Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

CHAPTER XV.

THE REPRISALS IN BRAZIL.

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE PORTUGUESE MEDIATION-THE BRAZILIAN AGENT" CHARGES ME WITH INDISCRETION-LORD PALMERSTON'S AND LORD RUSSELL'S CONTRARY OPINIONS-ARTICLE IN QUARTERLY REVIEW ON FOREIGN POLICY, APRIL, 1864-ITS MISREPRESENTATIONS ON THE BRAZILIAN QUESTION-LORD ROBERT CECIL.

IT had been my intention to conclude my letters to the Editor of the Daily News by telling, consecutively and completely, the story of the reprisals in Brazil; but the mail which arrived from Rio in the middle of September brought the account of a speech made in the Brazilian Senate on August 17th, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, saying that "it was possible that the Portuguese mediation might continue," and that the Brazilian government "was waiting the result of the kindness of the Portuguese government as to the terms which might induce them to renew diplomatic relations with England." As it was to be inferred from these words that the Portuguese mediation was still pending, I determined to abstain from telling the story of what that mediation was concerned with. I had been in the belief, since Mr. Osborne gave notice of a motion for next session for the repeal of the "Aberdeen Act," until the coming on of which the "Friend to both Countries" was very anxious to postpone all discussion about Brazil, that

those in this country knowing the feelings and watching the interests of the Brazilian government, regarded the mediation as at an end. I had not, therefore, been surprised at the rumour which followed the arrival of a previous mail from Brazil, that the terms recommended by the Portuguese government had been rejected by the Brazilian cabinet. It now, however, appeared that the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs had publicly stated that the mediation was still pending.

My letters began with a reply to statements in the leading columns of the Daily News on the question of the free Africans or emancipados. A "Friend to both Countries" came forward to answer me; and on his provocations I proceeded from the first subject to several others, "Slavery in Brazil," "Commercial Relations," and "British Claims." None of these bore directly on the matter which has been the subject of mediation by the King of Portugal.

I had been led to propose to treat the subject of the reprisals by a statement in one of the letters of the "Friend to both Countries," that, if I had used the powers given me to accept an arbitration in the disputes about the "Prince of Wales" and the officers of the "Forte," "discreetly and prudently, the reprisals would never have been made, and the rupture would have been avoided."

Though I abstain from treating the subject in full, I shall record the opposite opinions of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell, which may with most of my readers overbear the judgment, unsupported by proof, of an anonymous "Brazilian agent."

Lord Palmerston said in the House of Commons, May 8, 1863:

"Mr. Christie acted with great judgment, and with all the forbearance which is compatible with a proper and faithful performance of the orders which he had received.”

Lord Russell is reported to have said in the House of Lords, June 19, 1863, in answer to Lord Malmesbury :— .

:

"Mr. Christie acted in entire conformity with the instructions which I gave him. He argued the question with great temper and ability, and it was not until I instructed him to make a positive demand for reparation that that demand was made. Mr. Christie was not told to make an offer of arbitration, because I did not think that it lay with Her Majesty's government to make it. If we had made such an offer, the Brazilian government might have said, in its evasive way, 'This shows that you are not confident of your case,' and they would have tried some further delays."

And if this is not enough, Lord Russell has, in a private communication to me, used words which I have his permission to publish, that I "obeyed his instructions with fidelity and ability, and in a conciliatory manner."

While abstaining from the full narration which I had intended of the story of the reprisals, I will briefly allude to the version of the story which lately appeared in the Quarterly Review (Article, “Our Foreign Policy," April, 1864.) The Reviewer's narrative, deliberately composed and skilfully put together, may come to be regarded as a locus classicus on the subject. The Reviewer avoids the imputations against me made by Lord Malmesbury and

the "Brazilian agent," and fairly describes me as acting in fulfilment of orders. But he is most unjust to the British government. Take his account of the state of the facts as to the plunder of the wreck of the "Prince of Wales," and the suspected murders of the crew :—

66

Chiefly, it appears, on account of the evil reputation which attached to this population, the English Consul on the spot persuaded himself that this wrecked English vessel had been plundered and the crew murdered. The evidence on which he relied was not in itself very convincing. There were some indications of plunder. A Bible and some empty packing-cases were found in the house of the chief landed proprietor in the district. It was said that they were picked up on the beach, but of course it was possible that they might have been stolen from the wreck. Some chests, uninjured by the sea, were also found upon the beach. The crew were lost, and only four bodies were recovered. An inquest was held upon them, and the verdict returned was that they had been drowned; but of course it was possible that the verdict was false, and that the sailors might have been murdered. It was said that some other bodies had been seen, but when the Consul came down, only these four were to be found. The reason given was that the sand, which drifts in large masses upon that flat coast, had buried them so that it was impossible to discover them again. This might have been true. On the other hand, it might, of course, have been a falsehood, designed to conceal the fact that they had been made away with. This was the whole of what could be called evidence on the subject. There was, besides, a surmise on the part of the Admiral at Rio, who never came down to the spot at all, but merely decided on the reports of the Consul, that the fact that a certain boat was discovered in a certain position was an evidence that the crew, or some of them, had contrived to reach

N

the shore in safety. But beyond these vague indications there was not a particle of evidence. None of the cargo of the vessel was found, which, as she was laden with iron and soda, and was wrecked at a considerable distance from the land, was not on the whole surprising."

I will only deal now with a few of these, almost all, wonderful statements.

"Some indications of plunder!" Every Brazilian authority admitted a wholesale pillage. The Municipal Judge, who accompanied the Consul, reported that he found on the shore "many empty crates of crockery, many barrels, chests, and cases, with evident signs of having been violently broken open and their contents pillaged;" and he added that it was evident that the cargo "had been" entirely robbed by the residents of the neighbourhood." Mr. Vereker, the Consul, says he counted ninety-six crates on the beach, to say nothing of barrels, tin cases, and others. The Chief of Police described it to the President of the Province, June 27, 1861, as "a frightful pillage" (espantoso pilhagem).

"The verdict returned was that they had been drowned!" "It was said that some other bodies had been seen, but when the Consul came down only these four were to be found!" The Municipal Judge reported, like Mr. Vereker, that ten bodies had been found, and those of the captain, his wife, and a girl distinguished. The Inspector of the district and others gave evidence to this effect in official inquiries afterwards held. When Mr. Vercker went down he could not get to see any of the bodies or burial-places. At the inquest held on June 24th, seventeen days after the wreck, on four only of the ten

[ocr errors]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »