Guatemala of 1859, by which the British government assumed the liability of the expense of making a road; and he was told in reply by Mr. Layard, that the order for ratification had been given by Lord Malmesbury before he left office, after taking the advice of Sir Edward Lytton, then Secretary of the Colonies; and Mr. Fitzgerald was then Lord Malmesbury's Under-secretary.

On June 29, 1863, Mr. Fitzgerald is reported to have reproached the present government with the employment, on a special mission to Naples, in 1859, of Mr. Elliot, the present Minister at Turin. He was sent on that special mission by Lord Malmesbury, a few days before he left office; and Mr. Fitzgerald was then Lord Malmesbury's Under-secretary.

In his speech on Brazil, on July 16, 1863, Mr. Fitzgerald made a contrast between our quarrel with Brazil of that year and a Convention with Paraguay made shortly before. But Mr. Fitzgerald omitted to say that the Convention with Paraguay of 1862 was the adjustment of a quarrel which had originated in orders given by Lord Malmesbury in 1859, just as he was leaving office, for the protection of an injured British subject. And Mr. Fitzgerald was then Lord Malmesbury's Under-secretary. Three years after,

the quarrel was closed, when Lord Russell and Mr. Layard were in the Foreign Office.

Mr. Fitzgerald's ignorance of the whole question of the emancipados in Brazil, and of a document on this subject which had been printed by Parliament both last year and this, is fresh in our recollection. That ignorance did not restrain him from entering the lists with Lord Palmerston, and even after some days' reflection he ventured to reproach

the Prime Minister for having accused him of ignorance. It is clear that a member of Parliament who has been Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs, and puts himself forward to attack her Majesty's government about Brazil, should have made the question of the emancipados, described in Blue-books annually presented to Parliament, his study. What might be an excuse for another member of Parliament, that he had not seen the Blue-books, could be no excuse for him. However, on the occasion of Mr. Osborne's motion, July 18th, Mr. Fitzgerald made some statements, which rather remind one of the words of "A Friend to both Countries" than prove a study of the Blue-books of which he speaks :

"He had a number of statements, not derived from Brazilian agents, but from the Blue-books, which showed the Brazilian government, in regard to the emancipados, had the greatest difficulties to contend with. The territory of Brazil was immense, the plantations were separated by vast distances from each other, and the emancipados having been located in old times on the plantations, there was much difficulty in getting an account of them. It was evident, however, that the Brazilian government were making every effort in their power to get the negroes set free. In 1861, Mr. Christie mentioned that in one district letters of emancipation were being granted to the blacks in large numbers, and added, 'This I know to be true.' Also in the very last year the Brazilian government had been exerting themselves in the most praiseworthy manner in reference to the emancipados, and had set free a great many employed in the government-establishments."

Why, this is the "Friend to both Countries" over again! The statement attributed to me is not quite accurate. It is a reference to a despatch of mine, March 23, 1861, in

which I forwarded to Lord Russell a note from Senhor Sinimbú, and said, "Senhor Sinimbú states in this note that the Minister of Justice has lately been granting letters of emancipation to these blacks in greater numbers, which is true." In the twelve months ending April 30, 1861, 110 free Africans were emancipated; a larger number than before, but not a very large one.

Lord John Manners and Sir John Pakington came to Mr. Fitzgerald's aid, when, on July 12th, Lord Palmerston called him to account for his ignorance in terms which Mr. Fitzgerald's friends appear to have thought harsh. I know well the chivalrous nature of Lord John Manners, by whom I have long been honoured with friendship. He has never been specially called upon to study Brazilian questions; non omnia possumus omnes. I feel sure that, if he should carefully examine the question of the emancipados, he will not think that Lord Palmerston's language about the conduct of the Brazilian government towards them was at all too strong. Circumstances also have enabled me in former years to judge for myself that Sir John Pakington is a fair man and a lover of truth. He knows something of the Brazilian government, having given special attention to the question of the Brazilian slave-trade. There was a time indeed when he seemed disposed to think Lord Palmerston rather too confiding in Brazilian promises. On July 14, 1851, he referred to an announcement in the Queen's speech of measures of the Brazilian government, and reminded Lord Palmerston that it was not the first time Brazilian announcements had ended in nothing. And in a debate which took place on a motion of Mr. Hutt's, in July, 1858, when Sir John

M

Pakington was First Lord of the Admiralty, he expressed himself frankly and forcibly as to the share which compulsion from England had had in the suppression of Brazilian slave-trade.

Mr. Fitzgerald has taken so prominent a part in the defence of Brazil against Lord Palmerston and the present government, that I hope to be excused for this digression. I trust that he will not be above reconsidering his hasty, incorrect accusations. He should eschew Brazilian agents. He should himself make a thorough examination of the Blue-books. I hope that what I have said will not offend him. He has talents and character which justify his high aspirations, and which, if joined with industry, some carefulness in statement, and a determination not to slip into factiousness, should ensure the success of his honourable ambition.

CHAPTER XIV.

BRAZIL, BUENOS AIRES, AND MONTE VIDEO.

TREATY OF 1828 FOR INDEPENDENCE

MEDIATION

66

OF MONTE VIDEO BY ENGLISH DISPARAGEMENT OF BUENOS AIRES BY BRAZILIAN WRITERS-M. CHARLES REYBAUD- QUARTERLY REVIEW OF OCTOBER, 1860-PRESENT DISPUTE BETWEEN BRAZIL AND MONTE VIDEO- 66 BRAZILIAN AGENT'S " MISREPRESENTATIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES

66

THE

HIS LONDON CORRESPONDENCE IN THE JORNAL DO COMMERCIO BRAZILIAN REPRISALS IN MONTE VIDEO, AND ENGLISH REPRISALS AT RIO- THE RIO GRANDENSES AND THEIR MILITIA-PLUNDER OF THE WRECK OF THE PRINCE OF WALES," AND MURDER OF THE CREW.

66

THE establishment of the independence of Brazil was soon followed by a war with the Argentine Republic, of which Buenos Aires is the capital, for the possession of the tract of territory lying north of the River Plate and east of the River Uruguay, which now forms the independent Republic of Monte Video, also known by the names of the Republic of the Uruguay, Oriental Republic, or Banda Oriental. This war, which lasted three years, and brought nothing but debt and disaster to Brazil, was terminated in 1828, through the mediation of England, by a treaty which established the independence of Monte Video, and bound both Brazil and the Argentine Republic to defend its independence and integrity.

There has since been frequently great jealousy of Brazilian interference in the affairs of Monte Video, and