THE CHARACTER OF EDWIN M. STANTON.

Nine months after the outbreak of hostilities the organization and equipment of the National forces were placed under the direction of Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War. Outside of his professional reputation, which was high, Mr. Stanton had been known to the public by his service in the Cabinet of Mr. Buchanan during the last three months of his Administration. In that position he had undoubtedly exhibited zeal and fidelity in the cause of the Union. He was a member of the Democratic party, a thorough believer in its principles, and a hearty opponent of Mr. Lincoln in the contest of 1860. In speech and writing he referred to Mr. Lincoln's supporters in the extreme partisan phrase of the day,—as "Black Republicans." He had no sympathy with Mr. Lincoln's views on the subject of slavery, and was openly hostile to any revival of the doctrine of Protection. If Mr. Buchanan had been governed by the views of Mr. Stanton he would undoubtedly have vetoed the Morrill Tariff bill, and thus an unintended injury would have been inflicted upon the reviving credit of the nation. A citizen of the District of Columbia, Mr. Stanton was not called upon to make a personal record in the Presidential election of 1860, but his sympathies were well understood to be with the supporters of Breckinridge.

With these political principles and affiliations, Mr. Stanton was not even considered in connection with the original organization of Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet. But the fact of his being a Democrat was now in his favor, for Mr. Lincoln was anxious to signify by some decisive expression, his appreciation of the patriotism which had induced so large a proportion of the Democratic party to lay aside prejudice and unite in support of his Administration. He had a high estimate of Mr. Stanton's capacity, derived from personal intercourse in a professional engagement some three years before. He had learned something of his powers of endurance, of his trained habits of thought, of his systematic method of labor, and he had confidence that at forty-seven years of age, with vigorous health and a robust constitution, Mr. Stanton could endure the strain which the increasing labor of the War Department would impose. His nomination was confirmed without delay, and the whole country received his appointment with profound satisfaction.

No Cabinet minister in our history has been so intemperately denounced, so extravagantly eulogized. The crowning fact in his favor is that through all the mutations of his stormy career he was trusted and loved by Mr. Lincoln to the end of his days. He was at all times and under all circumstances absolutely free from corruption, and was savagely hostile to every man in the military service who was even suspected of irregularity or wrong. He possessed the executive faculty in the highest degree. He was prompt, punctual, methodical, rapid, clear, explicit in all his work. He imparted energy to every branch of the service, and his vigorous determination was felt on the most distant field of the war as a present and inspiring force.

Mr. Stanton had faults. He was subject to unaccountable and violent prejudice, and under its sway he was capable of harsh injustice. Many officers of merit and of spotless fame fell under his displeasure and were deeply wronged by him. General Stone was perhaps the most conspicuous example of the extremity of outrage to which the Secretary's temper could carry him. He was lacking in magnanimity. Even when intellectually convinced of an error, he was reluctant to acknowledge it. He had none of that grace which turns an enemy to a friend by healing the wounds which have been unjustly inflicted. While oppressing many who were under his control, he had the keenest appreciation of power, and to men who were wielding great influence he exhibited the most deferential consideration. He had a quick insight into character, and at a glance could tell a man who would resist and resent from one who would silently submit. He was ambitious to the point of uncontrollable greed for fame, and by this quality was subject to its counterpart of jealousy, and to an envy of the increasing reputation of others. It was a sore trial to him that after his able and persistent organization of all the elements of victory, the share of credit which justly belonged to him, was lost sight of in the glory which surrounded the hero of a successful battle.

