HC Deb 24 April 1883 vol 278 cc1063-81
DR. CAMERON,

in rising to call attention to the case of the "Leon XIII.;" and to move a Resolution, said, this case was one of very considerable international importance. The Leon XIII. was one of a Spanish line of steamers trading between Liverpool and the Philippine Islands. She carried as engineers John Wardrop, of Glasgow; John Hodgson, of Birkenhead; and James Baker, of Southampton. They were men of character and reputation, men who had served on board such lines as the Inman and the Cunard—and Wardrop had been appointed by the builders of the vessel, Messrs. Elder of Glasgow, as their guarantee officer on her first trip to the East. In December, 1881, when off Suez, the boiler tubes of the vessel sprang a leak, owing—the engineers said—to the unsuitable coal she was using, and she was obliged to put into Aden for repairs. A survey was held, and the surveyors certified that the engineers were absolutely free from blame for the occurrence. The captain, however, suspended the engineers, and appointed two Spanish engineers in their places. These proving incompetent, after some delay he got two other engineers from Bombay to set matters right and to take charge of the vessel. In the meanwhile, at the British port of Aden the captain took it into his head to arrest the engineers on a charge of mutiny and drunkenness. It was an important point in connection with this case that the offence, if any, of these men was committed in Aden. Application was made to the Police Superintendent there, and he could not see why the offence, if committed at all, could not have been cognizable by the British Court at Aden. However, he had to state, in passing, that not one particle of evidence was produced in support of the charge brought against the men in the whole of the papers, and that at the trial of the men afterwards at Manilla the charge was never even mentioned in the judgment pronounced upon them. He might also mention that the men's story was very different from that of the captain. Their story was that the chief officer, overhearing and not understanding a conversation between two of them, concluded that they were saying disrespectful things regarding him; that he ordered the ship's crew to arrest them; that the ship's crew rushed upon them with knives, putting their lives in danger, and took them prisoners, and they were locked up in their cabins. In his case, however, he omitted all question of the illegality of those proceedings, and he based his contentions on what occurred after the vessel arrived at Singapore. The Spanish Government contended, and he was quite willing to admit it for the sake of the argument, that men committed for an offence on the high seas, though he could not see how the vessel at Aden could be said to be on the high seas, were amenable to the Spanish powers in regard to that offence; but, as he had said, lie based his case entirely on what had occurred after the vessel arrived at Singapore. The vessel arrived there on the 14th of March, 1882. The captain had forbidden the men while at Aden to communicate with the shore, or with anyone but the Spanish Consul. They had, however, been able to smuggle to the shore a letter addressed to the Association of Engineers at Singapore, whom it happened to reach. On the arrival of the vessel at Singapore, the Association of Engineers obtained a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the captain to produce the bodies of the three men before the Supreme Court, and show cause for their detention. The writ was duly served. It was the duty of the Consul at Singapore to advise the captain, being within the jurisdiction of the Court, that he was bound to obedience. But the Consul advised disobedience. Having waited some time and the captain not putting in an appearance, on learning that an attempt was being made to run off with the vessel, the Chief Justice issued a writ of attachment against the person of the captain for contempt of Court. The officers intrusted with the service of the writ were boarding the vessel, and as they stood upon the gangway the captain made a diabolical attempt to plunge them into the water between the vessel and the quay by casting loose the gangway. This might have cost them their lives; but they luckily avoided the danger by jumping on board. Again, he said it was the duty of the Spanish Consul, who was present at the transaction, to have advised the captain to obey; but he once more told him that he was not bound to do so. But there was force at hand, and the captain made his appearance before the Court. He was defended by English counsel, and that counsel advised him that he should produce the men in Court; but again the Spanish Consul interfered and prevented his doing so. After considerable argument the case was adjourned until the following day, the captain being detained in custody on the understanding on the part of the Chief Justice that the vessel was to remain in port until the case was decided. Intimation was also made by the authorities that the vessel was not to leave the port until the case was decided. Nevertheless, the second officer, again acting on the instructions of the Spanish Consul, procured two engineers from the Spanish war vessel which happened to be lying at Singapore, and steamed off with the three English engineers prisoners on board, leaving the captain in the hands of the Sheriff. When the Court assembled the next day, these facts were stated, and the Chief Justice sentenced the captain to six months' imprisonment for contempt of Court, on the understanding that he should be liberated when the offence was purged by the surrender of the three Englishmen whom he had been ordered to produce. This statement embodied substantially everything that was essential to his case—that the writ of habeas corpus had been disregarded and trampled under foot by the direct, repeated, and admitted interference of the Spanish Consul. According to the Statute of 