he shall forfeit £50 for every person so taken, and the vessel shall be detained until payment of the penalty.

Section 7 (corresponding substantially with the third section of the statute of the United States of 1818, chapter 88, and containing the provisions most material for consideration) enacts, that, "if any person, within any part of the United Kingdom, shall without the leave, &c., &c., equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavor to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned, in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming, of any ship or vessel, with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, &c., &c., as a transport or storeship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostilities against any prince, state, or potentate, &c., &c., with whom his Majesty shall not then be at war;" every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, upon any information or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court in which such offender shall be convicted; and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may belong to, or be on board, of any such ship or vessel, SHALL BE FORFEITED."

The verbal differences between these Statutes, introduced into that of England, seem to render it, if anything, more explicit and comprehensive than that of the United States; and would seem, therefore, to require of English tribunals at least an equally liberal interpretation, in favor of a friendly belligerent, with that adopted by the tribunals in America.

The next occasion for the elucidation of the principles of our Government on this subject was in the war of 1854–55, between Russia, on one side, and England and France, on the

other.

And here, again, the test was a stringent one, as the utmost cordiality had always existed between the Russian Government and that of the United States.

When that war broke out, the British minister at Washington addressed a communication of the fact to the Executive of the United States, in which he took occasion to say, that "the allied governments confidently trust that the governments of the countries which remain neutral during the war will sincerely exert every effort to enforce upon their subjects or citizens the necessity of observing the strictest neutrality; and that the United-States Government will give orders that no privateers, under Russian colors, shall be equipped or victualled in ports of the United States; and also that the citizens of the United States shall rigorously abstain from taking part in armaments of this nature, or in any other measure opposed to the strictest duties of neutrality." And the United-States Secretary of State, in reply, promised the exercise of all the powers of the Government "to enforce obedience to the neutrality laws." Here, then, we have the British Government, in her hour of need, calling upon that of the United States to take active measures to secure the citizens of the former from all injury by any departure from the strictest duties of neutrality; and the voluntary assurance given in return, that the laws to compel it should be rigorously enforced.

Nor has it been left to conjecture how the British Government would think it proper to construe their requisition, or how the United States would interpret their promise to comply with it. During that war, the bark " Maury" of New York, a mere merchant-ship, was fitting out in New York for a voyage to China; and, a suspicion having arisen in the minds of the British consul and some English residents, that she was taking in arms and munitions of war, to be used in the service of Russia, and the consul having communicated his suspicions to the British minister at Washington, and he

having made complaint to the Government of the United States, though the evidence submitted, on which it was founded, was of the feeblest and most unsatisfactory character, the vessel and cargo were immediately seized by officers of the United States, without the slightest previous notice to the owners, and were detained until the British consul, and those instigating the seizure, were perfectly satisfied that the suspicions were wholly erroneous; and for these he afterwards made a public apology in one of the gazettes in that city.

-

Well might the British Government, on the breaking-out of the war with Russia, have felt apprehensions, and feared the violation of a strict neutrality by the citizens of the United States, or their complicity in such violations, — and well might she have implored the interposition of our Government to protect her from them, if it could then have been anticipated what the principles and conduct of her own Government and subjects would be in like circumstances, when she should stand in the relation of a neutral, and the United States in that of a friendly belligerent. For, if the Executive and people of the United States had then acted upon no higher principles, and in no better faith, in their respect of neutral obligations, than the ministry and people of England have done in this war, the seas would have swarmed with Russian privateers, built and equipped in American ports, or under the protection of the American flag, and her commerce would have been swept from the

ocean.

In the late debate in Parliament, above alluded to, while a studied forgetfulness of this case was observed, — though it was one of great notoriety in England when the suspicions and seizure of the "Maury" were made known there, and is not to be supposed, therefore, to have been forgotten, an attempt was made by Mr. Laird, a member of the House of Commons, and the principal builder of vessels

for the rebels, to justify his conduct and that of the Ministry by a statement, that, during the war with Russia, a vessel named the "America" was built, equipped, manned, and armed in the United States for the Russian Government, and taken out to the Pacific Ocean under the command of Captain Hudson, an ex-lieutenant of the American Navy, and that the American Government gave orders to its admiral to protect her from search by English and French officers. To this statement, Lord Palmerston hastened to give his official sanction; adding, "that the British Government made complaint, but that the local authorities found that there was no ground for molesting her; but that, nevertheless, there was the best reason for believing that the ship was destined for the Russian Government, and for naval operations in the Eastern seas, where the Russian Government most needed assistance; " " that they had reason to believe that other ships were then building in America for the same purpose, and would have been used if the war had continued;" and that therefore he held, that, on mere ground of international law, belligerents have no right to complain, if merchants, as a mercantile transaction, supply one of the belligerents, not only with arms and cannon, but also with ships destined for warlike purposes.

Now, this story in all that is essential in it tending to show any justification of the conduct of its author, or of his country, in their conduct as neutrals towards the United States in furnishing armed ships of war, or ships of war of any kind is a sheer fabrication, as is shown by the official documents, and statements by official authority at Washington, issued immediately upon the publication of that debate in this country.

By them it appears, that, after the capture of Sebastopol and the virtual ending of the Crimean war, a vessel, which may have been built to serve as a steam-tug in the Russian possessions on the North-west Coast (but, if so, the Execu

tive Government of the United States had no knowledge of it, and no complaint of it whatever had been made from any quarter), sailed from New York under the command of a master who was named Hudson (and who previously had been a midshipman in the Navy of the United States), and put into Rio Janeiro on her way, in February, 1856; that she was not armed, nor in any manner equipped as a vessel of war; — but that, suspicions being excited by the statement of a British sailor (who had shipped there, and had been dismissed two hours afterwards for misconduct) that she had arms concealed under her coal, the British and French officers insisted on the right to search her. This right was denied by Captain Hudson. But he gave his affidavit (with the approbation of the commander of an American frigate then in port), stating that there were no other arms or munitions of war on board than one Minié rifle, one double-barrelled shot-gun, one pair of Colt's revolvers, one pair of pocket pistols, a ten-pound keg of powder, and a bag of No. 6 robin shot; and that his manifest, exhibited, was in every particular correct. This not appearing to be a supply of arms and ammunition calculated to frighten the British and French naval forces in the Pacific, "the affidavit quieted the excitement, and she was allowed to proceed." Now, it is expressly stated, upon official authority, that no complaint of any sort concerning this vessel is on file in any department of the United-States Government from any diplomatic or consular office of England, France, or any other enemy of Russia; while the regular official account of the affair (as given above) from the Minister of the United States in Brazil is on file in its proper place.

If any complaint was made by the British Government on this subject, as alleged by Lord Palmerston in his place in Parliament, or if his Government were not satisfied, it can, of course, be shown by reference to the British archives, although not found in those of the United States; unless,