9. Lynch, forced loan.
10. Perry, twenty-eight days' detention and expulsion
on suspicion of treason.
11. Worrall, expulsion for protesting against forced
12. Lambley, plunder by revolutionary troops.
13. Gillow, requisitioning of waggons and stock.
14. Innes, plunder by faction of Miramon.
15. Owen, plunder by faction of Miramon.
16. Sumner, plunder by faction of revolution.
17. Fuller, requisitions.
18. Hooper, plunder by revolutionaries.
19. Turnbull, plunder by revolutionaries.
20. Exaction of extra duties.
21. Destruction of goods by fire during bombardment
of Matamoros (Oct. 1851).
The French drew up a long list of similar occurrences,
distinguished principally by being attributed to private
Most of these claims were absurd. They were an
attempt to make Mexico responsible for civil war. Stran-
gers must take the risk of such events. 2 A really atrocious
outrage was the assassination of a Mr. Beale on 7 July
1861, at his house near Mexico, simply on the ground of
his being a foreigner. The act was probably committed
by marauding bands of the dispossessed government. It
is certainly impossible to hold the new government, which
was hardly able to secure its own life, responsible for it.
* 52 S.P. 344.
J Compare with them the attack on a British subject, Fin-
kenstcin, by Russian troops into whose hands he fell during
the Polish insurrection of 1862, 53 ib. 842; Fremdenblatt, 19
chap, iv] MEXICO 137
On 28 June 1861, in the course of a skirmish outside
Mexico City, 160 English miners were assaulted and
robbed, 1 at Real del Monte ; and Lord Russell considered
the Mexican Government responsible for this act of their
enemies, as well as for the assassination of Mr. Beale. 3
Other outrages followed, such as the killing of a French
and a British subject by robbers. How could a govern-
ment, fighting for its life, be expected to prevent, or be
responsible for, such occurrences ?
The British Minister continued to press for a settle-
ment. The Mexican Government declined it on the ground
of poverty and suspended payment. Yet $6, 000, 000 had
passed through their hands, and they had annexed the
Not only did the government suspend the service of
the Debt, but in their desperation they resorted to a
regular system of benevolences, and began by imposing
an extra tax of 1 per cent, on all capital exceeding $2,000.
The Corps Diplomatique recommended resistance (except
the U.S. Minister).
The British Legation was then again withdrawn, in
concert with those of Spain and France.
It almost seems as if Russell would now have intervened
in Mexico, but for the difficulties of the situation. Should
a more capable government be established, he observes,
H.M. Government would cordially rejoice ; " but they
think this effect is more likely to follow a conduct studi-
ously observant of the respect due to an independent
nation, than to be the result of an attempt to improve
by foreign force the domestic institutions of Mexico." '
Besides, " without at all yielding to the extravagant pre-
tensions implied by what is called the Monroe doctrine,
it would be as a matter of expediency unwise to provoke
the ill-feeling of North America, unless some paramount
1 52 S.P. 319.
3 lb. 321, Russell to Wykc, 10 Sept. 1862.
* lb, 367, Russell to Cowley. 30 Sept. 1861,
I38 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
object were in prospect and tolerably sure of attainment."
Mr. Thouvenel thought, on the contrary, that there was
a large body of neutral moderation in Mexico, which only
needed to be encouraged by the presence of a foreign
force. The result was ultimately the Triple Convention '
between Britain, Spain, and France, which resulted in
warlike operations, Spanish and French troops and
British marines occupying the forts and town at Vera
Cruz on 17 Dec. 1861. The three powers disclaimed any
intention of supporting any particular ruler in Mexico ;
but obviously the effect of their violence was to support
the sanguinary bands of Miramon's party who were really
the authors of the injuries complained of. Further
intervention followed, leading up to the French fiasco
of a Mexican Empire. The policy of leaving Mexico
severely alone was then tried. In a few short years the
flames of conflict and anarchy burnt themselves out, and
a strong and stable government was formed, able to do
justice to all parties. There could be no better demon-
stration of the benefits of strictly abstaining from making
the inevitable evils of civil war a ground of complaint and
It is worth noting, as a separate and independent
matter, that Spain (which was prepared to act by herself
against Mexico) expressed her readiness to recognize the
title of foreign bondholders to a fixed share of Mexican
customs revenues. 1 This is exceedingly important, be-
cause a third power is in no way bound by the personal
engagements of a state with which it goes to war. The
Spanish attitude amounts to a recognition of something
like a real right residing in foreign nations to these hypo-
thecations of customs duties. It is very doubtful whether
anything of the kind exists. The rights of occupation
and conquest cannot be fettered by an easy invocation of
1 52 S. P. 394, Seward to Tassara, 4 Dec. 1861.