But his weaknesses did not obscure the loftiness of his character. The capricious malignity and brutal injustice of the Great Frederick might as well be cited against the acknowledged grandeur of his career, as an indictment be brought against Stanton's fame on his personal defects, glaring and even exasperating as they were. To the Nation's trust he was sublimely true. To him was committed, in a larger degree than to any other man except the President alone, the successful prosecution of the war and the consequent preservation of the Union. Against those qualities which made him so many enemies, against those insulting displays of temper which wounded so many proud spirits helplessly subject to him for the time, against those acts of rank injustice which, in the judgment of his most partial eulogist, will always mar his fame, must be remembered his absolute consecration to all that he was and of all he could hope to be, to the cause of his country. For more than three years, of unceasing and immeasurable responsibility, he stood at his post, by day and by night, never flagging in zeal, never doubting in faith. Even his burly frame and rugged strength were overborne by the weight of his cares and by the strain upon his nerves, but not until his work was finished, not until the great salvation had come. Persecution and obloquy have followed him into the grave, but an impartial verdict must be that he was inspired with the devotion of a martyr, and that he wore out his life in a service of priceless value to all the generations of his countrymen.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Relation with Great Britain.—Close of the Year 1860.—Prince of Wales's Visit to the United States.—Exchange of Congratulatory Notes.—Dawn of the Rebellion.—Lord Lyons's Dispatch.—Mr. Seward's Views.—Lord John Russell's Threats.—Condition of Affairs at Mr. Lincoln's Inauguration.—Unfriendly Manifestations by Great Britain. —Recognizes Belligerency of Southern States.—Discourtesy to American Minister.—England and France make Propositions to the Confederate States.—Unfriendly in their Character to the United States.—Full Details given.—Motives inquired into.—Trent Affair. —Lord John Russell.—Lord Lyons.—Mr. Seward.—Mason and Slidell released.—Doubtful Grounds assigned.—Greater Wrongs against us by Great Britain.—Queen Victoria's Friendship.—Isolation of United States.—Foreign Aid to Confederates on the Sea.—Details given.— So-called Neutrality.—French Attempt to establish an Empire in Mexico.—Lord Palmerston in 1848, in 1859, in 1861.—Conclusive Observations.

At the close of the year 1860 the long series of irritating and dangerous questions which had disturbed the relations of the United States and Great Britain, from the time of the Declaration of Independence, had reached final and friendly solution. The fact gave unalloyed satisfaction to the American people and to their Government. Mr. Buchanan was able to say in his message of December, in language which Lord Lyons truly described as "the most cordial which has appeared in any President's message since the foundation of the Republic,"—

"Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character. Since the commencement of my Administration the two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and from the right of search claimed by the British Government have been amicably and honorably adjusted. The discordant constructions of the Clayton- Bulwer Treaty, which at different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this government. The only question of any importance which still remains open is the disputed title between the two governments to the Island of San Juan in the vicinity of Washington Territory." It was obvious that neither government looked forward to any trouble from this source.

To give manifestation of the cordiality with which our friendship was reciprocated, Her Majesty had selected this auspicious year for a visit of her son, the Prince of Wales, to this country. His Royal Highness was received everywhere by the government and the people with genuine and even enthusiastic hospitality, and at the termination of his visit Lord Lyons was instructed to express the thanks of Her Majesty.

"One of the main objects," His Lordship wrote to Secretary Cass on the 8th of December, 1860, "which Her Majesty had in view in sanctioning the visit of His Royal Highness was to prove to the President and citizens of the United States the sincerity of those sentiments of esteem and regard which Her Majesty and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred race which occupies so distinguished a position in the community of nations. Her Majesty has seen with the greatest satisfaction that her feelings and those of her people in this respect have been met with the warmest sympathy in the great American Union; and Her Majesty trusts that the feelings of confidence and affection, of which late events have proved beyond all question the existence, will long continue to prevail between the two countries to their mutual advantage and to the general interests of civilization and humanity. I am commanded to state to the President that the Queen would be gratified by his making known generally to the citizens of the United States her grateful sense of the kindness with which they received her son, who has returned to England deeply impressed with all he saw during his progress through the States, and more especially so with the friendly and cordial good will manifested towards him on every occasion by all classes of the community."