1679, any person who should knowingly detain, transport, or imprison any person or persons in defiance of a writ of habeas corpus, or should advise, aid, or assist therein, became liable to heavy pains and penalties, and was rendered incapable of holding any office or authority in Her Majesty's Dominions. The Spanish Consul at Singapore had clearly brought himself within the penalties of that Statute, and yet he still remained at the place as Consul. The question of the rights or wrongs of these men's imprisonment had nothing to do with his case; the question of the ultimate jurisdiction of the Spanish Court over them was practically beside the question. All that they had to concern themselves with was this faot—that an outrage had been committed upon the authority of the Supreme Court of one of our Colonies and upon the most sacred of our British laws. And yet, would it be believed that the first communication that passed between England and Spain as to this case was an angry protest on the part of the Spanish Government against the outrage which they said had been committed against the person of the captain in his imprisonment for defiance of our laws? The protest appeared so preposterous that he (Dr. Cameron) thought that on the interchange of communications the protest would have been entirely withdrawn. But, after clear and repeated explanations on our part, the Spanish Government still maintained its attitude of injured innocence, and unreservedly endorsed the action of the Spanish Consul in violating the English law. He confessed that, even after reading the despatches of the Spanish Government on the question, he entirely failed to see how any men not utterly blinded by partizanship could maintain the position which the Spanish Government had taken up. The position taken up by Spain rested on four contentions, each of which was absolutely untenable. The formality of the writ was questioned; but that point had been raised before the Supreme Court at Singapore, and that was the sole tribunal competent to pronounce an opinion on the point, and it overruled the objection. Another objection raised was that the Leon XIII. was a mail ship, and was as such entitled to certain immunities. There were Conventions with other countries granting immunities to mail steamers in the matter of jurisdiction; but we had no Convention with Spain, and, even if we had, at that particular time the vessel had no mails on board. There was also a question raised as to the competency of the tribunal to try the men; but that was practically what our Court was called on to decide. And there was the final contention that the Consul had been treated with discourtesy, which, if it had been proved, would have had no bearing on the case. The whole of the Spanish case was repudiated again and again in the correspondence which had taken place between the two countries. Their case was based on contentions which were entirely beside the subject; and yet on the strength of that case the Spanish Government had the modest assurance to propose to this country that we should make reparation to the captain of the vessel for the outrage inflicted upon him. When the vessel left Singapore, thus illegally carrying off those English subjects, the Governor of the Colony sent a telegram to the Admiral in command of our China Meet suggesting that it would be well for him to send a war vessel to Manilla, whither the Leon XIII. was bound, to offer moral support to our Consul there when he came to deal with the case. The Spanish Consul at Singapore got hold of a wrong version of the story, and telegraphed to the Governor of the Phillippine Islands that orders had been given to arrest the Leon XIII. on the high seas, and requesting permission to order a Spanish warship to escort her on her voyage. Luckily the Governor of the Phillippine Islands happened to be a cool-headed gentleman, and he gave orders that nothing of the kind was to take place; and finding that gunboats had been despatched from Hong Kong, he had an interview with our Consul, and pointed out that the presence of ships of war would make the matter very difficult to deal with. It was then decided that the men should be handed over to their Consul on their arrival. The gunboats were recalled, and after a day or two's delay our Consul asked and received the surrender of the imprisoned engineers. The arrangement was telegraphed to Singapore, whereupon the captain of the Leon XIII. was brought up before the Court, and was liberated after nine days' imprisonment. By the diplomacy of the Governor General of the Phillippine Islands the release of the captain was obtained two days before that of the engineers, and the Spaniards had pointed to that fact as showing that we were in the wrong; that, however, was a very minor and immaterial point. But although it had been distinctly understood, when the men were handed over to our Consul at Manilla, that they should not be further molested, it seemed that it was necessary, according to Spanish notions, that the matter should be wound up with a sham trial. Accordingly, the men were detained a month at Manilla, while a Naval Court inquired into their case. They were never brought before the Court during the whole investigation; and at last, when the sentence was pronounced, it contained no reference to the charge brought against them. It laid down the proposition, however, that they had expiated their unknown offence by the punishment they had undergone on board the Leon XIII., and that it was not necessary to inflict further sentence. The men applied for payment of wages, but were refused; and they were consequently sent on to the Singapore at our Government's expense as distressed mariners. From that place they were forwarded, at the expense of the Colony, to England, on their own undertaking that they would repay the money if they recovered it from the owners of the Leon XIII. There was no question about this fact—that everything that occurred subsequent to