1863, in which, after Senhor Moreira had left England, he ordered our Legation to come away from Rio de Janeiro :

"Her Majesty's government, under these circumstances, are fully justified in complaining that up to this time they are still left without a reply to the proposals conveyed in Mr. Christie's note of April 14, 1862, and that no steps appear to have been taken for the just settlement of various British claims, some of them of long standing, and of very considerable amount. Her Majesty's government, therefore, hope that the government of Brazil will, in its future intercourse with Great Britain, through whatever channel that intercourse may be carried on, act with that courtesy which is usual between governments; and also that the Brazilian government will without further delay frankly enter into the communication of their views as to the means by which a settlement of the long-pending claims may best be arrived at."

Diplomatic relations, broken off by the Brazilian government in June, 1863, have continued suspended till now, and it does not appear that Lord Russell's hint of another channel of communication has been taken, that any answer has even yet been made to the proposals of Her Majesty's government of April, 1862, or that any step has been taken in Brazil for the settlement of British claims. It will, I think, be admitted that a government which suspends diplomatic relations with another should not profit by that suspension of its own making for postponement of a settlement of the pecuniary claims of individuals.

CHAPTER XIII.

BRITISH CLAIMS ON BRAZIL.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS AND MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS'S STATEMENT, JULY 16, 1863-MR. FITZGERALD'S, MARCH 6, 1863-MR. FITZGERALD'S MISTAKES ABOUT GUATEMALA, MR. ELLIOT'S SPECIAL MISSION OF 1859 TO NAPLES, AND PARAGUAY-HIS IGNORANCE OF THE EMANCIPADO QUESTION-LORD JOHN MANNERS AND SIR JOHN PAKINGTON.

I HAVE, I trust, shown in the preceding chapter that the difficulties which have occurred about the settlement of British claims on Brazil are not the fault of the British government.

A Commission is created to settle miscellaneous ordinary claims on both governments "which yet remain unsettled or are considered to be still unsettled by either of the two governments;" this Commission had been proposed by the British government, whose subjects have claims on Brazil to the extent of about 300,000l., and the Brazilian government say not one word about slave-trade claims till the Convention has been signed and the Commission appointed, then swamp it with Brazilian claims, amounting to a million and a half, against judgments "without appeal" of the Slave-trade Mixed Commission Courts and against judgments and proceedings under the "Aberdeen Act," professing that they consider these claims still unsettled. When the British government, amazed at

such a proceeding, consult their legal advisers and tell the British Commissioner not to deal with any slave-trade claims until he is further instructed, the Brazilian Commissioner strikes work, and suspends the Commission. The British government, some months after, communicate their views to the government of Brazil, and the latter permit the Commission to expire, six months after receiving this communication, without making any answer to it. No answer is made for fourteen months. The British government then make a second communication, in April, 1862, proposing a new Commission on certain conditions, and asking for an early answer. When diplomatic relations are suspended fourteen months after, there has been no answer from the Brazilian government, and there is no answer yet, and no attempt yet to settle the claims, two years and a half after the last English proposals of April, 1862.

Sir Hugh Cairns, to whose honourable private relations with some of the claimants I have already referred, said in the House of Commons, on the occasion of Mr. Osborne's motion, of the English government, that it was "on account of the bad terms on which they were with the Brazilian government that they had utterly failed in obtaining a satisfactory adjustment." Is this true and just?

Last year, on the occasion of Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald's motion about Brazil, July 16, 1863, Sir Hugh Cairns treated this subject of the claims, and made many mistakes. He said:

"The Commission sat in Rio, under the inspection and with the consent of Mr. Scarlett, our Minister there, for a

whole year. [Mr. Scarlett left Rio nine months before the Commission began to sit.] On the 23d of March, 1860, however, Mr. Scarlett informed the Commission that he had received a despatch from home requiring him to suspend its further sitting. [On February 21st, 1860, not Mr. Scarlett, but I, informed the British Commissioner that he was not to deal with any slave-trade claims till he received further instructions; on the 28th of February the Commission was suspended; and on the 20th and 23d of March I remonstrated strongly against the suspension.] And what, let me ask, was the cause of this instruction being issued? The government of this country said, 'You are taking in as Brazilian claims some of those which have reference to the decisions of the Mixed Commissions under the Convention of 1826, and the decisions of the Vice-Admiralty Courts, under the Aberdeen Act.' It is, I believe, perfectly well known that not only did the Brazilian government make these claims, but that there were no others. [There were others.] Is it, then, to be argued, in spite of the words I have read, that the Brazilians entered into the Convention merely to decide British claims? [There is no need at all to argue this.] Mr. Scarlett, at all events, on the 23d of March, suspended the sittings of the Commission [No, he did not,] notwithstanding that there was time to have gone on deciding on the claims. I therefore say it was broken up, and I wish the House to consider the importance of this fact with reference to our position."

If Sir Hugh Cairns was correctly reported on this occasion, a greater tissue of blunders never came from the mouth of a great advocate and orator. With unaffected respect for him I say, that he was either very badly instructed on that occasion, or that he gave too little attention to his brief.

Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, who was Under-secretary for

Foreign Affairs for nearly a year and a half in 1858-9, and who has assumed the position of champion and protector of Brazil in the House of Commons, made this extraordinary statement on March 6, 1863:—

"Within a recent period Her Majesty's government had acted towards the Brazilian government in a manner which they would not have dared to follow towards any other government on the face of the globe. He alluded to their conduct in regard to the Mixed Commission at Rio. We established a few cases against the Brazilian government before the Mixed Commission, and when that government succeeded, by the unanimous decision of the Commissioners on both sides, in establishing some few cases against us, Her Majesty's government stopped all further proceedings, tore up the Convention, and refused to have anything more to do with it."

Allowing for some inaccuracy in this report, is it possible that anything like this should have been said by one who has been Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs, and must be conscious of additional responsibility for any words of his on a question with a foreign government? A greater misstatement was surely never made by a member of Opposition who has had the responsibilities of office.

I hope that Mr. Fitzgerald will believe that I write of him with a feeling of regard derived from former intercourse, and belief in his good dispositions. I have watched his proceedings with special interest, and retain the hope that his frequent inaccuracies come only from eagerness and carelessness, and that his manifest pugnacity is not settled factiousness. Let me give a few instances of the curiosa infelicitas of his statements and accusations.

On May 16, 1862, he made an elaborate attack on Lord Russell for his hasty ratification of a treaty with