Mr. William Henry Trescott, then Assistant Secretary of State, replied to Lord Lyons's note without delay, writing on the 11th of December: "I am instructed by the President to express the gratification with which he has learned how correctly Her Majesty has appreciated the spirit in which His Royal Highness was received throughout the Republic, and the cordial manifestation of that spirit by the people of the United States which accompanied him in every step of his progress. Her Majesty has justly recognized that the visit of her son aroused the kind and generous sympathies of our citizens, and, if I may so speak, has created an almost personal interest in the fortunes of the Royalty which he so well represents. The President trusts that this sympathy and interest towards the future representative of the Sovereignty of Great Britain are at once an evidence and a guaranty of that consciousness of common interest and mutual regard which have bound in the past, and will in the future bind together more strongly than treaties, the feelings and the fortunes of the two nations which represent the enterprise, the civilization, and the constitutional liberty of the same great race. I have also been instructed to make this correspondence public, that the citizens of the United States may have the satisfaction of knowing how strongly and properly Her Majesty has appreciated the cordial warmth of their welcome to His Royal Highness."

VISIT OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

Time was soon to test "the sincerity of those sentiments of esteem and regard which Her Majesty and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred race which occupies so distinguished a position in the community of nations." Within a few days after the exchange of this correspondence it became the duty of Lord Lyons to announce to his government that the domestic differences "in the great American Union" were deepening into so fierce a feud that from different motives both General Cass the Secretary of State, to whom his letter had been addressed, and Mr. Trescott the Assistant Secretary of State, by whom it had been answered, had resigned, and that the United States, one "of the two great nations which represent the enterprise, the civilization, and the constitutional liberty of the same great race," was about to confront the gravest danger that can threaten national existence.

The State of South Carolina passed its Ordinance of Secession December 17, 1860. From that date until the surrender of Fort Sumter, April 14, 1861, many of the most patriotic and able statesmen of the country and a large majority of the people of the North hoped that some reasonable and peaceful adjustment of the difficulties would be found. The new Administration had every right to expect that foreign powers would maintain the utmost reserve, both in opinion and in action, until it could have a fair opportunity to decide upon a policy. The great need of the new President was time. Both he and his advisers felt that every day's delay was a substantial gain, and that the maintenance of the status quo, with no fresh outbreak at home and no unfriendly expression aborad, was of incalculable advantage to the cause of the Union.

Amid the varying and contradictory impressions of the hour, Lord Lyons had reported events as they occurred, with singular fairness and accuracy. Just one month before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, on the 4th of February, 1861, His Lordship wrote to Lord John Russell, at that time Her Majesty's Minister of Foreign Affairs: "Mr. Seward's real view of the state of the country appears to be that if bloodshed can be avoided until the new government is installed, the seceding States will in no long time return to the Confederation. He seems to think that in a few months the evils and hardships produced by secession will become intolerably grievous to the Southern States, that they will be completely re-assured as to the intentions of the Administration, and that the conservative element which is now kept under the surface by the violent pressure of the Secessionists will emerge with irresistible force. From all these causes he confidently expects that when elections for the State Legislatures are held in the Southern States in November next, the Union party will have a clear majority and will bring the seceding States back into the Confederation. He then hopes to place himself at the head of a strong Union party having extensive ramifications both in the North and in the South, and to make 'Union or Disunion, not Freedom or Slavery,' the watchwords of political parties." It can scarcely escape notice how significant, even at this early period, is the use in this dispatch of the word "confederation" as applied to the United States,—a use never before made of it in diplomatic communication since the establishment of the Constitution, and indicating, only too clearly, the view to be taken by the British Government of the relation of the States to the Union.

Whatever may have been the estimate at home of the policy attributed to Mr. Seward, it was certainly one which would commend itself to the sympathy of a friendly nation, and one, to the success of which no neutral power would hesitate to contribute all the aid it could rightfully render. The dispatch of Lord Lyons was received in London on the 18th of February, and on the 20th Lord John Russell replied as follows: "The success or failure of Mr. Seward's plans to prevent a disruption of the North-American Union is a matter of deep interest to Her Majesty's Government, but they can only expect and hope. They are not called upon nor would they be acting prudently were they to obtrude their advice on the dissentient parties in the United States. Supposing however that Mr. Lincoln, acting under bad advice, should endeavor to provide excitement for the public mind by raising questions with Great Britain, Her Majesty's Government feel no hesitation as to the policy they would pursue. They would in the first place be very forbearing. They would show by their acts how highly they value the relations of peace and amity with the United States. But they would take care to let the government which multiplied provocations and sought for quarrels understand that their forbearance sprung from the consciousness of strength and not from the timidity of weakness. They would warn a government which was making political capital out of blustering demonstrations that our patience might be tried too far."

