nations and of the Neutrality Acts, exposing the guilty parties to the pains and penalties of the law, and the vessel to forfeiture. "Where the elements of armaments are combined, they come within the provision of the law;" but, if that combination does not take place until they have left the neutral country and are no longer within its jurisdiction, it is said that its Government cannot interpose. Upon the principles above stated, great and most interesting questions are to be solved between the United States and England, both concerning the various vessels, built in English ports, armed, equipped, and mainly manned, by English subjects, and now careering the seas, in the service of the rebels, for the destruction of American commerce, and concerning other formidable vessels of war now in process of construction there for the like service. 22 AUGUST, 1863. III. HISTORY OF THE NEUTRAL RELATIONS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES. THE true construction, however, of the obligations of a neutral power, in reference to the fitting-out of ships of war within its jurisdiction to serve against a friendly belligerent, both under the law of nations and its own municipal laws, would seem to have been long ago conclusively settled, at least as between England and the United States, if precedent is of any authority, or if scrupulous fidelity in preventing such proceedings by one party, at the instance of the other, can be considered as imposing upon the latter any reciprocal duty; and this, too, in the application of such obligations to cases where the warlike force depended, as of old, on the armament, and not upon the peculiar construction and equipment of the hull. And it does, indeed, seem passing strange, that such entire ignorance of, or careful abstinence from reference to, not remote history, should characterize all the debates in Parliament, and discussions by the ministerial presses and the courts of law, upon this subject. In contemplating the treatment which this country has received, and is receiv ing, at the hands of England, in this struggle for national life one is almost driven to the conclusion, that the history and the fate of America, even in reference to the neutral obligations of England towards her, are looked upon as beneath an Englishman's study or consideration; he seeming to care nothing about either, or his only thought being how to make the most of the complication for his own benefit. After the termination of the war of the Revolution, and the acknowledgment of the United States as an independent nation, and when occasion arose to develop her sense of duty as a neutral under the law of nations, it is gratifying to know, that she commenced her career by the most liberal interpretation of it in reference to her obligations and the rights of others, and has ever since been foremost in the effort to place these upon foundations of the broadest humanity. The first call made upon her was a crucial test; for it was made by England, her recent oppressor and enemy, for protection against the violation of neutral relations within her territories by or in behalf of the subjects of France, her ally and friend, by whom she had been aided in the war with England, and towards whom the United States felt and acknowledged the strongest obligations. In the great war then raging between England and France, the English Government entertained, very naturally and with good reason, apprehensions that privateers would be fitted out in the United States to prey upon English commerce under the French flag; and, their apprehensions being communicated to our Government, President Washington, in 1793, issued a proclamation forbidding all such violations of neutrality, and stating that instructions had been given to the officers of the United States to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who should violate the law of nations, with respect to the powers at war, or any other. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Hamilton, issued instructions to the collectors of the customs, commencing with the following preamble: "It appearing that repeated contraventions of our neutrality have taken place in the ports of the United States, without having been discovered in time for prevention or remedy, I have it in command from the President to address to the collectors of the respective districts a particular instruction upon the subject." And he proceeds to direct them to "have a vigilant eye upon whatever may be passing within the ports, harbors, creeks, inlets, and waters [of their respective districts], of a nature to contravene the laws of neutrality; and, upon discovery of anything of the kind, to give immediate notice to the Governor of the State, and to the Attorney of the Judicial District."* At the same time, the Governors of States were called upon to cause vessels to be arrested, if about to depart on any such service; and several were so arrested, and prevented from sailing. Prizes, which had been taken by such privateers fitted out, and sailing from ports, in the United States, were restored to the British owners; and the Government of the United States proclaimed, that it held itself responsible to indemnify for such captures. All this was done under a sense of duty, as imposed by the law of nations, no Enlistment Act having then been passed. But, in 1794, Congress, with an earnest desire to preserve the strictest fidelity, enacted a statute on this subject, for the purpose of compelling the observance of an entire neutrality within the jurisdiction of the United States. And, in the same year, a treaty was made with England, in which one clause provided, that the United States should make indemnity to British owners for vessels which had been previously captured by privateers that had been fitted out in the United States. This Act of 1794 was made immediately after the application of the British Government upon this subject, and for the purpose of insuring the immediate observance of a strict neutrality; as was expressly admitted and stated by Mr. Canning in Parliament.-(Canning's Speeches, vol. iv. pp. 52, 53.) And yet we are now coolly told by Lord Palmerston and Earl Russell, that England cannot alter her municipal laws to suit other governments! The Act of 1794 was revised, and a new act passed, by Congress in 1818, containing still more rigorous provisions for the preservation of a strict neutrality, in immediate reference * 1 American State Papers, p. 140. to the war then raging between Spain and her South-American colonies. And, in 1819, the English Government imitated our example, by the enactment of the Statute 59 George III., constituting their present municipal code upon this subject; —a statute in substantial conformity with that of the United States, and giving, certainly, reasonable ground of expectation, that England was thenceforth to stand pledged to the same faithful and honorable discharge of the duties of neutrality towards this country as had been practised by us towards her. These Neutrality Acts are founded upon the law of nations, and designed to secure its enforcement by remedies consisting of provisions, and forms of proceeding, and pains and penalties, necessarily of a municipal nature; there being no international remedy applicable to cases within the territorial jurisdiction of a neutral nation. The portions most material to the matter in hand are as follows, taken from the English Statute 59 George III. : Section 2 provides, that if any subject shall enlist, or agree to enlist, as an officer or soldier or sailor, for any warlike purpose in any foreign service, or go to any foreign state with a view so to enlist; or if any person within the kingdom shall attempt to hire or engage any person so to enlist, or to go or agree to embark from his Majesty's dominions for the purpose of being enlisted or engaged; every such person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Section 5 provides, that if any vessel in any port of his Majesty's dominions shall have on board any person who shall have so enlisted or engaged to enlist, or be departing with intent to enlist, such vessel, upon information, shall be detained and prevented from proceeding. Section 6 provides, that if any master of a vessel shall knowingly take on board, or any owner shall knowingly engage to take on board, any person so enlisting or intending to enlist, |