He expressed himself as entirely satisfied, nay gratified, with the
perfectly fair and honorable manner in which the government of the
United States had met and discharged all the duties and obligations of
an impartial neutrality in the war between Spain and Chili, and
subsequently Peru also. He disclaimed in the most decisive and emphatic
manner, on the part of his government, any such ulterior views against
the integrity or independence of any or either of the South American
States, as you suggest they apprehend, and added that these declarations
he had frequently made in the most explicit manner, both publicly and
privately, on various occasions, both orally and in writing, in public
documents, and still more recently in a speech which he had delivered in
the senate, a copy of which he has promised to, furnish me, and which I
will send to you when I receive it. On the other hand, he said this war
had been forced on Spain without her agency or consent, and that she
could no more be justly charged with seeking or provoking it than could
an individual upon whose head a tile might be thrown from the top of a
building, as he passed along the street, be charged with provoking a
quarrel with him who threw it.
In the course of this conversation he remarked that he not only
recognized the fact that the conduct of the United States in this
controversy had been strictly fair and honorable, and such as afforded
not the least ground of complaint on the part of the government of her
Catholic Majesty, but that it had been further characterized by a just
and liberal friendship for Spain.
I then ventured to suggest that, notwithstanding that the tender of the
good offices of the government of the United States was vague and
indefinite, yet I had no doubt that, if any practical way could be
devised or suggested by which the good offices thus tendered might be
made practicable and efficient in promoting the restoration of peace
between the belligerents, I had no doubt that my government would, by
adopting it, show that its offer meant something more than an unmeaning
compliment.
To this Mr. Bermudez de Castro replied that he had no doubt of it, and
that you were well advised of the character and merits of the whole
controversy, and that there was no other individual in whose
intelligence and integrity to form a correct judgment he should place
more confidence than in yours; and further, that if you would express in
some concrete or distinct formula the offer which thus far was only
vague and indefinite, he had no doubt that you might propose something
which would probably be acceptable, and might lead to a termination of
hostilities honorable to both parties.
I do not know that I distinctly and definitely understand the idea which
Mr. Bermudez de Castro meant to communicate, but I believe it to have
been that if you would carry out your tender of friendly offices by a
distinct proposition of a mode of adjustement by the belligerent
parties, it would in all probability be acceptable to Spain, and, he
hoped, to Chili and Peru also.
That I might be sure that I had not misunderstood any part of the
interview I had with Mr. Bermudez de Castro yesterday, I have submitted
to him the first draft I made of the conversation for his inspection,
and he assented to its accuracy entirely, only suggesting that I might
add, if I pleased, what further he said yesterday, which was that what
he had said was in the full confidence that you would propose nothing to
Spain incompatible with the dignity of the Spanish nation, of which this
government in the last resort be the ultimate judge.
I have received from Mr. Bermudez de Castro the Gaceta de Madrid of the
10th of March, containing the speech referred to, which I send you by
this mail enclosed.
I have the honor to remain, with the highest respect, sir, your obedient
servant;
[Translation.]
SESSION OF THE CORTES.
In the Senate,
March 9, 1866,
Senator Llorente. * * * * * The part which
I consider most important, passing by those general views of which I
make little account, in the manifesto to which I refer, is that
which has relation to the negotiations had between the minister of
state and the minister plenipotentiary of Peru, or Peruvian agent of
this court, since the preliminaries of the 27th of January. The
document to which I refer says thus, (to the lines which I am about
to read I call the attention of the Senate:) “The Spanish
government, during the course of the negotiation initiated, has not
omitted any measure to make the Peruvian agent clearly understand
its decided purpose to impose on Peru the most humiliating and
burdensome conditions. The minister of state of Spain has not
hesitated to declare:
“First. ‘That in the opinion of the present cabinet, that preliminary
treaty deserves severe [Page 570]
censure, because it did not meet the first exigencies of Spain. That
the course pursued by his predecessor, Mr. Pachero, equally deserves
it, and the conduct of Admiral Pareja was no less deserving of it,
for having ceased to occupy the Chincha islands.’
“Second. ‘That the right of revindication existed against Peru until
Spain should have formally recognized her independence, because, in
the judgment of the government at Madrid, the treaty of the 27th of
January did not impart that recognition.
