DR. CAMERON,in rising to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000, being the amount of the salary of the British Minister Resident and Consul General in Peru, said, he did so on account of the conduct of our Representatives in Peru in connection with the Talisman case. The points of that case were briefly these—the Talisman, a British steamer, manned by British subjects, was chartered by some evil-disposed persons for the secret purpose of carrying munitions of war and a band of revolutionists into Peru, with the view of there raising a revolution. The revolutionists embarked at a Chilian port, and it was not till they were at sea and off the coast of Peru that they declared themselves in their true colours, armed themselves, and took possession of the vessel. They ordered the vessel into Pacasmayo Bay, where the captain went ashore, accompanied by the second mate and three sailors. They were at once taken prisoners, and it was not till after the capture that the first act of violence and overt insurrection was committed. This consisted in the insurgents firing upon some soldiers who were sent to take the ship and driving them off. The insur- 747 gents then, with arms in their hands, compelled the crew to run the vessel out of Pacasmayo southwards along the coast till they arrived at Ylo, where the vessel and crew were taken prisoners by the Peruvian iron-clad Huascar on the 2nd November, 1874, the insurgents making their escape up country. The vessel was at once brought before the Peruvian Prize Courts, but was not condemned till June, 1875, nor was an appeal lodged in the case disposed of till December, 1875. But in December, 1874, she was most irregularly and illegally employed by the Peruvian Government as a troopship. The crew were at first impressed by the Peruvian authorities in Peruvian ships of war engaged on active service, and were, on the suppression of the insurrection which rendered their services valuable, sent to prison, where, after an illegal detention for 12 months, they were liberated without trial, on the ground that there was not sufficient ground for handing them over to the criminal authorities. The captain and two mates were, however, handed over to the criminal authorities for trial. After a delay in instituting proceedings against them, which, under Peru's Treaty obligations to us, entitled them to be set free, proceedings were instituted against them. Before, however, they had gone far, Sibley, the first mate, was assassinated in prison. In April last the captain and second mate were subjected to a mock trial. He (Dr. Cameron) used the phrase advisedly, for he was in a position to know that on the 24th of March the Foreign Office was in possession of information to the effect that, if the captain and second mate were found guilty, they would be sentenced to a year's banishment from Peru. They were found guilty, and were so sentenced, and a telegram received on April 22nd announced the fact to the Foreign Office. But the fact that the sentence was known nearly a month before the conclusion of the trial shows that the whole thing was a foregone conclusion. Well, an appeal lodged by Haddock upset this arrangement, which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been not unsatisfactory. King, the second mate, took no part in the appeal, and protested against it; but it was held that his case having been conjoined with those of Haddock and the two Periorolists who were tried along with them, 748 could not be separated from them, and that he must be held as conjoined in the appeal and its consequences. The injustice of this was so flagrant that, on June 7, Lord Derby wrote a very strong despatch to Peru, demanding that King should at once be surrendered. By this time the Supreme Court in Peru had pronounced judgment in the appeal case virtually confirming the sentence of banishment. On this occasion none of the prisoners appealed, so that the Peruvian Government might, with the most perfect dignity, have complied with the demand for King's liberation; but now the Peruvian authorities stepped in with an appeal, and the result was that after one year and ten months' imprisonment the fate of these wretched men was still undecided. Till their liberation had been obtained one did not like to stir the question of compensation either for the illegal detention of the crew or the murder of Sibley. For the delay that had occurred he held the Representatives of Great Britain in Peru to be to a great degree responsible, and it was for this reason that he proposed the reduction of the Vote before the House. Had our Representatives kept Government fully and promptly advised of the various circumstances of the case he was certain that this country would have interfered long ago, at a time when its interference would have been much more effective. The first incident which it was the duty of the British Minister to report was the outrage on the British flag, which was perpetrated when the Talisman, six months before condemnation, was used by the Peruvians as a Government transport. This outrage Mr. March, had reported, but it was accompanied, by the wholesale impressment of British subjects forming the crew of the Talisman into the naval service of Peru. Three men were impressed on board the gunboat Chalico, and actually put into Peruvian uniform. The rest of the crew were kept for five weeks after their capture on board the iron-clad Huascar, while that vessel was engaged on active service connected with the suppression of the insurrection in the south; they were worked exactly like the vessel's own crew, and the one distinction made was that they received no pay. The engineer was impressed to work the engines of the Talisman when she was employed as a Government transport. And yet this 749 impressment was the only one alluded to in the despatches sent home by our Representatives, and that in connection solely with the employment of the vessel before her condemnation. The impressment of British sailors on board foreign war ships appeared to him a most serious matter, one regarding which the Representatives of our country should have carefully informed themselves and reported to the Foreign Office. Instead of this not one word was to be found in the Papers recently laid before the House about the impressment of these men, either on board the Huascar or the Chalico. Then the crew had been illegally detained for a year against the Peruvian Constitution and against Peru's Treaty obligations to this country, on an extraordinary opinion of the Peruvian Attorney General—that the sailor witnesses and documents in a prize case both came under the category of productions, and that they must be detained in custody of the Prize Court until the conclusion of the case. This extraordinary opinion was allowed not only to over-ride the opinion of the Judge of the Court—who desired to set the men at liberty—but Peru's Treaty obligations to this country, under which the men were entitled to be brought to trial without delay or else to be liberated. And yet our Representatives in Peru, as far as could be seen from the Papers laid before Parliament, had said not one word on the subject.
