8
had examined the Spanish Treaties and Cedulas, but could find nothing therein to bar the Spanish Government of the right, to which he apprehended it was otherwise entitled, of reclaiming its own subjects when found in a Spanish port as passengers on board vessels hired to carry the mails between this country and the Peninsula.
He alluded to the Xth, XIth, XIIIth, and XIVth Articles of the Treaty of 1667, but expressed his opinion that these clauses were not sufficient to debar the Spanish Government of the above-mentioned right.
37
Treaty with Spain.
Case of the mail-packet "Pasha" at Vigo.
lu Admiralty Letter; March 9, 1844.
The British Minister at Lisbon had, however, in the meantime instructed the Admiralty Agent of the "Pasha" to keep that vessel under weigh when it arrived in the Bay of Vigo, in order that the question might not be brought to an issue by either resistance or surrender; and these directions were March 18, 1844, pronounced by the Queen's Advocate to be judicious.
upon
Case of the "Lady M. Wood" at Lisbon.
No further correspondence passed on that subject, but another question of a similar kind arose at Lisbon in the following month. The local police called the Commander of the Peninsular contract steamer "Lady M. Wood" to give up a Portuguese subject who had embarked on board that vessel at Vigo, and against whom a warrant had been issued by the Portuguese authorities; the Commander of the contract steamer declined to surrender the man, and the Admiralty applied to Admiralty; this Office for instructions upon the subject, when Lord Aberdeen replied that his views with regard to a similar question raised by the Admiralty Agent on board the Peninsular hired vessel "Pasha" had been expressed in a previous letter, and that he was of opinion that the rule there laid down with regard
to Spaniards who might be passengers in the mail-steamers was equally applicable to Portuguese subjects; whereupon the contractors of the Peninsular April 6, 1844. Line issued orders to the Commanders of their vessels in conformity with Lord Aberdeen's wishes, and the Admiralty Agents were instructed accordingly.
On the 9th March, 1865, Consul Wilthew reported that Arica and Tacna had pronounced in favour of a Revolution which had then broken
Case of the mail-steamer "Bogota" at Islay.
Consul Wilthew, No. 32;
March 28, 1865.
No. ; March 9, 1865. No. 5; March 20, 1865.
To Queen's Advocate;
May 1, 1865,
Queen's Advocate;
May 4, 1865. No. 3; May 9, 1865.
9
out in Peru, and on the 20th of the same month he
announced the arrival at Islay of the mail-steamer "Bogota," having on board the Prefect of Tacna, the Captain of the Port of Arica, and other officers on their way to Lima, who had remained faithful to the Government.
Mr. Wilthew stated that there was also another officer on board, on his way to Arequipa, who had joined the revolutionary party, and that, shortly before the bringing up of the steamer at her moorings at Islay, the Prefect and others forcibly carried this Revolutionary Officer into a cabin, and placed a guard over him in order to prevent his landing. The Officer, however, succeeded in attracting the attention of the Captain of the steamer, and claimed his protection, but he declined interfering until he had consulted the British Consul. He accordingly repaired to the Consulate, and in answer to his application, was informed by Mr. Wilthew that, in his opinion, the officers in question had no right whatever to detain the other officer, who was merely a passenger as they themselves were: that he had a perfect right to land whenever it suited him, and that the Prefect and his party had no kind of jurisdiction on board the mail-packet. On returning to his ship the Captain at once ordered the release of the Officer, who went on shore, and shortly afterwards proceeded on his way to Arequipa.
The Captain accounted for his indecision, when called upon to protect the Officer in question, by saying that he was in doubt how to act, owing to the Officer having been detained by a Government authority. In reporting the case home, Consul Wilthew asked for instructions for his guidance under similar circumstances in future, and upon the advice of the Queen's Advocate, to whom the question was referred, he was told that Her Majesty's Government approved the course which he had pursued on that occasion, but that he was to exercise a careful discretion in all cases of a similar description; that he was not to claim upon principle for British Merchant-vessels in Peruvian ports a right of exemption from the jurisdiction of local authorities; but that he might properly remonstrate against the exercise of any such authority as a breach of usage and comity, except in very extreme cases.
With regard to Mail-Steamers, Mr. Wilthew was
177
Page 180
Page 181