“As for the conditions which the Spanish government required from
Peru, in order to conclude with her a treaty of peace and amity, the
Peruvian minister enumerates them thus:
“First. ‘The insertion, indispensable in the treaty, of a clause in
which the present Queen of Spain, using the privilege which a decree
of the Cortes concedes to her, renounces the sovereignty, rights,
and acts which pertained to her over the heretofore vice royalty,
now the republic of Peru.’
“Second. ‘The selection of the treaty concluded between Spain and
Bolivia as the type of that which was to be concluded with
Peru.’
“Third. ‘Obligation on the part of Peru to pay (here Mr. Pachero
cites, without doubt, the text of a despatch from Mr. Valle Riestra)
all that which was a charge upon the treasury of the old vice
royalty of Peru, weighing on the consular tribunal, the central
treasury, the revenue from tobacco, the mint, the funding office, as
well as all credits on the said treasury for pensions, salaries,
aids, advances, forced loans, deposits, or by any other title,
whenever originated by direct orders of the Spanish government, or
of its authorities in Spain, and in the territory which is now the
republic of Peru, up to the date at which she last evacuated it in
1824, and that debt to carry interest, and the privilege which the
most favored debt of the republic can now enjoy or might or should
enjoy in the future.’”
Among the declarations which I have just read, and which are diverse,
there are some to which I attach no great importance, and others
which are in my opinion of the greatest weight. But I must say,
sirs, decidedly, that when I had the first knowledge of this
document, I never hesitated for a moment, never vacillated in the
belief that the assertions contained in the lines I have just now
read are completely false or at least extremely inexact.
* * * * * * * * * * *
The Minister of State, Bermudez de Castro.
In the manifesto, the government of Peru acknowledges, or rather
boasts, that that nation has twice managed to establish relations
with Spain, adding that its propositions were frustrated by causes
for which the republic was not to blame, leading error which Mr.
Pachero, minister of foreign relations of Lima, falls into. Twice,
in effect, Messrs. Senators, has Peru attempted to establish
diplomatic relations with its ancient metropolitan, Peru, one of the
last of the American republics which came, to solicit their
recognition by Spain. The first time was in the year 1853, when
there came, commissioned to negotiate, Mr. Osma, a worthy person,
well known to the whole court, who adjusted in that year a treaty,
which was acceptable in almost all its
clauses, which stipulated, as is usual, that
it had to be ratified.
The treaty was returned to Lima for such purpose, and that government
neither replied nor made excuse of any sort to justify the silence
it thought proper to observe. Only upon a revolt and tumult, which
happened at Lima, in which the department of foreign affairs was
sacked, the papers of the archives were scattered in the streets,
and the causes came to light which moved the government of Peru not
to ratify the treaty made with Spain. * * *
The second occasion was in 1859, when Mr. Calvez, Peruvian minister
at Paris, came to Madrid, but before a conference with the ministry,
wished to present his credentials to her Majesty.
His obstinacy on this point could not be
overcome, although it was explained to him that a presentation would
be equivalent to a recognition, and after that the treaty would be
in every respect useless. These reasons did not convince him, and he
went back to Paris. * * Things so continued till a treaty was made
at Callao, between General Pareja and the Peruvian General Vivanco,
which was ratified by both governments, and faithfully executed by
both. A plenipotentiary went to Lima, and one came to Madrid, and it
was only after several months that a government growing out of a
revolution set up that the treaty of the 27th of January was
completely void and illegal, because, under the constitution, the
government which made it had not the faculties necessary to sanction
it. What need I say of that—a question of domestic policy—with which
we have nothing to do, but Peru solely. * * Suppose the treaty did
not suit Pezet; could not the actual government of Lima offer
remarks to that of her Majesty, setting forth the reasons for its
conduct, or seeking a modification of what was agreed on? Ought it
not to have done this? What is the reason it has preferred war to
this course of action?
* * * * * * * *
On the 3d of February, a few days after the treaty, the Spaniards are
charged with being the aggressors. When the marines of our squadron
went on shore, on leave, and in entire trustfulness, they were made
the innocent victims of an unlooked-for attack. Every one remembers
the heroic resistance of a corporal, who, attacked by thirty men,
long defended himself against his assailants, till killed by a blow
from a stone. Mr. Pachero says that unfortunate event was owing to
the arrogance and aggression of the Spaniards.