3 lb. 372, Crampton to Russell, 24 Sept. 1861.
chap, iv] PARAGUAY [l39
In 1861 a sea-captain, Wite (White ?) by name, was
arrested at Callao on suspicion of having been concerned
in the assassination of President Castilla. He was released
and expelled on 9 Jan. 1862. Great Britain asked for
Â£4,500 for him : the dispute was referred to the Senate
of Hamburg, but it absolved the Peruvian Government '
(12 April 1864), the proceedings having been regular and
in accordance with Peruvian law.
A difficulty, or series of difficulties, between Britain
and Paraguay was successfully accommodated by mutual
apologies on the part of Great Britain and Paraguay in
1862. % A British subject (Canstatt) had been imprisoned.
The British consul was alleged to have been insulted.
British naval forces had fired on a Paraguayan war-steamer
off Buenos Ayres (29 Nov. 1859). The vessel in question
(the Tacuari) had collided with, and sunk, the Little
Polly. The principal matter was the attack on the
Tacuari. The British Government put it on record
that they " regret very sincerely that the hostile attitude
adopted by the naval forces in the River Plate against
the Paraguayan steamer-of-war should have offended the
dignity of the Republic of Paraguay, and declare in
the most solemn manner that it never was, nor will in
future be, their intention to offend in any way the
honour of the Republic of Paraguay, or the dignity of
Regarding the other questions, in the Canstatt case the
Government of H.B.M. " never pretended to claim the
right to interfere in the jurisdiction of Paraguay, and it
never was nor will be their intention to prevent the
Paraguayan Government from executing their laws."
On the other side, " the Government of Paraguay, as they
have stated before, had no intention to offend the said
agent, and still less the Government of H.B.M." And
without admitting liability for the collision, they com-
1 Merignhac, V Arbitrage international, Â§ 47.
2 Hertslct, Treaties, XI. 877.
140 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
promised the proceedings in that case by the payment
of a voluntary indemnity.
During the violent scenes that accompanied the revolt
which deprived Otho of the thorny throne of Greece
(22 Oct. 1862), six marines were landed to protect the
British Legation ; a similar measure was taken by the
French. 1 Nevertheless, an English watchmaker, Hall,
had his shop pillaged ' of Â£300 or Â£400 worth of watches,
etc. Germans fared worse. 3 Mr. Diamantopoulos im-
mediately expressed the willingness of the new govern-
ment to compensate. 4 The British Minister remarked
(29 Oct.) on " the inconvenient manner " in which the
Athenians testify their joy on these occasions by firing ball
(some of which struck his house) : but did not complain
of it. He added that he had not thought fit to dispense
with the British guard : the more so as the Prussian
Minister, who had accepted a Greek guard, had found
them exploring his cupboards. Little cause for anxiety
was, however, given to foreigners after the lapse of a
day or two. But the soldiery became demoralized, and,
early in May, a party of twenty or thirty made a dis-
graceful attack on two performers engaged at an Austro-
French circus. 5 On 18 May 1863 two British officers
were robbed by brigands â€” this band were duly captured
within a fortnight. 6 Compensation to the extent of
Â£2,321 was made to the circus people. 7 Greece was at
the moment on her best official behaviour, King George's
election being in progress. The payment of the circus
claims, nevertheless, was made a popular cry against
the ministry. There were faction fights in Athens,
during which the consent of the President of the National
1 58 S.P. 1017, Scarlett to Russell, 24 Oct. 1S62.
2 lb. 1020, Merlin to Scarlett, 25 Oct. 1862.
3 lb. 1033, Same to Same, 30 Oct. 1862.
4 //;. 1 03 1, Scarlett to Russell, 29 Oct. 1862.
5 lb. 1 132, Same to Same, 8 May 1863,
8 lb. 1138, 7 lb. 1 143.
chap, iv] POLAND 141
Assembly was obtained for the guarding of the Bank of
Greece by foreign marines. 1 But Lord Russell expressed
the unimpeachable sentiment that " the less foreign
powers interfere in the internal affairs of Greece, the
better will be the prospect of internal tranquillity and
external peace for that kingdom." 2
The Sardinian Government being established in Naples,
an Englishman named Bishop was arrested on a charge
of conveying treasonable correspondence between Naples
and Rome. The charge was practically admitted ; but
Mr. Bishop complained of some ill-treatment (not very
serious) when first arrested. 1 Lord Russell hoped he
would not be killed, and he was in fact pardoned by the
wise policy of the Sardinians.
