have paid the requisite emoluments—that is to say, all the expenses of those proceedings; sixteenthly, the letters are made over to the Chief of Police; seventeenthly, the Chief of Police communicates with the Director of the House of Correction, and orders the African to appear before him; eighteenthly, the Director sends for the African, and the Chief of Police designates his future place of residence. He is not allowed to go where he likes as a freeman, but his residence is fixed for him; nineteenthly, the Chief of Police at Rio communicates with the Chief of the Provincial Police, under whose charge the place designated is, and hands over the free African, with his letter of freedom to this local chief of police; twentieth, the Provincial Chief of Police hands over the applicant to the authorities of the place approved by the Chief of the Police at Rio as his place of banishment, when the man is declared 1379 free, after being removed from the spot where he had been living for fourteen years, and where his connections had been formed. All the efforts we have made to obtain justice for those emancipados have failed, and we have not even been able to obtain a list of them. We know that when they are assigned to an owner he has employed them in conjunction with his slaves, and when a slave died, he put an emancipado in his place, and reported the death of the emancipado, and not the death of the slave.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDwould like to ask one question of the noble Lord on this subject. The noble Lord recited the twenty steps by which the Brazilian Government proposed that the emancipados could obtain their freedom; and he wished to know whether those steps were stated in any despatch from the Brazilian Government, or whether the Brazilian Government having stated that there were certain steps by which the emancipados could obtain their freedom, the noble Lord had obtained an explanation of those steps from any other source? With respect to what the noble Lord said, that the conduct of the Brazilian Government in respect to the slave trade had been marked by the greatest neglect, he desired to ask whether it was not the case that the Brazilian Government themselves had put down the slave trade in Brazil; and whether Lord Brougham, than whom there was no greater friend of the negro, had not expressed in another place his warmest appreciation of the efforts made by the Brazilian Government in this respect?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI do not know that this string of proceedings has ever been mentioned in any official communication from Brazil; it was extracted from a Brazilian newspaper, which gave it as an official document, and I believe it is perfectly correct. With regard to the other question which the hon. Gentleman has asked, he must know full well that if the Brazilian Government have of late years—that is since 1852—put an end to the slave trade, it has been by compulsion, and not upon conviction. The Act of 1845, as all know, lay for many years a dead letter, until the beginning of 1852, when through the agency of Sir James Hudson the provisions of that Act were brought into force. After an attempt of the Brazilian Government to evade compliance they were compelled to submit. I am quite ready to admit that when the 1380 Brazilian Government had been compelled by force to do what the treaty bound them to do, they have continued to do so, and the Brazilian slave trade is now for the time put an end to. They passed fresh laws, they gave fresh orders to all their officers, and in spite of the temptation which bribery naturally held out to many persons whose duty it was to stop the trade, I do believe that from that time to this the slave trade has ceased. I take great credit to myself for having been instrumental in bringing about that result.
§ MR. BRIGHTMr. Speaker, I see that you object to my rising, but I was going to protest against the practice of the noble Lord making a speech on a matter of this nature when other Members cannot reply. I shall, therefore, move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of making one or two observations on the subject. I was not aware that any question was intended to be put on this matter to-night; but on repeated occasions the noble Lord has stated very much what he has stated this evening. Now, I should like to ask the noble Lord, whether he does not know that it was the opinion of Lord Aberdeen, who passed the Brazilian Act, that that Act ought to be repealed, and that the circumstances under which he thought it was justified—though I believe every lawyer thought otherwise—have passed away. Further, I might appeal to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for his opinion upon this matter; for I think that on one occasion the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a specific Motion in favour of the repeal of that Act. Now, Sir, I have had an opportunity of knowing that that Act was one which gave the greatest offence to the Brazilian Government, the Brazilian Legislature, and people. I might quote the opinion of the late Lord Truro, who was no mean lawyer, that a more unjustifiable Act—an Act more entirely in defiance of International Law—never was passed by any Legislature. If that be so, and if the stale of things upon which the passing of that Act was justified has entirely passed away; and if, as we know, the relations between this country and Brazil have been of the most unpleasant kind from the day that Act was passed until this hour, and, as we know too, that until this Act is repealed the relations between the two countries will have no chance whatsoever of being placed upon a friendly and proper basis, I think the noble Lord might now at least give up this 1381 obstinate adherence to what was originally an indefensible law, and which is