30 Naval War of 1812 



But it must be remembered that when Porter de 

 cided to anchor near shore, in neutral water, he 

 could not anticipate Hilyar's deliberate and treach 

 erous breach of faith. I do not allude to the mere 

 disregard of neutrality. Whatever international 

 moralists may say, such disregard is a mere ques 

 tion of expediency. If the benefits to be gained by 

 attacking a hostile ship in neutral waters are such 

 as to counterbalance the risk of incurring the enmity 

 of the neutral power, why then the attack ought to 

 be made. Had Hilyar, when he first made his ap 

 pearance off Valparaiso, sailed in with his two ships, 

 the men at quarters and guns out, and at once at 

 tacked Porter, considering the destruction of the 

 Essex as outweighing the insult to Chili, why his 

 behavior would have been perfectly justifiable. In 

 fact this is unquestionably what he intended to do; 

 but he suddenly found himself in such a position, 

 that in the event of hostilities, his ship would be the 

 captured one, and he owed his escape purely to 

 Porter's over-forbearance, under great provocation. 

 Then he gave his word to Porter that he would 

 not infringe on the neutrality ; and he never dared 

 to break it, until he saw Porter was disabled and 

 almost helpless ! This may seem strong language to 

 use about a British officer, but it is justly strong. 

 Exactly as any outsider must consider Warrington's 

 attack on the British brig Nautilus in 1815 as a 



