HC Deb 11 August 1877 vol 236 cc787-802
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would not have ventured to intrude upon the attention of the House at this supreme moment of the Session, if he did not consider the matter to which he desired to draw attention of adequate importance. He was taken severely to task the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for raising a discussion on the Papers relating to the engagement between Her Majesty's ships Shah and Amethyst and the Peruvian iron-clad Huascar. The right hon. Gentleman cast upon him the whole responsibility of that discussion, and he did not shrink from the responsibility of then raising and now renewing the discussion on this question. The ground on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer animadverted on his conduct was somewhat singular. Papers were laid on the Table of the House, which went forth not only to the country, but to the world, giving an account of transactions which everybody admitted to be very extraordinary, and yet the right hon. Gentleman declared that individual Members of Parliament were not at liberty to discuss these transactions except from a particular point of view which was indicated by the Government. The country and the world were told that when one of Her Majesty's ships attempted in the harbour of a friendly Power to destroy another vessel by torpedoes that was to be regarded by the country and the world, as long as Her Majesty's Government so regarded it, as a mere torpedo scientific experiment. He protested against that view of the case, and re- gretted that the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—with all the respect which was due to his character and station, and that courtesy which he had always shown to Members of that House—should have sanctioned a rebuke which he (Sir William Harcourt) could not accept in regard to this matter. The objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was both unfounded and un-Parliamentary. When Papers were laid upon the Table of the House, Parliament were invited to discuss them in all their bearings, and could not shrink from giving an opinion on the subject to which they referred. But then it was said the Papers were not complete, and it was not fair to discuss them till they were. But surely the responsibility for that state of things lay with the Government. Why did the Government lay on the Table incomplete Papers on a subject of such importance? Why did they not wait until the case was completed before they challenged—as they did challenge—the opinion not of the House of Commons only, but of the whole world, on the transaction in question? As to there being any unfairness towards the gallant Admiral in discussing the course he took on this matter, which was the objection taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, surely no man could complain of his conduct being examined on his own statement of the case. The gallant Admiral by his statement in the Papers invited opinion upon his acts; therefore both the objections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer— that they had no right to discuss this question from any other than a naval and experimental point of view, and that the Papers were incomplete — seemed to him to be entirely unfounded. The point which he (Sir William Harcourt) raised on this matter—what it was that constituted piracy—was one of importance to every maritime nation in the world, and above all to the greatest of maritime nations, ourselves. The justification put forward by Admiral de Horsey for the course he pursued was that the operations of the Huascar constituted acts of piracy. It was remarkable, however, that the first time the gallant Admiral designated the Huascar a pirate was after the action. Previously he spoke of her only as a rebel and as a revolutionary ship. This distinction he made clear in the summons the Admiral sent to the ship, in which he said, in effect—"You are not a pirate yet; but if you resist me, I shall regard you as a pirate and treat you as such." It was, unhappily, the practice of persons whose passions were heated to designate as piracy many acts which the Law of Nations did not so regard. During the American War a statute was passed by this country, declaring all the vessels of the revolted States to be pirates, a fact upon which Mr. Burke animadverted in a well-known passage. Again, an attempt, but from different motives, was made to designate as piracy that which was not piracy—in the case of the suppression of the Slave Trade—but that attempt was restrained by the celebrated judgment of Lord Stowell. During the Civil War in America occurred the celebrated case of the Savannah privateer, where the vessel was indicted by the Government of the United States as a pirate under the Law of Nations, and by the municipal law of the United States. But after much argument the decision arrived at in that case was, that it was not every lawless act committed by a vessel on the high seas, even though she did not bear the flag of any nation, that constituted piracy, and to constitute piracy the animus with which the acts relied on were committed must be considered. He alluded to these things, because they showed the immense danger of allowing their natural indignation at particular acts to designate as piracy that which was not piracy. He did not bring them up because he had a disposition to recriminate upon the Attorney General for the manner in which he fell foul of him (Sir William Harcourt) the other night. