Page images
PDF
EPUB

be permitted to say that he has found some difficulty in perceiving anything that appears to him to be ambiguity in his meaning. He discovers only one government of a foreign state alluded to, and that is obviously her Majesty's government. The other party, in his own mind, were the rebellious insurgents in arms against the authority of the United States, which he was very far from characterizing in the manner indicated by his lordship. The purpose of the law seems to the undersigned to have been severely to punish all persons, whether native or foreign, citizen or privileged, who knowingly made themselves instruments of foreign states to foment factious disturbances within the United States. It appears to have been enacted during the troubled period of the French revolution, when interference with the domestic affairs of neighboring nations was an avowed principle of action, and was therefore boldly acted upon even by the recognized agents of the French authorities. The undersigned, therefore, in applying the principle of the law in a mitigated form to Mr. Bunch and his alleged intermixture with the disputes and controversies going on within the United States, surely cannot have made so great a mistake as to have assumed that he was dealing with "the government of a foreign state." He has considered Mr. Bunch as an officer of her Majesty's government, formerly recognized by the government of the United States for certain purposes of commerce, who has been engaged in political correspondence as well with his own government as with rebellious insurgents in the United States for purposes foreign from those which were assigned at the time he received his authority, and for that reason that he has knowingly violated the law. At the same time the undersigned took great care in expressing his firm belief that her Majesty's government, in directing their agent in the manner indicated, could not have been aware of the nature and character of that law-a belief which he is happy to find, by his lordship's present mode of considering it, to have been well founded.

But much as the undersigned found of difficulty in regard to the misconception he has been so unfortunate as to originate in his lordship's mind of this view of a law of his own country, he has been still more embarrassed to learn the fact that in his statement of what appeared to his mind true in its application to all governments, and undeniable in respect to the government of the United States, he has not enjoyed the satisfaction of his lordship's concurrence of opinion. This statement was that "the only authority in the United States to which any diplomatic communication can be made is the government of the United States." If the undersigned had been led in any way to vary this proposition he would have deemed himself to have gone much further in the road to recognition of "the government of a foreign state" within the United States than he did in that mistakenly attributed to him by his lordship. Surely it could not have been his lordship's intention to present the proposition that the same diplomatic agent of a foreign power can be accredited to the government of a country and to the self-constituted authorities of a portion of the people who are * * * waging war to overthrow it. Applying this argument to the question of Mr. Bunch, his case resolves itself into this: That holding his authority to act in an official relation as an officer of a foreign government from the recognition of the authorities of the United States, they are expected to acknowledge his right whilst acting in this capacity, at the same time to treat with any of their own citizens who defy their authority whenever it may be deemed advisable by that government. Surely such a proposition, if accepted, would seem to undermine the foundations of sound international relationship all over the world. Surely no government, entertaining a proper degree of self-respect, would consent for a moment to receive any representative of a foreign nation if his first act might be to attempt to undermine the au

thority to which he had been accredited by recognizing for any purpose the validity of a domestic antagonism within its limits.

The undersigned is not insensible to the force of his lordship's argument in regard to the necessity imposed upon it of protecting the interests of British subjects in those regions where the authority of the United States is suspended, as well as the difficulty of calling upon the government of the United States to make good the damage that might ensue from the acts of persons now in armed resistance. Doubtless it must have been under considerations like these that her Majesty's government was induced to release that of the United States from responsibility for such reclamations by adopting the policy of granting to the insurgents the rights of a belligerent. Without entering into the wide field of discussion presented by the arguments of his lordship, the undersigned contents himself with the remark that whatever may be the course of action her Majesty's government deems proper to lay down for itself in regulating its relations with the insurgent forces in the United States, it will scarcely be disposed to require of the government of the United States that it should recognize the agents through whom they may be carried on. The objection to Mr. Bunch's action is that, whilst he has been enjoying, as consul of her Majesty in the United States, the advantages of a solemn recognition of the United States, he has been engaged in official proceedings in violation of the law, as well as outside of any authority with which they ever consented that he should be vested.