§ Mr. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the matter to which he was referring had formed the subject of a long debate in the earlier part of the Session, and that it was out of Order to enter into a fresh discussion on the matter unless it distinctly referred to the reduction of the Vote immediately before the House.
DR. CAMERONreplied that his intention was to show that the British Representative in Peru had not kept Her Majesty's Government informed regarding many material points in the case, which, had they been known, would have had an important effect on our national policy in the matter, and his argument would be directed to show that for this reason the Vote might be curtailed without disadvantage to the efficiency of our diplomatic service. He accused Mr. St. John, doubtless through insufficient information, but it was his duty to have sufficiently informed himself, of 750 having misled the Government on various material points. Thus, in reply to complaints as to the prison of Casa Matas, in a despatch dated August 25, Mr. St. John had spoken of it as spacious and airy, though very gloomy. In reality, its state was such a scandal that the Peruvians themselves very shortly afterwards condemned it, and on October 19th Mr. St. John was obliged very materially to modify his previous picture, and to admit that the cells had been lately unequivocally condemned by one of the principal Judges, and that they were totally unfit to be used as a gaol. Again, a great aggravation in the condition of the prisoners was to be found in the character of the desperadoes with whom they were locked up. This had been misrepresented by Mr. St. John, and it was not until Sibley had been murdered by a fellow-prisoner that the complaints which he (Dr. Cameron) had so often made on the subject were credited. As the circumstances of Sibley's murder were not known in this country, and as rumour had been circulated that they were in some manner discreditable to the murdered man, he would briefly describe them. He held in his hand various declarations on the subject—one made by the warder of Casa Matas to the Criminal Judge; one from Bell, a prisoner whose hard case was familiar to everyone who had read Papers recently laid before the House; one from Izatt, the mate of a Liverpool vessel, who for some trifling indiscretion which he had committed while on shore, had been placed in gaol and kept there for the last eight or nine months, and from others, and they all agreed as to the facts of the case. An Equadorian prisoner named Viteri had attempted to take up his quarters in a room occupied by Sibley and a Spanish prisoner named Mourgan. Mourgan complained to the warder, and Viteri was ordered out. He shortly after returned and assaulted Mourgan. Sibley interfered to protect him, whereupon Viteri struck him three times. At last Sibley struck him back in self-defence, upon which Viteri drew a knife and stabbed Sibley in several places. The warder of the prison added to his account of the affair the statement that Sibley had always conducted himself well and peaceably, whereas Viteri was notoriously a man of bad character. He might add that he had been informed 751 that Viteri had been sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for the murder; that he was regarded by his mates as quite a hero for having killed an Englishman; and that, in order to add to his laurels, he threatened to do for King, the second mate, on the first opportunity. The case for the two men still in prison was very strong. In the first place, neither of them having been in flagrante delicto, they were clearly entitled to the protection provided for under the Treaty to which he had before referred. They, in common with the rest, had been illegally detained for 12 months pending the settlement of the prize case. Even after they were handed over to the criminal authorities another delay had occurred, such as entitled them under the Treaty to be set free. King's case was especially strong; he had been one of those against whom the Peruvian Government had so little to urge that he was promised his liberation. He had accepted the sentence of banishment, and was only too anxious to get away. But even in this case the baneful influence of our diplomatic Representative had been felt, for even here he found the Peruvian Attorney General of the Supreme Court urging in his appeal of May 5, as a reason why a more serious sentence should be pronounced upon the prisoners—
That he had heard the diplomatic Representative of England remark that he also understood that the Talisman could only be considered a pirate,and that, if that gentleman was of that opinion, it was clear that a much heavier sentence was demanded than that which had been pronounced. In conclusion, the hon. Member remarked that he had carefully abstained from going into the merits of the case so as to provoke any expression regarding them which might prejudice the cause of the prisoners still in Peru. He had confined himself strictly to the legal aspect of the case, and to the Vote before the House. They had it, on the authority of the Peruvian Government, that although this country had considered it its duty to interfere diplomatically in the case, its interference had resulted in nothing, as the case had gone on precisely as if no such interference had taken place. If they could do no good, he begged them to beware of doing harm by entering into unnecessary and useless arguments; 752 to overturn conclusions which the Peruvian authorities and Courts themselves admitted. The prisoner King, in writing lately to his sister, after describing an interview which he had just had with the Acting Minister and Consul, and his unsatisfactory experiences, so far as correspondence with them was concerned, and how the Minister had requested him in future to write to him direct, as the letters were often delayed at the Consulate, wound up thus—So between one and the other, I do not know which to write to; but I think the best thing I can do is never to mind wasting pen and paper on them, but buy tobacco with the money.He (Dr. Cameron) thought that in connection with the Vote before the House, they would do well to take a leaf out of the book of King's philosophy, and think twice before they expended this £2,000 in maintaining a diplomatic establishment apparently of such very questionable value. He would move the reduction of the Vote.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£163,163," and insert "£161,163,"—(Dr. Cameron,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That £163,163 stand part of the said Resolution."