the abduction of the men from Singapore was absolutely illegal. They were carried off from that place on the 16th of March, and were not allowed to depart from Manilla until the 21st of April. Their wages were refused; and they were sent home penniless and heavily in. debt. After their arrival they raised an action in the English Court of Admiralty; but, again, on the intervention of the Spanish Consul, judgment was given against them on the ground that they must raise their action in a Spanish Court. In their fruitless endeavours to secure the protection of the Law of Habeas Corpus, and to obtain payment of wages admitted to be due, these men had been compelled to incur heavy expenses, which it would take two or three years of their earnings to wipe off. They had suffered cruelly by confinement in close cabins in tropical regions, with armed sentinals placed over them; and were subjected to every kind of indignity. The interest which our country had in insisting on reparation for such an insult was not to be measured by Spanish dollars or pounds sterling. To leave matters as they were was impossible. The Spanish Government not only backed up its Consul, but had actually lectured us on the inconvenience which the Law of Habeas Corpus inflicted on Spanish vessels in British ports; and had expressed the hope that Her Majesty's Government would adopt such measures as might be necessary to prevent any further conflict of jurisdiction by abolishing the applicability of the Law of Habeas Corpus to Spanish vessels in British ports. In his opinion the Government might as well abolish the habeas corpus as not obtain reparation for such an offence. He was glad that they had taken a decided stand in the matter. Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, in his last despatch, wrote— While Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to avoid any conflict of jurisdiction or any legitimate ground of complaint on the part of commanders or crews of Spanish vessels, they could not hold out any hope that any restriction will he placed on the protection afforded by the Law of Habeas Corpus in British dominions, which, of all the Constitutional safeguards of the liberty of the subject, is the one most highly prized by the Government and people of the United Kingdom. Those were brave words; and he asked the House to affirm that the Government should act up to them. He entirely approved of the tone of the English despatches contained in the Papers which had been submitted to the House. He must call attention, however, to the fact that the last of these despatches was written four months ago, and no action had been taken since then; and he asked the House to affirm that the matter should not be allowed to drop. He could not understand the action of the Colonial Office in the matter, and why the exequatur of the Spanish Consul at Singapore had not been withdrawn. He could not understand why the Spanish Consul had not been dismissed. By the despatches he had proved himself ignorant of the first duties of a Consul, and regardless of the laws of the people among whom he resided. He had proved himself a dangerous enemy to international law and order; and in consequence of his decoration by the Spanish Government, he was a standing insult to the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements. How were we to get redress? Spain had recently "given us a lesson on that point in the case of the Tangier. The Tangier was an English vessel trading to Spain, and in November last she was at Carthagena. At that port there was a regulation that a vessel should have a pilot on board while unmooring. The pilot wished the officer of the Tangier to employ a lighter to assist, and on his refusal to do so left the vessel. The captain thereupon assumed command, and proceeded to take the vessel to sea. What occurred subsequently he would describe in the language of the account given in The Nautical Magazine. In approaching the seaway between the piers the vessel was hailed by a boat. The "hail" was in the Spanish language, which the captain did not understand. The vessel was a long one, being 280 feet over all. To bring to in that position would inevitably land her upon one of the piers, and there was not sufficient space to turn in—consequently he kept on. To his astonishment fire was opened upon him from two armed boats. The bullets struck the ship, and the funnel was scarred with them, One member had his hat shot through, and the captain ordered all hands below. He himself retained the bridge, but had to duck his head, as he saw in the moonlight a rifle deliberately aimed at him. He slowed down outside the piers, with the intention of bringing to; but the hail of bullets increased, and as he was covered by the big guns of the fort outside, the prudent course was to put on all speed seawards. He learned afterwards that the fort was signalled to fire upon him, and the result of that might have been the sinking of the steamer with all on board. On reaching Valencia a Spanish gunboat hove to alongside, and with shotted guns was set to watch him. On reaching the Consulate Captain Neate found that a telegram had been received ordering the detention of the vessel, on the ground of the captain of the port at Carthagena having been insulted. There were other trifling charges—damages to the quay, and such like. After negotiation he was permitted to return to Carthagena to load for Philadelphia. On reaching that interesting port Captain Neate was placed under naval arrest, notwithstanding his protest and that of the British Consul. He was brought before a sort of drumhead court on board a man-of-war, and condemned to fine and two months' imprisonment. The charges were not read, and he was not allowed to have counsel or cross-examine witnesses. On the intervention of the British Consul the Captain was liberated, and the Tangier allowed to depart, but not until a bond had been given over for £8 10s., the amount of the damage alleged to have