That the latter part of the statement is that the fact would scarcely seem to admit of the possibility of a doubt. But inasmuch as the undersigned is not altogether sure that he has placed the matter so fully before his lordship as his duty to his country seems to him to require, he trusts he may be permitted to enlarge upon it a little further. The position of Mr. Bunch, in regard to the United States, had been exclusively that of a consul of a foreign nation at a commercial port. That such a position does not of itself involve the right of diplomatic negotiation with the recognizing government, much less with any subordinate authority, is too well established by law to need further elucidation. The only question that remains for consideration is * * * then whether the authority actually vested in Mr. Bunch by her Majesty's government to enter into communication with the insurgents in the United States touching certain articles of the declaration of Paris to which their acquiescence was to be obtained was of a diplomatic or purely of a consular nature. The proper answer to this is to be found in an appeal to the mode in which, from its very commencement, the declaration of Paris has been permitted to take its shape. In its origin it was the result of a conference of the accredited envoys of the great powers, and in all the later steps taken to secure the acquiescence of different nations, including the United States, the agency used has been that of the customary diplomatic representatives. It therefore admits of no doubt, in the mind of the undersigned, that the declaration of Paris is a pure diplomatic act, and that all negotiations since carried on to extend its authority, including that which the undersigned himself had the honor to carry on with his lordship for a time, bear the same exclusive character. It is, then, plain to the mind of the undersigned that the government of the United States in objecting to the assumption by an officer of a foreign government recognized by it only as vested with the authority of a consul of diplomatic authority to treat within the limits of the United States, and without its knowledge or consent, with persons acting as an armed resistance to it, has justification fully sufficient to sustain its decision to withdraw the formal act of recognition of such officer. To suppose it capable of a different

course would seem to be to condemn it as unworthy of the character for honor and independence to which it has ever endeavored to aspire.

In conclusion, the undersigned desires to express his personal obligations to Earl Russell for the friendly notice he has been pleased to take of his labors in the arduous and difficult mission with which he has been charged. It gives him great pleasure to be able on his part to testify to the uniform courtesy and good will with which he has been treated in all his relations with her Majesty's government.

The undersigned prays Earl Russell to receive the assurances of his most distinguished consideration.

Right Hon. EARL RUSSELL, &c., &c.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 143.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 13, 1861.

SIR: Your despatch of November 22, No. 74, has been received. Your note to her Britannic Majesty's principal secretary for foreign affairs on the subject of the withdrawal of the exequatur of the late consul at Charleston is approved.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 144.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 13, 1861.

SIR: Your despatch of November 22, No. 75, was duly received.

We shall hear what Lord Lyons may have to say to us on the subject of the facilities for correspondence of British subjects residing in the insurrectionary parts of the country with pleasure, and with a sincere desire to do whatever may be possible consistently with the safety and welfare of the United States.

[blocks in formation]

SIR: Although many of the leading presses zealously continue their efforts to keep up the war feeling here against the United States, I think the signs

are clear of a considerable degree of reaction and a growing hope that the friendly relations between the two countries may be preserved. Of course everybody is waiting to hear of the issue of the demands transmitted by the Europa. Much gratification has been expressed at the publication of the despatch addressed by M. Thouvenel to the government through M. Mercier, as also the treatment of the question of the Trent by M. Hautefeuille. Indeed, the harmony of sentiment on this subject is so general throughout Europe as to have very much increased the confidence of the British ministry in their position. They are even disposed to put up, with unusual patience, with the severe reflections made on the past policy of Great Britain in consideration of the substantial advantage they gain in the immediate dispute. Unquestionably the view of all other countries is that the opportunity is most fortunate for obtaining new and large modifications of international law which will hereafter materially restrain the proverbial tendency of this country on the ocean. My own opinions to the same effect have been already so freely expressed that it is needless, if it were not also superfluous, to repeat them, especially now that the decision is probably complete.

