Page images
PDF
EPUB

crime of robbery in or upon any ship or vessel, or upon the ship's company of any ship or vessel, or the lading thereof, such person shall be adjudged to be a pirate, and upon conviction shall suffer death." The commission issued by Mr. Davis could not be admitted as a defence; for the Courts of the United States could not recognize such an authority till the Government had done so. The felonious intent, which is an essential element in the crime of robbery, consists in the taking of the property of another for the sake of gain. If this was wanting in this case, the offence, whatever it might be, was not that of piracy under the Statute. The jury could not agree, and a new trial was ordered. The offence charged against Baker was the capture of an American ship on the 1st of June, 1861. Smith was convicted.

In the case of the Golden Rocket, captured by the Sumter on the 3rd July and burnt at sea, it was held by the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and Maine, and by the Circuit Court of the United States, that the owner could not recover for the loss under policies which insured against capture by pirates but not against belligerent capture. The ground of the decision was that, although the destruction of the Golden Rocket might be regarded by the law of the United States as an act of piracy, it would not be so regarded according to the general public commercial law of the world, and therefore must be presumed not to be within the meaning of the parties to the policy. A similar decision was pronounced by the Tribunal of Commerce at Marseilles (cited by Lawrence, Commentaire sur les Eléments du Droit International, &c., vol. i, p. 183), in the case of a brig captured in 1823 by an armed ship of the Columbian Government, which had not been recognized in any way by France. The ship and cargo being insured by one policy against dangers of the sea, and by another against perils of war, the Tribunal held that the insurers under the latter policy were liable, on the ground that the capture was an act of war and not an act of piracy.

If the Shenandoah had persisted in making captures (as at one time it appeared that she was doing) after it had become clear that the war was at an end and that the de facto Government which had commissioned her had wholly ceased to exist, and after these facts were known to her commander, the question whether his acts were or were not piracy might have been raised in an English Court.

Chap. V.

CHAPTER VI.

Relations of Great Britain to the United States.-Course pursued by the British Government, and by other European Governments, at the beginning of the War. The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality.— Declaration of the Emperor of the French.-Declarations and Notifications of other Maritime Powers.

THE progress of disunion in America had been watched with anxiety by the principal European Governments, and especially by the Government of Great Britain. The relations between the two countries were friendly, and their intercourse incessant. Of the whole foreign trade of the United States more than three-fifths, of the foreign tonnage entering American ports more than four-fifths, were contributed by this kingdom and its colonies. From the Western States of the Union we drew every year large supplies of food, and from the Southern the raw material for our most important manufacture. Great Britain was herself an American Power, and her possessions bordered on those of the Republic across the whole breadth of the continent. Any grave change or disturbance, therefore, occurring in the United States had to the English Government an importance which it could have to no other. Nor is it immaterial to observe that, although unhappy dissensions have sometimes divided the two nations, the influences of a common origin, language, and literature, seem to be indestructible, and that an Englishman hardly feels himself a foreigner in America, or an American in England.

While the revolt was yet to come, Earl Russell had

communicated to Lord Lyons, then Her Majesty's Chap. VI. Minister at Washington, the "concern" with which

the "danger of secession" was regarded by the Queen's Government.1 He had expressed some surprise at Mr. Buchanan's Message, which "appeared to be preparing beforehand an apology" for it; but had instructed Lord Lyons to abstain carefully from any interference, even in the form of advice.2

"This Govern- 16 relinquished its territory of those

Four days before the expiration of President Buchanan's term of office, Mr. Black, who had succeeded General Cass as Secretary of State, addressed to all the Ministers of the Republic at foreign Courts a circular desiring them to use all proper and necessary means in order to prevent the Governments, to which they were respectively accredited, from recognizing the independence of the seceding States. ment," said Mr. Black, "has not constitutional jurisdiction within the States, and does not desire to do so." "It had the right," he added, "to ask of all foreign Powers that they should take no steps which may tend to encourage the revolutionary movements of the seceding States, or increase the danger of disaffection in those which still remain loyal." This despatch was read by Mr. Dallas to Lord Russell, who "replied shortly and verbally, stating that, even if the Government of the United States had been willing to acknowledge the separation of the seceding States as founded in right, Her Majesty's Government would have seen with great concern the dissolution of the Union which bound together the members of the American Republic: that the opposition of the Government of the United States to any such separation, and the denial by them of its legality, would make Her Majesty's Government very reluctant to take any step

