Page images
PDF
EPUB

comparison of the tone maintained by the respective parties renders it not difficult to reach.

His lordship enlarged once more upon the magnitude of the region engaged in the revolt, and upon the orgency of the call to provide for the new emergency. He attempted an analogy between the course taken by Great Britain in this case and that of the United States towards South America after the revolt of the dependencies of Spain. Subsequent events had only confirmed the correctness of the decision. For the very efforts to which the United States had been compelled to resort proved the magnitude of the task undertaken, and they were still engaged in pursuing their object without absolute certainty of success. The wish of Great Britain was to remain neutral and impartial. They had no cause of quarrel with the southern States. We might fight it out with them. The southern people seemed, from the accounts in the morning papers, to be finding equal fault on their side for their not taking part with them. We on our part seemed to be urging for what was equivalent to joining our side to put them down, yet that was a course which we had professed not to desire.

To this I replied that very certainly we did not desire it. What we did desire was, that foreign nations would leave the matter entirely in our hands. What we complained of was, that the course adopted was not neutrality. That it had not been so regarded by the insurgents themselves was made apparent in the very documents published at the opening of Parliament; for it was certain that the early overtures made by the two powers to obtain a sanction of the declaration of Paris had been construed at Richmond, and, as I thought, with reason, as a ground to expect a further acknowledgment. It seemed to me they had some right to complain of a disappointment of their hopes then raised. I begged, furthermore, to advance an opinion that there was not an example in all the history of the United States or of Great Britain, nay I might say of any civilized nation of the world, of so precipitate a recognition of belligerent rights to insurgents as this one of which we were treating. If there was such an instance, I should be glad to see it. Upon the basis thus made there could be no question that much of the perseverance in resistance had rested, and did still rest. A withdrawal of this recognition was the only thing that would put an end to the delusion. On the other hand, the continuance of it but served to countenance and to stimulate the efforts pertinaciously made by people in Great Britain to sustain them. This led me naturally to enlarge upon the effect produced upon the people of the United States as well as the government by the frequent accounts of the manner in which vessels of all kinds were fitted out from the ports of Great Britain to assist the insurgents. Most of the consuls weekly sent home a repetition of the same story. I had even been told by one of them lately that he believed as many as fifteen vessels were now preparing to make the voyage. Such things could not go on without giving rise to unpleasant implications, which, however unfounded, would be likely to be so far credited as to render them as dangerous as if they were facts. I remarked that his lordship must be aware that the answer that nothing could be done was very unsatisfactory ; because it might be fairly presumed that every nation that possessed the will naturally carried within itself the power to prevent abuses of its authority.

His lordship replied, in substance, by expressing his belief that the parties engaged in these undertakings were not so much interested in the cause of the insurgents as in the profits to be expected by running the blockade. Such attempts always would be made in similar cases. For the rest these adventurers were compelled to take their own risk. They had the dangers of capture to encounter, and the certainty of being deprived of their rights of reclamation. The government had no disposition to give them protection. I observed that this reasoning seemed hardly satisfactory or consoling to persons exposed by the effects of such acts to a long and painful and costly extension of their labors of repression. I then put it to his lordship distinctly, if Great Britain would be contented, should the people of Canada break out into open rebellion, to find the United States promptly declare a neutrality, recognize the rebels as a belligerent power, and then from myriads of posts along the extensive line of boundary and the many harbors on the seaboard tolerate the equipment and despatch of numerous vessels freighted with all the materials necessary to protract the struggle? I very much doubted whether his lordship would be perfectly quiescent under the answer that no violation of neutrality had been committed, and that no power existed to put a stop to the proceedings. His lordship met this by saying that he should certainly object to any such direct expeditions ; but there was no evidence in any of the cases I had brought up of destination or of wrong intention. In that of the Oreto, upon which I had addressed a note to him, he had directed an investigation to be made, and the authorities at Liverpool had reported that there was no' ground for doubting the legality of her voyage.

