Page images
PDF
EPUB

arrival of Mr. Adams, the new American Minister," Lord Clarendon said,

"The facts are:

"The President's proclamation of blockade was published April Intelligence of its issue was received by telegraph (see the Times) on the 2nd of May.

19.

"It was published in the Daily News and other papers on the 3rd of May. Mr. Seward, in his despatch to Mr. Adams of the 12th of January, 1867, says, it reached London on the 3rd of May.'

Α

It

"A copy was received officially from her Majesty's Consul at New York on the 5th; another copy from Lord Lyons on the 10th. was communicated officially by Mr. Dallas to Lord Russell on the 11th, with a copy of a circular from Mr. Seward to the United States' Ministers abroad, dated the 20th of April, calling attention to it, and stating the probability that attempts would be made to 'fit out privateers in the ports of England for the purpose of aggression on the commerce of the United States.'

"The reason of the delay in receiving the copy from Washington was in itself a proof of the existence of civil war, arising, as it did, from the communication between Washington and Baltimore being cut off in consequence of the Confederate troops threatening the capital.

"The prematureness of the measure is further shown by the very tenour of the proclamation'-'Whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America.' Exception is also taken to the use of the word 'contest' as distinct from 'war.'

[ocr errors]

"It will be seen on referring to the Report of the Royal Commission for inquiring into the Neutrality Laws (Appendix) that the form of words used is taken from previous proclamations"Whereas hostilities at this time exist' (June 6, 1823); Engaged in a contest' (September 30, 1825, Turkey and Greece); 'Whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced' (May 13, 1859, Austria, France, and Italy). The same form was used in the case of Spain and Chili (February 6, 1866), and Spain and Peru (March 13, 1866), Hostilities have unhappily commenced' (Austria, Prussia, Italy, Germany, June 27, 1866).

"The order prohibiting prizes from being brought into British ports, for which the United States' Government thanked the British Government, as being likely to give a death-blow to privateering, speaks of observing the strictest neutrality in the contest which appears to be imminent' (June 1, 1861).

"It is remarkable that, in the case of Turkey and Greece, British subjects were warned to respect the exercise of belligerent rights.' This is omitted in the United States' case, the belligerents being spoken of as the 'contending parties.'

[ocr errors]

"The expression States styling themselves the Confederate

U

States of America,' was purposely adopted to avoid the recognition of their existence as independent States, and gave them great offence." Lord Clarendon then said, in answer to Mr. Fish's assertion that the "assumed belligerence was a fiction,"

"What are the facts? A large group of States, containing a population of several millions, and comprising a compact geographical area enabling them to act readily in concert, had established a de facto Government, with a President, Congress, Constitution, Courts of Justice, Army, and all the machinery of military and civil power. They possessed the ports along upwards of 2000 miles of coast, with the exception of Forts Pickens and Munroe, all the Federal posts and forts had been evacuated, including Harper's Ferry, the arsenal of the Potomac Valley. Fort Sumter, the only one which had offered resistance, had fallen a month previously, April 13. The Confederate troops were in occupation of the Shenandoah lines, and threatening Washington. The Confederate President had declared war, and called for a levy of 32,000 troops, to which all the seceded States had responded promptly. On the other hand, the Federal President had called for 75,000 volunteers on the 15th of April, and for 42,000 more on the 3rd of May, and as fast as the regiments could be armed they were hurrying to the defence of Washington. The contending armies were, indeed, face to face.

