enterprises against the peace of the republic, and frees him in this latter respect only from the instance, with the order that he be placed under the surveillance of the police.

"Therefore, not only is the above-mentioned assertion, that the exclusive accusation against White was an attempt to murder, based upon error, but it is evident that the further assertion, namely, that it was proved in the course of the proceedings that this sole accusation was quite groundless, is in manifest contradiction to the documents, which can only be explained by the essential void in the statement of the British Government, occasioned by the omission of the sentence in third instance. But it is precisely on this final sentence that a proper understanding of the case depends, whilst all the conclusions drawn by the British Government being based on the judgment in the second instance are valueless, as this sentence itself has been declared void. Moreover, the sentence in third instance, in so far as it frees White only from the instance, is the more justified, as, besides that the accused had by no means fully cleared himself from the grounds of suspicion, the examination of all the witnesses could not take place on account of the external obstacles which interposed, and it might well be expected that a future examination of the witnesses Caro, Jerr, Maldonado, Pearson, and Ruperto would throw further light on the suspicions against the accused that were not cleared up.

"Therefore the first point of complaint is to be pronounced of no force; and now there is to be investigated how far, second, the sufferings and injuries to which the accused was subjected during his imprisonment give just occasion for complaint.

"Here it is to be observed, first of all, that in general, when the question concerns complaints made by a person kept long in prison of such injuries as he has endured during his imprisonment, his own assertions are always to be examined with the greatest caution, and unconditional credence is the less to be given to them, as such complaints very frequently arise in cases where the imprisonment was well deserved and in no wise too severe, Now, it appears incontrovertibly from the documents that White, being at the time of the arrest a foreigner, without occupation, income, or any fixed domicile, was by no means a personage who could lay claim to particular credibility for his statements, and especially not when the matter in question was a claim from which he, according to his own view, was to receive a good round sum of money. Numerous contradictions and demonstrable falsehoods which he put forward will be noticed hereafter in their proper places. To prove that the British. Government, so far as it has sifted the matter, has always given by far too much weight to the assertions of White, it may suffice here to refer to that part of his statement (ride p. 22 ff.) which is described as an extract from the investigation and process documents. It contains in almost every line the most evident and grossest misrepresentations of the truth, as, on the one side, everything implicating White is throughout passed over in the extract, whilst what is quoted is often cither entirely falsified or at least so disconnected that the result appears quite contradictory to the documents. For example, may be quoted that, according to the statement of White, the sentence, in first instance, reads, in its decisive part, word for word as follows:

"Upon which grounds I ought to acquit, and do acquit, Thomas Melville

White, as regards complicity in the crime of which he is accused, and generally from cooperating to upset public order; but he must be expelled,' &c.

"Whereas in the attested English translation, from the documents which he had before him, the sentence corresponding with the Spanish original is as follows:

"Upon which grounds I ought to acquit, and do acquit, from this instance, Thomas Melville White, as regards,' &c.

"It is further said, page 30: Page 139 (of the English translation) contains the sentence passed by the supreme court in claimant's case, the substance of which is as follows:

"We confirm the sentence of the superior court, acquitting Melville White of the horrible charge of which he has been accused. He must remain under the vigilance of the police.'

"But it is stated, word for word, on page 139 of that attested English translation:

"They declared null the sentence pronounced by the most illustrious superior court, in as far as regards that, in absolute manner, it absolves Thomas Melville White, and reforming it, absolved him from the instance (instantia) as to the rest of the charges that have weighed against him, and have been cited, and he ought to remain subject to the vigilance of the police.'

"And in the face of such wilful misrepresentations of the truth, Thomas Melville White maintains by declaration, in place of oath, before Major Rosi, on the 25th of September 1863, that all the statements contained in the subjoined case, written and drawn up by me, are strictly in conformity with truth.'

"No weight whatever ought, therefore, to be attached to the assertions of a man so wanting in veracity.

"On entering upon the second point of complaint it is, in the first place, scarcely necessary to remark that the arrest of White, as carried out, was fully justified, and was effected without any resort to force, for the harbor captain, Benjamin Mariategni, reports that White submitted without resistance to the order for his arrest, and there is nothing that could support a contrary supposition.

