INTRODUCTION. ADDRESSED TO VISCOUNT PALMERSTON. 66 NEWS - ORIGIN OF THE WORK-THE BRAZILIAN AGENT-MISREPRESENTATIONS IN 66 SIONS ABOUT BRAZIL IN ENGLAND FROM SYSTEMATIC MISREPRESENTATION-INFLUENCE OF GREAT CAPITALISTS- EDINBURGH REVIEW -LORD RUSSELL AND LORD PALMERSTON ON REPEAL OF THE ABERDEEN ACT. 66 MY DEAR LORD PALMERSTON, I venture to preface this publication with some introductory remarks addressed to you. I do so without asking your permission, and you will not see or know of what I write till it is published. Your lordship, therefore, is entirely free from responsibility for this publication. Otherwise, I hope your lordship will not object to the association of your name with this publication, made by one whom you introduced into the diplomatic service, and have constantly honoured with your kindness and friendship; and I am anxious to have the aid of your name for engaging public attention to a subject in which I know that you feel a deep interest, and about which unfortunately great ignorance, indifference, and prejudice prevail in this country. The following chapters are in the main letters which appeared in the Daily News from July 2 to October 5, with the signature "C." This newspaper had for a long time systematically attacked and misrepresented the policy and acts of Her Majesty's government as to Brazil, and been the vehicle of incorrect accounts of that Empire. It led the way in attacking Her Majesty's government and myself, their agent, for the reprisals of January, 1863, and the elaborate misrepresentations which appeared in its columns greatly contributed to the general misleading of opinion. It was well known to me, indeed it is notorious to every one connected with Brazil, that the misleader of the Daily News, whose operations and misleading influence were, however, by no means confined to that newspaper, was a virtual agent of the Brazilian Legation. Your Lordship, in alluding in the House of Commons to this "Brazilian agent," declined to mention his name; and I shall follow your example. But his name is no secret at Rio de Janeiro or among London merchants connected with Brazil. It is enough to say that he is a member of the Reform Club, who has been for many years in the closest relations with the Brazilian Legation in London and London Brazilian Companies, and is the paid correspondent of the chief journal of Rio de Janeiro, the Jornal do Commercio, the Editor of which has lately declared in its columns that its London correspondent had inspired all the speeches in both Houses of Parliament, and all the chief articles of the English journals, in favour of Brazil in connexion with the question of the reprisals. I take the opportunity of mentioning and exposing a few of the studied misrepresentations which appeared in the Daily News as to my own conduct about the reprisals. "The correspondence shows that Earl Russell, in issuing instructions to Mr. Christie, expressly gave him authority to make another reference to Her Majesty's government concerning the response that might be made to his ultimatum before resorting to reprisals, and that Mr. Christie, concealing that authority from the Marquis of Abrantes, preferred the abuse to the use of those instructions." (Daily News, February 23, 1863.) Lord Russell instructed me as follows, November 4th, 1862: "Her Majesty's government are very reluctant to proceed to extreme measures against Brazil but as a last resource, and any proposal on her part for arbitration on the questions at issue may be referred to Her Majesty's government." That is, I was told that I might, not must, refer to Her Majesty's government any proposal made by the Brazilian Ministry for arbitration. They made none. I was not told to refer any and every answer to Her Majesty's government, and I was not told to communicate to the Marquis of Abrantes the readiness of Her Majesty's government to consider a proposal of arbitration. That would have been equivalent to telling me to propose arbitration myself. Mr. Layard observed in his speech, March 6th, 1863. "It was not for the party who de manded redress, but for the party of whom it was asked, to offer arbitration." Lord Russell also said in the House of Lords, June 19, 1863: "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." I need not say that, if arbitration had been proposed to me, I should have acted on Lord Russell's permission to forward the proposal to him, treating it indeed as an order; but it escaped the interested critic that, in the absence of any such proposal from the Brazilian government, I might have believed that they were going to yield, and should, in that case, by suggesting arbitration have prevented their doing 80. It is fully explained in my published despatches to Lord Russell that I had made known to the Brazilian Minister that the great heat of the season, and the beginning of illness in the crews of Her Majesty's ships detained at Rio for this business, made it my duty to do everything in my power to prevent unnecessary delay. (See my despatches to Lord Russell, December 8 and 24, 1862, and my note to the Marquis of Abrantes of December 30.) "Brazil has submitted to pay under protest such damages as the Foreign Office may assess, and that submission under duresse Mr. Christie, with a perversion of all sense of justice and moral sense, warned the Brazilian government might aggravate the amount of the assessment. Lord Russell, however, gave no sanction to this monstrous doctrine of Mr. Christie, but, practically rebuking his extravagance and spite, tells him, the sum to be fixed as indemnity will be based upon the most accurate estimate that Her Majesty's government can form.'" (Daily News, February 23, 1863.) It is quite clear from the correspondence that I never said anything of the sort to the Brazilian government, and that Lord Russell did only what I left it to his Lordship to do. Having urged the Brazilian government to refer the questions of their responsibility and of the amount of indemnity in the "Prince of Wales" case to arbitration, and the Brazilian government declining to do so, and preferring to pay under protest, I wrote to the Marquis of Abrantes: "The force of a protest against responsibility cannot, I think, but be weakened by a refusal to submit the point to arbitration; but at any rate Her Majesty's government cannot be open to any imputation of indelicacy in taking on themselves to fix, as they are requested to do, the amount of compensation." (January 5, 1863.) I thus explained to Lord Russell that I proposed to leave it to his Lordship to fix the sum : The Brazilian government had declared their readiness to pay immediately under protest whatever sum I or Her Majesty's government might demand in the affair of the "Prince of Wales." I voluntarily proposed that they should oblige themselves to pay whatever Her Majesty's government might demand. I was not able myself to fix the sum, and could only have named a sum large enough to cover all contingencies, which would have been invidious, and I wished to show perfect confidence in the honour of the Brazilian government on this point.' (January 8, 1863.) |