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a very good lawyer and a good-humoured man, and though the other night he spoke with a warmth unusual to his placid nature, he (Sir William Harcourt) looked upon it as entirely a professional performance. It was a sort of judicial hornpipe, yet the hon. and learned Gentleman did it with a grace and elegance which would have done honour to the boards of a transpntine stage—he, in short, represented the British tar admirably on that occasion. If he was disposed to say disagreeable things to the hon. and learned Gentleman—which he certainly was not—he might remind him of the torpedoes which were launched at his Slave Cir- cular, and warn him of the unwisdom of expressing rash conclusions upon grave matters of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman had described the acts of the Huascar as acts of piracy. He would advise the Attorney General to re-consider that opinion. For the first time the acts of the Huascar were alleged to be acts of piracy in the despatch of the 3rd of June. Up to that time there was one person who was not of opinion that they were acts of piracy, and that person was the gallant Admiral himself. That appeared very plainly, because in his despatch of the 16th of May, which was nearly a fortnight before the action, he warned the commander of the Huascar that "any interference with British ships, subjects, or property by a revolutionary ship owing allegiance to no recognized or established Government" would necessitate his seizing the ship, and delivering her to the Peruvian Government. His inclination at that time, therefore, was not to seize her as a pirate, but to deliver her to the Peruvian Government, which, had she been a pirate, he would have had no right to do. Had she been a pirate the duty of a British Admiral would have been to bring her to England, to have tried the crew at the Old Bailey, and have hanged them as pirates. He would ask the Attorney General, whether, had the ship been captured and brought here, he would have placed the crew upon their trial for piracy? That was the real test, and he would ask the Attorney General to reflect before he answered that question. The order of summons to the ship Huascar also bore out the idea that Admiral de Horsey did not regard her as a pirate. In that document he said— If the Huascar's colours are at once hauled down, and the ship peaceably delivered up, the lives, liberties, and personal property of all on board will be respected. But was that the way to treat piracy? Why, it was compounding the most heinous of felonies in the most unjustifiable and improper manner. No man would have held such language in respect of a ship which he regarded as a pirate. Again, the Admiral said of the captain and crew that in case of surrender he would land them at such neutral place as the commander might desire. Was it possible to believe that the gallant Admiral then thought he was deal- ing with pirates? The Admiral went on to say that— If any resistance is offered, or a single man of Her Majesty's Navy be hurt, I make no terms, and the officers and crew of the Huascar will be liable to be treated as pirates. He (Sir William Harcourt) was not condemning the gallant Admiral for stating his view of the case; but this he said—that it behoved the Government to come to such a decision with respect to it as would prevent mistakes of the kind occurring in future. Of course, if this transaction were covered with the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney General, it would go forth not only as a letter of licence, but as an instruction to the commanders of our ships all over the world to take a similar view of these transactions. It was true that the Huascar had stopped several British ships. Two of her officers boarded the Santa Rosa, and called on her commander to deliver any despatches he had on board belonging to the Peruvian Government. The commander refused, and the officers said they had no power to enforce the demand, but had their chief, Periola, been on board the Huascar, they would probably have taken them by force. This was all that happened, no other demands were made, and the ship was allowed to go on her way. He did not say that act was justifiable. It was, on the contrary, wilfully unlawful; but he stated with confidence that it was not an act of piracy. Piracy was an act with which was associated outrage and violence, and the mere stopping of a ship and asking for despatches, and going away when they were refused, could not be considered as piratical. The next case was that of the John Elder, which was stopped by the firing of a blank gun. Two officers boarded her. They said they came to see whether any troops were on board; and they demanded to see any official correspondence the captain might have. The reply was that there were neither troops nor official correspondence on board. The officers said they must search the ship. Against this the captain protested, saying his was a British mail steamer on its way to Callao to catch the English mail, and that every minute was valuable. Whereupon the officer asked for some engine oil, and the captain, fearing he would carry out his threat and search the ship, supplied him with 30 gallons of engine oil, one case of brandy, two dozen pints of ale, and 100 cigars, for which the ship was paid in Peruvian currency. Well, it could scarcely be said that the stoppage of a vessel and the purchase of 100 cigars and two dozen pints of pale ale constituted an act of piracy. Then there was the case of the Mollendo, which was somewhat similar, and of the Columbia, as to which no deposition had been made. These transactions were wrongful and unlawful, and might be said to amount to conspiring or kidnapping, but could they, he asked, be called piracy? The strongest case was that in which the captain of the Huascar sent a steam launch to a vessel lying in harbour and took from her a quantity of coal, but without threat or force. These acts were not committed for the purpose of outrage or plunder, but in furtherance of the revolutionary action in which the Huascar was engaged. She had clearly no right to stop ships as she had done, and the British captain had a right to take steps to stop such proceedings; but it was not on that account that they were to characterize