"So much for the hostilities on land. The operations at sea, in which British interests were more directly affected, had been carried on with equal vigour. On the 17th of April the Confederate President issued his Proclamation offering to grant letters of marque, which was followed, two days afterwards, by the Federal Proclamation of blockade. At the date of the Queen's Proclamation of neutrality both these had been carried, or were being carried into effect. The Federal Government had instituted the blockade of Virginia and North Carolina, which was declared to be effective on the 30th of April, and were rapidly despatching all the merchant vessels which they could procure, and which they were able to convert into ships-of-war, to the blockade of the other ports. The 'General Parkhill,' of Liverpool, was captured by the United States' ship'Niagara' while attempting to run the blockade of Charlestown on the 12th of May; and the British vessels Hilja ' and Monmouth' warned off on the same day. Confederate privateers were already at sea. One was captured at the mouth of the Chesapeake river on the 8th of May by the United States' ship 'Harriet Lane.' On the 15th the Federal barque Ocean Eagle,' of Rockhead, Maine, was taken by the Confederate privateer 'Calhoun' off New Orleans. At the same port Captain Semmes had already received his commission, and was engaged in the outfit of the Sumter.'

"Could any explanations which Mr. Adams might have had to offer alter such a state of things as this? Can any other name be given to it than that of civil war?"

Lord Clarendon then showed that the Proclamation of Neutrality was absolutely pressed upon the Government by the friends of the Northern States, who were afraid lest Confederate privateers should be fitted out in British ports. He said, further, that Mr. Fish "admits that national belligerency is an existing fact,' and he might have added that it exists independently of any official proclamation of neutral Powers, as is shown by the records of the American Prize Courts, which continually recognize the belligerency of the South American States; although, as Mr. Seward stated in one of his despatches, the United States have never issued a Proclamation of Neutrality except in the case of France and England in 1793. This was proved in the civil war by the reception at Curaçoa of the Confederate vessel 'Sumter' as a belligerent cruiser, though the Netherlands had issued no Proclamation of Neutrality. It was this recognition of the 'Sumter,' after her departure from New Orleans (July 6, 1861), at Curaçoa, and at Cienfuegos, which first practically accorded maritime belligerent rights to the Confederates, a fact which is overlooked when it is alleged that Confederate 'belligerency, so far as it was maritime,' proceeded from the ports of Great Britain and her dependencies alone.'

6

"Indeed, it is not going too far to say that the Confederates derived no direct benefit from the Proclamation. Their belligerency depended upon the fact (a fact which, when we are told that the civil war left behind it two millions and a half of dead and maimed, is, unfortunately, indisputable) that they were waging civil war. If there had been no proclamation, the fact would have remained the same, and belligerency would have had to be recognized either on behalf of the Northern States, by admitting the validity of captures on the high seas for the carriage of contraband or breach of blockade, or on the arrival of the 'Sumter,' or some similar vessel, in a British port.

"In no case can it be really supposed that the recognition of belligerency, which, unless neutral nations abandoned their neutrality and took an active part in the contest, was inevitable, materially influenced the fortunes of such a fearful and protracted civil war.

"At all events, if it did, the Confederates never acknowledged it; the recognition of belligerency they regarded (as indeed was the case) as a right which could not be denied to them. What they sought was not the mere technical title of 'belligerents,' but a recognition of independence; and when they found that it was hopeless to expect England to accord it, they cut off all intercourse with this country, expelled her Majesty's Consuls from their towns, and did every thing in their power to show the sense which they entertained of the injury which they believed had been inflicted upon them. The result being that while one side has blamed us for doing too much, the other side has blamed us for doing too little, and thus an assumption of neutrality has been regarded both by North and South as an attitude of hostility.

"Any one who read the despatch without any previous knowledge

of the subject might suppose from the language used that fleets of privateers had been despatched from British ports with the connivance, if not the direct support, of her Majesty's Government :"Great Britain . permitted armed cruisers to be fitted

out,' &c.

"The Queen's Government

:

. suffered ship after ship

to be constructed in its ports to wage war on the United States.' were, with ostentatious publicity, being

66 6

Many ships

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

constructed.'

"Permission or negligence which enabled Confederate cruisers from her ports to prey,' &c:

"Great Britain alone had founded on that recognition a systematic maritime war' a virtual act of war.' "Suffering the fitting-out of rebel cruisers.'

[ocr errors]

"The fact being that only one vessel, of whose probable intended belligerent character the British Government had any evidence, escaped-viz. the 'Alabama.'

