ciple, and to protest against its execution. 5 It ultimately
appeared that a judgment in personam had been rendered
against the owners, through their agents, as having
committed a tort within Portuguese jurisdiction, i.e.
within " such a space of the sea as may reasonably be
considered as a dominion appertaining to each maritime
nation in its adjacent waters." This was considered
inadmissible doctrine ; and Salisbury declared that it
asserted " the right of jurisdiction over waters more
distant from the coast of Portugal than is admitted by
International Law." He also objected to the grounds
on which the judgment proceeded. 4
Lord Granville observed 6 that the objectionable claim
of extensive jurisdiction ought to be expressly renounced :
and he also justified a demand that the judgment should
1 74 S.P. 1 163, Morier to Salisbury, 25 June 1879.
2 lb. 1 165.
3 lb. 1 163, Salisbury to Morier, 9 Aug. 1879.
4 lb. 1 169, Same to Same, 18 Dec. 1879.
5 lb. 1 172, Granville to Morier, 30 Sept. 1881.
174 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
be disregarded, as having proceeded on a misinterpre-
tation of the rules for preventing collision.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Portugal H.M.
Government " would not feel justified in questioning
were it not that it involves international rights of the
highest importance. But they are of opinion that in
this case the Supreme Court has failed to give effect to
the international compact relating to navigation, and
that the responsibility for the miscarriage of justice
resulting therefrom rests with the Portuguese Govern-
This raises in a clear form the question whether the
decision, incorrupt and careful, of the local court can
constitute a protection to its government against the
claims of other nations. Granville offered arbitration :
which Portugal definitely declined, 1 though repudiating
the unreasonable doctrine of extended jurisdiction.
Portugal asserted 8 that even if the Insulano were to
blame, it was through their own failure to observe a
rule of Portuguese procedure that the owners of the
Mecca had not been accorded the benefit of the " both
to blame ' rule. This shows the difficulty of reopening
diplomatically a case with which the municipal courts
have dealt. Lord Granville could not believe that a
mistake in procedure could possibly relieve the opposite
party from the effects of their acts. But the difficulty
is equally well shown by the point of substance. Portugal
contended that even if the Insulano was to blame at first,
in the events which happened the whole responsibility
was thrown on to the City of Mecca. This is a doctrine
not unknown to, or unrecognized by, our own courts.'
Its adoption by the Portuguese tribunal hardly raised
a case for diplomatic complaint of gross and patent
injustice. The French courts confirmed the decision
1 74 S.P. 1176. 2 lb. 1 1 80.
3 See The Margaret, 9 Ap. Cas. 873 ; and particularly The
Sanspareil, L.R. (1900) 267.
chap, iv] CHINA 175
after an examination au fond. The further discussion
of the subject was dropped.
An expedition was despatched by the Indian local
government to China in 1875. On leaving Bhamo and
crossing the Chinese frontier, it was attacked in Yunnan,
though provided with Chinese passports, and one of its
members, a Mr. Margary, was killed. The Minister at
Pekin (Wade) expressed himself as not content with the
regrets and assurances of Prince Kung, and demanded, 1
somewhat peremptorily, a mixed Commission of Inquiry,
new passports, and an indemnity of 150,000 taels. He
subsequently modified the demand for " a joint in-
vestigation " to one for leave to a British official to
attend the proceedings. 8 This the Chinese negotiator
was willing to grant as a concession. The Chinese view*
was that the attack arose from a combination of cir-
cumstances : the apprehensions of a remote province,
invaded, however peacefully, by an armed force, and
the cupidity and truculence of mountain robbers. In
fact, Wade admitted 4 his embarrassment in urging on
the Chinese a story which (though he was convinced of
its truth) would " at the Old Bailey possibly be held
to be but imperfectly supported."
Much of the friction between nations arises from
the insistence of one party upon opinions which it
reasonably holds, but which it is not prepared to support
by sufficient evidence.
Another surprising admission of Wade's is that " such
matter of offence is not of very frequent recurrence,
and there is a pars altera which a counsel for the defence
might turn to very effective account." 5
The Chinese pre-consultative commission proposed
to cashier the local major (tu-ssii) and minor leaders,
and also the higher local civil and military authorities
1 71 S.P. 940. 2 lb. 97S, Wade to Kung, 28 April 1875.
3 lb. logo, Wade to Grosvenor, 14 Dec. 1875 ; 108 1 et passim.
4 lb. 1087, Wade to Derby, 15 Dec. 1875. 5 lb. 1087.