been inflicted on the quay wall of Carthagena through the illegal action of the captain in defying the orders of her harbour master. That was the course of action that Spain had set for our example while we were endeavouring to instruct her in our Law of Habeas Corpus, and were endeavouring to justify our Supreme Court at Singapore. The fact that nothing had been done in the case of the Leon XIII. during the four months that had elapsed since the last published despatch, showed that something stronger should follow. What that something was he would not say. But with the case of the Tangier before us, we could not but feel that if our case had been the Spanish case she would not have waited so long before bringing about some settlement of the matter. He did not presume to tell the Government how they should vindicate our outraged law or secure compensation to our injured countrymen; but he affirmed that, acknowledging as they had done the existence of the outrage and the injury, they were bound to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, and that was why he asked the House to strengthen his hands by adopting the Resolution which he had on the Paper.

MR. H. LEE

said, he wished to second the Motion which his hon. Friend had so ably put before the House. The case i showed the intolerance of the Spanish Government, and the necessity of dealing firmly with them, as they evidently considered themselves at liberty to take a course which was contrary alike to law and justice. One of the three engineers was a constituent of his at Southampton, and he came up specially that day to plead that justice might be done him—that he might be compensated for the injuries ho had sustained, and that the Government ought to insist upon some reparation being made to all three of the men for the manner in which they had been treated by the Spanish Government. He trusted the Government would accept the Resolution of his hon. Friend, and would take such steps as would place the matter in a more satisfactory condition than it was in now.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, bearing in mind the manner in which Spanish Law was recently enforced in the case of the English steamer "Tangier," this House looks to Her Majesty's Government to uphold English Law, seriously violated in the case of the Spanish steamship "Leon XIII.," and to obtain compensation to the British subjects damnified in that case for the suffering and loss inflicted on them through the action of the Spanish Consul at Singapore."—(Dr. Cameron.)

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

desired to say a few words on the Motion before the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State gave an official answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow. Ho entirely concurred in the strong—but not too strong —condemnation of the conduct of the Spanish Consul at Singapore. He thought there was quite sufficient ground for withdrawing his exequatur; and upon this point he was disposed to find fault with Her Majesty's Government for not having taken a more decided action. If the Consul was to be continued in office by the Spanish Government, he should be removed elsewhere, and take his decoration with him. But the misconduct of the Consul did not cover the whole of the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow; and while he (Sir Henry Holland) heartily concurred in the first part of the Motion— That this House looks to Her Majesty's Government to uphold English law, seriously violated in the case of the Spanish steamship, 'Leon XIII,' he desired to point out that there was some difficulty in calling upon Her Majesty's Government— To obtain compensation to the British subjects damnified in that case for the suffering and loss inflicted on them through the action of the Spanish Consul at Singapore. There were mixed questions of fact and law in the case. One question of fact was whether the three engineers were guilty of the charges brought against them by the captain of the Leon XIII. He did not suppose that any Member who had read the Papers would entertain any doubt that the charge was unfounded. The story of the engineers was corroborated by the statements of Messrs. Whitehead and Cameron, and was further strengthened by the action of the Court at Manilla. It seemed tolerably clear that that Court felt that there was no case against these persons, for they did not venture to call them at the so-called trial; but determined the case in their absence and upon depositions. The proceedings were most irregular, and the trial little better than a farce. But still, assuming, as he did, that the engineers were innocent and grossly ill-treated on board the vessel, there would be some difficulty in framing a claim for compensation against the Spanish Government on the ground stated in the hon. Member's Motion. The alleged offence was committed on the high seas, or, at all events, not within the Straits Settlements jurisdiction. If, then, the writ of habeas corpus had been obeyed, instead of being set at naught by the Consul, the engineers would not have obtained their freedom at Singapore, unless, as was most improbable, the captain had admitted ho was wrong, and that he had illegally detained them. The Supreme Court of Singapore was not, and could not, be called upon to take cognizance of the alleged offence; it could not do so, as the offence was committed outside the Colonial jurisdiction; it had to deal solely with the writ of habeas corpus, and to determine whether the engineers were in lawful custody. If the captain persisted in the charge, that charge could only be tried in Manilla. Admitting, therefore, the misconduct of the Consul, it did not make their detention up to the arrival at Manilla illegal, and did not give the engineers legal ground for compensation against the Spanish Government for their detention up to that place. Their remedy was against the captain of the vessel for his misconduct. The