(Inclosure.)-Project of Law respecting the Sale, &c., of Slaves in (Translation.) Brazil. Palace of the Senate, June 18, 1860. THE General Assembly decrees: ART. I. All sales of slaves at auction by being publicly exposed are forbidden. Commercial public sales of slaves are forbidden, under penalty of such sales being annulled, and of a fine of 100 to 300 milreis being imposed upon the auctioneer for every slave sold by him at auction. Judicial public sales, by virtue of attachments for debt, or dividing between heirs, will be substituted by written proposals which the judges may receive during 30 days after the publication of edicts stating the names, ages, professions, and characteristics of the slaves who are to be sold. At the end of 30 days from the official advertisement the judge may renew it for another term, publishing the offers tendered if insignificant, or if opposed by the heirs or creditors, who may petition for the adjudication of the slaves at higher prices. II. In all sales of slaves, whether private or judicial, it is prohibited, under pain of nullity, to separate the husband from the wife, or the child from the father or mother, save and except those who may be 21 years old. III. In those inventories in which neither ancestors nor descendants are concerned, provided creditors are secured by other property, the judge of the inventory may grant letters of freedom to the slaves therein mentioned, upon their producing the amounts of their judicial valuations. IV. Slaves sold in the municipality of this capital to be employed on farms in the interior will be free from the tax on such sales. The Government will establish, by a regulation, the practical means of rendering this provision effective, and may for that purpose impose fines to the extent of 500 milreis upon the sales of slaves who continue to remain in this municipality, and upon whom the tax has not been paid. Sales effected of slaves to serve in this municipality are subject to the tax. All provisions to the contrary are revoked. SILVEIRA DA MOTTA. No. 42. Mr. Christie to Lord J. Russell.-(Received October 24.) Legation on the subject of slaves held by English Mining Companies in Brazil, and among others by the Imperial Brazilian Mining Association. It appears by this correspondence that the Directors of the Imperial Brazilian Company in London had contracted to sell all their slaves to a Brazilian merchant in Rio de Janeiro named Santos; and that, before their agent in Brazil received news of this contract, he had felt himself authorized to enter into a contract with a Company in Brazil for the sale to them of the slaves for a term of 20 years, with the condition that at the end of that term all who were then living should be free. Among the slaves who were the subject of these two conflicting transactions were a number of children born since the passing of the Act 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 98, commonly called "Lord Brougham's Act," and the Earl of Clarendon and the Earl of Malmesbury instructed Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Stuart that under that Act the sale by British subjects of children born of slave parents since the 1st November, 1843, would be illegal, and would subject the sellers in England to a prosecution for felony. Mr. Stuart, in pursuance of instructions from the Earl of Malmesbury, addressed a circular despatch to Her Majesty's Consuls in Brazil informing them of the state of the law, and directing them to caution British subjects. Senhor Santos has proceeded in the British Courts of Law against the Directors of the Imperial Brazilian Company to compel fulfilment of their contract. In July, 1859, judgment was given in this cause, Santos v. Illidge, in the Court of Common Pleas; and this judgment declared the sale of all the slaves, parents as well as children, without reference to any distinction raised by the 6 and 7 Vict., cap. 98, illegal and invalid, under the Act 5 Geo. IV, cap. 113. Senhor Santos appealed from this judgment; and in the "Times" of the 10th July, I have read a report of the judgment on appeal of the Exchequer Chamber, which reverses the judgment of the Common Pleas, and apparently declares the sale entirely valid, including even the children born since the passing of the Act 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 98. The report is short, and is not quite clear as to the point of these children; but I infer that the judgment confirms their sale. I shall be glad to be instructed by your Lordship as to the bearing of this judgment of the Exchequer Chamber on the exposition of the law, previously made by the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government, on which Mr. Stuart instructed Her Majesty's Consuls in Brazil. I wish especially to know whether this judgment imports that the English directors concurring in this sale, which appears to be pronounced valid because legal in Brazil, do not expose themselves to punishment under English law. The slaves in question, including all the children, are about 400 in number; and they will, probably, now be transferred immediately to Senhor Santos, who, I understand, buys them on the speculation of selling them again separately, or in small parcels; and they will, probably, be dispersed, husbands separated from wives, and children from parents. Could the other arrangement made by the Company's agent in Brazil with a Brazilian Company have been carried out, all these slaves would have been kept together, and at the end of 20 years the survivors would have been free. I do not suppose it possible that Her Majesty's Government can interfere directly to prevent the transfer of the slaves to Senhor Santos; but it it is, perhaps, possible that something may be done indirectly. The attention of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society was directed to the English Mining Companies in Brazil in 1857; and it was that Society which called the Earl of Clarendon's attention to the subject (see Slave Trade Correspondence, Class B, presented in 1858, page 69). It would be possible, if by the aid of that Society or of wealthy individuals interested in the abolition of slavery the money could be obtained, to purchase the freedom of the slaves and make arrangements for securing their services under contracts, which