now deprived even of the defence which the noble Lord made for it. I should think that from the discussions which took place last week, when, if the House did not come to a Vote of Censure, it did unanimously—at least with a general consent which I have never seen approached in any similar case—condemn the irritating and offensive policy of the Foreign Office—I should think the noble Lord might have learned something from that, and might consent now to submit a proposal for the abolition of that Act, so difficult to defend when it was passed, which had no reference to the existing state of circumstances, and was not only calculated but certain to produce, as long as it is on our statute book, unpleasant relations and bickerings between this country and Brazil—a country with which we have extensive commercial relations, and which, I believe, might be much more extended if we only had a Government at all disposed to meet the Government of that country in a friendly spirit. I believe that a proposal of that kind would be sure to meet with the unanimous consent of the House. I also believe that in the observations I have made I have expressed very briefly an opinion which prevails in this House, and which, I believe, is universally held amongst all the commercial classes of this country who have anything to do with Brazil and its people. I therefore beg of the noble Lord to reconsider this matter. It may be too late now to introduce any measure on the subject; but if at the opening of the next Session of Parliament the noble Lord should not be prepared to do so I hope some Member of the House will move for a Committee to examine into the whole question, and I believe that no fairly constituted Committee of this House would bring up a Report in favour of the measure and of the policy of the noble Lord. But between this and the next Session of Parliament no doubt the Brazilian question will come under the notice of the noble Lord and his Colleague at the Foreign Office in connection with transactions which are, I believe, to be referred to the King of Portugal. If that be so, the noble Lord need not wait till the next meeting of Parliament, but he can promise that he will do his best in the matter; and if he does that, I have not the smallest doubt that we may have easily settled every disputed point with Brazil, and the whole of 1382 our relations with that country in future time carried on in that amicable manner which is not less to the interest of that small country than it is to the interest of the commercial classes of this powerful nation. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Bright.)
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would certainly support the appointment of the Committee suggested by the hon. Gentleman; but he thought the inquiry should not be confined to this Brazilian matter, but should also embrace the state of affairs on the coast of Africa, for they had become most serious. At this moment we had 3,000 men dotted about that pestilential coast, and their condition was most appalling. Some 60 per cent had been prostrated by fever and the deadly climate in the horrible Ashantee war. The answer given by the Government in the discussion on this subject was essentially fallacious. The troops were in a state of starvation, for the country was in a state of famine. The policy of maintaining the establishments on the coast was a matter the consideration of which could not long be deferred. There was another question which was connected with this Motion, which seriously reflected on the naval administration. We maintained a squadron on that station at a cost of £600,000 or £700,000 per annum, and of that squadron not one ship excepting the Rattlesnake could go above eight knots. The consequence of that was that the blockade runners carrying slaves had only to turn their head to windward to escape from the British cruisers. Now, if that were the case, how should we be able to protect our vast commerce in case of any emergency? At this moment vessels were being built in this country capable of going fifteen or sixteen knots an hour, carrying cargo, and they were to be engaged in carrying cargo to the Confederate States. He had alluded to this subject in anticipation of the question respecting it which he had on the paper.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDSir, I am glad to take the opportunity of the Motion for adjournment of adding a few words to the question I put to the noble Lord. I desire to endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and to express the regret which the House must feel that the noble 1383 Lord should have availed himself of the opportunity of answering a simple question to make an attack upon a Government with whom for years, and until lately, this country has been in friendly relations. I would point out that the answer of the noble Lord is but an amplification of the last despatch addressed by Earl Russell to the Brazilian Government, and to which, as far as this House is aware, no reply has yet been returned. The noble Lord, therefore, makes a formal indictment against the Brazilian Government, at a time when we do not know whether that Government may not be able to explain satisfactorily the charge made against them. I cordially agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham that never was there a greater violation of every principle of justice and International Law than in the passing of what is commonly called the Aberdeen Act; and although the noble Lord takes credit to himself for putting that Act in force, yet, as I have before stated, I have reason to know that no man doubted the justice and policy of the measure more than the noble Lord with whose name it is associated. I have further to state that Lord Aberdeen expressed a hope that when the Brazilian Government suppressed the slave trade, as they had now done, the earliest opportunity would be taken of repealing the Act. I quite agree in every word that has fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham upon this subject.