I76 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
(Brigadier-General and Sub-Prefect) of the county of
Momein. Mr. Wade induced the government to re-
instate the former. 200,000 taels indemnity was paid,
and the principle admitted that the British Legation
had a right to be represented at trials arising out of
alleged ill-treatment of British subjects. 1 An embassy
of apology was also sent specially to London, and the
usual proclamation enjoining kindness to foreigners
was posted up. 8
Apart from the special circumstances of China, this
acceptance of liability seems fairly due to the facts
(1) that the local authorities plainly did not take any
steps to suppress the violence which was exercised (if
indeed they did not organize it) or to arrest the parties ;
and (2) that irregular troops under the command of
recognized officers were actually concerned.
We may well consider ourselves absolved from any
prolonged discussion of the case of the attempt made
by a British Admiral to take the Peruvian ram Huascar
when in rebel hands at Pacocha. It seems to have
been justified on the ground of piracy in the wide and
technical sense. Its result was to exalt the rebel leader
(Pierola) to the pinnacle of popular favour. De Horsey 's
action in pitting an iron frigate against an armour-
plated monitor was daring, but its naval results were
nil and its political consequences bad. The Huascar,
he says, was " beautifully handled " by the lamented
Admiral Grau. But, he naively observes, she was
" difficult to hit," and he actually organized a torpedo
expedition to blow her up in the harbour of Iquique.
She surrendered, however, to the national fleet. The Law
Officers considered the British action on the high seas
justifiable, 3 and the Peruvian Foreign Minister himself
thought that if the Huascar was not a pirate, it was
1 71 S.P. 1112, 1 1 13.
2 See the agreement of settlement, Chefoo, 13 Sept. 1876, ib.
753- 3 68 S - P - 759-
chap, iv] PERU-CHILI 177
difficult to know what to call her. 1 At the same time,
her " piratical " acts were very few and slender. And,
according to the Peruvians, the Shah attacked her in
Peruvian waters, and fired missiles on to Peruvian
land. 2 If a British cruiser mutinied and stopped a
French packet, should we care to see the French fleet
bombard her in the Humber ? 3
Subsequently, war broke out with Chili, and the
Chilian fleet bombarded Iquique. British private
property was damaged, and neutral individuals killed.*
The Consular Corps protested. The Chilian Admiral
puts thus early on record the argument that towns
may be mercilessly bombarded where torpedoes are
used â€” " that treacherous weapon." 6 A conflict of testi-
mony arose on this point, which serves to show how
useless such a limitation is. The U.S. Minister made
it clear that neutrals by continuing in a town liable
to bombardment assumed all the risks incident to the
In presiding over the Arbitral Commissions which
sat to assess neutral damages after the Chilo-Peruvian
War of 1881, Mr. Pereira, the nominee of Brazil, in accord
with the Chilian contention, decided that bombardment
was still a legitimate operation of war, and could give rise
to no reclamation, and that a state was not liable for the
unauthorized violence of private soldiers. 6 This was
strong doctrine, but it was the decision of their own
chosen arbitrator, and it is unfortunate that the neutral
nations declined to proceed ; and, instead, accepted
lump sums from Chili, 7 leaving the question undecided.
1 68 S.P. 761, Drummond-Hay to Derby. 2 lb. 763.
3 The acts of H.M.S. Bulldog in Hayti in Oct. 1865, when she
bombarded insurgents (and was stranded and blown up), were
done with the consent of the legitimate authorities : see Times,
19 Jan. 1866 (12 E). * 70 S.P. 1203. c lb. 1204.
a Calvo, Â§ 1748. The previous umpire, Mr. Netto, had taken a
contrary view. 7 Ibid.
178 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
So eminent a lawyer as von Bar, indeed, appears to share
the umpire's view. 1
In Sept. 1876, Peter Martin, a U.S. citizen, was
convicted at Laketon, Cassiar, in British Columbia, of
assault and prison breach, and sentenced to fifteen
months' imprisonment. For some extraordinary reason,
he was conveyed to jail in Victoria through Alaska.
There he assaulted one of his jailers in a serious fashion,
and on arrival at Victoria, was again tried and sentenced
to a further twenty-one months. On Jan. 10 1877,
Mr. Fish demanded his release, as having been taken
from U.S. territory without authority, and on Sept. 25
1877 he was set at liberty. 3
The Portuguese Foreign Office drew attention in
1876 3 to the " efforts of the Chinese to put an end to
the foreign occupation of Chinese territory by rendering
the position of the European colonies difficult " ; â€” in
particular by establishing custom-houses and coastguard
stations in their vicinity. They invited Lord Derby to
join them in refusing to allow the Chinese to set up
fresh customs stations. Lord Derby gracefully declined
the adventure, on the plea that the circumstances of
Macao and Hong Kong were not precisely similar.