only ground apparently for compensation against the Spanish Government would be that they had not had a fair trial at Manilla, which was not the ground stated in the Motion before the House. He (Sir Henry Holland) was not at that moment aware of any precedent for such compensation, unless in some very special case. As to the compensation referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow for wages and sufferings, he was afraid that the engineers would only have a remedy against the captain of the Leon XIII. The case of the Tangier, relied on by the hon. Member, was not in point, as the damages in that case were recovered against the captain of the vessel, and not against the English Government, and were recovered, as he understood, under the decision of a Court of Law. Before sitting down, he wished to say a few words upon another point in the case upon which at onetime the Spanish Government seemed inclined to lay some stress—namely, that the steamer being a mail steamer was on the same footing as a ship-of-war, and that a writ of habeas corpus could not be issued in such a case. Now, in the first place, we held it to be quite clear that, according to international law, a mail steamer was not, in the absence of any special convention or arrangement, on the footing of a ship-of-war, and that she was not exempt from the territorial jurisdiction of the harbour or port in which she lay. She was subject to the general law applicable to merchant vessels. But even assuming that she was in the same position, and entitled to the same rights and immunities as a ship-of-war, still the writ of habeas corpus would properly run. This point came under the consideration of the Royal Commission on Fugitive Slaves in 1876, of which he had the honour of being a Member, and it might be taken that it was in substance decided by the great majority, if not all, of the Commissioners that a habeas corpus would run to test the legality of the detention of a person on board a ship-of-war. He would conclude by expressing a hope that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, some compensation would be awarded by the Spanish Government.

MR. JERNINGHAM

said, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow deserved credit for bringing forward this subject. There had been too many cases of this kind against the Spanish Government. He thought he was not putting the case too strongly when he said this was an iniquitous case from beginning to such end as we had arrived at. Without entering into questions of law, he believed the facts proved that the imputed offence and the punishment of it occurred in the port of Aden, and not on the high seas as held by the Spanish Government. He confessed that Sir Robert Morrier was more than justified in trying to impress upon the Spanish Minister what the Law of Habeas Corpus was, and it struck him from that despatch that it was not understood up to the present day by the Spanish Minister, and that it would take him a long time to understand it. Under the circumstances, he feared that the House would be unable to do more than to give expression to the first portion of the Resolution—namely, that, having take a notice of this particular case, they should record their disgust at the treatment which those men had suffered without trial during three months and a-half of imprisonment. The statement of the Spanish Government, that they were satisfied that the prisoners had expiated an offence against their law without specifying that offence, was eminently unsatisfactory. He must impress upon the House the necessity of letting foreigners know that there was a limit to leniency. He had spent a long time abroad, and he could assure the House that when this country spoke seriously there was not a foreigner that did not listen. If, however, this country spoke and did not mean to act, then the foreigners saw through it. The Government, he thought, were quite right in looking upon the Consul at Singapore as a zealot; but his exequatur should have been withdrawn. He should like to hear the Government express their resolve not to allow a case of this kind to occur again, without taking more serious notice both of the case and of the Government which allowed it.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, that the discussion had been a useful one, and he was obliged to the hon. Member for Glasgow, not only for bringing it forward in a calm and temperate manner, but for the fact that he had called attention to it, because such cases were usefully discussed in the House. It was well that English subjects generally, and more particularly English sailors, who were exposed to great perils, should know that, occupied as the House of Commons was, it was nevertheless possible, in the last resort, to find time to consider grievances of this kind. Such cases had been too frequent of late in Spain, and the hands of the Government were undoubtedly strengthened by discussion, especially when there was no difference of opinion about the merits of the case in this country. The hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), to whose speech he had listened with the greatest interest, had pointed out that there were certain objections to the Motion, and with those objections he himself agreed; but the object of the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion was not to take a division, but to ventilate the subject. There were two points involved in the proposal. First of all, there was the position of the British Government over against the Spanish Government on this question, and then there was the position of the men themselves, and it was necessary to distinguish these points. In regard to the position of the British Government over against the Spanish Government, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow seemed to be fully satisfied with the conduct of the Government up to the time where the despatches published terminated; because, as ho pointed out, nothing