12
not exempt from the jurisdiction of the local authority. The Queen's Advocate further said that great care must be taken that the mail-packet did not in any way interfere by the carriage of passengers, or by any other act, with the operations of the belligerents.
It should, however, be observed, that at this time the revolutionary party in Peru had not been recognized as belligerents.
The Admiralty were of opinion that Mr. Jerningham's suggestion as to officers being sent in charge of the mails on the same footing as those on the West Indian and other lines should be approved, but they stated that they could not concur in the course proposed with regard to a white ensign and pendant being hoisted on board those packets, as such flags were solely used by Her Majesty's vessels, and there would be no force on board the packets to protect such flags from insult, and they further considered that the hoisting of them would lead to embarrassment.
But on subsequently receiving a copy of the Queen's Advocate's Report for their information, the Admiralty stated that instructions would be sent to Commodore Harvey to desist from placing any guard on board the Pacific mail-packets.
The Post Office also considered it inadvisable to adopt Mr. Jerningham's suggestion, that a British Naval Officer should in future accompany each of the mail-packets, since no inconvenience had been experienced by the Post Office in placing the mails in charge of the commanders of the packets, and the expense of appointing and maintaining a corps of naval agents would be very considerable.
Lord Russell entirely concurred in these views, and copies of the letters from the Admiralty and Post Office were accordingly sent to Her Majesty's Consul at Callao, for his guidance.
In November 1865 the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs applied to Mr. Barton, who was in charge of the Legation at Callao, for the surrender to the Peruvian authorities of ex-President Pezet and other officers, who were accused of high treason, robbery, and assassination, and who had taken refuge on board Her Majesty's ship "Shearwater." These refugees, who had fled on board this ship for the protection of their lives during an insurrection, were subsequently transferred to Her Majesty's ship "Mutine," and, in reply to the application which he had received, Mr. Barton informed the Peruvian Minister that the parties in question had all been so transferred, and had sailed for Panama the day before he received that application. Mr. Barton was approved for the answer he returned.
Case of Her Majesty's ship "Shearwater " in Peru.
April 9, 1866.
Case of the British mail-packet "Pacific" in Peru.
To Law Officers; April 12, 1866. Law Officers; April 16, 1866,
To M. de Moliers;
April 12, 1866.
Colonial Office;
December 7, 1868.
13
In January 1866 war was declared between Peru and Spain, and in April following the Spanish Minister in London complained to Lord Clarendon that the Captain of the English mail-packet "Pacific" had warned a Spanish Diplomatic Agent (M. Sanguirico), who was the bearer of despatches, and had taken a passage on board that vessel, that he would deliver him over to the authorities at any Peruvian port where the vessel might touch, should he be required to do so,
The question was referred to the Law Officers, and they reported that the "Pacific," being a merchant-vessel, was not exempt by International Law or usage from the territorial jurisdiction of Peru while within Peruvian waters, and that she could not therefore confer, while within those waters, upon any enemy of the Peruvian Republic, whom she might be carrying as a passenger or otherwise, a privilege to or exemption which she did not herself possess.
It was added that even if the Captain of the "Pacific" had proposed voluntarily to do some act contrary to his duty towards M. Sanguirico when beyond British jurisdiction, Her Majesty's Government had no power or control over that vessel or her Commander, and could not have prevented and would not have been responsible for it; and that any such passenger, whether in the political service of a foreign Government or not, when warned beforehand of any such intention on the part of the Captain, as in the case of M. Sanguirico, must determine for himself what was the proper course to take with a view to his own safety.
A reply to this effect was accordingly sent to the Spanish Minister.
In September 1868 a serious riot occurred at Hong Kong on board the French Messageries
179
:
12
not exempt from the jurisdiction of the local authority. The Queen's Advocate further said that great care must be taken that the mail-packet did not in any way interfere by the carriage of passen- gers, or by any other act, with the operations of the belligerents.
It should, however, be observed, that at this time the revolutionary party in Peru had not been
recognized as belligerents.
The Admiralty were of opinion that Mr. Jerning- August 29, 1865.
ham's suggestion as to officers being sent in charge
of the mails on the same footing as those on the West I d an and other lines should be approved, but they stated that they could not concur in the course proposed with regard to a white ensign and pendant being hoisted on board those packets, as such flags were solely used by Her Majesty's vessels, and there would be no force on board the packets to protect such flags from insult, and they further considered that the hoisting of them would lead to embarrassment.
But on subsequently receiving a copy of the September 5, 1865. Queen's Advocate's Report for their information,
the Admiralty stated that instructions would be September 7, 1865.
sent to Commodore Harvey to desist from placing
any guard on board the Pacific mail-packets.
The Post Office also considered it inadvisable to September 8, 1865.
adopt Mr. Jerningham's suggestion, that a British Naval Officer should in future accompany each of the mail-packets, since no inconvenience had been experienced by the Post Office in placing the mails in charge of the commanders of the packets, and the expense of appointing and maintaining a corps of naval agents would be very considerable,
Lord Russell entirely concurred in these views, and copies of the letters from the Admiralty and Post Office were accordingly sent to Her Majesty's Consul at Callao, for his guidance.
In November 1865 the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs applied to Mr. Barton, who was in charge of the Legation at Callao, for the surrender to the Peruvian authorities of ex-President Pezet and other officers, who were accused of high treason, robbery, and assassination, and who had taken refuge on board Her Majesty's ship "Shearwater." These refugees, who had fled on board this ship for the
Case of Her Majesty's ship "Shearwater " in Peru.
April 9, 1866.
Case of the British mail-packet "Pacific" in Peru.
To Law Officers; April 12, 1866. Law Officers; April 16, 1966,
To M. de Moliers;
April 12, 1866.
Colonial Office;
December 7, 1868.
13
protection of their lives during an insurrection, were subsequently transferred to Her Majesty's ship "Mutine," and, in reply to the application which he had received, Mr. Barton informed the Peruvian Minister that the parties in question had all been so transferred, and had sailed for Panama the day before he received that application. Mr. Barton was approved for the answer he returned.
In January 1866 war was declared between Peru and Spain, and in April following the Spanish Minister in London complained to Lord Clarendon that the Captain of the English mail-packet "Pacific" had warned a Spanish Diplomatic Agent (M. Sanguirico), who was the bearer of despatches, and had taken a passage on board that vessel, that he would deliver him over to the authorities at any Peruvian port where the vessel might touch, should he be required to do so,
The question was referred to the Law Officers, and they reported that the "Pacific," being a mer- chant-vessel, was not exempt by International Law or usage from the territorial jurisdiction of Peru while within Peruvian waters, and that she could not therefore confer, while within those waters, upon any enemy of the Peruvian Republic, whom she might be carrying as a passenger or otherwise, a privilege to or exemption which she did not herself possess.
It was added that even if the Captain of the "Pacific" had proposed voluntarily to do some act contrary to his duty towards M. Sanguirico when beyond British jurisdiction, Her Majesty's Govern- ment had no power or control over that vessel or her Commander, and could not have prevented and would not have been responsible for it; and that any such passenger, whether in the political service of a foreign Government or not, when warned beforehand of any such intention on the part of the Captain, as in the case of M. Sanguirico, must determine for himself what was the proper course to take with a view to his own safety.
A reply to this effect was accordingly sent to the Spanish Minister.
In September 1868 a serious riot occurred at Hong Kong on board the French Messagerics
179
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.