THREATS FROM LORD JOHN RUSSELL.

It is impossible to mistake the spirit or the temper of this dispatch. It is difficult to account for the manifest irritation of its tone except upon the ground that Lord John Russell saw in a possible reconciliation, between North and South, something that threatened the interest or jarred upon the sympathy of the British Government. It was at least sufficient and ominous warning of what the United States might expect from "the confidence and affection" which had only a few weeks before been outpoured so lavishly by Her Majesty's Government. The fact is worthy of emphasis that since the cordial interchange of notes touching the visit of the Prince of Wales there had not been a single word of unkindness in the correspondence of the two governments. But our embarrassments had been steadily deepening, and according to many precedents in the career of that illustrious statesman, Lord John seems to have considered the period of our distress a fitting time to assert that "British forbearance springs from the consciousness of strength and not from the timidity of weakness."

On the 4th of March, 1861, the administration of Mr. Lincoln assumed the responsibility of government. At that date the organization of the Southern Confederacy had not been perfected. Four States which ultimately joined it had not yet seceded from the Union. There had been no overt act of violence. The Administration still believed in the possibility of a peaceful settlement. But on the 12th of April Fort Sumter was attacked. On the 14th it was surrendered. On the 15th the President issued his Proclamation calling out seventy-five thousand militia and summoning Congress to meet on the 4th of July. On the 17th the President of the Confederacy authorized the issue of letters of marque. On the 19th the President of the United States proclaimed a blockade of the Southern ports and declared that privateers with letters of marque from the Southern Confederacy would be treated as pirates.

This condition of affairs rendered the relation of foreign powers to the Union and to the Confederacy at once urgent and critical. It is true that Fort Sumter had surrendered to a warlike demonstration, but fortunately no blood had been shed. It is true that letters of marque had been authorized, but none had been actually issued. It is true that a blockade had been proclaimed, but some time must elapse before it could be practically enforced. All that can be said is that the rebellion had organized itself with promptness and courage for a conflict. There was still a pause. Neither party thoroughly realized the horror of the work before them, though every day made it more clearly apparent. Until then the United States was the only organized government on our soil known to England, and with it she had for three-quarters of a century maintained commercial and political relations which had grown closer and more friendly every year. The vital element of that government was Union. Whatever might be the complicated relations of their domestic law, to the world and to themselves the United States of America was the indivisible government. This instinct of union had gathered them together as colonies, had formed them into an imperfect confederation, had matured them under a National Constitution. It gave them their vigor at home, their power and influence abroad. To destroy their union was to resolve them into worse than colonial disintegration.

But the separation of the States was more than the dissolution of the Union. For, treating with all due respect the conviction of the Southern States as to the violation of their constitutional rights, no fair-minded man can deny that the central idea of the secession movement was the establishment of a great slave-holding empire around the Gulf of Mexico. It was a bold and imperial conception. With an abounding soil, with millions of trained and patient laborers, with a proud and martial people, with leaders used to power and skilled in government, controlling some of the greatest and most necessary of the commercial staples of the world, the haughty oligarchy of the South would have founded a slave republic which, in its successful development, would have changed the future of this continent and of the world. When English statesmen were called upon to deal with such a crisis, the United States had a right to expect, if not active sympathy, at least that neutrality which would confine itself within the strict limit of international obligation, and would not withhold friendly wishes for the preservation of the Union.

RELATIONS OF ENGLAND AND THE UNION.

England had tested slowly but surely the worth of the American Union. As the United States had extended its territory, had developed in wealth, had increased in population, richer and richer had become the returns to England's merchants and manufacturers; question after question of angry controversy had been amicably settled by the conviction of mutual, growing, and peaceful interests. And while it had become a rhetorical truism with English historians and statesmen, that relations with the independent Republic were stronger, safer, and more valuable than those of the old colonial connection, her own principles of constitutional liberty were re- invigorated by the skill and the breadth with which they were applied and administered by her own children in a new country. England could not but know that all this was due to the Union,— the Union which had concentrated the weakness of scattered States into a government that protected the citizen and welcomed the immigrant, which carried law and liberty to the pioneer on the remotest border, which had made of provincial villages centres of wealth and civilization that would not have discredited the capitals of older nations, and which above all had created a Federal representative government whose successful working might teach England herself how to hold together the ample colonies that still formed the outposts of her Empire.