as piracy acts which were devoid of the elements of that heinous offence. The Attorney General might ask him to say what the Admiral ought to have done. He admitted that the circumstances were very difficult, and that a British Admiral was entitled to use such moderate force as was necessary to restrain operations of that description. But it was the essence of the criminal law that the vengeance should be apportioned to the offence committed. If that were not done, they would not carry with them the sentiments of the civilized world. If the gallant Admiral regarded the Huascar as a pirate, he ought to have brought her to this country, and had he done so, would the hon. and learned Gentleman have indicted her captain and crew at the Old Bailey for piracy? He had no doubt he would not; and had he done so, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have found no Grand Jury who would have brought in a true bill. Piracy was the highest crime known. To stop the acts of the Huascar was justifiable, and if she resisted force must be used in self-defence. There were several cases which showed that that was the Law of Nations. But there must be an overwhelming necessity for such a course. But here in cold blood a torpedo was sent into the harbour of a friendly State without any consent, with the view of blowing up the Huascar. The Admiral had set forth the instructions which he gave to those in charge of the torpedo expedition, and the infinite danger of a transaction of that character was sufficiently indicated in the despatches. He, as before stated, admitted that the acts of the Huascar were unlawful as against British, merchantmen, and that the British Admiral's duty was to restrain those acts, but only by proper means and in proper places. And were those means taken? Even assuming that the conduct of the Huascar was as he had indicated, he would ask whether it was sufficient to justify the action of the British Admiral—whether it was proper, even if she were an enemy, to send out a torpedo expedition against her—whether it was a proper proceeding in the dead of the night to send a torpedo into a friendly harbour without the consent of the State to which the harbour belonged? If that was a proper course of proceeding, he had read the Law of Nations in vain. There could be no doubt as to the fact, for the directions given on that point were perfectly clear. It was a grave matter, and it ought not to be postponed until next Session, but they ought to know at once what would be their instructions to the Admirals all over the world. Would they be at liberty to send torpedo expeditions to blow up such ships as the Huascar? He had no desire to censure, or demand censure, of the hon. and gallant Admiral de Horsey for this particular transaction, as he no doubt acted according to the best of his lights in the matter; but the question ought to be gravely considered, and a decision come to upon it at once as instructive to the British Navy. He hoped that the Navy of England would always be supreme in the world. Its duty was the police of the seas of the world, and the principles by which it should be guided should be accurately laid down by the Government. He did not see what further Papers there could be upon the matter, as the question between the Government and the Government of Peru had nothing to do with it. He could not treat the acts of the Huascar as being those of a pirate, though the British Admiral had a right to restrain them. He did not wish to place any limit to restrain his action; but though the Navy of Great Britain had a giant's strength, they ought not to use it except in a manner which would be conformable to the practice and sentiments of other nations. He hoped the question would be dealt with in a calm spirit, and that the Attorney General would not treat it in the rash and inconsiderate way which characterized his speech on the same subject a few nights ago.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this was a very important question, and hoped the House would not grudge the necessary time, even on a Saturday afternoon, at the close of the Session, for its discussion. It was a question which if not clearly understood might involve this country in complications with foreign Powers and might also result in an implied, if not an expressed, censure upon as brave an officer as ever trod the quarter-deck of one of Her Majesty's ships. The hon. and learned Gentleman was in error in saying that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had forbidden the House from discussing this question and in saying that this was mentioned as a torpedo experiment— [SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That was my own expression.] His right hon. Friend had not forbidden discussion. All he said was, that it was not convenient to discuss it until all the information upon the subject was before the House, and in that he was perfectly right. The hon. and learned Gentleman had intimated that he (the Attorney General) had on the former occasion taken an unusual course, and had read him a lecture and given him advice as to his future conduct. Perhaps he might profit by that advice, if he thought it correct. