Russell justified the course adopted, alleging that the Brazilian authorities had prevented an inquiry being made into the matter of our complaints, and were strongly suspected of connivance at the crimes alleged. If the Government neglected its duties in the case of a shipwrecked vessel, and allowed her to be plundered, he considered that that Government was liable to a claim for compensation.

The case was shortly afterwards brought before the House of Commons in a formal manner by Mr. Bramley-Moore, who called attention to the papers laid before Parliament with reference to the dispute with Brazil, and moved the following Resolution :

"That this House has learnt with regret the interruption of amicable relations between this country and Brazil, and express the desire that Her Majesty's Government may take such measures to restore a cordial understanding between the two countries as may be consistent with the character and honour of this country, and the dignity and honour of a friendly and independent Power."

After remarking upon the long-continued harmony that had subsisted between the two countries, and upon the large amount of trade which had been jeopardized by recent occurrences, he proceeded to give the details of the transactions arising out of the wreck of the Prince of Wales." He defended the people on the coast of Brazil, in the province of Rio Grande, where the wreck took place, from the stigma attempted to be cast upon them, of being wreckers and murderers; insisting that, on the contrary, they were humane and hospitable towards shipwrecked persons, their conduct contrasting favourably with that of the inhabitants on certain parts of the coasts of England and of her colonies. He complained of the manner in which the offer of arbitration had been made, and he attributed the consequences of this affairwhich, he said, it would take years to obliterate from the minds of the Brazilians-to the conduct of Mr. Consul Vereker. The object of his motion was to open a way to a course of action that would restore cordiality of feeling between the two countries.

The arguments of Mr. Bramley-Moore were supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, Mr. C. Buxton, and Mr. Cobden. They contended that the facts disproved the charge of wilful delay or denial of justice on the part of the Brazilian authorities; that, on the contrary, it appeared that they had done their best with their limited means to enforce the laws against the offenders, having dismissed two official persons, and prosecuted to conviction eleven other offenders. They threw much doubt upon the evidence relied upon by our Government, especially on the statements of Consul Vereker, which were characterized, as was alleged, by exaggeration and excitement. Severe comments were made on the conduct of our Ministers towards a Power too weak to offer resistance to our demands, and the opinions of the leading

British merchants in Brazil were appealed to as disapproving of the course adopted by this country, and testifying to the desire of Brazil, the only monarchical government in South America, and bound to us by strong ties of commercial interest,-to maintain friendly relations with us.

The conduct of our Ministers was vindicated against these reflections by Mr. Collier, Mr. Layard (the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs), and the Solicitor-General. They entered into a close and critical examination of the evidence furnished by the Brazilian Government itself, from which they undertook to prove that British subjects had sustained wrong, for which they were entitled to redress. The wreck of the "Prince of Wales" on the coast of Albardao should have been promptly brought to the notice of the British Consul by the local authorities, but this was not done. The authorities in the province should have gone down to the coast to make inquiries, and this was not done.. In fact, there was not one of the local authorities that had not failed in duty. When Lord Russell received a report of the affair from Consul Vereker-who, they remarked, had been dealt with most unfairly -his action was simply within the forms of diplomacy; he demanded, as he had a right to do, compensation for the plunder of the vessel. Had the course adopted not been taken, the Government would have been reproached with apathy. What could they have done besides, unless they asked the House to pay the compensation? No Government could have acted otherwise than they had done, and if the Brazilian Government had acted as that of England had done in a similar case of wreck, there would have been an end of the matter. It was the duty of the Government to protect the property and the lives of Her Majesty's subjects, and if the Resolution were carried, it would have a fatal influence upon British interests and lives throughout the world.

The motion of Mr. Bramley-Moore was put and negatived. The subject of our relations with Brazil was again, at the latter part of the Session, brought before the House of Commons by Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald. The hon. gentleman appealed to the House of Commons on the ground, that the honour and reputation of the country were involved in the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, as well as the interests of both countries in their political and commercial aspects. Premising that his first complaint against the Government was that they did not initiate a proposal for an arbitration when the differences first occurred, he proceeded to detail the history of these differences, commenting upon the course of action of the British Minister. He next complained of the making of reprisals, which was tantamount, he said, to an act of war, when a slight exhibition of force would have been sufficient. His third complaint had reference to the claim for compensation put forth by the Government-namely, 23607. for the cargo of the "Prince of Wales," alleged to have been plundered, whereas the whole of the

goods that could have reached the shore were worth only 8007. He referred to other items in the demand for compensation, which he characterized as absurd and ridiculous. He then noticed the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to that of Brazil since the decision of King Leopold against us in the case of the alleged insult to the British Navy in the matter of the officers of the "Forte," and asked what they proposed to do in such embarrassing circumstances. He hoped the course they took would be, putting aside that spirit of hostility which had on several occasions inspired the Government in its conduct towards Brazil, to adopt a course more conciliatory and more becoming and honourable to the character of this country, and take the first step for the restoration of friendly relations with Brazil. He moved for a copy of the manifest of the cargo of the "Prince of Wales."