The events in Salonica in May 1876, when the French
and German consuls were assassinated, and a fierce
retribution exacted, come rather within the scope of a
work on diplomatic immunities. They recall the turbu-
lent Thessalonica of Theodosius. " We did not insist,"
says Sir H. Elliot, 4 " upon the infliction of any penalty
beyond that which is sanctioned by the law of the
country." 900,000 francs were paid to the families of
the consuls : a rather handsome provision. Sentences
of a year's imprisonment, or less, having been passed
by a court-martial on the local authorities who had
1 La Responsabilite' dcs Etats, Rev. de D.I. (1899), 474.
2 68 S.P. 1226, ct passim. 3 lb. 1298.
4 67 S.P. 949, Elliot to Derby, 28 May 1876.
chap, iv] THE ZAMBESI 179
failed to preserve order, they were annulled and fresh
sentences of severer extent passed by a special commission
at the instance of the foreign representatives.
The Portuguese Government granted a monopoly of
steam navigation on the Shire and Zambesi for thirty
years on Aug. 2 1876. Great Britain protested. The
great means of destroying the slave trade was the en-
couragement of trade and navigation. Portugal was
bound to destroy the slave trade. Therefore the grant
was contrary to the spirit of her engagements. And
the British Government intimated that they could not
permit any interference with the free navigation and
trade of Lake Nyassa. The Government of Portugal
sustained that, on the contrary, it was precisely in
order to develop trade that the concession was granted. 1
Asserting in principle its territorial sovereignty over the
rivers within its possessions, it disclaimed any intention
of interfering with access to the Nyassa. And the British
replied that they only claimed access as a matter of
Two U.S. subjects named Condon and Melody, Fenians
of 1867, were convicted of homicide and sentenced to
penal servitude. After eleven years they were liberated
as a concession in 1878 2 : Condon's health being impaired.
Of the reforms pressed upon Turkey in 1878, we need
hardly speak, since they were supposed to flow from the
Treaty of Berlin. They included (1) the organization of
a police in Asia, under European control ; (2) the insti-
tution of tribunals of appeal with European members ;
(3) the supersession of farmers by collectors on the Indian
system (mainly also Europeans). 5 The acceptance of
these reforms would have amounted to something like
abdication, and it is inconceivable that Salisbury ever
expected them to obtain the Sultan's assent. The Porte
1 68 S.P. 1349. 2 69 S.P. 1090.
3 lb. 13 1 3, Salisbury to Layard, 8 Aug. 1878.
l8o ILLUSTRATION [chap. IV
A very important question is raised by a case in Turkey
in 1879. Can a foreigner be obliged to remain satisfied
with personal good-treatment ? or is he further entitled
to complain if natives are molested on account of inter-
course with him ? It is difficult to decide the dilemma.
On the one hand, an affirmative answer to the former
question would justify a governmental boycott which
could hardly be other than overwhelming. That would
virtually reduce the admission of foreigners (by treaty
or without it) to a nullity. On the other hand, it is
an exceedingly delicate matter to interfere between a
government and its own subjects. It can always claim
to supervise their morals and their conduct, and such
excuses for interference can seldom be absent. If it is
admissible to put them aside as mere pretexts and
excuses, the floodgates of foreign interference in all
directions are opened. In the present case a C.M.S.
missionary of German nationality, stationed in Con-
stantinople, was arrested and deprived of papers, etc.
He made no complaint otherwise of ill-treatment ;
but a Turkish ulema who had corrected some Turkish
compositions for him was thrown into prison, and shortly
removed to an unpleasant dungeon and sentenced to
death. 1 The British Ambassador, with the concurrence
of the German Charge d'Affaires (regularly invoked
through Berlin),* demanded release of the Turk, restora-
tion of the papers, and removal of the Turkish Minister.'
Turkey responded that the accused had actively in-
sulted Mohammedanism : " Ahmed est libre de devenir
protestant, mais il n'est pas libre d'insulter la religion
des autres." * Lord Salisbury 6 refused to recognize any
1 71 S. P. 596.
2 lb. 601, Salisbury to O. Russell, 28 Dec. 1879 ; 620,0. Russell
to Salisbury, 30 Dec. 1879.
a lb. 615, Layard to Sawas, 24 Dec. 1879; 603, Sawas to
Musurus, 29 Dec. 1879. * lb. 605.
