Chap. XII. trality." "If, in some cases, the American Government, driven to the necessity of applying more stringent measures of prevention than it desires to this illicit commerce, should happen occasionally to involve an innocent party in the suspicion attached to so many guilty ones, it must seek its justification in the painful necessity consequent upon the inefficiency of the British law to give it that protection which, as a friendly nation, it would seem entitled to enjoy."

"It can scarcely be supposed that so onerous a task as a veritable blockade will be undertaken by any nation for causes not deemed of paramount necessity, or will be persevered in one moment longer than those causes continue to operate. I am very sure that it is the desire of the Government of the United States to accelerate the period when the blockade now in operation may be safely raised. To that end it is bending all its efforts; and in this it claims to be mindful, not simply of the interests of its own citizens, but likewise of those of all friendly nations. Hence it is that it views with deep regret the strenuous efforts of evil-disposed persons in foreign countries, by undertakings carried on in defiance of all recognized law, to impair, so far as they can, the efficacy of its measures, and, in a corresponding degree, to protract the severity of the struggle. Hence it is, likewise, that it has been profoundly concerned at the inefficacy of the laws of Great Britain, in which a large proportion of the undertakings originated, to apply any adequate policy of prevention. For I doubt not your Lordship will see, at a glance, the embarrassment in which a country is necessarily involved by complaints raised of the continued severity of the blockade by a friendly nation which, at the same time, confesses its inability to restrain its subjects from stimulating the resistance that necessitates a continuance of the very state of things of which they make complaint.

"That a sense of the difficulties consequent upon the action of such persons prompted the enactment of the Statute of His Majesty George the Third, of the 3rd of July, 1819, is made plain by the language of its preamble. It is therein stated that it was passed because the laws then in force were not sufficiently effectual to prevent the evil complained of. It now appears, from the substance of the representations which I have heretofore had the honour to make to your Lordship, that the provisions of that law are as little effectual in curing the evil as those of any of its predecessors. But I am pained to be obliged to

1 Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, 30th April and 12th May, 1862.

gather from the concluding words of your Lordship's note the expres- Chap. XII. sion of an opinion that the United States, in the execution of a measure conceded to be correct, as well as justified by every precedent of international law as construed by the highest British authorities, cannot expect that Great Britain should frame new Statutes to remedy the deficiency of its own laws to prevent what it acknowledges, on the face of that Statute, to be evils created by its own refractory subjects. I must be permitted to say, in reply, that, in my belief, the Government of the United States would scarcely be disposed to make a similar reply to Her Majesty's Government were the relative position of the two countries to be reversed.

"Permit me, in conclusion, to assure your Lordship that the grounds upon which the representations I have had the honour to make have not been hastily considered. So far from it, the extent of the evil complained of has been under rather than over-stated. I have now before me a list of eleven steamers and ten sailing vessels that have been equipped and despatched within thirty days, or are now preparing, freighted with supplies of all kinds for the insurgents, from one port of Great Britain alone. These supplies I have reason to believe to be conveyed to Nassau, which place is used as an entrepôt for the convenience of vessels under British colours employed for the sole purpose of breaking the blockade. I have reasons for supposing that the business is reduced to a system emanating from a central authority situated in London; and further, that large sums of money have been contri、 buted by British subjects to aid in carrying it on. If the United States have, in any of their relations with Her Majesty's Government, committed some act not within the legitimate limits of international law which justifies the declaration of a disposition not to provide against such obvious violations of the neutrality proclaimed at the outset of this deplorable struggle, I trust I may be permitted to ask that it may be so clearly presented to their consideration by your Lordship as to supply the means either of explanation or of remedy."1

To these representations it was replied in effect that they were founded on a misconception of the duties of the Government of a neutral nation. It is not the duty of such a Government to enforce, or assist in enforcing, either by its municipal laws or by the arbitrary action of the Executive, blockades which a belligerent may think fit to institute. The Foreign Enlistment Act, to which Mr. Adams had referred, was passed for an entirely different purpose, and to prohibit enterprises of a very