Mr. LAYARD said he did not clearly understand the object of Mr. Fitzgerald in bringing forward again a subject that had been already so much discussed in that House and in another place. According to Mr. Fitzgerald, this country had been dishonoured and disgraced by the course taken by Her Majesty's Government; according to him, if a British ship was wrecked on the coast of a country, its cargo plundered, its crew murdered, the authorities on the spot conniving at these acts, and the Government of the country refusing redress, Her Majesty's Government were to remain idle and indifferent. If the object of Mr. Fitzgerald was to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the South American States, he had succeeded, for he (Mr. Layard) had already seen the consequences of these accusations against the Government in the altered feeling of the South American States. Mr. Layard went over the leading incidents of the dispute between the two countries, contending that Mr. Fitzgerald had not correctly represented the conduct of Mr. Christie in relation to the reprisals, an act which was executed, he said, in the least offensive manner possible. Mr. Fitzgerald had professed a desire for the re-establishment of amicable relations with Brazil. The mediation offered by the King of Portugal for this object had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and if any thing could prevent the amicable adjustment of the differences, which was most earnestly to be desired, it would be the course pursued by Mr. Fitzgerald.

Sir Hugh Cairns expressed his opinion that, though in the first instance the Brazilian Government in the matter of the wreck had been in the wrong, the tone of our proceedings, and the absurd demand for compensation, had been discreditable to our Government. Mr. Henley also thought that we had a good cause for complaint at the beginning, but that the matter had been badly treated.

Mr. Fitzgerald's motion having served the purpose of founding a debate, was withdrawn.

The outrages committed on British subjects in Japan, and the violations of the treaties of commerce which had been concluded

with that anomalous and ill-regulated Government, having made it necessary for the British representatives there to adopt a very firm attitude towards that power, and having in fact brought us to the brink of hostilities, the attention of the House of Lords was called to the subject by the Earl of Carnarvon, who moved for copies of instructions to Her Majesty's diplomatic servants in Japan, or to the officers in command of Her Majesty's land or naval forces, to make demands upon the Government of Japan, with the alternative of immediate hostilities on the rejection of such demands. The noble lord commented on the ignorance of the House of the reasons which had led the Government to instruct Admiral Kuper to address an ultimatum to the Japanese Government. Having sketched the political system of Japan, which made the Tycoon practically powerless against his nobles, however willing he might be to carry out the treaties, and to make reparations for outrages, he warned the Government against the dangers and cost of a war with Japan, either separately or with other Powers, and contended that strict retribution, if possible, should be exacted from the guilty parties, but the country ought not to be committed to a great war. He wished to know the reasons by which the policy of Her Majesty's Government had been guided.

Earl RUSSELL said he considered it his duty to see, that the treaties of commerce concluded between Japan and this country were carried into effect, and that the lives of British subjects were protected. He detailed the various outrages which had been committed by the Japanese, particularly instancing the attacks on the British Legation, and on Mr. Richardson. As these outrages proceeded from a settled plan to defeat the treaty, he had demanded explanations. He denied that war had been declared at once, and explained the steps which had been taken to obtain reparation. As it was just possible that redress might be refused, certain instructions had been given to our forces, which, however, as at present no answer to them had been received, he declined to produce to the House. Disclaiming the projects of prolonged war and annexation attributed to the Government, he stated that our only object was to obtain reparation for the murders which had been committed, and to uphold the trade of our merchants. As soon as the answers of the Japanese Government arrived, he would produce the papers.

Earl GREY considered it highly objectionable that the old custom of consulting Parliament before the declaration of war was abandoned by the Government. Although he entirely agreed in the propriety of exacting reparation for outrages on British subjects, it ought in the present case to be remembered that the treaties with Japan had been extorted by fear and intimidation. The principal causes of our present unsatisfactory relations with Japan were, in his opinion, the exorbitant demands of some of our traders on the Japanese Government for gold in exchange for silver, and the presuming and arrogant conduct of certain English

residents in Japan. The papers laid on the table, however, concealed many of these facts, and while blackening the people of Japan, suppressed the bad actions of our own countrymen. It was unfair to hold the Japanese Government responsible for these outrages. They had done their best to find out the offenders, but, owing to the exasperated state of public feeling against foreigners, failed, just as this country had done in bringing the perpetrators of the outrage on General Haynau to justice. He considered war with Japan would cost us much blood and money, would introduce into Japan the same anarchy as was now seen in China, and was unjust and impolitic in itself.

The vigilant eye of Parliament was also directed to another great country in the East, where the restless activity of British commerce having gained a footing, had mixed up our country. men with the internal dissensions by which it was divided, and had even engaged the interference of our naval forces in actual warfare. In the desolating civil war which was waged between the Imperial Government of China and its rebellious subjects the Taepings, British officers were employed, with the sanction of their own Government, in the service of the Emperor of China; and some of the civil departments of the Imperial administration were placed under English official superintendence. The policy of these measures on our part was seriously questioned by many persons at home, who considered it an infringement of the wise rule of non-interference in the domestic concerns of other states, and feared the responsibilities in which it would probably involve us. This view of the subject was taken by some distinguished members of the House of Commons, and the policy of our Government was fully canvassed in a debate which took place upon a motion introduced by Lord Naas, who was supported by Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, Mr. Liddell, and Mr. Baillie. In his speech on the occasion, Lord Naas dwelt upon the tendency of the people of China to rebel against the constituted authorities, and the longprotracted political disorders which accompanied the change of dynasties. He adverted to the Taeping movement and its causes, the chief of which he considered had been our interference with the affairs of the country, thereby rendering the Government contemptible in the eyes of the people, and our forcing the opium trade. He proceeded to discuss the policy we had pursued in China since the Taeping movement, and to show that whereas, at the beginning, our policy had been declared to be one of strict neutrality and non-interference, step by step that policy had been abandoned, and we had interfered in every way in Chinese affairs, co-operating with the Imperialists and attacking the rebels. To establish this position, he gave a narrative of military operations in the maritime provinces of China, and complained that certain of the Chinese institutions, such as the department of the Customs, as well as a military force, had been Europeanized, pointing out the evils and dangers of such a policy, and the objections to the