I replied that this was exactly what gave such unpleasant impressions to us in America. The Oreto, by the very paper furnished from the customhouse, was shown to be laden with a hundred and seventy tons of arms, and to have persons called troops on board, destined for Palermo and Jamaica. The very statement of the case was enough to show what was really intended. The fact of her true destination was notorious all over Liverpool. No commercial people were blind to it. And the course taken by her Majesty's officers in declaring ignorance only led to an inference most unfavorable to all idea of their neutrality in the struggle. It was just such action as this that was making the difficulties of our government in the way of giving the facilities to the supply of cotton, which they hoped to furnish in a short time if the whole control of means to put an end to the contest was left to them.

His lordship concluded by a polite expression of regret at these circumstances, at the same time that he could not see how the government could change its position. I concluded the conversation by saying that I had only done my duty. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 232.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, April 16, 1862. Sir: Your despatch No. 137, the receipt of which has already been. acknowledged, is accompanied by a note which was addressed to you by Earl Russell, in reply to your representations concerning the treatment of the United States ship-of-war the Flambeau at Nassau. The approval of the British government of the proceedings of the governor in that place is regarded by the President as unfriendly towards a power that extends unrestricted hospitalities to the naval as well as the mercantile marine of Great Britain in its ports and harbors. The grievance is not sensibly alleFiated by the fact that the government of her Majesty are able to reconcile it with a proclamation issued by her Majesty in May last, conceding the

rights of a public belligerent to the insurgents in arms against the United States. The explanation obliges us to renew the declaration this government has so often made, that it regards the proclamation itself as unnecessary, unfriendly, and injurious.

The history of the past year is a record of serious embarrassments of legitimate commerce between the two countries, resulting from the concession belligerent naval rights to a seditious party in the United States which has never had control of a single port or harbor in its own country. It cannot be the desire of the British government either to reduce the commerce heretofore carried on between the two countries so profitably to both of them, or to suffer occasional irritations to ripen into fruits of animosity between them. You will therefore present the inconveniences complained of to the notice of her Majesty's government as an argument for the revision of that proclamation whenever, in the exercise of your discretion, you shall think such a revision can be pressed for with hope of a candid hearing. The review of our military position, which I submit in a collateral despatch, induces us to hope that such a time is near at hand. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD CHARLES FRANCIS Adams, Esq. ft., 8c., fc.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 235.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, April 19, 1862. Sir: Your despatch of April 3 (No. 140) has been submitted to the President, together with the note addressed to you by Earl Russell bearing on the subject discussed. All the grievances which disturb our people and tend to alienate them from Great Britain seem deducible from the concessions made by her to the insurgents at the beginning of this civil war. All the explanations we receive from Great Britain seem to imply a conviction that this civil war must end in the overthrow of the federal Union. The ultimate consequence of such a calamity would be that this great country would be divided into factions and hostile states and confederations, as Greece and Italy and Spanish America have been.

You can do no more in the present conjuncture than to give his lordship, from time to time, fresh and accumulating evidence of our purpose and our ability to pursue to a successful end the course which we have learned from our British ancestry, namely, to hold the constituent States of our great realm in perpetual and indissoluble union. You will, as I have before advised, do this in such way and at such times and seasons as your own discretion may approve.

If the British government shall do us full justice, they will be satisfied that the change of attitude we ask is suggested by us upon a profound conviction that it would be equally beneficial to Great Britain and to the United States. The President cannot consent to be responsible, now or hereafter, for any degree of alienation between the two countries which is now arising, or which shall reveal itself hereafter. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. CHARLES Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

No. 146.]

a

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, April 24, 1862. Sır: Since the date of my last, despatches from the department, numbered from 218 to 226, both inclusive, have been received. I do not perceive that they call for particular comment, as in some cases the directions given have been anticipated, and in others the topics bave already been in a measure exhausted.