During the progress of the Polish insurrection, a
Reverend Mr. Anderson was thrown into prison at
Grodno. After " some vigorous measures at the moment
of his arrest " he was treated with courtesy, 4 and liberated
in about three weeks at the instance of the British
Ambassador. Mr. Anderson thought he would like
compensation. Lord Napier, however, dissuaded him
from pushing any claim. As a foreigner, he was not
unnaturally an object of some suspicion. There was
a prima facie case against him. He was soon set free,
" and though subjected] to local detention longer than
may seem consistent with necessity or justice, he was
treated with civility. ..." The inconvenience may
be regarded as an accident not unnatural at a period
of political revolution under a military government, â€”
or, we might add, under a civil one, â€” witness the conduct
of Britain in 1848 and of the U.S.A. in 1864. And Lord
Russell agreed 3 that it was not a case in which com-
pensation could be demanded.
In fact, the U.S. Government were at the moment
1 5 8S.P. 1153. 115s.
2 lb. 1 159, Russell to Erskine, 19 Sept. 1864.
3 60 S.P. 1224. * lb. 1013.
I42 ILLUSTRATION [chap, tv
throwing blockade-runners into jail, on the pretext
that they were in the service of the Confederate govern-
ment, and therefore enemies. 1 Earl Russell obtained
the release of one McHugh, on 4 July 1864, who had
been in Lafayette since the end of 1863.
Two officers of the 20th Infantry (in plain clothes)
were killed at Kamakura in 1864. Sir R. Alcock ob-
serves 2 that this was the twelfth case of the kind, and
that only in one instance (the attack on the legations
at Jedo) had any penalty followed. He wished,' in
rather the same casual way in which his subordinate
in China afterwards desired to " run " Formosa, " to
make the whole vicinity responsible if they neither pre-
vented the crime nor secured the murderer." Vicarious
justice of this kind did not suit the Japanese. They
declined to do more than issue a forcible proclamation.
The actual culprit and two accomplices were eventually
discovered and killed. Mr. Winchester magniloquently
speaks of this " great act of international justice," as
though it were a kind of Geneva Arbitration ; but we
need spend no further time on it : only remarking that
to style self-devoted patriots " ruffians," as he continu-
ally does, is to juggle with words. There is no reason
to doubt that the unlucky officers would have been safe
if they had respected the warning to turn back which
was first given them by their assassins.
The schooner Mermaid was sunk by the forts of Ceuta
in 1865 by a shot fired at her after (as was alleged
and denied) failing to bring to and show her colours, in
Spanish waters. Shots had also been fired from Tarifa
at the Mountaineer.
" The evidence," said Lord Stanley, " appears to show
that reparation is due from the Spanish Government for
a great injury inflicted by the act of Spanish authorities
1 Go S.P. 1016, Russell to Napier, 4 Nov. 1863.
1 lb. 1096, Alcock to Russell, 20 Nov.* 1864. J
* lb. 1 102, Same to Same, 23 Dec. 1864.
chap, iv] SPAIN AND BRITISH SHIPS I43
upon a British vessel which appears to be proved, by
clear and credible testimony, to have complied with the
requisites of Spanish law, and not to have disregarded
them ; and to have been, after and notwithstanding such
compliance (though doubtless through inadvertence), fired
at with ball and consequently sunk." ' The Spaniards have
always been particularly careful about vessels approaching
their coasts ; and the ministry long stood out against the
British proposition to arbitrate. Eventually, however,
an arbitration agreement was signed. 8 Â£3,866 10s. lid.
was ultimately awarded to Great Britain, payable at
ninety days from 20 Febr. 1869.' Payment was delayed
until April 1870, when an agreed sum of Â£46 6s. 2d. was
added for interest. 4
Another Hispano-British case occurred in 1866, * the
barque Queen Victoria being seized by a revenue cutter,
as was alleged, outside Spanish waters, on suspicion
of smuggling. In three months she was condemned,
without an opportunity of defence being afforded, and
after nine months' more correspondence the Spanish
authorities declared that they could do nothing to in-
terfere with the courts. Eventually (it is not quite
clear whether by judicial means, but at any rate by
legal means) 8 the seizure was declared null and void,
restitution and compensation being decreed. A British
demand for an apology was quietly dropped.
Evoked by the cross-currents of nationality and
1 58 S.P. 1289, Stanley to Crampton, 12 July 1866.
