RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL.
Mr. ROEBUCK celled attention to our Mallow with Brazil, and moved that a Select Committee should be appointed to take those relations into 'consideration. He said that his object was to invite the House of Commons to resume the functions which for some time past it has abdicated with respect to our relations with foreign states. Mr. Roebuck went back to the treaty of 1826, which made participation in the slave-trade on the part of a Brazilian subject piracy. Shortly after, -we made another treaty with Brazil, declaring that a reciprocal right of search should exist. That treaty remained in force until 1844; when, in -accordance with one of its provisions Brazil put an end to the treaty, after duo notice. In the following year, Lord Aberdeen introduced a bill giving power to British courts to adjudicate on ships captured under the treaty of 1826. When Brazil became indepeudent slavery was predominant; but the horrid traffic created great alarm among the White population and public opinion was opposed to its continuance. It was found' that coffee might be cultivated without employing slave labour, and the trade in slaves became a matter of less importance. Don -Pedro II, educated by men of great capacity, became a model monarch -of a constitutional state, and the slave-traders were driven out of Brazil. But when Lord Aberdeen's act was passed, the people and the Government refnsed to enter into any treaty with us until it were repealed. They re-garded the treaty as an attack on the sovereignty of the people of Brazil, who had never through their Legislature passed a law making slave-trading piracy. They were irritated that a British cruiser should out out a vessel 'under the forts of Brazil, and adudicate upon her in a tribunal wholly English; that her ships, transporting slaves from one province to another, should be seized.
Now, our commerce with Brazil amounts to 12,000,000/. annually. Awe -ilea takes all Brazilian goods, except sugar, without taxing them • and the Americans are doing all they can to induce the Brazilians to 'break off friendly relations with us and form an alliance with them. Mr. Roebuck wished the House to oonsider these things, and not leave them in the hands of the Executive. If we seized a ship going from New Orleans up the Chesapeake, and referred her to an English tribunal, all America would be in arms, and we should have to succumb. Why not interfere with Cuba, where the slave-trade is most flourishing now ? The noble Lord knew why he dared not—the French Emperor would not allow him. But under Lord Palmerston's Government we have been jarring with all the world ; we are subservient to the strong and proud and overbearing to the weak. If the House of Commons took up the question, justice would be done ; if it were left to the Government, it would be left to men who consider power and influence synonymous with violence and braggadocio.
Lord PALMERSTON said, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise that a man like Mr. Roebuck should give countenance to the vulgar notion that it is the practice of England to bully the weak and truckle to the strong. Did he not remember when England stood alone against combined Europe ; and at a snore recent period when she carried on a struggle in the territory. of Russia? Mr. Roebuck was in error in supposing that the act of 1845 is still in operation. It has been suspended for some years, by mutual consent, and is a dead letter. In 1826 the Brazilian Government did not simply declare the slave-trade piracy, they undertook to prevent their subjects from engaging in it. The discussion between the two Governments has turned upon this point—that the Brazilian Government had notoriously violated its engagement. When Brazil separated from Portugal, she took with her certain engagements of Portugal, and among them the stipulations constituting mixed tribunals and giving a mutual right of search. The treaty with Portugal ceased in 1839, and then the British Government passed an act similar to that of 1845, which had the effect of inducing Portugal to contract a treaty for the suppression of the slave-trade. The act of 1839 was then repealed. Brazil had stood pledged to put an end to this abominable traffic since 1826, whereas her annual imports of slaves averaged from 50,000 to 70,000. As she had broken her treaty engagements, England was entitled to do for her what she-by treaty agreed to do for herself. The act of 1846 was passed. The Brazilian Government gave assurances that measures should be taken that would prove as effectual as the operation of our law; • and these assurances being accepted, the act was suspended. But so also was suspended the action of the Brazilian Government with reference to the suppression of the slave-trade, which was allowed to revive to its utmost extent. The act of 1845 was renewed. Then the Brazilian Legislature cooperated with the Government in passing laws that were to a considerable degree effectual; and when it was found they were in earnest, the act of 1846 was again suspended, and
has remained so to this time. The act has not been repealed, because it is a security for the continuance of the Government of Brazil in the course it has adopted. Mr. Roebuck says that our commerce is injured by the treaty against the slave-trade, because the Brazilians may be tempted to ally themselves with the United States. But the Brazilians are more dependent on the United States than we are upon them. Although their soil will produce almost everything that grows, yet they import bread-stuffs from America, and stone to pave their streets from Aberdeen. If we export 12,000,000/. worth of goods annually to Brazil without a commercial treaty, what more could we do with one ? "We made a great mistake with Portugal in times past in making a treaty to limit the amount of duty that was to be imposed upon British goods; for I hold that kind of treaties to be detrimental to the interests both of the country that fixes that limited duty and the country which apparently is to derive a benefit from it. Those treaties are opposed to the fundamental principles of political economy; and I trust that no treaty of that sort ever will be entered into between this and any other country in the world. Brazil should be free to lay upon our importations that which she may think best adapted to her financial interests. It is all very well for those, on either aide of the Atlantic, who desire to revive the slave-trade, to represent the act of 1845 as a bar to commercial intercourse ; but the act has no effect whatever in restricting our commercial relations with Brazil. The recent case of an attempt to land a cargo of negroes shows that there is still a desire, not among the public nor the Executive Government, but among individuals, to protect and encourage the slave-trade : and if Mr. Roebuck's motion were carried, all those who are interested in the produce of Brazil and the slave-trade would receive the intelligence with acclama tion, as ayroof that we are about to reverse the policy we have is since 181o. The slave-trade i stopped for the moment, but labour is scarce in Brazil, and "we know for certain that there are parties looking out for opportunities for its revival." The Government of Brazil has done something, but not all that it ought, to increase its population ; but if the slave. trade can be prevented for many years, a new generation will spring up, and the capital of Brazil will continue to be devoted to internal improvements. Lord Palmerston entreated the House to do nothing that may revive the greatest crime of which the human race was ever guilty.
Mr. BRAMLEY MOORE characterized the statements of Lord Palmerston as unjust to the Brazilians, who are most desirous to put an end to this abominable traffic. The population had resisted to a man the attempts to land slaves. He denied, however, the statement of Mr. Roebuck that our imports to Brazil amount to 12,000,0001.—that is the amount of the entire importation of Brazil ; our imports do not amount to one-half that
SUM.
Mr. Moist-arms Mruszs opposed the motion ; and avowed his confidence in Lord Palmerston's foreign policy, especially on the slave-trade.
Mr. ROEBUCK, in reply, declared that he had no confidence in Lord Palmerston ; that the Brazilians had put down the slave-trade ; and that our conduct and language had been insulting to their Government. Mr. Disiiazu said he had intended to speak when Mr. Roebuck rose. That was his excuse for making a few observations after the reply. lie thought the motion was too strong, because it would take the management of our relations with Brazil out of the hands of the Government and submit them to the House of Commons. He insisted, however, that the slave-trade has been put down, not by our cruisers, but by the Brazilians ; and expressed an opinion that it would be well to repeal the act of 1845 to show the people of Brazil that their exertions are appreciated and respected in this country. Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that it was not correct to say that our cruisers have not checked the slavetrade : the inhabitants of Brazil were induced by our vigilant operations to put an end to a traffic which they found to be a losing concern. Believing that to be a correct view, he desired to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
On a division, the motion was negatived by 312 to 17.
Previous page