* * * * * * * *
In my view, what is now happening is nothing but the result of
committals of the revolutionists [Page 571] with Chili and its government for the aid it
should give them in overthrowing Pezet, and that nothing else causes
the war against Spain. Peru has no other motive for declaring
it.
When the present ministry came in there was here a plenipotentiary
from Peru to adjust the treaty, Mr. Valle Riestra, At a first
conference we talked slightly. I told him I could not allow a most
important suppression that existed in his project—that is to say,
his omission of the bases of the recognition and liquidation of the
debt to Spain—which were left for another treaty, to be made at
Lima.
Here I should remind senators that Spain does not absolutely reclaim
from Peru anything for herself. The debt in question is that which
all the American republics which derive their origin from the
Spanish monarchy have recognized, liquidated, and paid, and is
composed of credits in favor of Spanish subjects who have been
ejected, and whose property was confiscated or sequestrated—in a
word, credits in favor of private persons. * * * *
I say this, because it cannot but have been observed with what
pertinacity the manifesto dwells always upon debts which the Spanish
government claims, as if speaking of amounts which were to come into
the public treasury.
I recollect that when the question of Chili was stirred the chargé
d’affaires to the United States of America came to learn what the
Spanish government proposed to do. He asked if revindication was
thought of. I told him the government disapproved the word—had never
thought of it. I added, besides, and can speak of it, because an
official statement of that conference has been given to the
government at Washington, that the could assure Mr. Seward that such
was the determination of her Majesty’s government, and so decided
its policy as to what behooves Spain in her relations with the
American republics, that, if it were possible, the Chinca islands
should be made a present to her, or any part of the territory of
Peru, not even as a gift would such be received—words which are
embraced in the despatch in which that agent gives account to his
government of his interviews with me—in the same form in which I
relate it to the senate.
I turn to the interview with Mr. Vallé Viestra, and he claimed from
the outset that the settlement of the debt due to the Spanish
subjects should be the object of a special convention that should
negotiate at Lima, and I was obliged to tell him that I would not
agree to any such request. * * * * * *
He then said that he had intimated to Mr. Benavides that the part
relative to the arrangement of the debt should be postponed for a
special convention; that, afterwards, he had also said this to Mr.
Arrayola, and that both had agreed to it. I could do no less than
have him understand he must be under a mistake; that there appeared
absolutely nothing in the department of state to show that Mr.
Benavides and Mr. Arrayola had acceded to these pretensions; that it
was impossible they could have acceded, because that would have been
to depart openly from what is prescribed in the preliminary treaty
of 27th of January, in virtue of which we were negotiating; and
that, as that compact established rules entirely distinct, and
contained clauses we must conform to, it was impossible that any of
my predecessors could have approved his proposition, which seemed to
me to be unacceptable.
Article 5 of the preliminary treaty says, and note how imperative is
its wording: “In said treaty shall at the same time be defined the
bases for the liquidation, acknowledgment, and payment of the sums
which by sequestration, confiscation, loans of the war of
independence, or other things, Peru may owe to the subjects of her
Catholic Majesty, provided they combine the conditions of Spanish
origin, continuation, and existing condition.”
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Riestra agreed that it was convenient to insert the clause; but,
not thinking that enough, he added, after Peruvian republic, and
wished it annexed, “and the islands and other possessions which had
become a part of the old viceroyalty of Peru.”
* * * * * * * *
But, in the second note I addressed to him on the same subject, I
took care to sum up in a few lines the object of the divergence. I
said to Mr. Vallé Riestra:
“If you have no powers to treat, article 5 of the treaty of Callao is
infringed by Peru, by which that republic engaged to send a
plenipotentiary clothed with ample powers. If, on the other hand,
you do not choose to make use of the powers you have, you are the
infringer of the treaty; at any rate, the responsility of the
infraction does not weigh upon the Spanish government.”