the Brazilian law would enforce, for a term of years sufficient to repay by their labour the purchase money of their freedom with interest. Some such arrangement again might be willingly made by some of the English Companies lately formed for making railroads in Brazil, for instance the St. Paul's Company lately formed under the auspices, I believe, of Messrs. Rothschild. These slaves have for some time past been employed in road-making. There are those in this country versed in such transactions, and the details for carrying out such an arrangement could easily be supplied, if the idea which I have suggested were entertained. Another English Mining Company, the National Brazilian, possess about the same number of slaves, who, I am informed, are soon likely to be sold, like those of the Imperial Brazilian, as soon as some matters now in litigation among the shareholders are arranged. In the case of the Imperial Brazilian Association, whose slaves, old and young, have been sold to Senhor Santos, there appears to be no doubt that on the formation of the Company in 1823, a resolution was passed by the proprietary declaring that every child born of its slaves should be free. This has been publicly stated, and has not been contradicted. It is probable that such a resolution was not legally binding, yet, if it be true that such a resolution was passed, the Company contracted a moral obligation towards their slaves, the disregard of which will probably be deemed highly censurable. I am informed that the Directors have always shown a desire for the careful and humane treatment of their slaves. I understand that the late Captain Leicester Vernon was Chairman of the Company till his death. I have before said that the report in the "Times" of the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber does not enable me to feel sure that I understand all its bearings; and I hope your Lordship will excuse my further suggesting that, though the judgment pronounces the sale valid in Brazil, where the transaction is legal, it may yet be open to any one to try the question as to whether the sale of the children born since the passing of the Act 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 98, by any British subject, is not punishable under that Act. Lord J. Russell. I have, &c. W. D. CHRISTIE. SIR, No. 43.-Lord J. Russell to Mr. Christie. Foreign Office, October 31, 1860. I HAVE received your despatch of the 24th ultimo, inclosing translation of a project of law lately introduced into the Brazilian Senate, with a view to the mitigation of some of the evils of slavery; and I have to express my regret that the law in question did not pass. W. D. Christie, Esq. I am, &c. J. RUSSELL. No. 44.-Mr. Christie to Lord J. Russell.-(Received November 24.) WITH reference to my despatch of the 24th ultimo, on the subject of the sale of the slaves of the Imperial Brazilian Mining Company to a Brazilian named Santos, I have been informed that the slaves have been transferred to Senhor Santos, and that it is his intention not to re-sell them, but to employ them in two divisions at the mines of the St. John del Rey and National Brazilian Companies and to arrange to keep families together. I have this information from the gentleman who has been employed by the directors of the Imperial Brazilian Company to make the transfer. Lord J. Russell. (Extract.) I have, &c. W. D. CHRISTIE. No. 45.-Lord J. Russell to Mr. Christie. Foreign Office, December 8, 1860. I HAVE received your despatch of the 24th of September last, on the subject of the sale to M. Santos of the slaves belonging to the Imperial Brazilian Mining Association. Those despatches have been laid before the Law Officers of the Crown; and, in accordance with their opinion, I have now to inform you that the English directors of the Company will expose themselves to punishment under the 5th Geo. IV, c. 113,* if they proceed to sell even the slaves that were in their possession at the time of the passing of the 6th and 7th Vict., c. 98† (24th August, 1843); and that if this position should be held to be open to doubt, yet, under the latter of these two statutes, the sale of the children born since the 24th August, 1843, will be an illegal act by a British subject, though effected in Brazil, and will subject him to the punishment imposed by the 5th Geo. IV, cap. 113. With reference to slaves which came to the possession of the directors previous to the passing of the 6th and 7th Vict., c. 98, the question turns upon the construction to be put upon the 5th Geo. IV, c. 113, and is whether, under that Act, dealing in slaves by British subjects was forbidden, in places out of the dominions of the British Crown, as well as in places within those dominions? The Law Officers of the Crown are of opinion that it is forbidden, and for this conclusion they adopt the reasons stated in the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Santos v. Illidge. It is true that this judgment of the Comman Pleas, which is referred to above, has been overruled, on appeal, by a majority of Judges sitting in Error in the Exchequer Chamber; but as the judgment of the Common Pleas was the unanimous judgment of the whole Court, it is the fact that the opinions of a majority of the Judges who heard the case in the Common Pleas and in Error is greatly in favour of the opinion adopted by the Law Officers of the Crown. With reference to the offspring of such slaves born since the 6th and 7th Vict., c. 98, came into operation, the dealing in them is expressly declared by that statute to be now within the earlier Act, 5th Geo. IV, c. 113; and the exception, provided for by the 6th section of the 6th and 7th Vict., c. 98, cannot apply, seeing that the slaves of this class were not in any sense "in the possession" of the directors "at the time of the passing of the Act." I have accordingly to instruct you to warn the English Directors of the penal consequences which will be entailed should they carry out the contract into which they have entered with M. Santos. W. D. Christie, Esq. J. RUSSELL. FRANCE. MY LORD, 'No. 56.-Lord J. Russell to Earl Cowley. Foreign Office, June 22, 1860. I HAVE received your Excellency's despatch of the 18th instant, reporting that you have been apprized by M. Chasseloup Laubat, * Vol. XI. Page 265. + Vol. XXXI. Page 984. |