MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 4 April 1873)

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON,

in rising to call attention to the outrages committed upon Mr. H. D. Jencken, a British subject in Spain, and to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct Her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with the Spanish Government with the view to obtaining compensation for Mr. H. D. Jencken, on account of the injuries received by him at the hands of the populace at Lorca in 1869, said, Mr. Jencken, a member of the English Bar, went to Spain in 1869 professionally on behalf of a commercial company, to prosecute certain important suits involving British interests to a very large amount. These suits were, of course, instituted before the Spanish tribunals; and for this purpose Mr. Jencken had occasion to visit the town of Lorca, in the province of Murcia. While that gentleman was walking in 629 the public gardens of Lorca an exclamation proceeded from a woman, in consequence of which a largo mob set upon him and inflicted upon him the severest injuries. It appeared that in that part of Spain an extraordinary superstition was entertained by the common people that certain infamous persons went into the country for the purpose of kidnapping young children and putting them to death in order to obtain the fat of their bodies for the repair of the telegraph wires. Such a person was called "tio del sain," or fatmonger. It appeared that the description of Mr. Jencken had been promulgated in Lorca as being one of those persons, and the woman's exclamation, "tio del sain" soon spreading, he was set upon by a mob armed with stones, daggers, knives, and other deadly weapons. He received 15 serious wounds, besides severe bruises and blows, on various parts of the body. Eight of the wounds were on the head and face; a dagger was thrust into his mouth, which broke his jawbone, and several wounds on the temples and back of the head penetrating to the bone. Some of those who joined in the outrages were officials who ought to have afforded him protection. He was dragged in a state of extreme suffering to the Town Hall, whence he was conveyed to a place where his wounds were dressed. A day or two after the Judge visited him to take his depositions against the guilty persons, it being supposed that he was in a dying condition. The Judge asked him whether he would take part in the prosecution of the rioters, at the same time advising him not to do so, because if he did the state of feeling in the town was such that Mr. Jencken's life would not be safe. Mr. Jencken said he did not care anything about the prosecution, and that he would appeal to the Government. He was confined to his bed for 30 days, and afterwards, while still suffering from his wounds, went to Madrid, where he visited Marshal Serrano, then at the head of the Spanish Government, and from whom he had received a friendly letter, expressing regret at the ill-treatment he had undergone, and offering to afford him redress. Mr. Jencken also left a statement of his case with our Ambassador at Madrid, in 1870, when he returned to England; it was likewise laid before Lord Clarendon, with a request 630 that his Lordship would obtain from the Spanish Government compensation for the injuries he had sustained. There seemed to be some reason to suspect that the mob had been instigated in their attack by some of the persons against whom Mr. Jencken originally went to enforce legal claims at Lorca; and if so it was a most serious matter, for what English subject would go abroad to represent commercial interests and to prosecute legal claims against Spanish subjects, if reports were to be spread abroad which induced fanatical mobs to beat and wound them within an inch of their lives. The Vice Consul wrote to Mr. Turner, the British Consul, giving an account of the transaction, in which he mentioned the binding of Mr. Jencken's hands by two of the Volunteers of Liberty, and the part taken by the Alcalde of the suburbs—facts subsequently denied by the Spanish Minister. Thirteen of the 23 persons originally arrested were tried and convicted, the sentence, a copy of which was sent to Mr. Jencken, stating that no indemnity had been awarded on account of his having expressly renounced it. Lord Clarendon called on Mr. Jencken for an explanation of this statement, which appeared to preclude any claim to compensation, and Mr. Jencken informed Lord Clarendon that the alleged renunciation consisted in his (Mr. Jencken's) having, under the advice of the local authorities, declined to take part in the criminal prosecution, no intimation having been given him at the time that a civil remedy was attached to it. Lord Clarendon thereupon wrote to Mr. Layard to say that, having consulted the Law Advisers of the Crown, he thought he might under the circumstances submit the case to the Spanish Government, with the expression of a hope that compensation would be awarded to Mr. Jencken for his serious and unmerited sufferings. Thus the case stood at the time of Lord Clarendon's lamented