2 At Madrid, 4 March 1868, ib. 2. It contained a curious
provision for the selection of two umpires, each question as it
arose to be umpired on by the Spanish or British umpire accord-
ing to lot : cf. p. 6 supra.
3 Hansard, 18 March 1869, col. 1659.
* The writer is indebted for the last reference and for this
additional information to Mr. C. J. B. Hurst, C.B., of the Foreign
8 58 S.P. 1325, Stanley to Crampton, 30 March 1867.
a J K 1332, Calonge to Crampton, 20 April 1867.
144 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
religion, a curious point arose in 1865. A British Jew,
Stern, purchased a business at Chabatz in Servia. On
account of the anti-Semitic laws of that country, he was
told that he must leave Chabatz ; but H.B.M. Consul
appears to have procured him leave to remain. 1 His
Servian Jewish subordinates were, however, ordered
away. The Servian Government, said Mr. Garaschinin,
would not allow Servian Jews to evade the force of the
laws on the ground of their being the servants of foreign
residents. Again, in Roumania s a circular was issued
putting in force the law prohibiting Jews from being
farmers of estates, innkeepers or rural settlers. This
was said to be applicable to Austrian and Russian Jews :
but was only put in force against the scum of the Jewish
population, who were native Roumanians. It may
become at any time a very difficult question, how far
racial or religious disabilities can properly be enforced
against foreigners. It may fairly be assumed that in
principle these cases are indistinguishable from others,
but what if the race or religion is practically coterminous
with, or inclusive of, a particular nation ?
The question of the Jews in Servia and Roumania again
came up in 1867. It appears that the richer Jews, who
were naturalized Austrians and Russians, were unmo-
lested. A few that were arrested were at once liberated * :
though Consul Ward speaks of two or three who were
driven from their homes, 4 and Consul-General Green
mentions (29 July 1867) an Austrian Jew reported to
have been cut down by an officer in the streets of Jassy.
" I cannot subscribe," says Mr. Green, 6 " to the doctrine
that the treatment of the Jews is not a subject for foreign
1 58 S.P. 734, Longworth to Russell, 10 Aug. 1865. It is
possible that the capitulations in force in Servia operated to
exempt him from the local law. â– lb. 887.
3 (yi S.P. 683, St. Clair to Green, 29 May 1867.
4 lh. 7 I'*, Waul to Green, 9 Dec. 1867.
f lb. 705, Green to Bolcsco, 2 Aug. 1867
CHAP. IV] JEWS 145
interference. The peculiar position of the Jews places
them under the protection of the civilized world." But
" on mature consideration " he observes that he had
" come to the conclusion that official interference on my
part, without its having been called for by the Jewish
community, would do more harm than good " ; in which
he was probably right. Lord Stanley ' rested the ground
of British interference on treaties, according to which
the Powers guaranteed Roumanian independence. (In-
demnification (Â£470) was granted without demur to
thirty Austrian Jews, 2 for the consequences of a mob
outrage at Galaz in the following year.) Roumania
energetically protested 3 that the virtual independence
of the Principalities was of long establishment, and that
its guarantee by the Powers gave them no right to
interfere in their internal affairs. She sustained that it
was not racial or religious hatred that provoked harsh
laws against the Jews, but the economic conviction that
they were useless and dangerous and should be abolished,
or at any rate kept under. Their principal industry
was declared to be the demoralization of the rural popula-
tion by drinking-shops. The Servian Government merely
relied on the fact that the Jews were an exclusive race
which failed to assimilate with the nation.
Lord Clarendon eventually invited the Powers to take
measures to stop " a system of persecution which is a
disgrace to the country and inspires indignation through-
out Europe." 4 Count Bismark sensibly declined to
press Roumania to alter her legislation, so as to allow Jews
to hold land and to sell drink. It would be an inter-
ference in the internal government of the country, which
might cause the Prussian Government to be regarded in
1 62 S.P. 727, Stanley to Green, 24 April 1868.
2 lb. 746, Bonar to Stanley, 20 Oct. 1S6S ; 751, Green to
Clarendon, 12 April 1869.
3 lb. 761, note of Mr. Cogalniceano.
1 lb. 799, Clarendon to Paget, 23 Feb. 1870.
I46 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
the future as responsible for the acts of the Roumanian.