1 Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, 8th May, 1862,

Chap. XII. different character from mere breaches of blockade; and to class them together was to confound two things quite distinct from one another. Severe as had been the loss and suffering which the blockade had inflicted on the people of Great Britain, the Government had never sought to take advantage of its irregularities and obvious imperfections in order to declare it ineffective. "They have, to the loss and detriment of the British nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain towards a friendly State." The penalty which the blockade-runner risks, and which the law of nations attaches to his adventure, is capture and condemnation. This is the only penalty. "In calling upon Her Majesty's Government to prohibit such adventures, you in effect call upon Her Majesty's Government to do that which it belongs to the cruisers and the Courts of the United States to do for themselves." 1

It is certain that this answer was just, and that the American Envoy was betrayed by the annoyance, which he naturally shared with his Government, at seeing blockade-running prosecuted on so large a scale, into a clearly untenable position. Not only is it a settled rule that to enforce a blockade is the right of the belligerent, and is not the duty of the neutral, but it is necessary that this should be the rule. The test of a valid blockade lies in its effectiveness; and this depends on the force which the belligerent is able to concentrate on the blockaded port, and the vigilance and impartiality with which he uses it. If it be eluded and set at nought, he has only himself to blame. But give him a right to call on the neutral to protect him by punishing blockaderunning as a crime, and he is practically relieved from the necessity of protecting himself. The test disappears; disputes between belligerent and neutral would incessantly recur, and with the test would disappear also the only security we have against an indefinite extension of

1 Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, 6th and 10th May, 1862.

the evils which this form of warfare is calculated to Chap. XII. inflict on industry and peaceful trade.

These considerations are obvious enough, and it is as obvious that they are not affected by the scale on which blockade-running is pursued in other words, by the degree to which a particular blockade is ineffectual. Indeed, if there be a case to which they apply with peculiar force, it is that of a blockade maintained, or attempted to be maintained, for months and years, of the whole coast of a large and populous country, with which foreigners are accustomed to carry on an important trade. In such a case blockade-running can scarcely fail to be extensive, and it is sure to acquire the method and all the machinery of a regular business. But it is precisely in such a case that the test ought to be most firmly maintained and most strictly applied,

The British island of New Providence, in the Bahamas, became the favourite resort of ships employed in these enterprises. Situated in close neighbourhood to the coast of Florida, and within three days' sail of Charleston, it offered singular facilities to the blockaderunner. The harbour of Nassau, usually quiet and almost empty, was soon thronged with shipping of all kinds; and its wharves and warehouses became an entrepôt for cargoes brought thither from different quarters. Agents of the Confederate Government resided there, and were busily employed in assisting and developing the traffic.

It was natural that under these circumstances the trade of Nassau should be regarded with extreme jealousy by the Government of the United States. The sudden and extraordinary growth of that trade had been entirely due to the vicinity of the island to the Southern coasts. Of the goods sent thither it was certain that a very large proportion would find their way to the blockaded ports unless stopped on the passage; and there was little room for doubt that these ports were the true

Chap. XII. destination of many cargoes, which, though they might be nominally consigned to Nassau merchants, were really intended to be transhipped and forwarded on account and at the risk of the original shippers, or of consignees in the South. Some part of this commerce was carried on from New York itself; and the American Government determined that, if they could not stop the trade altogether, they would at least prevent it from drawing its supplies from their own shores.

An Act of Congress, passed on the 26th May, 1862, empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to refuse a clearance to any vessel "laden with goods, wares, or merchandize for a foreign or domestic port, whenever he shall have satisfactory reason to believe that such goods, wares, or merchandize, or any part thereof, whatever may be their ostensible destination, are intended for ports or places in possession or under the control of insurgents against the United States." It further authorized the Collector at any port, on the granting of a clearance, to exact, should he deem it necessary under the circumstances of the case, a bond from the master or owner that the cargo should be delivered at the destination for which it is cleared, "and that no part thereof shall be used in affording aid or comfort to any persons or parties in insurrection against the authority of the United States."

The proceedings of the Executive are thus described by Mr. Seward :

"On the 14th of April, 1862, before the Act of Congress was passed, it had been reported to the President that anthracite coal was being shipped from some of the ports of the United States to Southern ports within, and to other Southern ports without, the United States, for the purpose of supplying fuel to piratical vessels which were engaged in depredating on the national commerce on the high seas. The Secretary of the Treasury therefore, by authority of the President, who is charged with the supreme duty of maintaining and executing the laws, issued to the Collector of the Customs at New York and other ports the following instructions:- Clear no vessels with anthra