6 lb. 687, Salisbury to Layard, 30 Dec. 1879.
chap, iv] MOROCCO l8l
such distinction : â€” or rather, he declined to identify
attempts at proselytism with insult. And, as the
Treaty of Berlin guaranteed religious liberty, he main-
tained that it guaranteed the liberty of proselytizing.
H.M. the Sultan, therefore, at a personal interview with
Sir H. Layard, gave an assurance that no harm should
actually happen to the uletna, that the papers should be
at once returned, and that a subordinate official should
be dismissed. Sir Henry naively adds, that as he saw
that the Sultan was personally responsible for the arrest,
he did not like to insist on the dismissal of the Minister. 1
Naturally, the question is complicated by the fact
of the religious liberty of Turks being guaranteed to
Great Britain by treaty, as a matter in which she chose
to take an interest.
One is apt to forget that there was a " Morocco ques-
tion ' in 1879. Cid Mohammed Bargash, on 18 Feb.
of that year, informed the foreign representatives that
the dictatorial language, held by some of the consular
officers in the administration of justice could no longer
be tolerated. 8 The question was again complicated
by that of " protection " or facile quasi-naturalization,
which is always such a difficulty in the East. Gratitude
must be felt that disputes with even the least settled
American state are free from this disturbing factor.
In this case, Drummond-Hay observes that foreign
governments " cannot have the slightest real interest in
continuing irregular protection, which is a constant
source of vexatious questions . . . unless it is desired
to deprive the Sultan of his rights as an independent
sovereign, and to render all government in this country
impossible." Taxes could not be collected from proteges :
criminals escaped : from his thirty-four years' experience
of the country, he could say that every year control was
becoming weaker. The Italian Legation was principally
1 71 S.P. 608, Layard to Salisbury, 1 Jan. 1880.
2 lb. 765, Hay to Salisbury, 25 Feb. 1879.
l82 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
responsible for this state of things : the French was most
reluctant to put an end to it, and even wanted exclusive
privileges in the interior. A Conference at Tangier failed
to agree, and was succeeded by the Conference of 1880
held at Madrid, which adopted a Convention restraining
the consuls from creating an unlimited number of proteges,
but allowing the Ministers to do so, 1 even in the case of
commercial agents " censaux," which in fact led to the
re-establishment of the old abuses. Notice was to be
given to the foreign representative of the arrest of any
Moroccan in the service of a private foreigner : but
proteges were made subject to taxation at a rate fixed
in concurrence with the Powers. Moroccans naturalized
abroad and returning were put to their election between
expulsion and resumption of Moroccan nationality at
the end of a time equal to that which had conferred on
them foreign nationality.
The discontent of the Egyptian officers with the
Khedive's arrangement, putting them on half-pay while
he paid his foreign creditors, culminated (18 Feb. 1879)
in a riot, in which Nubar Pasha and Sir C. Rivers
Wilson (Egyptian Finance Minister) were attacked. 2
The Khedive sent a chamberlain en grandc tcnuc to
apologize. 5 As to the involved story of Egypt and the
establishment of European financial control there, it
would take us too far afield to say more than that Ismail's
early efforts to liquidate his debts by accepting a measure
of foreign control were distinctly stated by him not
to be due to foreign dictation. He now repudiated
the control he had invoked, and the Powers persuaded
the Sultan to require his abdication, or, in plainer terms,
to depose him. 4 Lord Salisbury's reason for British
interference in what was after all ostensibly a money
matter, was simply the cynical plea of the people who
seized Cuba â€” that it was uncomfortable for a country
1 71 S.P. 639. 2 70 S.P. 1020. 3 lb. 1029.
4 lb. 1084, Salisbury to Lascelles, 18 June, 1879; ib. 1089.
chap, iv] EGYPT 183
to have a disorganized neighbour. After an unsettled
period of two years, events again came to a head, and
Britain was forced to assume complete control. 1
The revolt of April 1879 removed Sir C. Rivers Wilson
and his French colleague from the ministry and encour-
aged the military to further efforts. The removal of
Riaz Pasha was extorted by them in 1881, and according
to Mr. Malet 2 their leaders, arrested by the Khedive's
Cabinet, were excusably apprehensive of the future.
Lord Granville laid down 3 the doctrine, soon to be
demolished by faits accompli s, that the foreign powers
which exercised influence in Egypt were only entitled to
regard measures, not men. England desired no partisan
British ministry in Egypt.
A " ministry founded on the support of a foreign power,
or on the personal influence of a foreign diplomatic
agent, is neither calculated to be of service to the country
it administers, nor to that in whose interest it is supposed
to be maintained. It can only tend to alienate the
population from their true allegiance to their sovereign,
and to give rise to counter-intrigues which are detrimental
to the welfare of the state."
