§ MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What overt act of war Mr. Shaw is alleged to have committed to justify his being tried as a British subject by a French court martial?
MR. GLADSTONEWhether or not the description I gave yesterday of the acts alleged against Mr. Shaw would constitute overt acts of war I am not able to say. There may be some difficulty; but what I understand, on taking 1504 the best advice I can, is that there is no reason for us, with our present information, to presume that there has been an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the French authorities, viewing all the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. BOURKECan the right hon. Gentleman state whether the overt acts, which have made this missionary amenable to be tried by court martial for giving assistance to the enemy and being guilty of hostile actions against the French, consisted of nothing more than giving refuge to the fugitives and establishing an ambulance corps? Is there any information in the possession of the Government that this gentleman has committed any other alleged offence than these two?
MR. GLADSTONEI think certainly, as far as I am able to form a judgment, though I cannot speak with authority, that the allegation of those two acts against Mr. Shaw would not correspond with the description given by the French Government to us of the charges, upon which charges the House will understand it is not for me to give any sort of opinion.
§ MR. PLUNKETasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the circumstances of the arrest of Mr. Shaw, a British subject, by order of the French Admiral at Tamatave, described by the Prime Minister on 11th July as "a grave and painful occurrence," and to the continued detention of Mr. Shaw on board a French man of war, and his threatened trial by Court Martial, Her Majesty's Government have put themselves, or intend to put themselves, in communication with Mr. Shaw; and, whether he can now inform the House when and where the Court Martial on Mr. Shaw will be held?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am so far glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put this Question, as it enables me to remove from his mind what is evidently a misapprehension. He is under the impression that on a former day I described the arrest of Mr. Shaw as a grave and painful occurrence. That is not so. I used epithets to that effect undoubtedly with regard to the telegraphic intelligence that had come from Madagascar, but it had reference to a different matter. What I said had reference to what, drawing an 1505 inference from the telegrams, necessarily very succinct, had a grave and painful appearance—namely, the case of Mr. Pakenham, the British Consul. [Oh!"] That is so, Sir. I offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman the rectification. If he does not like to accept it that is another matter. We saw from the telegrams that it might he inferred with a certain amount of presumption, though not demonstratively, that the order to Mr. Pakenham to quit the town had been given knowingly by the French Admiral at a time when Mr. Pakenham was extremely and dangerously ill; and further, even, that Mr. Pakenham's death was hastened by that order. The detailed intelligence that has now come in the shape of letters I think removes both of these impressions which might have been drawn from the telegram, and these are what I described as grave and painful occurrences. Of course, the arrest of Mr. Shaw is a serious occurrence, and one with regard to which it is the absolute duty of the Government to watch with the greatest care what takes place. With respect to placing ourselves in communication with Mr. Shaw, no intimation has been conveyed to us that such a desire or a sense of such a necessity exists on the part of that gentleman or his friends; and we have not thought it our duty spontaneously, in the case of a British subject charged in a foreign country, to make an application to the Foreign Government with the view of placing ourselves in communication with him until we have reason to suppose there is some practical object to be gained by it, or necessity for it. We have no information as to the place where, or the time when, the court martial will be held.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he found from the report in The Times of the right hon. Gentleman's former speech that immediately after referring to the arrest of Mr. Shaw, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as "a grave and painful occurrence." Of course, however, he accepted the explanation. He desired to ask the Prime Minister now whether he was satisfied that Mr. Shaw had any means of communication with the Government if he wished to do so? The House had been informed that Mr. Shaw was practically a prisoner on board a French ship of war, and they had no further knowledge of him. 1506 Would the Prime Minister take steps to afford Mr. Shaw the opportunity to obtain a fair trial and the assistance of counsel, if necessary?