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI do not think I am liable to the reproach which has been addressed to me. I did not volunteer a speech—I gave an answer to a question, and that question involved a statement which I know to be true. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman opposite to deny it—he knows better. [Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I do not.] Then I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is so ignorant. All I have said will be found in the papers laid on the table of the House. I have mentioned no facts which cannot be ascertained by any Gentleman who chooses to take the trouble. With regard to what has been said about the Act being a violation of every principle of International Law—[Mr. BRIGHT: I quoted Lord Truro.] I gave the words the hon. Gentleman adopted, at any rate. I can only say that the Act was exactly the counterpart of an Act which it was my duty to propose to the House in regard to Portugal; and these two Acts received the approval of the Law Officers of two different Governments. The 1384 justification of these measures is that, though the Portuguese and Brazilian Governments had each made a treaty in 1826, pledging their honour and faith to abolish the slave trade and to make it penal for their subjects to carry it on, and each had for a time consented to a treaty which supplied the means of carrying out that engagement, yet each in the course of time failed in redeeming its engagements. I do not dispute that the measure we adopted was a violent one, but it was thought that the object justified the means, and that we were entitled to use our own power to enforce the treaty which Portugal and Brazil had refused to carry into execution. Everybody knows that at that time the slave trade of Brazil amounted to the landing of 68,000 or 70,000 negroes every year, and that, of course, implied at least three times that number being torn from their home in Africa. This slave trade, or rather slave-piracy, wherever it is carried on, is the cause of the desolation of Africa, of the extinction of all legitimate commerce, and of suffering and misery to hundreds of thousands of Africans. Everybody knows that ever since the year 1815 it has been the object, not only of the English Government, but of the English nation, to put an end to that detestable traffic. Therefore, I repeat, the goodness of the end justified the means; and the expenditure of men and money was deliberately undertaken by the country for the purpose of abolishing the evil. The hon. Member for Birmingham is, I am sure, one of those who think that the actions of nations have, under the dispensation of Providence, some influence on their destinies, and is the last man, I am confident, to wish the country to give encouragement to this infamous trade for the sake of any temporary, pecuniary, or commercial advantage which might accrue. I am convinced—and I believe that every one who has turned his attention to the subject is convinced—that if the Act were repealed the Brazilian slave trade would be revived. It may be said that the opinion of the people of Brazil is altered, and that every respectable man in that country is against the slave trade. But it is not by respectable men that the trade is conducted. It is carried on by the scum of the earth in every country, and the profits are so large that they can afford to bribe the subordinate officers whose duty it is to detect and punish crime. You may depend upon it that where there is the power of evading 1385 or violating the law it will be done. Take the case of Spain and Cuba. Spain is bound by treaty to abolish the slave trade. That was the only return we asked from Spain for our assistance in the War of Independence. We said we wanted nothing from her but a slave trade treaty, and we got it. In spite, however, of that treaty the slave trade to Cuba still continues; and so it would be with Brazil if the Act in question were repealed. Portugal, too, has made a treaty to the same effect; but has the slave trade ceased? No. There is a constant exportation of negroes from the Portuguese possessions in Africa; and in this case Portugal has not even the excuse of Spain. The latter imports slaves into Cuba to cultivate the soil; but Portugal exports from Africa the hands which she ought to retain and employ there. In the Portuguese settlements the condition of slavery exists, and so it does in Cuba. France did more, for she abolished not only the trade but the condition of slavery. Yet what happened a few years ago? Under the pretence of exporting from Africa free labourers the slave trade was to all intents and purposes carried on under another name. We had difficulty in persuading the French Government to put an end to that traffic, and they agreed to do so only on condition that permission should be given to French colonists to export coolies from our possessions in India. Although the Act now in question has not been put in force since 1852, and Brazil has, therefore, no practical grievance to complain of, I am aware that it is a thorn in her side. Those who wish to carry on the slave trade find it an impediment in their way; and those who do not participate in the trade look upon it as a reproach. But I attach so much importance to carrying out the determination of the English people to put an end to the slave trade that, much as I value the goodwill and friendship of Brazil, yet if that were put in one scale and the suppression of the slave trade in the other, I should prefer the latter.