death. Lord Granville, his successor, on being applied to, promised an investigation of the case, and Mr. Layard afterwards enclosed to him a letter from Senor Sagasta, Minister of the Interior, declining to grant compensation on the ground that Mr. Jencken had definitely renounced it. Senor Sagasta also denied that any Volunteers or "right-minded persons" took part in the assault; but this denial as to the 631 Volunteers was at variance with the Vice Consul's narrative. Thereupon Lord Granville, after consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, decided that the British Government would not be justified in pressing the claim further. Now, considering that the alleged renunciation was known to Lord Clarendon and the Law Officers, it was strange that two Foreign Ministers, acting on the same facts, and taking the same advice—the advice it would seem of the same Law Officers—should come to opposite conclusions. What was the renunciation worth of a man who could hardly articulate, and was indeed almost a dead man at the time? It was absurd to talk of recovering damages against a mere mob, who, as the papers showed, were too poor to pay even a small proportion of the costs of the prosecution. Had Mr. Jencken proceeded against them, of course our Government would have said that he had made his election and that, having failed through the insolvency of the parties, they could not interfere. As to the quibble raised by the Spanish Minister, it was more worthy of a small practitioner in a petty Court of Law than the Minister of a great nation; and he was sorry, indeed, that it should have been sanctioned by our own Minister. It might be said, "Have we a right to claim compensation from a foreign Government for injuries inflicted upon a British subject?" Vattel, Grotius, Kent, Wheaton, and other authorities were clear in favour of the proposition that "when foreigners are admitted into a country, the public faith of that country becomes pledged for their protection." This passage from Kent was quoted by Sir Roundell Palmer in the Debate upon the murder of British subjects by the Greek brigands. Sir Robert Phillimore was an authority to the same effect, and we had ourselves repeatedly acted upon this principle. When Don Pacifico, a naturalized Englishman, had his house sacked by a mob of Greeks, he claimed compensation from the Greek Government, and Lord Palmerston sent a fleet to enforce the claim. Whatever might have been the policy of this act, or the good faith of the claim advanced, the question of our right to interfere was never raised. Again, there was the case of Mr. Sullivan at Lima; and at Naples in 1850, when some French— 632 men's houses were destroyed by a mob, the French Government claimed and obtained compensation for these persons. They were met by the plea that the Neapolitan law would not have given compensation to Neapolitans; but the answer of the French Government was, "We have nothing to do with your municipal law, we take our stand upon international law, which overrides your municipal law." Again, between the Americans and Portuguese. Some American citizens having been subjected to outrage on the part of the Portuguese, the American Government demanded redress from the Government of Portugal and received it. Then there was the case of the Greek brigands, in which we had obtained compensation from the Government of Greece. In fact he had a plethora of precedents in this matter, and his only difficulty was to make a selection. He would appeal to the British Government as having themselves sanctioned the course of action which he advocated. From first to last the question of right had never been raised. Lord Clarendon, the moment he was appealed to, set himself in motion to obtain redress. Lord Granville at first did the same, and therefore the Government were now estopped from raising this question of legal right if so disposed. What then, did their objection resolve itself into? To this—that Mr. Jencken had, as the Spanish Minister stated, voluntarily waived his right. But the House would have seen, from what he had already stated, how much there was in the so-called waiver, and what little reliance was to be placed on the allegations in Senor Sagasta's letter. It was true he had brought forward this question on a night when he could not challenge a decision upon it; but for that he did not care. He preferred to put the matter on this footing—that it was one which was well worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Here was a gentleman of position, of attainments, of professional eminence, peacefully pursuing a lawful avocation abroad, supposing that he was under the protection of the Government of the country in which he was, and in the last resort of his own Government. He found no protection under the Spanish Government, and now he sought redress from his own. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, however advised at 633 the present time, would reconsider the circumstances of the case, especially as this was by no means a solitary instance in which we had ground of complaint against Spain.