could be clearer than the language of the concluding paragraph of the last despatch. The Spanish Government had apparently been unable to understand the English doctrine of habeas corpus, which was one of our most cherished legal doctrines, the result of the historic growth of the liberties of this country. Nevertheless, although they might forgive that inability to understand, it was not, of course, to be tolerated for a single instant that we should waive one jot or tittle of the territorial extent over which the English doctrine of habeas corpus obtained—that was to say, that we could not hold for a single instant that in the territorial waters of a British port it should be held that the doctrine of habeas corpus ceased on board a foreign ship. Sir Robert Morier was, therefore, instructed to inform the Spanish Government that, while Her Majesty's Government were most anxious to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction, they could not hold out the remotest hope that any restriction would ever be placed on the remedies accorded in the Law of Habeas Corpus in Her Majesty's dominions.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

resumed: At an early point of the negotiations Lord Granville said he was not disposed to insist upon the withdrawal of the exequatur, because it would appear that the Spanish Consul, though acting in a mistaken manner, had, on the whole, acted bonâ fide. A good deal of indignation had been caused by the persistent attitude of the Consul in this matter, and there was an impression that he had been decorated by the Spanish Government in consequence. He was not sure whether the Consul had been decorated or not; but he did not wish it to be supposed that because there was no further mention of the subject of the exequatur in the Papers, that incident was entirely closed. It must depend upon ulterior considerations, and it was receiving the closest attention of the Secretary of State. He would now turn to the grievances of the English engineers against the Spanish employers and officials, as distinct from the grievance of the English Government against the Spanish Government. In passing, he might pay a tribute to the judgment displayed by the Captain General of the Phillippine Islands; because he believed that if the Spanish Consul at Singapore had acted in a similar manner to this eminent man, the question of the Leon XIII. would never have assumed its present gravity. The Papers presented contained a despatch from Consul Wilkinson, of Manilla, who had shown great judgment in difficult circumstances. He wrote that a Naval Court was called together, and that after waiting some considerable time he received a copy of the judgment of the Court, stating that the punishment the men had already undergone was deemed by the Court sufficient expiation of their offence, and that the Court no longer deemed detention necessary. No mention was made of the nature of the charges for which the men were put upon their trial, nor were they asked to be present during the hearing of the case. They were not even present while the depositions of their accusers were taken. They were refused their wages, and had to be sent on to Singapore at the public expense, while throughout the case they had no opportunity whatever of clearing their characters. Then arose the series of circumstances which had already been detailed to the House, upon which hung the question of what claim these officers had upon the Spanish Government. There could be no doubt that the claim of the engineers, in the first place, was against their Spanish employers, as they had originally entered into a contract with them. He believed they had found that such an action would not lie in this country or in an English Court; but this was a question with which the Foreign Office had nothing whatever to do. But one thing was certain, that until these men had exhausted their proper legal remedy it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to say what further steps it might be necessary to take. The House must be aware that interferences in matters of this kind were delicate, difficult, and rare; and the House would no doubt hesitate to press upon Her Majesty's Government the adoption of any particular course at this moment. He thought he might fairly ask the House to believe that Her Majesty's Government were not only well acquainted with the facts of the case, but that they were also fully aware of their importance, and would continue to watch them as they proceeded. He ventured to make one further criticism of the Motion. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had set before Her Majesty's Government the conduct of the Spanish Government in the matter of the Tangier, he would not say as an example for them to imitate, but as a kind of guide which they would do well to follow. He was sure that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but the Motion was open to that construction. The case of the Tangier, he considered, was an example to be avoided, because the proceedings were high-handed and hasty. This question was, he was happy to say, in a fair way to a favourable settlement, and he would have been able to present the Papers on the subject, only that they related to a pending negotiation. But he hoped before long, in answer to a Question or otherwise, to be able to acquaint the House with what had been determined as to the Tangier. It was only due to Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid to say that, with regard to these matters, which were exceedingly difficult, involving questions of private international law, and a most complicated series of facts, the Papers showed that he had known how to assert the dignity of this country, to support the great Constitutional doctrines which they all valued, and, at the same time, to maintain that conciliatory attitude which officials in foreign countries were bound to observe with regard to the Government to which they were accredited.