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred with something like a sneer to the opinions which he had given with respect to the Slave Circular. Now, he contended that those opinions were perfectly right. They had obtained the concurrence of many of the most eminent lawyers, and he did not retract one syllable of what he had said on that subject. There could be no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman possessed in a high degree the arts of a debater, among which was the ability to put into the mouths of his opponents arguments which they had never used, and then in a skilful way to demolish those arguments. All the talk about torpedo experiments was as nothing to it. And was not that quite true? The other night the hon. and learned Gentleman, if not by expressions, by forcible insinuations, blamed Admiral de Horsey, and said that he had no right to make war against the Huascar— [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT begged pardon; he had said nothing of the sort.] He would appeal to the House if that was not the sense of his observations; but having reflected upon the matter he now came down and stated that he (the Attorney General) considered that the Huascar was guilty of piracy. Now, he had never asserted anything of the kind. What he really did state was, that if the Huascar had committed such acts as made her the enemy of Great Britain, the Admiral was entitled to make war upon her. She was not a belligerent, but a rover committing depredations which made her an enemy of Her Majesty, and therefore it could not be disputed that the Admiral could wage war upon her. Was that so or not? It was not necessary to deal with the question of piracy. The question was, what was the position and status of the Huascar? Was she a belligerent, or the vessel of a belligerent Power, to which the Representative of our Government was under an obligation to extend belligerent rights? If she was, the proceedings of the Admiral might be open to some censure, and it was desirable to know what the Peruvian Government had to say on the subject. But upon the Papers before them there was no pretext for saying that she was a vessel belonging to a belligerent Power. To make that out there must be a rebellion, and the rebels must have established something like a Government. It was not for every vessel of such a Government to do certain acts upon the high seas against neutral ships. If such cruisers did commit acts of depredation without authority the neutral States would demand satisfaction. If the Huascar was a belligerent she would be responsible. He was anxious that the question should be deliberately dealt with. Wheaton said it was always important to consider whether a ship acting in such a manner could be treated as a belligerent; and in order to make out that the Huascar was a belligerent there must have been a rebellion in Peru, and that it had been so far successful as that the insurgents had constituted themselves into a State capable of discharging the duties of government. But that was not the case here. If the Huascar had been a belligerent she would have had a right to stop neutral vessels and search them for stores. She would not have the right to take passengers from such vessels, or goods or merchandize, or to imprison British subjects; and if she did so, and satisfactory explanations were not given, we should have the right to demand redress. However, the Huascar was in no sense a belligerent, and for that opinion he would refer to a passage in de Lolme, who stated that if a ship were not a belligerent, but was cruising about committing depredations, she was a pirate, and might be treated as such. If the rebels in possession of the Huascar had so far succeeded as to establish something the nature of a State in Peru the vessel might have been treated as a belligerent; but that not being the case, she ought, according to the various authorities upon the subject, to be treated as a pirate. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him, whether, if the Huascar had been taken by the Admiral, he would have advised a prosecution for piracy against them. In strictness they were pirates, and might have been treated as such; but it was one thing to say that, according to the strict letter of the law, people had been guilty of acts of piracy, and another to advise that they should be tried for their for their lives and hanged at Newgate. This vessel, the Huascar, was under no commission of any sort. She was roving the seas without a commission, having been taken possession of by a mutinous crew. She began by stopping two British mail steamers. The hon. and learned Gentleman said she did no harm to them. But the Huascar boarded them, searched them for despatches, and the captain of one of these vessels, the John Elder, under the terror of the presence of the Huascar, handed over a quantity of engine oil and some bitter beer and cigars, which the Huascar paid for in Peruvian currency. The captain might have spared the oil, but he probably parted with more reluctance with the bitter beer and the tobacco. That, however, was an insult to the British flag. What right had the Huascar to stop a British merchant vessel and demand to see whether she had any despatches on board? The Huascar also stopped another British steamer, and took out a Peruvian passenger who was on board under the protection of the British flag. That was an act which could not be palliated. She also came down upon another vessel, the Imuncina, from which she took 69 tons of coal and 500 empty bags. The Huascar gave a receipt for the coal, but did not pay for it even in Peruvian currency. Mr. Rowland Campbell, chief officer of the Imuncina, gave the following account of the affair:— At 4 p.m., Saturday the 12th May, anchored at Pisagua; an officer from the Peruvian man-of-war Huascar came on board, wanting our coals, which the captain refused to give. He would take no denial, and sent a launch alongside, and commenced to load her with his own crew; the officer having a sword and revolver on. Sunday, May 13th.—Launches from the Peruvian man-of-war came alongside, and took other four launches of coals from us. Monday, May 14th.—The Huascar took another launch from us. At 1 p.m. the Huascar left the Harbour."—[Parl. P. 369.] The second mate confirmed this account, adding that the Huascar took the coals when the captain refused to give them. "On Sunday she took four more launches of coal, and on Monday one, after which she left."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

read on.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

