§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I rise, according to Notice, to ask a Question of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the imprisonment of three English engineers serving on board the Leon XIII., and to move for Papers. When I first placed this Notice upon the Paper we were not aware of the very much graver matter which has occupied the attention of the noble Earl. Though the actual interests involved in the matter to which my Notice refers are not extensive, the question which is raised is one of some importance; and I should like to hoar what the noble Earl has to say upon it. The case is this. Three English engineers sailed in a Spanish steamship which had been manufactured on the Clyde, and when they were in the Red Sea they were seized by the Spanish captain, placed in irons, and confined below decks. This was done on a charge which was not 1661 subsequently pressed, and which I may, therefore, assume was not held to have any validity. They were kept in irons for three months below decks in the latitude of the Equator, and the windows were closed. This was severe treatment; but it amounted to no more than a private grievance—a matter for the consideration of English engineers proposing to servo on Spanish ships, but not a matter which could come under the notice of the Government and the House. But when they reached Point de Galle they contrived to send ashore a statement of the treatment they were receiving. The result was telegraphic communication with Singapore; and when the ship arrived there, a motion was made for a Writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of bringing the men up before the Court, in order to ascertain by what right they were confined. The captain refused to obey this Writ; and in so refusing he was supported by the Spanish Consul; and the refusal has subsequently been sustained by the Spanish Government. The position taken up by the Spanish Consul and the Spanish Government seems to be that even in English waters a British subject is not within the jurisdiction of the Writ of one of Her Majesty's Courts if he is on a merchant vessel flying a foreign flag. Of course, what would be true of Singapore would be equally true of the Thames; and, under this doctrine, a British subject might undergo the most unjust and outrageous treatment on board a foreign merchant vessel; and the treatment might be continued even after the issue of a Writ of habeas corpus from one of the Queen's Courts. The noble Earl has very properly refused to accept that doctrine; but I could wish that it had been negatived in a more decisive manner, because it is a doctrine which I am sure neither the English Government nor the English people could listen to for a single moment. But I have not stated all the facts. After the captain of the ship refused to obey the Writ of Attachment which was issued against him, he was brought before the Chief Court of the Colony. As he refused to produce the men, he was himself committed. It was stated in Court that it would be necessary to take measures to prevent the ship from carrying away the three engineers in the hold; but the captain, and the counsel who was defending him, 1662 told the Judge that the ship would not move away, that the men would be produced next morning, and that the ship could not leave, as she had no provisions. The Spanish Consul was by when that statement was made to the Judge. No sooner was the Court over than he walked down to the quay, and, with the help of some engineers from a neighbouring Spanish vessel, raised the anchor, and ran the ship out to sea with the three engineers on board, and carried her on to Manilla. I regret very much that, under those circumstances, the noble Earl has not withdrawn Her Majesty's exequatur from that Consul. His ground for not doing so is that the Consul acted in good faith, but under a misapprehension; but a Consul who so grossly misconceives his duty is not fit to possess Her Majesty's exequatur. I do not wish to impugn his motives; but considering the doctrines that have been advanced by the Spanish Government, and considering that the Consul has since been decorated for his share in these proceedings, I cannot but think that the notice taken of the transaction by the noble Earl is inadequate. It is necessary that the Government should insist upon obedience in British waters to the Writs of Her Majesty's Courts; and it is necessary that the liberty of British subjects serving on foreign vessels should be fully secured; and, therefore, I believe that grave and serious notice ought to be taken of conduct similar to that which this Spanish Consul has pursued, and that the matter ought not to be left in its present unsettled state. I am afraid there is danger that this case might be cited on future occasions as a case in which it was held that it was doubtful whether the denial of the Queen's jurisdiction was not rightly made. I, therefore, trust that the noble Earl may be in a position to assure us that an emphatic protest has issued from his Office.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, in considering this matter, it is necessary to consider the difference between the two questions which are involved in it. For the engineers themselves there is no doubt that the case was one of very great hardship; but the remedy of those who take employment under foreigners must be sought for in the Courts of the country to which those foreigners belong, and so must the remedy in this 1663 particular case. The Spanish Consul at Liverpool has volunteered to act as an assessor in this case, and has stated that his decision would be recognized as binding on the owners, and the captain of the vessel. In the interest of the engineers Her Majesty's Government thought it best formally to ask the Spanish Government whether the decision of the Spanish Consul would be accepted as final—whether, in short, it would have a legal binding effect in the event of its being in favour of the men? We have not yet received a reply to that question, but are expecting it daily; and, in the meantime, we do not feel that we can do anything in the matter. With regard to the other point of complaint against the Spanish Consul and the Spanish Government, I do not think that at present we have any case as regards the Spanish Government. However, we may still have reason for complaint, provided the action of the men results in an obvious miscarriage of justice; and in the event of such a state of circumstances arising it will, of course, be necessary to make diplomatic representations to the Spanish Government. We have, however, very great reason to complain of the acts of the Consul at Singapore; but after considering the whole question, and ascertaining that he was acting under a misapprehension as to the nature of a Writ of habeas corpus—a misapprehension afterwards shared in by the Spanish Government—we do not think the case so bad as it appears to be at first sight. Your Lordships ought to remember that the Government of the Philippines acted in a most commendable and conciliatory manner, and, losing no time, liberated the three engineers from the ship in which they were confined. But there is another consideration which has influenced Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Some months ago we had reason to complain of the tone and character of the communications we received from the Spanish Government; but since that time a very great change has taken place, and nothing could now be more courteous and conciliatory than the language adopted by them towards us. The noble Marquess says that the question has been left open, and certainly it has been left open as regards the right of the engineers; but if your Lordships will read the Papers you will 1664 see that, so far as the Government is concerned, it has been very fairly closed, though, as I have said, it may be reopened in the event of a gross miscarriage of justice.