told that he would be justified in remonstrating still more strongly against any exercise of local jurisdic-tion on board such vessels; but that he was not to claim even for them, as a matter of strict right, while on the footing on which they then stood, that total exemption from jurisdiction which was the privilege of a ship of war in a foreign port.
Case of the Pacific Company's steamer "Bolivia" at Islay.
In July of the same year, Mr. Jerningham No. 69; July 12, 1865. reported that he had received a further despatch from Mr. Wilthew, stating that on the arrival of the Pacific Company's steamer "Bolivia" at Islay, a few days previously, the Peruvian Captain Montero, commanding the "Amazonas" (which vessel, in consequence of a mutiny, had been turned over to the revolutionary party), proceeded on board the British packet and ordered several naval officers belonging to the Government party (amongst whom was a military officer who had embarked at Cobija, in Bolivia, the others having taken passage at Arica for Callao) to leave the ship; and as he threatened to use force in case of refusal, and had an armed boat alongside, these officers, who were on board the packet as passengers, were all removed.
The naval officers in question had refused, after the mutiny on board the "Amazonas," to join the revolutionary party, and were put on shore at Arica, by Captain Montero, after pledging their word of honour not to leave that place, which they, however, did, without meeting with any opposition from the de facto local authorities; and it was under these circumstances that on their arrival at Islay, in transit for Callao, Captain Montero took upon himself the hazardous expedient of causing them to leave the steam-packet "Bolivia" against their will, and under threat of using force if they did not do so.
Neither the Captain of the mail-packet nor his officers or crew offered any resistance to Captain Montero's act, though the Captain went to the Consulate in order to note his protest, which protest he extended at Callao before Her Majesty's Consul.
Mr. Wilthew informed Mr. Jerningham that he had not thought it incumbent upon him to interfere in the matter in consequence of the instructions he had received from the Foreign Office (already No. 3; May 9, 1865: alluded to) in the case of the mail-packet "Bogota," and that he did not go on board to remonstrate August 28, 1865.
against Captain Montero's proceedings owing to the excited state of that officer; fearing that he might be insulted, which he could not resent, and for which he would get no satisfaction.
case.
On the receipt of Mr. Wilthew's Report, Mr. Jerningham went from Lima to Callao, and informed Commodore Harvey, of Her Britannic Majesty's ship "Leander," of the particulars of the Commodore Harvey's attention had already been called to the matter by the Director of the Packet Company, and he informed Mr. Jerningham that, with a view to prevent in future any recurrence of acts of interference with the packets, he had issued an order for an officer with a corporal and guard of Royal Marines to proceed on board the mail-packets on their arrival, and to remain on board during their stay in port; and that the white ensign and pendant would be hoisted during such time; assigning as his reason for these precautions the removal of the Peruvian Military Officer, who had embarked at Cobija (in Bolivia) for Callao;
Mr. Jerningham remarked, that although Commodore Harvey did not allude to the case of the Peruvian Naval Officers, passengers under the British flag, also removed from the "Bolivia," there could be but little doubt that such a proceeding was one of unwarrantable interference, and he added that Commodore Harvey's measure will have a very good effect, and prevent a recurrence of such violent and unjustifiable vexations and interference.
There being then no postal Treaty with Peru, Mr. Jerningham suggested that it would be a successful means of putting a stop to such proceedings in the future were a British Naval Officer to accompany the Pacific mail-packets, as was the case with the British West India packets plying between Southampton and St. Thomas.
The matter was then referred to the Queen's Advocate, who in his Report stated that, under the extraordinary circumstances of the case, Commodore Harvey was justified in the line he had adopted. But, he added, that the placing a guard on board the mail-packets would confer on such vessels for the time being the privilege of ship of war; in fact, to giving them, in so far as regarded belligerents, a Commission, for that, as a general rule, an uncommissioned or merchant ship in port was
Page 79
[79]
E
178