— No threatening language was used, except that the officer said he must take the coals, and no violence was used, or the ship in any way detained thereby. The officer had a sword and a revolver on. And this was the hon. and learned Gentleman's idea of "no force." Here was the most powerful man-of-war that ever belonged to the Peruvian Government, and, perhaps, as powerful as any man-of-war in Her Majesty's Navy, going alongside a bark—a species of collier— which the Huascar might have blown to the winds of Heaven in three minutes. The captain of the Huascar told the master of the bark that he wanted the coals, and must have them. He sent an officer armed with a sword and revolver to take care that there should be no resistance. And yet the hon. and learned Gentleman said that no force was used. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said "no violence."] He (the Attorney General) would suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman was walking home some night, and met a depredator armed with a revolver, who said he would trouble him for his purse. That would be a ease in which, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, no violence or threats would be used. Yet if he were obliged to relinquish his purse he would not hesitate to call the case one of robbery. After this occurrence came the knowledge of the forcible detention of a British subject on board the Huascar. The master of the Imuncina, lying at Pisagua on the 13th of May, made the following statement:— Mr. Armstrong, the chief engineer of the Huascar, called on board on the 13th, when I was on shore, under charge of an officer with a sword and revolver in his belt, and said he had obtained half-an-hour's leave, of which 20 minutes had then expired, and wished to make out a protest to take to the British Consul, as he was detained on board by force, and was obliged to get steam up at the point of the bayonet at Callao. He sat down to write out the protest, but the officer said the time was up, and he must go away. He asked if I could come on board, so that he could make out the protest. My boat went alongside the launch, which was alongside the Huascar, and Mr. Armstrong dropped a letter into my boat for me, but the officer on board noticed it, and tore the letter up. Here was the case of the undoubted imprisonment of a British subject who was compelled to act as engineer of the Huascar, and obliged to get up steam at the point of the bayonet. And the Huascar was not a vessel having any belligerent rights, but was a mere depredator without any rights whatever, and her crew and those who navigated her might have been treated as pirates. The case of the Savannah had been referred to, the crew of which had been proceeded against as pirates, and justly so, because, whatever offence they might have committed against neutral nations, they were with regard to the United States not only pirates, but traitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the Huascar was an enemy to Her Majesty, and that the Admiral was right in treating her as such. But how was he to treat her as an enemy of Her Majesty except by waging war upon her? And. if he were right in so treating her, where was he to stop? The Huascar was called upon to surrender, and she refused. The Admiral took steps accordingly to make her surrender. The engagement which, ensued redounded to the credit of Admiral de Horsey, but he was not able to obtain her surrender. In regard to the torpedo expedition, he did not wish to say much. He confessed he did not much like such expeditions himself; but there was nothing contrary to the rules of war in one vessel which had been engaged with another sending a torpedo expedition after her. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Admiral was wrong in sending a torpedo expedition after the Huascar into the port of a friendly Power, where it might have done great mischief. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had some geographical knowledge of the country to justify this statement; but it was not necessarily dangerous, because a ship was in a large bay, to send a torpedo expedition after her, and under the circumstances the Admiral was perfectly justified in following his enemy into the harbour where he supposed she had fled. The Peruvian Government was no doubt a friendly Power, and they were beseeching Admiral de Horsey to seize the ship. They had, indeed, positively offered rewards to any who might capture her, and they had most heartily thanked the Admiral for driving her into a corner where she must be captured. What, then, became of the contention that this torpedo expedition was sent into the port of a friendly Power against the will of that Power? Finally, he would refer the House to the conclusion of the Admiral's despatch, in which he had stated as succinctly and clearly as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself could have done the reasons which had induced him to take action against the Huascar—

  1. " 1. The Huascar in boarding and detaining the John Elder at sea, in boarding and demanding despatches from the Santa Rosa, in forcibly taking coal from the Imuncina, in forcibly taking a Peruvian officer out of the Columbia, and in forcibly compelling the engineer, a British subject, to serve against his will, committed acts which could not be tolerated."
  2. "2. The Huascar, having no lawful commission as a ship of war, and owning no allegiance to any State, and the Peruvian Government having disclaimed all responsibility for her acts, no reclamation or satisfaction could be obtained except from that ship herself."
  3. "3. That the status of the Huascar, previous to action with the Shah and Amethyst, was, if not that of a pirate, at least that of a rebel ship having committed piratical acts."
  4. " 4. That the status of the Huascar, after refusing to yield to my lawful authority, and after 800 engaging Her Majesty's ships, was that of a pirate."
