in the Imperial patents, was not accepted under other conditions.  The above opinion, expressed by the Commission, could only have been given to justify the spurious decree of Barbosa, in virtue of which, though set aside by His Imperial Majesty, I was dismissed by Gameiro, that decree—­under the hypocritical pretence of conferring upon me a boon—­limiting my services to the war, after the war had been terminated by my exertions; the object being to get rid of me, and thus to avoid condemning the prizes captured by the squadron.  Nevertheless, the promises held out to me in Chili, were most honourably admitted by His Imperial Majesty and his first Ministry—­and were moreover twice confirmed by Imperial patent, counter-signed by the Ministers, and registered in the National Archives.  These patents have never been set aside by any act of mine, yet to this day their solemn stipulations remain unfulfilled.

The Commission complains that the Treasury was caused to sustain “enormous losses by the indemnification of an infinite number of bad prizes, which it was obliged to satisfy.”  I deny that there was one bad prize, all, without exception, being captured in violation of blockade, or having Portuguese registers, crews, and owners.  But even if they had been bad—­His Majesty’s stipulation, in his own handwriting (see page 118), provided that they should be paid by the state.  The fact was, as proved in these pages beyond contradiction, that they were given back by the Portuguese members of the Prize Tribunal to their own friends and relations—­this alone constituting the illegality of the captures.  Some—­as in the case of the Pombinho’s cargo—­were given up to persons who had not the shadow of a claim upon them.  The squadron never received a shilling on their account.

Again, the Commission declares that I was dismissed the service on the 10th of April, 1827; whereas I have given the letter of Gameiro, dismissing me, on the 7th of November, 1825, and the portaria of the Imperial Government, dismissing me, on the 30th of December, in the same year!  This renewed dismissal was only a repetition of the former unjustifiable dismissals, adding nothing to their force, and in no way alleviating their injustice.

The imputation of “the crime of obstinate disobedience” has been so fully refuted in this volume, that it is unnecessary to offer another word of explanation.

Finally, the Commission decided that the “Imperial act of July 27, 1824, is so positive that, at the sight thereof, the Commission declares it cannot do otherwise than confirm the right of the claimant to the prompt payment of the pension due to him.” But if the Commissioners had examined this act of His Imperial Majesty more closely, together with the explanatory letter of Barbosa, accompanying it, they would have seen that the decree of July 27th, 1824, was not only additive to the Imperial patents, but admitted to be confirmatory of them, by Barbosa himself, notwithstanding his own spurious decree, nullified by His Imperial Majesty, but afterwards unjustifiably acted upon. (See page 150.)