MR. BOURKE

said, he did not think, after the remarks of the noble Lord, that the House would be disposed to carry the matter much further. He wished to endorse all that had been said by the noble Lord with respect to Sir Robert Morier, who was distinguished not only as a Diplomatist, but as a Constitutional lawyer, and deserved thanks for the action he had taken on this question. The conduct of the authorities at Singapore also deserved commendation, because they took a proper view of the doctrine of habeas corpus, and carried out that view in a proper manner. He said the same of the conduct of our Consul at Manilla. Although the House appeared to have derived some benefit from the discussion, there were three persons who seemed to have little chance of receiving an advantage from it. He referred to the three English engineers, for whom the noble Lord held out no prospect of anything being done by Her Majesty's Government. He feared the noble Lord had spoiled their chance of obtaining any compensation whatever from the Spanish Government. He quite agreed that it was necessary to ask the Spanish Courts for a decision before they could go to the Spanish Government for compensation; but there was one point that had not been mentioned, and that was that if the Spanish Court at Manilla did keep those men in custody, a question arose between this Government and the Spanish Government as to whether a legal and just claim did not exist on that ground. That was a point which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration. He hoped the anticipations of the noble Lord would be realized, and that the discussion which had taken place would not only have a beneficial effect as to the question of compensation, which might hereafter be obtained for these unfor- tunate persons, but would teach the Spanish Government that they must give certain instructions to their officers abroad, so as to avoid the violation of the most cherished principle of British freedom.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he merely wished to say, in answer to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that he could assure him that Her Majesty's Government had not put out of sight all possibility of being able to support the claim for compensation against the Spanish Government. His noble Friend did not intend that construction to be put upon his words.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

desired to enter his strongest protest against some of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He differed entirely from the view that they had no claim against the Spanish Government. The men had been imprisoned for four weeks, and, therefore, they had a claim on the ground of international law. He had had several cases before him, including those of the Cagliari, the Orwell, and the Tornado. In the case of the Tornado, the Spanish Government did exactly what they had done now, and absolutely refused to have the case investigated. That case was almost on all fours with the present. Still later was the case of the Mermaid, in which no compensation was awarded. The Secretary of State at that time was Lord Derby, a Minister in whom he had no confidence then, and had none now. Lord Derby told the House of Commons that the Spanish Government had been guilty of a great act of hardship and ought to pay compensation, but that they had refused to do so. He then asked what was he to do? The Spanish Government would not pay, and the only alternative was war, and to that he would not assent. The Government, if satisfied that there had been a denial of justice in such a case, ought to take a firm stand, and insist on justice being done. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson) and the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) were constantly saying—"Oh, what does it matter; British subjects have no business to trade, no business to go into the service of other countries, no business to make foreign investments; if they do they are fools for their pains." That was language which, unfortunately, too frequently proceeded from the opposite Benches, and he was very much afraid it affected the Government. He regretted to see the empty state of the Benches on a question of such importance. If the debate had turned on the wrongs of a Dissenting chapel, or on the Contagious Diseases Act, it would, no doubt, have been otherwise. He hoped the noble Lord would not relax his efforts on behalf of these unfortunate men; for there was a substantial grievance and a positive denial of justice.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, it was important that in making a demand on a Foreign Power, there should be no vague language of declamation, such as had been indulged in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and that the Government should take their stand upon clear and definite principles. The present question had not been lost sight of by the Government, but had received their careful consideration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to several cases as precedents on which the Government should act; but all cases of this kind must be dealt with according to their particular circumstances. However, none of the cases referred to were in any way parallel to the present case. It was not right to say that because compensation had been obtained in one case it ought to be obtained in another.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clook.