Well, then, in the second note, August 15, 1865, I wrote what
follows:
“1. Are you disposed to make a treaty, which, as article 4 of the
preliminary convention prescribes, may be similar to that ajusted
with Chili and other American republics?
“2. Supposing an answer in the affirmative, do you find yourself
agreeing that, as article 5 of that convention prescribes, the
treaty is to contain an article by which the basis can be
established for the liquidation, settlement, and payment of the debt
which burdened the treasury of the ancient viceroyalty of Peru until
the Spanish authorities evacuated it, deducting such portion of said
debt as may pertain to the republic whose territory pertained to the
old viceroyalty?
“3. Supposing, also, an affirmative answer, that you accept the
principle to establish said bases, and to designate the debt which,
under various heads, may remain a charge on Peru, that there be
adopted as a rule and principle what was agreed on this point with
Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador republics—some of them
bordering on Peru, and others not [Page 572] far distant therefrom—which, when they made
their treaties with Spain, were at full liberty to accept or refuse
the terms by which they bound themselves to pay their respective
debts, have subscribed thereto by a spontaneous act, and not by
force of a compromise, such as that which now binds Peru; (and with
this I respond to another assertion of the manifesto, in which it is
asserted that the requirement of the Spanish government, or mine,
was that the treaty of Bolivia should be strictly followed and
copied.) Bolivia did not propose it. Chili always proposed it, or
four or six republics which were in the same case.
“4. * * * * * Passing by the other four, * ** * and holding to the
agreement between Spain and Chili, do you desire to consider the
article about debt, contained in that stipulation, ‘as not in any
way correspondent with the position of Peru towards Spain?’ * * * *
* * * * * * The reasons are obvious; and now that we are at war with
Chili, I have much pleasure in declaring that that republic, moved
by a sense of justice, long before the
acknowledgment of her independence by Spain, passed a law
recognizing, liquidating, and marking out the
proceedings for the payment of every debt in favor of
Spanish subjects. * * * *
“5th, and last. Taking into account the antecedent consideration, you
desire that the treaty with Peru be like that with Chili,
substituting, however, for the article about the debt, another which
determines the obligation of Peru: on this point, the same way as
with the four republics above cited.
“You cannot conceal from yourself that the propositions in the
preceding questions are within the limits of the convention of
Callao, and in nowise exceed what is already agreed upon by other
republics treating with Spain in a better position than Peru.”
To these questions the following categorical reply was given to
me:
* * * * * * *
3. That his instructions do not authorize him to establish such
bases, nor to designate the classes of debt which Peru must
recognise by adopting as a rule on this point what has been done by
Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador, * * * * which cannot be
regarded in the like position with Peru as to the settling of the
debt. * * * *
4. That Peru and Spain not being in like relation as Chili and Spain
about the debt, and being restrained by limited instructions, he
could not assume so great responsibility as would result to the
undersigned, not only with his government, if he should consent to
the substitution of the clause, pure and, simple, relative to debt
in the treaty with Chili, for the clause on the same point of any
for the treaties cited with the four republics.
* * * * * * * *
That the governments of the American republics may be covinced more
and more of the justice of the views which animate Spain in her
relations with them, and also that they may not suffer from the
misunderstanding which would be occasioned by a readiness in
mastering all sorts of reclamations of Spanish subjects, without
reference to their origin and causes, it is necessary and of great
convenience that due distinction be made between claims proceeding
from illegalities, assaults, acts of violence done, endangering the
persons and interests of subjects of her Majesty entitled to the
protection of the government of the country in which they reside,
and those founded only on damages caused by contracts, voluntary
laws, advances, and other matters of like kinds, in which some
Spaniards willingly take part, acting with absolute free will, and
seduced, perhaps, by the hope of immoderate gain.
Claims of the first class, that is to say, resting on undoubtedly
just causes, ought ever to be the object of the most efficient
support of her Majesty’s legation, which cannot refuse protection to
the interests of Spaniards when an injustice is inflicted by
arbitrary measures or abuses of authority for which no cause has
been given.
