The Government have indicated their opinion of the conduct of
Admiral de Horsey in regard to the combat between the Peruvian rebel ship the Huasear 'and the English ships-of-war 'Shah' and Amethyst.' To be sure, the Attorney-General, who was the mouthpiece of the Ministry, said he spoke only from present infor- mation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer soon rose to attenuate Sir John Holker's too frank words. But the fact will be flashed to Peru, and will there take root, that in the opinion of the English Attorney-General there is prima facie no reason to blame "in the slightest degree" the conduct of Admiral de Horsey. On the other hand, Sir William Harcourt, who has had quite as good oppor- tunities as the ex-leader of the Northern Circuit for studying International Law, thinks that on the fragmentary papers actually submitted to the country, our Admiral's action was hasty and
ill-
judged. The Admiral's own justification is that the Hues= was, if not a piratical ship, a rebel ship committing piratical acts on the 'John Elder' and the Imuncina.' It seems a strong measure to torpedo a ship for seizing some coals, Bass's ale, and cigars. Whatever be the ultimate view of his acts, he is not likely to suffer heavily ; the House is most concerned with the fact that the 'Shah' cost 1300,000, and is no fit antagonist for powerfully armed Peruvian or Chilian iron-elads.
Previous page