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. and learned Gentleman may be justified by the report he has read; but I am most distinct in my recollection upon the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will hardly say that he himself, from his own recollection of what I said, can urge that when I spoke of the "grave and painful occurrence" I referred to Mr. Shaw. It was not in my mind in the slightest degree, and it is quite inappropriate to say that the arrest of a British subject in circumstances of war by a Foreign Power was a grave and painful occurrence. It would be an exaggerated style of speech on the part of a Minister, and not warranted on matters on which he felt he had only partial information. I have the strongest conviction that Mr. Shaw can have expressed no desire to communicate with the Government, for I do not for a moment entertain the supposition with respect to a friendly Government that upon the expression of such a desire by Mr. Shaw the knowledge of that desire would be kept from us.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to ask a Question, to which I do not know if the Government can give me an answer, on the very point to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, that of Mr. Shaw communicating with his friends. I have a letter from a gentleman—I do not know if I am at liberty to mention his name—who very lately came from Madagascar, and who is in a position which is very likely to make him well acquainted with what is going on. He says—
Do you know, Sir, that when Mrs. Shaw arrived at Tamatave on the 26th Juno to join her husband, after two years' absence from ill-health, her three successive written applications to Admiral Pierre for permission to see her husband were refused, and not being allowed to land, she had to return to the Mauritius without seeing him.I want to know if the Government have any information as to any attempt on the part of Mrs. Shaw to see her husband?
MR. GLADSTONESir, there is certainly no information, as far as my knowledge goes—and I think I am correct—amounting to anything like what 1507 has been read by the right hon. Gentleman. I feel that these are Questions which, if they are intended to be discussed as Questions of right, are very nice matters indeed. I am not prepared to state precisely that we have a right to demand from a Foreign Government with regard to the access of friends to a person whom, upon what they think a charge of a legal offence, they have felt it their duty to imprison. This is a very nice question indeed, and one upon which it would be highly imprudent in me to commit myself in answer to an inquiry across this Table. The question what courtesy and what humanity may be thought in our judgment to require is a different question; but although we have reason to believe that some restraints have been placed upon Mr. Shaw with regard to his family which we may not have thought necessary, or for which we may not be able to urge sufficient reasons, yet I think it better that I should not attempt to give any opinion upon that, or, in the absence of full information, state what may have occurred, until I know more perfectly. This, at any rate, I can fairly say—we will make careful inquiry into these allegations if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly supply us with the information in his possession.
§ MR. BOURKEI hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer this Question. He said yesterday that Mr. Shaw was to be tried by a French court martial, and that the finding of that Court would be brought to review by what he called a Court of Revision. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that Court of Revision is to be a Court held in France, or whether it is to be a Court merely composed of naval officers, or other French officers, at Madagascar?
MR. GLADSTONEI have no information on the subject. The information which I communicated was given exactly as it was received by us from the French Government.
§ MR. BOURKEWill not the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the French Government that any Court of Review held at Madagascar composed of French officers would be extremely unsatisfactory to this country?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I would not undertake to lay down rules in anticipation as to the way in which the trial ought to be conducted of a person who has 1508 been arrested in these circumstances, and I think that to do so would be exceedingly unwise. Our business is to take care that the interests of Mr. Shaw are properly protected, and that he is tried according to the general principles of justice, in the shape in which those principles are applied by the laws of a highly-civilized country, whose jurisprudence holds a very leading position in Europe. I admit we are not precluded from interfering, were there a presumption that injustice was about to be done; but, knowing the character of the French nation and of its jurisprudence, we are not justified in presuming, without adequate cause, that injustice is about to be done in this case. I am quite willing to make inquiry as to the nature of this Court of Revision; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press us further.
§ MR. MACFARLANEHas Mr. Shaw any means of sending out letters to his friends, or to the officer commanding H.M.S. Dryad? Or is he a prisoner in solitary confinement?