  5. "5. That had the Huascar not been destroyed or captured, there would have remained no safety to British ships or property on this coasts, not even to Her Majesty's ships, as the Huascar might have destroyed the Shah or the Amethyst, by ramming any night at any port they were found."
  6. "6. That I trust the lesson that has been taught to offenders against international law will prove beneficial to British interests for many years to come."
  7. "7. That I have carefully abstained from any interference with the interests of the Peruvian Government, or those of the persons in armed rebellion against that Government; my action in respect to the Huascar having been entirely for British interests."
He would now ask the House whether the reasons given by the Admiral were not perfectly just and proper, and whether they had not fully warranted his action against the Huascar? The Admiral could not, in his opinion, have given better reasons for the course he had pursued if he had consulted Dana or any other of the high authorities on International Law.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he had never heard a more groundless case than that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). He dissented from his doctrines altogether. The text from the Civil Law—the Pandects of Justinian—which contained the fundamental principle of the law of piracy, he believed he could state from memory. It was—"Hostes sunt qui nobis vel quibus nos publice bellum decrevimus; omnes alii prædones et piratæ sunt." A piratical ship was a ship of war which did not lawfully bear the flag and commission of a State or Government. The question was, whether the Huascar came within the law of piracy. She was a rebel ship against the Peruvian Government. She had stopped British ships, and had committed various acts which he asserted, without fear of contradiction, were acts of piracy. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked whether her captain and crew could have been indicted at the Old Bailey for piracy? and he replied that they could undoubtedly have been so indicted. She was hostis humani generis, and was properly treated by the Admiral as such, because she had committed piratical acts and had no lawful commission. In face of the evidence before the House, he declared that a more groundless case than that of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had never been put forward.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he thought there was something beyond the legal aspect of the question which ought to be considered. English officers in various parts of the world had often very difficult and dangerous duties to perform, and unfortunately they had not always on board a gentleman of the legal acumen of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford; and if the dicta which that hon. and learned Gentleman had laid down were correct, commanders ought in future to be provided with a special pleader, in order that they might know when another vessel was infringing British interests. From information he had received from Peru he should say that the Huascar was seized by some speculator with the view of endeavouring to upset a guano contract which was in existence and to substitute another for it. Admiral de Horsey had performed a very manly English act, which any other English officer would have thought it his duty to do in such circumstances, and the Papers which he had sent home reflected the greatest credit upon him. He (Sir Charles Russell) knew how very sensitive British officers were, and he only hoped that the speeches which the hon. and learned Member had made against the Admiral would be counteracted by the opinion of the House of Commons approving the course pursued in most difficult circumstances by Admiral de Horsey.

DR. CAMERON

deprecated a discussion of the matter upon the very imperfect information that was before the House. The whole matter turned upon whether the Huascar was a rebel ship— a belligerent or a pirate. The Attorney General had arrived at an opinion on that point which he dared not question; but it did seem to him that the Attorney General had altogether ignored the statements made, and the facts of the whole case set forth by the Peruvians themselves. As he understood, the Huascar had actually been engaged on. a rebel cruise for some weeks, and had bombarded some towns, and set up a de facto Government in those towns. On the question of the coal, it was said that the coal belonged to a Peruvian subject, and that the captain of the Huascar only used sufficient force to take out the coal, which he had purchased of its owner, the Peruvian subject, who was quite willing that he should take the coal. As to the question of the passenger, it should be remembered that the Huascar, being a belligerent, was within her right. When the Shah sent a despatch to the Huascar, Admiral de Horsey drew attention to the fact of Armstrong's detention on board. What did Periola do? Periola called all his men together, and asked whether there were any British subjects on board, and offered them liberty to leave the vessel, which some of them did. Even if a British subject had been detained, he would ask them to remember that the recognized Peruvian Government had detained no fewer than 18 British subjects on board one of their vessels, and no decisive action was taken in the matter. Was it surprising that Periola should think the detention of one man a few weeks was not regarded as a very serious matter or a very gross outrage? He contended that the Papers laid before the House were not sufficient, and, further, that they did not contain all the facts. For instance, they did not mention that the torpedo expedition was almost on the point of blowing up a Spanish vessel in mistake. All those material facts had been suppressed. The statements were of an ex parte character, and they were bound to investigate the statement of the Peruvians before they came to any decision. It would be dangerous to arrive at a decision in the absence of information which was indispensable if they were to come to any satisfactory conclusion.

[The subject then dropped.]