Chap. VI. the re-conquest of the seceders, it would certainly have been realized sooner or later. Recognition would then have become a matter of course, after the lapse of a reasonable time. The mere assertion of a claim on the part of the United States, however energetic or persistent, could only delay this, and could not have prevented it in the long run. But the idea of recognizing them immediately, before their independence had been firmly established, does not appear to have been entertained by any European Government. Lord Russell's answers to Mr. Dallas were brief and extremely cautious, but there is no doubt that they were perfectly conformable to the principles which in America, no less than in England, have been held to govern these questions, and that no answer substantially differing from them would have been consistent with those principles. It was certain at this time that the Con

1 Such answers as the following would not, I presume, be expected by America from England, as they would not be expected by England from America :

Russia, "from the principle of unrelenting opposition to all revolutionary movements, would be the last to recognize any de facto Government of the disaffected States of the American Union."-Mr. Wright to Mr. Seward, 8th May, 1861.

Austria " was not inclined to recognize de facto Governments anywhere."-Mr. Jones to Mr. Seward, 15th April, 1861.

Spain "would have nothing to do with the rebel party in the United States in any sense."-Mr. Perry to Mr. Seward, 13th June, 1861.

M. Thouvenel's answer was substantially the same as Lord Russell's:"M. Thouvenel, in reply, said that no application had yet been made to him by the Confederated States, in any form, for the recognition of their independence; that the French Government was not in the habit of acting hastily upon such questions, as might be seen by its tardiness in recognizing the new Kingdom of Italy; that he believed the maintenance of the Federal Union, in its integrity, was to be desired for the benefit of the people North and South, as well as for the interests of France; and the Government of the United States might rest well assured that no hasty or precipitate action would be taken on that subject by the Emperor. But whilst he gave utterance to these views, he was equally bound to say that the practice and usage of the present century had fully established the right of de facto Governments to recognition when a proper case was made out for the decision of

federate States possessed a political organization which Chap. VI. would have qualified them for a place among independent nations. It was not certain whether, if a serious effort were made to subdue them, they could maintain their independence. It was uncertain, also, whether such an attempt would be made.

On this latter head all doubt was at an end when the news reached Europe that civil war had begun. The path to be pursued by the European Powers was now clear; their duty was to wait till the contest should be decided, and to stand scrupulously neutral in the meantime. At every Court in Europe the United States had asked for neutrality-only neutrality; and an impartial neutrality was the course dictated by the highest considerations of expediency, as well as by the lowest and most palpable.1 The question what was to be the future of the American Commonwealth, momentous as it might be for Europe, was an American question, which ought to be fought out-if fought out it must be-in America and by Americans alone.

On the 30th April the British Government received from Lord Lyons information of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and of President Lincoln's call for 75,000 men. A telegram, announcing that Mr. Davis had

foreign Powers. Here the official interview ended."-Mr. Faulkner to Mr. Seward, 15th April, 1861.

1 "The President neither expects nor desires any intervention, or even any favour, from the Government of France, or any other, in this emergency. Whatever else he may consent to do, he will never invoke, nor even admit, foreign interference or influence in this or any other controversy in which the Government of the United States may be engaged with any portion of the American people. It has been simply his aim to show that the present controversy furnishes no one ground on which a great and friendly Power, like France, can justly lend aid or sympathy to the party engaged in insurrection; and therefore he instructs you to insist on the practice of neutrality by the Government of the Emperor, as all our Representatives are instructed to insist on the neutrality of the several Powers to which they are accredited."Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, 22nd April, 1861.

Chap. VI. taken measures for issuing letters of marque, arrived at the same time as Lord Lyons's despatch. Two days afterwards intelligence of the Proclamation of blockade reached London: the fact was mentioned in the House of Commons on the evening of the 2nd May; on the 3rd the substance of the Proclamation was published in the English newspapers; and on the 5th a copy of it was received from Her Majesty's Consul at New York. A second copy, transmitted by Lord Lyons, reached Downing Street on the 10th, having been delayed by the disturbed condition of Maryland, where a secessionist rising had cut off, on the night of the 19th April, and for several days afterwards, all communication between Washington and the North. Lord Lyons inclosed in the same despatch a copy of Mr. Davis's notification, issued on the 17th April. On the 11th May the Proclamation of blockade was officially communicated to Earl Russell by Mr. Dallas. He at the same time placed in Lord Russell's hands a copy of a circular, dated 20th April, which had been addressed by Mr. Seward to the Ministers of the United States at foreign Courts, and in which the Secretary of State referred to the probability that attempts would be made to fit out privateers in England against American commerce.