"The above-mentioned complaint may be thus specified in detail: That White was kept in custody for a long time incommunicado; that he had been kept up to the 27th of August confined in a dirty, loathsome cell, without sufficient food, and, lastly, that he had been subjected to torture and ill treatment. Now, with regard to the first point, it has not been asserted at all that, according to Peruvian law, the examining judge has no power to order the imprisonment of a person under examination debarring communication. It would be unjust to deny the judge such power on the general principles of law; it ought rather to be taken for granted that, when a person has been arrested on suspicion of a serious crime, the judge can often only secure the necessary disclosures by preventing all communication with the prisoner, and thus avoid the danger of collusion, by which the investigation might be prejudiced. Besides, according to the report of Judge Ponce, White was only in custody incommunicado for two days (namely, on the 26th and 27th of March); and Judge Ponce, to prove that the isolation was by no means strict, justly states that even during this

time the prisoner found means to elude the order, as, according to his own statement, he received a newspaper from a fellow-prisoner, and found means to have his written complaint printed in the journal Comercio of the 26th of March.

"It is, moreover, fully proved by the depositions of Bauda, Carillo, Milan, and Harzu, who were examined upon oath at the beginning of April (folio 9 et seq. of the investigation documents), that White, at the beginning of the imprisonment, was not incommunicado, but received frequent visits from his countrymen, and had, moreover, the opportunity of repeating his complaints and threats before fellow-prisoners.

"By the same witnesses it has been proved-and this also has been ac knowledged by the British Government (ride page 16 of its statement), but denied by White (ride page 22 of his statement)—that the sum allowed to political prisoners to secure comforts during their imprisonment (namely, one dollar per day) had been repeatedly offered to White, but was refused by him in an insolent manner. His statement, therefore, that he had for days together received no other food than damaged rice is the less credible, as Judge Ponce declares, in his report of the 20th of April 1861, that the food given to prisoners is, according to the legal regulations, tested by the judges every day, and that strict care is taken that it be good and wholesome. With regard to the locality in which the prisoner was, Judge Ponce declares that, so long as the isolation of the prisoner lasted, a place was assigned to him in the courtyard of the prison which had formerly been the residence of the keeper (castellan), and was airy and by far better than the locality assigned to political prisoners. Ponce further reports, on the 23rd of October 1861, that during the whole of his imprisonment, up to that time, an abode had been assigned to him which freed him from contact with other prisoners, without preventing him from receiving the visits of his friends; in fact, he received frequent visits, amonget others from Colonel O'Gorman. The credibility of these official reports of Ponce does not appear to be at all shaken, for there is nothing whatever against them except the assertions of White, which have been partly refuted by the fullest proof, and which do not appear to be sustained by the slightest probability. The British Government has mentioned nothing that would do so, nor has it referred to the documents contained in his statement, which therefore do not require consideration. But it may be openly stated that the pretended declarations of Henry Cornell, produced in an unattested copy, can not be attended to at all, since there is no warrant whatever for their genuineness; further, that the voluntary depositions of O'Gorman, on the 28th of September 1863, can not be allowed to have any force as proof, considering that at that time two years and a half had elapsed since White's arrest, that nothing was positively known either of the deponent himself or of his relations with White; but these depositions themselves are only calculated to lead to the conjecture that he was too intimately connected with the interests of White to be willing to give altogether the unbiased truth. Now and then he is guilty of notoriously false statements; for instance, when he asserts (page 39 of White's statement):

"That from the first moment of his incarceration, it was notorious in Lima (where the real perpetrator of the crime was known), that Captain Thomas Melville White was entirely innocent; and the government, in a 5627-VOL. 5—37

few weeks after his arrest. had positive information from their own official authorities that he was at the time of the attack made in Lima on General Cas illa, a thousand miles from that city.'

"It can only be thought natural that the British Government has not even once appealed to such testimony as this.

"An evident refutation of White's statements in regard to the condition of his prison must be found in this: That Mr. Barton personally visited the prisoner on the 23d of August 1861, as representative of Mr. Jerningham, and on the following day wrote the letter before us in reference thereto to the Minister Melgar. He says not a word about having found the prison unfit, but merely requests to be informed whether it was likely that the investigation would soon terminate, as the prisoner complained that he was suffering from an affection of the liver in consequence of his long detention. When, therefore, on the following day a better prison was assigned to White (page 24 of the report of the British Government), it only shows how anxious the government and authorities of Peru were to anticipate the wishes on behalf of the prisoner.