" It would seem hardly necessary," he goes on, " to
enlarge upon our desire to maintain Egypt in the enjoy-
ment of the measure of administrative independence
which has been secured to her by the Sultan's Firman.
The Government of England would run counter to the
most cherished traditions of national history were it to
entertain a desire to diminish that liberty or to tamper
with the institutions to which it has given birth."
Nevertheless, the military cmcutc of 1881 led to the
joint intervention of France and England for the preserva-
tion of the status quo. Their Consuls-General, to the
unconcealed disgust of Turkey, guaranteed support to
1 Vide, p. 185 infra.
2 73 S.P. 1 145, Malet to Granville, 23 Sept. 1881.
3 lb. 1 160, Granville to Malet, 4 Nov. 1881.
184 ILLUSTRATION [chap, iv
the new Khedive, in curbing the financial zeal of his new
Cabinet. 1 Their ostensible ground was the imminence of
disorder : their substantial ground was the proposed re-
pudiation by the legislature of the financial obligations of
Egvpt. " The reports at present received from Egypt are
not of a nature to excite apprehensions of early disorder or
anarchv. But matters seem to have reached a crisis when
the order of things established by the Firmans of the
Sultan, and by the international engagements of Egypt, . . .
is exposed to a risk of encroachment." s The progress of
events was accelerated by the Khedive's declining, on the
advice of the foreign representatives, to exile forty officers
who had been convicted by a court-martial of conspiracy.
Strained relations arose between him and his Cabinet,
and an Anglo-French fleet was despatched to Alexandria.
This, protested against by Turkey, exasperated public
feeling and the catastrophe of the riots and bombardment
was the result.
" Loin de nous," said Assim Pasha,' " la pensee de
contester a la France et a l'Angleterre le droit d'exiger
que les interets de leurs sujets soient sauvegardes ;
mais ce droit, qu'il me soit permis de le dire, ne saurait
aller jusqu'a vouloir prendre elles-memes en main cette
protection, et a envoyer dans le but leurs escadres dans
les eaux d'une contree appartenant au Sultan " : and,
indeed, it appears that the despatch of this fleet was an
ill-omened step, which made a delicate situation an
intolerable one. 4 As against Egypt, it might be justified :
the Occidentals had the king in check. But as against
Turkey, there was little or no answer ; and the mistake
lay in treating Turkey, the brain of the Mohammedan
world, as une quantite negligeable : â€”
" Assurer, d'un cote, que les droits de souverainete
1 74 S. P. 370 et seq.
2 lb. 380, Granville to Lyons, 6 Feb. 1882.
3 lb. 410, Assim to Musurus, 17 May 1882.
4 It was suggested by Freycinet, ib. 400-
chap, iv] ALEXANDRIA 1S5
du Sultan ne recevraient aucune atteinte, et nous
defendre, de l'autre, toute intervention, toute ingerence,
dans les affaires d'une province ottomane, ne serait-ce
pas la une contradiction qu'il serait difficile, sinon
impossible, de concilier ?
In answer, Lord Granville said that if anything further
than protection of Europeans and British interests proved
needful, " we should necessarily resort to the co-opera-
tion of the Sultan." â– Said Pasha, who succeeded Assim,
accepted the assurance. 1 In compliance with it, Great
Britain proposed a Turkish occupation : but the events
at Alexandria prevented this being carried into effect.
To restore the authority of her puppet sovereign, Great
Britain then acted alone. " Above all, it was essential
that the observance of international obligations should
be upheld " ; ' and for the security of debts similar to
those which had been repudiated by Turkey, by Mexico
and by Virginia, the Egyptian war began. Granville's
attempt to represent the bombardment as " an act of
self-defence " on the part of the fleet, is too transparent
for criticism. The ships could have gone away.
Count Kalnoky, invited to give an Austrian mandate to
the novel proceedings, declined (as did Bismark). Eng-
land and France had pursued an Egyptian policy which
he had not always been able to approve. It had led to
the present difficulties, and he did not desire to be mixed
up with them.*
Upon the establishment of British influence, the
British Government had no hesitation in altering the
financial arrangements to which such paramount value
had been attached. 5 The Dual Control, which the Khedive
had solemnly promised in March 1S79 should revive, he
was now required to abolish. But the crucial step was
1 74 S.P. 415, Granville to Dufferin, 22 May 1 882, 2 Ib. 420.
* See a good summary of the whole history in ib. p. 490