But if the damages, indemnity for which is claimed by Spaniards
interested, proceed from their completely free acts, the nature of
which is of some engagement between parties, on conditions freely
enterered into, it is just and natural that the question should be
ventilated previously by courts of justice, as is the practice in
all cases,, in which persons, governments, corporations, or any
moral entity, fail to comply with an obligation clothed with the
legal formalities which it requires. Consequently, in claims of the
class I have indicated, the intervention of her Majesty’s
representative does not proceed until the parties in interest show
that they have been hindered in the exercise of their rights and the
use of their legal recourses before the proper court, or that, after
presenting their claims, justice has been denied by an open
refraction of the laws involved in their form. Either extreme being
established, the reclamations referred to acquire the character of
being caused by abuse of power; and this legitimates the official
aid of the legation in favor of the party interested, which is not
the case when he has neglected the legal means for obtaining due
justice.
These are the principles by which the conduct of the representatives
of her Majesty in America must be governed when they make
reclamation for Spanish subjects, and I doubt not you will know how
to meet the views of the government in what concerns it.
BERMUDEZ DE CASTRO.
This shows the senate how cautiously the Spanish government has
acted.
* * * * * * * *
I sent to our minister in Peru all that had passed between the
Queen’s government and Mr. Valle Riestra, with full power to
negotiate there the treaty which ought to have been [Page 573] made in Madrid. What better proof can
be given by her Majesty’s government of its desire to make such
treaty and its freedom from exaction, than to renounce the advantage
of negotiating here, and transferring it to Lima, for discussion,
not with the Spaniah government, but with one of its agents; not
with the Peruvian representative, but with the supreme government of
that country?
I have always instructed the representatives of Spain that their
first duty is to persuade and convince all parties that Spain is
firmly resolved not to mix in domestic differences; I that she wants
a good understanding with the Peruvian government, whoever may be
the men who compose it; that it does not aspire to any exclusive
privilege or influence; and only claims for its commerce and
subjects that protection the republic concedes to other nations. * *
* * * * *
The ready reception given by the legations in America to some unjust
claims of Spanish subjects, often of cases devoid of title to
official protection, has produced inconvenience, and henceforth it
is resolved that official aid shall only be given when the complaint
is of acts of violence, spoiliation, or something contrary to the
law of nations or to treaties in force.
* * * * * * * *
Before concluding, I can do no less than to recommend to you to
endeavor by all means to inspire full confidence in the intentions
and purposes of the government in respect to the parties, endeavor
to tranquilize operations, avoid everything wounding to self-respect
in order to facilitate the settlement of pending questions, and
setting aside the possibility of a fresh conflict which may impose
on Spain the necessity of barren and costly sacrifices. The
government of her Majesty does not wish in any manner that the
dignity of the country be in the least degree derogated from; but
would avoid useless contests, and the heavy charges they
accumulate.
BERMUDEZ DE CASTRO.
* * * * * * * *
October 30, 1865.
* * * “I regret that advices from this place have caused the belief
there, although temporary, that the difficulties we have stumbled on
grow out of fresh requisitions on my part.” Thus I wrote to Valle
Riestra, on the 30th October. Would I have disapproved a treaty
which I invoked in every document which has been read? If I had
asserted the revindication of the Chincha islands—if I had asked for
the seventy millions of dollars which some Lima newspapers said were
claimed by the Spanish government—could I have addressed this letter
to the very agent of Peru, with the certainty that he would flatly
contradict me? The text of our notes will dissipate the error.
I have also written to Lima that I regretted the delay the more,
because having to present all the papers relating to Peru to the
Cortes, I found myself obliged, because the treaty was not
completed, to publish the notes which had passed between us, that
there might be no room for recriminations. * * * *
“Biarritz, November 4,
1865.
“I have received yours of the 30th ultimo. The fresh instructions I
awaited from my government to continue negotiating the treaty
reached me yesterday (there having been a delay of the mail.) I will
very soon address you that we may reopen the negotiations which I
earnestly desire. * * * * * *
* * * * “I observe the necessity you are under to render to the new
Cortes an account of this matter, but as they will not meet till
December, I hope you will find no inconvenience from want of time.”
* * * *
“San Ildefonso, November 7,
1865.