"The description of White's sufferings which precedes the above-mentioned letter of Mr. Barton, who is supposed to have witnessed them, is in evident contradiction with the contents of this document, and appears to be based only on the false statements of White.

"The occasion of that visit of Mr. Barton was the complaint made by White of the tortures that he had suffered in the 'barra,' in which he had been shut up for a long time. But it is proved by the documents (see fol. 106 of the investigation documents) that White, on his examination on the 20th of August, demanded the reading of various documents, which, as is admitted at page 23 of the statement of the British Government, were drawn up in an unbecoming tone, and contained abuse of the government and of judicial persons.

“But it is again a misrepresentation when it is said that the judge on this occasion was not satisfied with refusing to receive these documents, but ordered White to be put in irons; for he received this punishment for having answered Judge Ponce by personal threats, when cautioned with regard to these documents (see fol. 107 and 108 of the investigation documents.)

"Such contempt of the dignity of the judge demanded punishment, and that inflicted on White does not appear to have been too severe, as, according to the official statement of Ponce, dated 7th of September, he was not shut up in the 'barra' for more than 10 minutes.

"After all this, there is not the slightest proof that White was treated during his arrest with undue severity; and his unsupported assertions with reference to his treatment have not even probability in their favor, considering his proved untrustworthiness, and in the face of the official reports of the judge and other authorities.

"3. The third complaint of the British Government is, that in the present case the rules and principles of the Peruvian law and the universal sense of justice have been neglected, as is demonstrated by the delay of the trial and by the course and mode of proceedings which preceded it.

"In the first place, with regard to the delay of the trial itself, it has already been stated that the mode of criminal procedure in Peru is a combination of proceedings on investigation and accusation, and that in

conformity there with the accusation can only be proceeded with after the preliminary investigation is fully completed.

"Now, by a decree of the attorney-general of the 8th of August, the penal proceedings were commenced, and the accused was informed of this decree on the same day. On the 11th it was ordered that Judge Carillo should take cognizance in first instance, after the penal accusation had been made, and he gave up the further instruction of the matter on the 14th to Juarez. On the 13th the attorney-general ordered the appointment of an interpreter, on the representation of the accused that he had to make some declarations in his cause. This interpreter was appointed on the 19th. On the 20th the final examination of the accused took place, and on the 23d of August came the public accusation on the part of the attorney-general. On the 26th of September the advocate, Pablo Mora, delivered his written defense; on the 30th Juarez ordered the examination on oath of the president, Castilla, for the completion of the documents. This examination took place on the 18th of October. On the 8th of November Juarez ordered the production of an authenticated copy of the 'decreto de interdiction,' which was obtained on the 10th, and on the 30th of November the sentence in first instance was delivered. It is evident from this account that no delay had taken place from the delivery of the accusation to the 10th of November; and if the judge in first instance was reprimanded by the sentence of the corte superior for not having delivered his sentence sooner, this reprimand can only refer to a delay between the 10th and 30th of November, as he had not acted as judge at all in the investigation.

"As the sentence in second instance was given on the 14th of December and that of the corte suprema on the 23rd of that month, it certainly appears that sentences in criminal cases are delivered in Peru with especial promptitude. But as the period of 20 days between the completion of the documents and the finding, in first instance, cannot be considered a delay of importance, compensation on this ground in favour of the accused can be the less demanded, as, according to the Peruvian law, a fine (Ordnungsstrafe) only can be imposed in case of delay in official judicial proceedings. It is, moreover, to be questioned whether the reprimand of the judge by the corte superior ever came into operation, as the corte suprema has declared the sentence of that tribunal to be null.

"It remains, therefore, to investigate how far the above-named third complaint of the British Government appears to be founded on the course of the proceeding during the preliminary examination.

"This complaint may be divided, according to the contents of the statement before us, into the following points: (1) That a written order, by virtue of which White was arrested, was never shown or delivered to him; (2) that no document containing an accusation was produced during the investigation; (3) that an interpreter was denied to White, notwithstanding his request; (4) that no counsel was allowed him up to the conclusion of the investigation; (5) that force and intimidation were resorted to in the examinations during the investigation, and that the examinations were altogether of a very inquisitorial character; (6) that White was not confronted with any of the witnesses on whose evidence the accusation of the attorney-general was based; (7) that the investigation and, consequently, the opening of the trial had been delayed.

"As regards the first point, it has already been stated that the written