On the first publication of this intelligence, merchants, ship-owners, and insurers took the alarm. The Atlantic is threaded by many well-known highways, intersecting one another in all directions, over which the commerce of America, the West Indies, and Brazil passes to and fro. British ships throng these highways. In many of the Southern ports there was a large amount of British property; the cargoes in the Mississippi alone at the end of May were computed to be worth a million sterling, and the greater part of these had been shipped for Liverpool.1 Owners of British shipping look, and have a

1 Mr. Seward (to Lord Stanley, 12th January, 1867) is severe upon the unlucky persons whose property was thus placed in jeopardy. He

But

right to look, for protection to the British squadrons Chap. VI. stationed in various parts of the world; and it is the duty of the British Government to keep the commanding officers of those squadrons properly instructed as to the cases in which protection should be afforded. Three or four weeks must elapse before instructions, even if sent out immediately, could reach the towns on the Southern coast, the Bahamas, and the British West Indies, to say nothing of the more remote dependencies of the Crown, or of commerce scattered over more distant seas. what had occurred? A blockade had been proclaimed, extending over a coast line of some 3,000 miles. Letters of marque had been publicly offered-an invitation very tempting to the adventurous and reckless men who are always to be found in every maritime nation. Both the Government of the United States and the de facto Government of the Confederacy had assumed, and were actually exercising on the high seas, the rights of war; and the neutral who resists the enforcement of those rights does so under the penalty of capture. Branches of trade perfectly lawful before might now be treated as unlawful, and punished by seizure and confiscation. Mr. Lincoln's administration had sent agents to England to purchase arms; Mr. Davis's would certainly resort,

seems, indeed, to be rather angry with them. "Lord Stanley says that Her Majesty's Government had to provide at a distance for the losses and interests of British subjects in or near the seat of war. But who required British subjects to be there? Who obliged them to remain in a place of danger? If they persisted in remaining there, had they not all the protection the citizens of the United States enjoyed? Were they entitled to more?" Who required them to be there? Who obliged them to remain there? Why, they were there when the war broke out, in the pursuit of their legitimate trade, which was just as much for the advantage of America as for that of Great Britain. What protection citizens of the United States enjoyed in May, 1861, at Richmond, Charleston, and New Orleans, I do not know. But it is certain that British subjects and property were not, on the outbreak of the war, treated by the Government of the United States and its officers as upon the same footing with American subjects and property; they were treated as neutrals and neutral property are treated in war.

K

Chap. VI. if it had not already resorted, to the same market. This was the state of facts existing during the first week of May, so far as they were known to the English public; and on these facts the Government was called upon, both by the mercantile community and by some of the warmest partisans of the Northern cause, to define its position, to recognize or repudiate the blockade, to accept or reject the character of a neutral Power, and to publish its decision as widely and as speedily as possible. No request could have been more natural or more reasonable.1

1 In the House of Commons, on the 2nd May, Earl Russell (then Lord John Russell), answering a question put by Mr. Ewart, said: "Her Majesty's Government has felt that it was its duty to use every possible means to avoid taking any part in the lamentable contest now raging in the American States. Nothing but the imperative duty of protecting British interests, in case they should be attacked, justifies the Government in at all interfering. We have not been involved in any way in that contest by any act or giving any advice in the matter, and, for God's sake, let us, if possible, keep out of it."

On the 9th May, "Mr. W. E. Forster said: He wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is not a criminal offence against the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act for any subject of Her Majesty to serve on board of any privateer licensed by the person assuming, as President of the Southern Confederacy, to exercise power over a part of the United States, or for any person within Her Majesty's dominions to assist in the equipment of such privateer; and, if so, whether he will take measures to prevent the infringement of the law, either by Her Majesty's subjects or by any agents of the Southern Confederacy who are now in England; and also whether any such privateer equipped in a port of Her Majesty's dominions will not be liable to forfeiture?

"Sir George Lewis: Sir, it is in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government to issue a Proclamation for the purpose of cautioning all Her Majesty's subjects against any interference in the hostilities between the Northern and Southern States of America. In that Proclamation the general effect of the Common and Statute Law on the matter will be stated. The general principle of our law is, that no British subject shall enter into the service of any foreign Prince or Power, or engage in any hostilities that may be carried on between two foreign States. With respect to the precise effect of the Foreign Enlistment Act in the case supposed, it would not be proper for me to undertake to lay it down, inasmuch as the construction of any Statute is matter for judicial decision rather than for any opinion of my own. The general bearing of the law