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSThis is not a question of the horrors of the slave trade, and the noble Lord might have spared us the well-known catalogue of evils and the inefficacy of the measures for their prevention. If, as the noble Lord has told us, the treaty with Spain has proved so useless, and the Act in reference to Brazil and Portugal so efficacious, why does he not propose a Bill with regard to Spain similar to the Aberdeen Act in regard to Brazil? 1386 [Viscount PALMERSTON: We have a treaty with Spain.] Yes, you have a treaty, but you say it is inefficacious. The reason why the noble Lord does not seek to legislate as to Spain is not that which he has given, but another. I will tell the House what it is. It is because he dare not. The question concerns the liberty—never approached in this House—which the noble Lord allows himself in answering questions to abuse any independent foreign country whose conduct does not exactly please him. This is not the first time the noble Lord has made an attack on the Government of Brazil. I recollect he did so on a former occasion, a year or two ago. I join with the hon. Member for Birmingham in protesting against language such as the noble Lord, the representative of a great State, has used to-night against a small State. The noble Lord tells us that he has used no language not to be found in the blue-books, and perhaps, if we looked into them, we should find such terms as "flagrant" applied to the conduct of the Brazilian Government. It is rather curious, however, that the noble Lord had just before told us that he derived his information not from blue-books but from a foreign newspaper. Perhaps that was some of the "ribald trash of the foreign press" of which we have lately heard.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThere is the blue-book from which I quoted.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSThe noble Lord simply told us that it was out of a newspaper, and my statement is entirely based upon that of the noble Lord. I do not, however, wish to prolong the discussion, I certainly protest against the language which has been made use of by I the noble Lord towards an independent Power like Brazil, and I see very little prospect of establishing satisfactory relations between that or any other Power, so long as the Prime Minister of this country permits himself to make use of such language.
§ SIR JOHN HAYBefore the Motion is withdrawn, I wish to say a few words on the subject of the slave trade on the West Coast of Africa, and the attempts which are being made to put it down. We now maintain a squadron on the coast of Africa of eighteen steam-vessels, and I am informed that there is only one of them—the Rattlesnake—which is capable of going more than 8½ knots an hour. We have, therefore, seventeen vessels employed to put a stop to the slave trade which are in- 1387 capable of doing be. We have recently had a striking exemplification of the effects of such an arrangement. A General Order has been issued by the commanding officer, in which it is stated that the speed of the slave steamers now on the coast is so great in comparison with that of our own cruisers that it is useless to attempt to follow them. Her Majesty's cruisers are therefore directed to remain at anchor on any part of the coast where it is likely that slavers will be embarked, and not to pursue a slaver even if they should observe one steaming away. I have no doubt that these vessels are picked for the service, and if it is an example of the kind of ships we are now building for the navy, I think the sooner we have an alteration the better.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI think the account which has been given to the House with regard to the speed of the slave ships and of our cruisers is somewhat exaggerated. I cannot at this moment state what the speed of our vessels is, but I may say that I have received no account of their being employed in chasing steamers, and not being able to do so. I am quite aware it is possible that very fast steamers may be constructed and used as slavers, and if we find that our steamers are unequal to the duties imposed upon them, it will undoubtedly be the duty of the Government to send out faster vessels. It is necessary, however, that the vessels we send to that station should for sanitary purposes be very roomy and airy; and as to their speed, although I do not think that any of our very fast steamers are out there, I am satisfied that the case has been much overstated.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI cannot help thinking that the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government has made use of expressions towards an hon. Friend near me which display a remarkable want of courtesy. The noble Lord first said that my hon. Friend must have known the reverse of what he stated, and he followed that up by imputing to my hon. Friend great ignorance if he did not know it. Now, I certainly distinctly heard the noble Lord say in answer to a question from my noble Friend (Lord John Manners) as to what despatch he had derived his information from, that he had learnt it from a newspaper. The noble Lord in answer to my noble Friend, has handed this marked paper across the table, and he says that it is taken from a blue-book. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary 1388 for Foreign Affairs, whether the paper in question has been laid upon the table of the House; and, if so, when?
§ MR. LAYARDI am unable to say when; but, of course, it was laid upon the table.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONWe do not take it of course.
§ MR. LAYARDThis paper is evidently taken from a blue-book. I believe the statement made by my noble Friend was that it was a Brazilian despatch.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDThe date is the 30th of June last year.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.