The most important event that has happened here, as connected with this legation, has been the notice received from Mr. Dudley, the consul at Liverpool, of the arrival of the ship Emily St. Pierre, on Monday, the 21st instant, at that port, instead of Philadelphia, to which she had been ordered by Captain Goldsborough for attempting to break the blockade, and the application made by the crew to him for aid, they having been mastered by the captain and two hands left on board whilst on the voyage. Mr. Dudley sent at once to this legation for instructions how to act. "I directed him to take the depositions of the men, and send them to me, together with all the papers in their hands connected with the case. These did not fully reach me until this morning. After a full consideration of the substance of them, I considered the matter so clear as to justify me in proceeding at once to present a claim on her Majesty's government for the restoration of the ship. I have therefore addressed a note this morning to Lord Russell, recapitulating the facts of the case, and assuming the law without the necessity of argument. I have the honor to transmit a copy herewith.

The probability is, that this ship has been placed under a British register by the firm of Fraser, Trenbolm & Co., of Liverpool, for the purpose of covering the property which they hold in common with persons in South Carolina. Some time in the month of July last I received from Mr. Wilding information of the transfer under British protection of a number of vessels, of which this was one. They have been since employed, more or less actively, in carrying supplies to the rebels by evasions of the blockade. I have so little confidence in the efficacy of any reclamation that I may make, that I will not predict what the issue in this case will be. But it seems to me to form an important part of the record which will remain to show the disposition of this country towards the United States during their day of trial. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

a

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, April 24, 1862. My Lord: I have the honor to submit to your consideration copies of certain depositions and other papers which have been transmitted to me by Thomas H. Dudley, esq., the consul of the United States at Liverpool, touching the case of the Emily St. Pierre, a vessel which arrired on the 21st instant at that port.

It would appear from these papers that the Emily St. Pierre, a ship sail

ing under a British register, and belonging to British subjects residing in Liverpool, was found, on the 18th of March last, by the officer commanding the naval force of the United States, attempting to run into the port of Charleston, in South Carolina, in violation of the blockade there legitimately established. In consequence of this, the ship was seized, the crew, with the exception of the commander, the steward, and cook, taken out, and a prize crew, consisting of three officers and twelve men, put on board, with directions to proceed to Philadelphia, in order that the necessary measures might be at once adopted to submit the question of the validity of the capture to the regularly constituted tribunal for final adjudication. The original papers establishing these facts are now in my hands, prior to their transmission of them to the government of the United States.

It further appears that the captain of the Emily St. Pierre, being, according to the established rule in the case of neutral vessels so seized, left at large and under no constraint, assumed the responsibility of preventing the regular process of adjudication, and of taking the law into his own hands, by contriving a method of surprise and rescue by force of the ship so situated out of the hands of the possessor. Having succeeded in this attempt, he has compelled the United States seamen, by threatening their lives, to navigate the ship to the port of Liverpool, where he threw them upon the mercy of the world, whilst he seeks to shelter himself under the protection of her Majesty's authority against the consequences of this outrageous proceeding.

Should the facts prove to be as herein stated, I believe I may say with confidence that the law bearing upon the case is quite well established. Such an act committed by the master of a neutral vessel has long since been decided not simply to be wrongful, but even to work a total confiscation of vessel and cargo intrusted to his care. The opposition thus shown to lawful inquiry too strongly indicates the unlawful intent of the voyage to justify the extension to it of any protection by the government of a friendly power. Not doubting the sincere disposition of her Majesty's government to adhere to the principles which it declared at the outset of the differences in the United States, I pray your lordship's early consideration of the subject, to the end that suitable directions may be given to restore the vessel at an early day to the authority from which it has been so violently taken.

Renewing to your lordship the assurance of my highest consideration, I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Right Hon. EARL RUSSELL, &c., dc., dc.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 148.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, April 25, 1862. Sir: In consequence of the necessity of another removal of the legation, which has been attended with the usual amount of confusion, I am not in a situation to write this week so fully as I could wish. I can only call your attention to the speech of Mr. Gladstone, at Manchester, which is reported in the Times of this morning. I am sorry to say that it is not in quite so friendly a tone as his former one on the same subject. Indeed, it seems to me that public opinion shows signs of fluctuation, just in proportion to the character of the news from America. The paragraph in the President's

« PreviousContinue »