MR. SHAW'S STATEMENT.
THE tone of the Meeting at Exeter Hall which welcomed the returned Missionaries from Madagascar on Thursday night was all that could be desired, and Mr. Shaw's account of his sufferings was straightforward, simple, and temperate. The narrative which he had to tell was, indeed, from first to last, of such an astounding kind, that no rhetorical artifice was needed to secure attention for its details and to enhance its painful interest. The source of Admiral Pierre's hostility to Mr. Shaw is still involved in mystery, and the most plausible explanation of it appears to be that, being a Missionary, and also President of the Committee of Safety of British Subjects at Tamatave, he appeared to the Admiral to be the most conspicuous and typical repre- sentative of England in the place. He was accordingly singled out for special punishment, to prove to his compatriots that France was not to be trifled with. Of any actual or contem- plated breach of neutrality on the part of Mr. Shaw there does not seem to be the slightest evidence. The charges which were successively trumped up against him were obviously the merest pretexts. The accusation of harbouring the enemy, by retaining Hova servants in his employ, was disproved within a few hours of its being made by the evidence of the servants themselves, who belonged to a different tribe. No intima- tion, however, was given to Mr. Shaw that the charge had been abandoned, or that another had been substituted for it, and daring the first fourteen days of his imprisonment he was kept absolutely in the dark as to the cause of his detention. On the fifteenth day, the Captain of the ‘Nievre ' informed him for the first time that he was accused of attempting to poison the French picket which had been stationed at his house. It was, of course, notorious that Mr. Shaw's premises had been broken open, that the contents of his cellar and his dispensary had been thrown together by the thieves, and that if the French Marines had been decently disciplined and officered, the misadventure from which they suffered would never have occurred. The second charge was, therefore, transparently ridiculous, as even Admiral Pierre seems after a time to have recognised. Accordingly, on the twenty-second day, it was abandoned, and Mr. Shaw was given to understand that he was to be tried for his " im- prudence " in not informing the French Commander that some of the bottles in the garden contained poisonous compounds. One would be glad to know in what part of the law of nations the duty of a neutral to give information to a belligerent is laid down, and his " imprudence " in omitting to do so declared to be a crime. At last, this flimsy pretext having served its turn, and the Admiral being, no doubt, at last aware of the disapproval of his Government, Mr. Shaw was told that there was not " sufficient evidence " to justify his trial by a court-martial, and he was set at liberty. There is no need to dwell on the privations he suffered during his captivity,—the stifling cabin, the solitary confinement, the bad and insufficient food, the brutality which denied him even the sight of his wife. Mr. Shaw, doubtless, exaggerates none of these incidents, and they will all be legitimate items in his claim for compensation, but as between the two Governments concerned nothing can add to the gravity of the question which is raised by the simple facts which we have already stated. There has been, it must be remembered, abundant time for the French authorities to sift the case. Mr. Shaw's imprisonment termi- nated as long ago as the 7th August. If there were any evidence to refute or modify his version of the circumstances, it would have been forthcoming before now ; and as no such evidence has been or apparently can be produced, we are justified in inferring that we now know all that is to be known about the case.
For our own part, the fuller statement of Mr. Shaw confirms us in the opinion which we at first expressed. The pro- ceedings of Admiral Pierre appear to us to be only expli- cable on one hypothesis,—that they were the acts of one who had been reduced by disease to the condition of a dangerous and irresponsible madman. If any credit is to be attached to M. Challemel-Lacour's solemn official utterances, the Admiral had been expressly instructed to avoid any measure which could wound British susceptibilities. Allowing him the widest discretion in the interpretation of his orders, it is incredible that any sane man could have fancied that he was carrying them out by insulting the British Consul, quarrelling with the British Commander, and imprisoning a British subject for the best part of two months on a suc- cession of improvised charges of the most farcical ab- surdity. We know that Admiral Pierre was suffering, and soon afterwards died, from a disease one of whose specific marks is the inroad which it makes on the mental powers. If it is true, as is asserted, that he was recalled at his own request, it would seem probable that in time he himself became con- scious that he was disabled for his work. Everything that we know of his conduct at Tamatave falls so far short of even the lowest estimate that the most hostile critics have ever formed of a French officer's judgment, tact, and courtesy, that this explanation, being as it is otherwise probable, appears to us to be the one which the public should at least provisionally adopt. It is quite true that it in no way diminishes the responsibility of the French Republic for what has occurred. Great States ought not to employ mad officers, and if they do, they must take the consequences, one of which is the liability to make atonement for insults that they never contemplated, and would have done all in their power to prevent. But a recognition on both sides that what has happened was due to the regrettable decay of a gallant officer's faculties will make the task of repairing the injury a far smoother one than it would otherwise have been, and to those who value the good relations of the two countries this is no small advantage. England may then anticipate, without demanding it, that regret will be expressed and compensation offered for an unintended wrong. France, which has already paid due honour to the fine qualities of the deceased Admiral, cannot hesitate to disavow acts which were committed in defiance of her explicit orders, and which can be explained without any reflection on the loyalty and obedience of her officer. No one here can have the least desire to exaggerate, and no one in France the least disposition to justify, an in- cident which, fortunately, is almost without a precedent. There ought, therefore, to be no difficulty in arranging a settlement which will satisfy English honour, without wounding French self-respect.
Previous page