More than all, a Cabinet, every member of which by personal relation of tradition connection belonged to the great liberal party that felt the achievement of Emancipation to be a part of its historic glory, should have realized that no diminution of a rival, no monopoly of commerce, could bring to England any compensation for the establishment of a slave-holding empire upon the central waters of the world.

With this natural expectation the Government in less than sixty days after Mr. Lincoln's inauguration, sent its minister to London, confident that he would at least be allowed to present to the British Government for friendly consideration, the condition and policy of the Republic before any positive action should disturb the apparently amicable relations of the two countries. Mr. Charles Francis Adams, who was selected for this important duty, was instructed to explain to the British Government that the peculiar relation of the States to the Federal Government, and the reticence and reservations consequent upon a change of administration, had hitherto restrained the action of the President in the formation and declaration of his policy; that without foreign interference the condition of affairs still afforded reasonable hope of a satisfactory solution; and especially that it was necessary, if there existed a sincere desire to avoid wrong and injury to the United States, for foreign powers to abstain from any act of pretended neutrality which would give material advantage or moral encouragement to the organized forces of the rebellion.

Before Mr. Adams could cross the Atlantic the British Government, although aware of his mission and its object, decided upon its own course, in concerted action with France, and without reference to the views or wishes or interest of the United States. On the day before Mr. Adams's arrival in England, as if to give him offensive warning how little his representations would be regarded, Her Majesty's Government issued a proclamation recognizing the confederated Southern States as belligerents. It is entirely unnecessary to discuss the question of the right to recognize belligerency. The great powers of Europe had the same right to recognize the Southern Confederacy as a belligerent that they had to recognize it as an established nationality, and with the same consequences,—all dependent upon whether the fact so recognized were indeed a fact. But the recognition of belligerency or independence may be the means to achieve a result, and not simply an impartial acquiescence in a result already achieved. The question therefore was not whether foreign powers had a right to recognize, but whether the time and method of such recognition were not distinctly hostile,— whether they were not the efficient and coldly calculated means to strengthen the hands of the Rebellion.

Events proved that if the English Government had postponed this action until the Government of the United States had been allowed a frank discussion of its policy, no possible injury to English interests could have resulted. It was but a very short time before the rebellion assumed proportions that led to the recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent by the civil, judicial, and military authorities of the Union; a recognition by foreign powers would then have been simply an act of impartial neutrality. But, declared with such precipitancy, recognition could be regarded only as an act of unfriendliness to the United States. The proof of this is inherent in the case:—

1. The purpose of the secession, openly avowed from the beginning, was the dissolution of the Union and the establishment of an independent slave-empire; and the joint recognition was a declaration that such a result, fraught with ruin to us, was not antagonistic to the feelings or to the supposed interests of Europe, and that both the commercial ambition of England and the military aspirations of France in Mexico hoped to find profit in the event.

ENGLAND'S RECOGNITION OF BELLIGERENCY.

2. This recognition of belligerency in defiance of the known wishes and interests of the United States, accompanied by the discourteous refusal to allow a few hours' delay for the reception of the American minister, was a significant warning to the seceded States that no respect due to the old Union would long delay the establishment of new relations, and that they should put forth all their energies before the embarrassed Administration could concentrate its efforts in defense of the National life.

3. The recognition of the belligerent flag of the Southern Confederacy, with the equal right to supplies and hospitality, guarantied by such recognition, gave to the insurgents facilities and opportunities which were energetically used, and led to consequences which belong to a later period of this history, but the injury and error of which were emphatically rebuked by a judgment of the most important tribunal that has ever been assembled to interpret and administer international law.