MR. GLADSTONEMr. Shaw is not a prisoner in solitary confinement, as appears from the answer which I gave yesterday. He was left by the French Consul at Zanzibar walking about the deck of a French ship. With respect to the other Question of the hon. Member, I would request him to give Notice.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if it was not a fact that the French Admiral ordered Consul Pakenham to haul down his flag within 24 hours; and whether in 24 hours, the flag not having been hauled down by Consul Pakenham, the French themselves hauled it down? He would also like to know whether it was not a fact that Captain Johnstone, in a despatch to the Admiralty, had not said he was not allowed to communicate with Mr. Shaw?
MR. GLADSTONEI think all these matters were covered by the answer I gave yesterday. I have said there is a somewhat complex Correspondence involving a considerable variety of incidents; and, in our opinion, it is not possible to convey a real knowledge of those incidents, so as to enable the House to pass judgment upon them, except by the presentation of Papers. To present the Papers at this time would not be favourable to the public interest, because, in the first instance, there are 1509 several points which must be the subject of communication between the two Governments. As regards any further Questions of this character, I should be very glad to have Notice.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked how Mr. Shaw was to obtain access to any counsel, if he was not allowed to communicate with anyone on shore? He also inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain a similar assurance from the French Government to that he got from the Egyptian Government—namely, that Mr. Shaw should not be executed without Her Majesty's Government being first of all communicated with?
MR. GLADSTONEI have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that Mr. Shaw has perfect means of providing himself with legal assistance. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary it will be matter for our immediate attention.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFNeither his wife nor the Commander of the Dryad was allowed to see him.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman, perhaps, assumes more than he is justified in doing; but, supposing that to be the case, how am I able to say that the Commander, who was not at the time invested with any civil character at all——
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFHe was acting Consul.
MR. GLADSTONEHe was not acting Consul at all. The hon. Gentleman interrupts to give information instead of asking it. The Commander had no civil authority. He did his best as a gallant British officer; but he had no authority or warrant to act in a civil capacity. But if the hon. Member for Portsmouth has any reason to suppose that Mr. Shaw has any sort of difficulty in obtaining proper means of defence, that is a matter which, upon the receipt of evidence, shall have our immediate attention.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESurely the Government will ascertain for themselves whether Mr. Shaw has proper means of obtaining advice or not?
MR. GLADSTONESir, we are in charge of the relations of this country with foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware of the bearing these Questions have on 1510 the amity and goodwill existing between this country and another country. If I were the Foreign Minister of this country, I should deem it a slight and an offence that anyone should come before me and presume that we were about to proceed towards a subject of a foreign land in defiance of the elementary principles of justice. So, in the same manner, I am prepared to deal out to the French Government the measure I should expect them to deal out to me; and I will not, without some presumption that the French Government contemplate an erroneous course—I will not give an answer which, in my opinion, would imply that they were neglecting the very first principles that should govern the intercourse between two nations.
§ MR. PLUNKETAs this discussion has arisen out of a Question which I submitted to the House, and which was a fair one, perhaps I may be allowed to ask this Question—for I hold that this House is in charge of the liberties of British subjects—Is the House to understand that the Government will leave this matter in its present condition? Mr. Shaw, a British subject, imprisoned on board a French man-of-war, the Government having evidence that the Commander of the British ship and others endeavoured to communicate with him in vain; no evidence that he has any means of communication with his friends; awaiting his trial by court martial, it may be upon a capital crime——["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with matters of a controversial nature.
MR. GLADSTONEThe Question involves so much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can hardly expect me, in the midst of my occupations, to answer all the points from memory.
§ MR. ONSLOWunderstood the Prime Minister to say it was the duty of the Government to see that the interests of Mr. Shaw were consulted and that justice was done. How was this to be done if Her Majesty's Government did not see that Mr. Shaw had proper counsel provided for him?
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Member has not informed me, nor has any other person, that Mr. Shaw has been in any respect hindered, or put in any difficulty with regard to the means of his legal defence; but when any evidence is brought 1511 before Her Majesty's Government to show that such is the case, it will receive our immediate attention.