* * * * * * *
“In a few conferences we will conclude the negotiation of the treaty,
a consequence of the preliminary convention at Callao, on which you
and I are already personally busied, and I shall bein a situation to
render an account of the result of our labor at the first sittings
of the new parliament. I allow myself a slight suggestion of this,
because official and private advices from Lima tell me many remarks
are made there about our tardiness in completing the treaty, from
which they infer, adversely to Pezet, new difficulties between the
governments, which none better than you and myself can contradict. I
am ready, as soon as possible, that we should bear public testimony
to the union of the two countries, and of the good faith in which
you and I have blotted out the traces of old differences.
“I avail, &c., &c.,
“BEMUDEZ DE CASTRO.”
I have said Riestra sent me a note of articles prepared for the
settlement of the debt. This comprehended:
First. That mentioned in article 1 of the laws of Peru, of August 25,
1834, bearing on the branches of the consular courts, central
treasury, tobacco privileges, mint, and consolidated fund.
[Page 574]
Second. All sums arising from sequestrations, confiscations, loans,
deposits, &c, made or taken by the independent government or its
authorities for carrying on the war of emancipation.
On these bases we opened fresh negotiations, and if I have anything
to excuse myself for it would be for not having done all for the
interests of Spanish subjects. But I attributed such importance to
this arrangement with Peru that I made no difficulty about passing
unnoticed the payments of debts of small amount.
Mr. Riestra differed from me as to my scheme of settlement, but such
was my desire to conclude the treaty that I yielded by admitting
that nothing that remained due on account of the armies of Ferdinand
VII’s reign should be funded, and that no more should be paid than
what the independent government had taken from Spanish subjects.
There remained only one point of difference, and on that we agreed at
our latest conference.
* * * * * * *
To facilitate the arrangement, I conceded that we would consider the
republic as a foreign nation from the moment when an American or
European State had recognized it as such republic.
After such concessions, to remind me that I had made requisitions,
had created difficulties, had renewed claims for seventy millions,
had abandoned the assured base of the treaty of January 21, of
Callao, is completely absurd.
News came that Pezet was replaced by Canseco. Riestra told me he
should go away. I asked him to address me officially on the subject.
He replied he would not. I rejoined, if he would not I must write to
him, because on such a grave occasion it was necessary that each
should maintain the position proper to him. My note bore date of
February, 1886.
Mr. Llorente wished to know something of the good offices offered by
France and England. It is indeed true, that from the beginning of
the contest with the republic of Chili, when news arrived that
Admiral Pareja had established the blockade of Valparaiso, both the
English and French governments hastened to offer their kind
services, to try if it were possible to settle these disagreements.
The Spanish government accepted those good services, declaring it
could not accept mediation of any kind, because, in questions such
as that pending between the republic of Chili and the Spanish
nation, it could not accept of it, nor have any other judge than its
own honor. It then accepted their kind offices, which was
communicated by the respective governments to their ministers at
Santiago, and I have no hesitation in mentioning the compromise
offered by Spain, because it is a proof of the moderation of its
requirements, as it is also a proof of the moderation of the
administration which immediately preceded us.
The satisfaction asked by Mr. Benavidez was a salute of twenty-one
guns, and explanatory notes which should contain full satisfaction
to Spain of the affronts she had received. Nothing was said of
indemnity, except in case hostilities should have broken out.
Well, then, the requirements being so moderate, the conduct of Chili
appears consequently so strange and so anomalous, that the two
nations I speaks of and the United States of America, which had
before employed all the means suggested by friendship—the United
States, whose kindly sentiments, impartial and friendly conduct
toward this nation in these circumstances, the Spanish government
can never too highly appreciate—found not only that these
propositions were not exaggerated, but that from themselves came the
proposal that their good offices should be exercised to obtain from
Chili, to advise Chili, to cause Chili to see that it was its
obligation to give satisfaction to Spain, and the same as that which
the Spanish government asked from it.
The Spanish government had not asked indemnity of any kind, and had
said it would ask it if hostilities should break out. As for the
salute, the Spanish government accepted at once, as a modification,
that in place of the twenty-one guns fired in succession, they
should alternate, Chili taking the initiative. This, however, is a
delicate subject, and Mr. Llorente will understand why I cannot
enter upon it. These good offices may, perhaps, have to be modified,
because the circumstances and situation have changed by the
unfortunate loss of the Covadonga.