Italy thought the Powers ought to examine carefully
whether they had the legal right to control Roumania. 1
In 1880 the question of foreign Jews in Russia enter-
tained the attention of the governments of Britain and
Mr. Lewisohn was expelled from St. Petersburg as an
] nglish Jew, and Mr. Pinkos as a U.S. Jew. These events
raised the same important question, namely the right of
a state to enforce its own religious and racial ideas within
its own borders to the prejudice of foreigners. Lord
Granville, after inquiry, declined to interfere on the ground
that the expulsion was simply in accordance with Russian
law. 2 Afterwards, however, he wrote, " The Treaty [of
1859] applies to all H.M. subjects alike, without any
distinction of creed. The expulsion of Mr. Lewisohn,
therefore, appears, prima facie, to be a violation of the
stipulation conferring reciprocal rights on the subjects of
the contracting parties to travel, reside and trade in any
part of their respective dominions. But by the terms of
Art. 1, its stipulations are not to affect the laws, decrees,
and special regulations regarding commerce, industry,
and police in vigour in each of the two countries, . . ."
which, however, he declared Mr. Lewisohn did not appear
to have infringed. 5 Mr. Lewisohn was, pending the
discussion, allowed to return. On an examination of the
archives of the Foreign Office, it was discovered that in
1862 the British Government had come to the conclusion
that " they would not be justified in claiming exemption
for British Jews in Russia from disabilities to which
their Russian coreligionists were liable by law. 4 Lord
Granville's first thoughts were therefore recognized as
soundest, and the matter dropped.
1 62 S.P. 801, Visconti Venosta to Paget, 17 March 1870.
2 73 S.P. 828.
3 lb. 833, Granville to Wyndham, 11 July 1881.
* lb. 845, Granville to Thornton, 28 Dec. 188 1.
chap, iv] PINKOS CASE I47
The Jew question had already come up in the case
of Theodore Rosenstrauss, who had been living in
Kharkoff from 1863-73, and had been threatened with
the closure of his emporium of " Yankee notions " on
account of his religion. He obtained on two occasions
the intervention of the Legation of his adopted country,
the United States : but in Dec. 1873 he was told that
foreign Jews could not be permitted to trade at Kharkoff.
He was granted a licence at a greatly enhanced rate, but
at the same time he was informed that it would not be
renewed without Imperial authorization. The claim of
religious equality was then put before the Russian Govern-
ment. 1 It was replied that the law requiring Israelites
to take out these expensive certificates with special
Imperial authority was a racial and not a religious one.
In the case of Pinkos, 8 the Russian Foreign Minister
hoped " that accord in the appreciation of the affair
will not fail to be established, if the Government of the
United States shall be satisfied that all the measures of
which Mr. Pinkos complains are in perfect conformity
with the Russian laws." s In the case of one Wilczynski,
who was only a traveller, a permission to return for six
months was accorded. 4
Mr. Blaine 5 penned a prolix remonstrance, of ap-
palling length. He put aside the case of foreign Jews
(such as Rosenstrauss) who were subjected to special
restrictions exactly because they were aliens, and limited
himself to the more difficult case of general legislation
He put forward the remarkable contention that the
reciprocal grant to each other's subjects of personal
rights, such as succession and suit, involved liberty to
them to enter each other's territories whenever it might
be convenient for the protection of such rights, in defiance
1 79 S.P. 836. a lb. 838.
a lb. 842, De Giers to Foster, 13 Dec. 1880.
4 lb. 841, 844. 5 lb. 845, Blaine to Foster, 29 July 1881.
I48 ILLUSTRATION [chap. iV
of the local law : an argument which can only be regarded
as preposterous. The U.S. Minister offered to read
this composition to de Giers, but it is not surprising
that the Chancellor requested him not to do so, " as he
was very much occupied, and several persons waiting
to see him." Eventually, it was announced that a
Russian Commission had been appointed to consider the
whole question. 1 It was still open in 1897, 2 the United
States tacitly recognizing that Russia was within her
During the war of 1867 between Brazil and Para-
guay, British and U.S. subjects were detained in the
latter country. 1 Lopez appeared anxious to emulate
Theodore of Abyssinia, and declined their release, on the
ground that they were under contract. 4 There seems no
particular reason for denying to a government the right to
enforce contracts for personal services militari manu. In
some cases there were no contracts : but it may be doubted
whether a general refusal of permission to leave the
country during the pendency of a war might not fairly
include foreigners. 6
The Fenian disturbances of 1848 have above been
alluded to. Further cases of U.S. remonstrance occurred
in 1868. 6 Two naturalized U.S. citizens called Costello
and Warren were convicted of treason-felony in Dublin :
the U.S. House of Representatives requested the President
to secure their release, on the assumption that they had