"The Shenandoah' was a merchant-ship employed in the India trade under the name of the 'Sea King.' Her conversion into a Confederate cruiser was not heard of until more than a month after she had left England.

"The Georgia,' or 'Japan,' was actually reported by the Board of Trade surveyor, who had no idea of her destination, to be built as a merchant-ship, and to be rather crank. Nothing was known of her proceedings until she had taken her arms and crew on board in Morlaix Bay, and reached Cherbourg. Her real point of departure, as a cruiser, was France, and not England.

[ocr errors]

"The Florida' was detained at Nassau on suspicion, but discharged by the local Admiralty Court, there being no evidence of her being any thing but a blockade-runner. She was fitted out as a ship-of-war at Mobile.

"On the other hand, the British Government prevented the outfit of the Rappahannock,' prosecuted and detained the 'Alexandra,' seized the 'Liverpool' rams, and stopped the 'Pampero,' besides investigating carefully every case of suspected outfit brought forward by Mr. Adams, and he complained of nineteen, as well as every case which could be discovered independently. Among other things, taking charge of Captain Osborn's Anglo-Chinese flotilla, which, it was apprehended, might fall into the hands of the Confederates, at a cost to this country of 100,000%."

With respect to the claim made for the losses sustained by the career of the " Alabama," Lord Clarendon said, "But it must be remembered that when Mr. Fish claims compensation for all her depredations, he should not overlook the fact of the negligence shown by the Federal navy in twice letting her escape from them. First, when Mr. Adams urged the captain of the Federal ship, which at his instance had gone to Holyhead to look after her, to pursue her, when the captain refused, and went off to his station at Gibraltar instead-a proceeding at which Mr. Adams expressed the

greatest indignation (see Congress Papers, 1862, page 159); and, secondly, when the United States' ship 'San Jacinto' blockaded her in the French port of St. Pierre, Martinique, and then suffered her to slip away at night from under her bows."

He further asked, with reference to the alleged falling off in the number of American shipping and decrease in American tonnage, as occasioned by the "unfriendliness" of Great Britain, "Is not, however, a good deal of it to be attributed to the high American tariff, which makes the construction of vessels in American ports more expensive than ship-building in England, and has thereby thrown so large a proportion of the carrying trade into English

hands?

"There must be some such cause for it, or otherwise American shipping would have recovered its position since the war instead of continuing to fall off."

Lord Clarendon ended by saying, "The despatch, in conclusion, refers to important changes in the rules of public law,' the desirableness of which has been demonstrated, but does not say what are the changes to which he alludes.

"This is in the spirit of the proposal made by her Majesty's Government in December, 1865, North America, No. 1, 1866' (page 164):

"I, however, asked Mr. Adams whether it would not be both useful and practical to let bygones be bygones, to forget the past, and turn the lessons of experience to account for the future. England and the United States, I said, had each become aware of the defects that existed in international law, and I thought it would greatly redound to the honour of the two principal maritime nations of the world to attempt the improvements in that code which had been proved to be necessary. It was possible, I added, that the wounds inflicted by the war were still too recent, and that the illwill towards England was still too rife, to render such an undertaking practicable at the present moment; but it was one which ought to be borne in mind, and that was earnestly desired by her Majesty's Government, as a means of promoting peace and abating the horrors of war, and a work, therefore, which would be worthy of the civilization of our age, and which would entitle the Governments which achieved it to the gratitude of mankind.'

"It is not necessary in this Memorandum to dwell on the alleged efficiency of the American as compared to the English Foreign Enlistment Act. The failure of the American Act in the Portuguese cases, in the repeated filibustering expeditions of Walker against Central America, and the acquittal under it of Lopez, the invader of Cuba, are proofs that its action cannot always be relied upon; and this is further corroborated by the difficulties now being experienced in dealing with the 'Hornet,' at Wilmington. Although, as Mr. Fish says, there have been prosecutions under it, it is believed that from the trial of Gideon Henfield, in 1793, to the present day there has never been a criminal conviction. The only result of the

« PreviousContinue »