But even if it should be possible to escape the immediate danger from the present difficulty, my confidence in the tendency of things towards peace in this country has been so much shaken as to make the prospects for the future quite doubtful. Parliament will probably assemble somewhat earlier than has been anticipated, perhaps by the 16th of January. It will then be impossible to avoid a general expression of opinion upon American affairs. Of what a character that will be, some idea may be formed from the various addresses made during the recess by members to their respective constitnencies. As usual in all deliberative assemblies having freedom of speech, the popular tendency will be towards the most positive doctrines. The war party will in this particular enjoy the advantage, which they will not fail to use with effect against the ministry of Lord Palmerston, especially if there be the smallest opportunity of reproaching it for any concession on a point of honor. Even if in this particular they should find it difficult to make an issue, they will not fail to go on and urge the application of a limit to the law of blockade, as well as to the refusal to recognize a de facto govern ment. In both these cases the ground has been already broken by the public press, and by particular members. So that although Lord Russell, in a portion of his latest conversation with me, affirmed that we should have full opportunity given to us of trying our experiment of overcoming the rebellion before action on their part, it is not quite clear to my mind that he will very long retain the power to make his words good. I have felt it my duty at this time to enter into such speculations, solely because I think I ought to prepare your mind for the possibilities that may follow a settlement of the immediate difficulty. Neither do I wish to undervalue the amount of sympathy and good will that may be brought into play to avert the threatened danger. It is from the friends of our government that I gather most of my conclusions. And one of them is that nothing but very marked evidences of progress towards success will restrain for any length of time the hostile tendencies developed by the case of the Trent.

I am happy to say that I have seen and conferred repeatedly both with Bishop McIlvain and Mr. Weed. I think their services have already been of material use, and that they will be of still more hereafter if peaceful relations should be preserved. The industry of the confederate emissaries in poisoning the sources of opinion, as well as in disseminating wholly erroneous notions of the nature of the struggle in America, has been unvaried. And where the seed has fallen on favorable ground it has germinated strongly and fructified well. But the effort to conceal the true issue and to substitute a false one has failed. The progress of affairs in America is daily more and

more exposing its real character. Much as the commercial and manufacturing interests may be disposed to view the tariff as the source of all our evils, and much as the aristocratic classes may endeavor to make democracy responsible for them, the inexorable logic of events is contradicting each and every assertion based on these notions, and proving that the American struggle is, after all, the ever-recurring one in human affairs between right and wrong, between labor and capital, between liberty and absolutism. When such an issue comes to be presented to the people of Great Britain, stripped of all the disguises which have been thrown over it, it is not difficult to predict at least which side it will not consent to take.

[blocks in formation]

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

*

[blocks in formation]

SIR: I have now received copies of all the papers connected with the affair of the Trent. The result is in the highest degree satisfactory.

I need not add my testimony to the general tribute of admiration of the skilful manner in which the various difficulties and complications attending this unfortunate business have been met or avoided. Thus far, in spite of all efforts sedulously made to the contrary, the effect on public opinion has been favorable.

The publication of the foreign correspondence during the past season, as well as of the latest despatches, has materially corrected the old notion of determined hostility on your part to Great Britain, which has been used so mischievously for months past. On the whole, I think, I may say with confidence that matters look better. Last Saturday I called, at the request of Lord Russell, at the foreign office, when his lordship read to me the despatch which he was then on the point of sending off to Lord Lyons. We thereupon exchanged congratulations on the complete restoration of friendly relations between the two countries.

Since that time not only the correspondence already published in America has been printed by authority in the London Gazette, but the later papers written on this side, including the very last, being that which was read to me. You will doubtless notice with some curiosity the earlier one, being Lord Russell's note of the substance of the conversation held with me on the 19th ultimo, at the time I read to him your confidential despatch to me of the 30th of November. The circumstances attending that affair have given rise to so much speculation, both here and on the continent, and have led to such sharp controversy in the London newspapers, that it may be advisable that the government should understand them correctly. Considering the paper as confidential, of course I took good care that no knowledge of its substance or of the substance of the conference should be extended be yond the limits of this legation. Yet the fact is certain that on the strength of an impression of the occurrence of some such event the funds rose one per cent. on the very next day.

So general was the idea that the Morning Post, a paper considered here, and not without reason, as deriving information from high sources, thought proper to notice the rumor on the 21st December, and deliberately to affirm

« PreviousContinue »