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, that he had no inclination to dispute a great deal that had been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow; but the hon. Member seemed to forget that the Government were at that moment pressing very seriously their claims on the subject upon the Peruvian Government, and were doing their best, and fully expected to obtain the release of the two prisoners. They had done so, he believed, in language that was stronger than had ever before been used by one friendly Government to another; and therefore all that the hon. Member had said as to keeping these men in prison, he (Mr. Bourke) was not inclined to dispute. On the contrary, it was a part of the case that the Government were at that moment presenting to the Peruvian Government. He, however, could not help thinking that the hon. Member was doing the cause, which he had at heart, very great injury, and putting these men in much more peril than they were before he took the course which he had pursued. The first thing Her Majesty's Govern- 753 ment were prepared to do was to get these men out of prison, and to obtain their release, and therefore he was not going to say one word on that occasion as to any question with regard to compensation, and what claim Her Majesty's Government might or might not have to make against the Peruvian Government hereafter; because what they took their stand upon was this—that whether these persons were guilty or not, they had been kept such a long time in prison that the Government had now a right to ask for their release; and further that bringing them to trial had been protracted under so many pretences that it was impossible that they could concur in it. Under these circumstances, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow had any serious intention to press his Motion to a division; but if that was his intention then he (Mr. Bourke) must go into the whole question, for it was obviously a Motion that the Government could not possibly accept.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, in that case it would be only necessary for him to detain the House a very few minutes, and he would say only this—Representing as he did the Foreign Office, it was his duty to defend those members of the diplomatic service who might be unfairly attacked. Now, the charge brought against Mr. St. John, which would now be promulgated in all the newspapers, and go all over the world, was one which seriously affected his professional character. He was satisfied that it would be unfair to Mr. St. John that the slightest slur should rest upon him for anything that had occurred. The early part of the transaction had nothing in the world to do with Mr. St. John, for he was many hundred miles away when it occurred, and he (Mr. Bourke) was fully prepared to say that Mr. St. John was a most valuable and indefatigable public servant, and the Government were perfectly satisfied with what had taken place so far as Mr. St. John was concerned. He had done very good service to his country. Some months ago he caught fever, and they all knew what Peruvian fever was; but he remained against the opinion of all his medical advisers in Peru, and said that he 754 would not leave the country until these men were out of prison, and ultimately it was only upon the strongest advice and upon the statement that it would be nothing less than committing suicide for him longer to remain that he left Peru a few weeks ago. It was due to Mr. St. John, after the aspersions upon his character, to say these few words. He (Mr. Bourke) believed that he had done his duty most thoroughly. As to the claim which Her Majesty's Government had against the Peruvian Government, further Papers would be laid on the Table in the course of a few days. Not very long ago, he read to the House a strong extract from a message which had been sent to Peru. Another dispatch of even more stringent character had been written, and he did not think it was possible to address a friendly Government in stronger terms.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he should like to know what was the strong language that had been used? The remonstrances of the Government had been productive of very little result hitherto, and all he knew was that his unfortunate fellow-subjects had been in prison for a most unreasonable length of time. All Mr. St. John had been able to do had not yet been sufficient to secure the release of the prisoners. He had been powerless to set them free, and he (Mr. Anderson) wished to know what Her Majesty's Government intended to do if the strong words recently used towards Peru were similarly unsuccessful?
§ MR. BOURKEwould not anticipate what the result of the last despatch would be. All he would say was what was the opinion of the persons who were best informed upon the subject. Within the last few days a new President had been elected in Peru; and, the persons to whom he (Mr. Bourke) had referred were of opinion that this new President was likely to take a more energetic course than that followed by his Predecessor, and that in all probability the case would be satisfactorily settled. The last President was a person who strongly objected to anything like foreign intervention, and was inclined to resent it; whereas, he was told that his Successor was a person who was inclined to attend to a friendly representation made to the Peruvian Government. While the Government had hitherto done their best, 755 at the same time he wished the House to understand that the Government had not taken steps against the Government of Peru which they would not have taken under the same circumstances in the case of a stronger Power. That was one of the principles upon which they acted, and they were doubly cautious when the Power they had to deal with was a weak instead of a strong one. As to what ulterior measures might be taken that was not a question for diplomacy. Diplomacy was carried on up to a certain extent, and then it could go no further, and what might be the ulterior result it was not for him to say.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he had read the Papers very carefully, and he must say that he had come to the conclusion that the conduct of our Minister at Peru, long after the case occurred, was anything but energetic. He did not blame the present Government, because the period to which he referred was before the Government knew anything about the case; but he could not help thinking that if the vessel had been an American vessel, and our Minister an American Minister, with their mode of dealing with such questions, our sailors would have been liberated from prison long ago. Under these circumstances, he did think that our Minister had been very much indeed to blame, and that the Motion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) was a very fitting one.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Nine Resolutions agreed to.
§ The Eighteenth Resolution read a second time.