June 4.
London Bridge Committee from eleven till four. We made great progress in our evidence, and, indeed, nearly proved our case. From four to five we had a very painful discussion in consequence of some words which passed between Lord Durham and Lord Beresford. We succeeded at last in settling the difference.
Lord Beresford, having no good word at his disposal, said he did not second the evil deeds or improprieties of noble lords. He really meant irregularities, and irregularities only as a member of the Committee. Lord Grey was present and much distressed. The Duke of Wellington's authority induced both to become amenable to the wish of the Committee.
June 5.
Anatomy Bill. Some talk; but a general agreement suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Bill should be read a second time, and not proceeded with this session. The Duke of Wellington expressed his general approbation of the principle, but thought postponement desirable. He pledged himself to cooperate in bringing in a Bill on the same principle, and having the same objects, next year; but did not pledge himself to bring it in himself.
June 7.
Cabinet at half-past three. First question: whether we should extend the time for putting an end altogether to the Brazilian slave trade from March 13 to September 13, 1830, for the equivalent of obtaining for ever the right to seize ships fitted up for the slave trade, whether they had slaves on board or not. The Brazilians have been encouraged by their Government to interpret the treaty as permitting the return of any vessels quitting the Brazils on slave expeditions before March 13.
Dr. Lushington, who was consulted by Aberdeen, seemed to think it was worth while to obtain the concession, but still seemed to think that by extending the time, we should permit the transportation of a very large number of slaves, of whom many might be destroyed by ill-treatment, and that it was hardly justifiable with a view to a distant advantage, to sacrifice immediately and certainly a great number of persons.
This prevailed—the real fact being that Peel does not like awkward questions in the House of Commons.
So the treaty remains as it is, and both parties will interpret it as they please. There will be many disputes, for the interpretation is very different.