1 Lord J. Russell to Lord Lyons, 29th November, 1860. 2 Lord J. Russell to Lord Lyons, 26th December, 1860.

3 Mr. Black to United States Ministers abroad, 28th February, 1861.

25

Chap. VI. which might encourage or sanction the separation: that, however, it was impossible to state, at the present moment, in what shape the question might present itself; nor was it in his power to bind the British Government to any particular course of conduct in cases of which the circumstances and the significance were at present unknown to us."1

Mr. Seward, on assuming office as Secretary of State, renewed, by a second circular, with increased emphasis, the injunctions given by his predecessor, urging "the exercise of the greatest possible diligence and fidelity to counteract and prevent the designs of those who would invoke foreign intervention to embarrass or overthrow the Republic."

Government the con

"You will truthfully urge upon the sideration that the present disturbances have had their origin only in popular passions, excited under novel circumstances of very transient character, and that while not one person of well-balanced mind has attempted to show that dismemberment of the Union would be permanently conducive to the safety and welfare of even his own State or section, much less of all the States and sections of our country, the people themselves still retain and cherish a profound confidence in our happy Constitution, together with a veneration and affection for it such as no other form of Government ever received at the hands of those for whom it was established."

He suggested that the revolt, should it break up the Union, "might tend by its influence to disturb and unsettle the existing system of government in other parts of the world, and arrest the progress of civilization and improvement;" and he expressed his confidence "that these, with other considerations, would prevent foreign Governments from yielding to solicitations to intervene in any unfriendly way in the domestic concerns of the country."2

On this despatch, when communicated to him, Lord Russell repeated in substance what he had said before.

1 Lord J. Russell to Lord Lyons, 22nd March, 1861.

2 Mr. Seward to United States' Ministers abroad, 9th March, 1861.

The Government regretted the secession, and was "in Chap. VI. no hurry to recognize the separation as complete and final;" but it was impossible to tell "how and when circumstances might arise which would make a decision necessary." On that subject, therefore, he thought it well to decline further discussion at the time.1

The American Government appears to have been extremely apprehensive at this time lest the revolted States should succeed in obtaining from foreign Powers a recognition of their independence. The elaborate series of separate instructions composed by Mr. Seward for its diplomatic agents in Europe-instructions in which no pains were spared to shape the argument according to the interests or sentiments which he supposed most likely to influence each individual Courtwere evidently dictated by this apprehension. And, had the United States forborne altogether to attempt

66

1 8th April, 1861. This reply, as reported by Mr. Dallas, was complained of by the American Government as " abrupt and reserved," and seeming to imply that under some circumstances, not explained, a recognition might be made." In a subsequent conversation, on the 18th May, Lord Russell gave a somewhat fuller explanation of his meaning, and this was accepted as satisfactory, and may be stated here in his own words:

[ocr errors]

I repeated to Mr. Adams what I had said to Mr. Dallas: that, had separation taken place between different parts of the American Union in an amicable manner, Her Majesty's Government would still have regretted that a Union of States so famous and so conspicuous for its love of liberty and enlightened progress should have been dissolved. That the opposition made by the Government of the United States to the secession would make us still more averse to take any step to record and recognize that secession. I explained to Mr. Adams, however, that the despatches of Judge Black and Mr. Seward seemed to ask on our part for a perpetual pledge that we would, under no circumstances, recognize the seceding States. I had, therefore, thought it necessary to add that Great Britain must hold herself free to act according to the progress of events and as circumstances might require."

2 Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, 10th April, 1861; to Mr. Dayton, 22nd April; to Mr. Burlingame, 13th April; to Mr. Judd, 22nd March; to Mr. Sanford, 26th March; to Mr. Schurz, 27th April; to Mr. Clay, 6th May; to Mr. Wood, 1st May; to Mr. Marsh, 9th May; to Mr. Fogg, 15th May; to Mr. Pike, 16th May.

« PreviousContinue »