The demand which naturally followed for a rigid enforcement of the blockade, imposed a heavy burden upon the Government of the United States just at the time when it was least prepared to assume such a burden. Apologists for the unfriendly course of England interpose the plea that the declaration of blockade by the United States was in fact a prior recognition of Southern belligerency. But it must be remembered that when the United States proposed to avoid this technical argument by closing the insurgent ports instead of blockading them, Mr. Seward was informed by Lord Lyons, acting in concert with the French minister, that Her Majesty's Government "would consider a decree closing the ports of the South actually in possession of the insurgent or Confederate States, as null and void, and that they would not submit to measures on the high seas in pursuance of such decree." Bitterly might Mr. Seward announce the fact which has sunk deep into the American heart: "It is indeed manifest in the tone of the speeches, as well as in the general tenor of popular discussion, that neither the responsible ministers nor the House of Commons nor the active portion of the people of Great Britain sympathize with this government, and hope, or even wish, for its success in suppressing the insurrection; and that on the contrary the whole British nation, speaking practically, desire and expect the dismemberment of the Republic."

This very decided step towards a hostile policy was soon followed by another even more significant. On the 9th of May, 1861, only a few days before the Proclamation of Her Britannic Majesty, recognizing the belligerency of the Southern Confederacy and thus developing itself as a part of a concerted and systematic policy, Lord Cowley, the British Ambassador at Paris, wrote to Lord John Russell: "I called this afternoon on M. Thouvenel, Minister of Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of obtaining his answer to the proposals contained in your Lordship's dispatch of the 6th inst. relative to the measures which should be pursued by the Maritime Powers of Europe for the protection of neutral property in presence of the events which are passing in the American States. M. Thouvenel said the Imperial Government concurred entirely in the views of Her Majesty's Government in endeavoring to obtain of the belligerents a formal recognition of the second, third, and fourth articles of the Declaration of Paris. Count de Flahault (French Ambassador in London) would receive instructions to make this known officially to your Lordship. With regard to the manner in which this endeavor should be made, M. Thouvenel said that he thought a communication should be addressed to both parties in as nearly as possible the same language, the consuls being made the organs of communication with the Southern States."

Communicating this intelligence to Lord Lyons in a dispatch dated May 18, 1861, Lord John Russell added these instructions: "Your Lordship may therefore be prepared to find your French colleague ready to take the same line with yourself in his communications with the Government of the United States. I need not tell your Lordship that Her Majesty's Government would very gladly see a practice which is calculated to lead to great irregularities and to increase the calamities of war renounced by both the contending parties in America as it has been renounced by almost every other nation in the world. . . . You will take such measures as you shall judge most expedient to transmit to Her Majesty's consul at Charleston or New Orleans a copy of my previous dispatch to you of this day's date, to be communicated at Montgomery to the President of the so-styled Confederate States."

The identity of the address and the equality upon which both the belligerents were invited to do what had been done by "almost every other nation of the world" need not be emphasized.

ACTION OF CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT.

On July 5, 1861, Lord Lyons instructed Mr. Bunch, the British Consul at Charleston, South Carolina:—

"The course of events having invested the States assuming the title of Confederate States of America with the character of belligerents, it has become necessary for Her Majesty's Government to obtain from the existing government in those States securities concerning the proper treatment of neutrals. I am authorized by Lord John Russell to confide the negotiation on this matter to you, and I have great satisfaction in doing so. In order to make you acquainted with the views of Her Majesty's Government, I transmit to you a duplicate of a dispatch to me in which they are fully stated." His Lordship then proceeded to instruct the consul as to the manner in which it might be best to conduct the negotiation, the object being to avoid as far as possible a direct official communication with the authorities of the Confederate States. Instructions to the same purport were addressed by the French Government to their consul at Charleston.

What then was the point of the negotiations committed to these consuls? It will be found in the dispatch from Lord John Russell, communicated by his order to Mr. Bunch. It was the accession of the United States and of the Confederate States to the Declaration of Paris of April 16, 1856. That Declaration was signed by the Ministers of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. It adopted as article of Maritime Law the following points:—

"1. Privateering is and remains abolished.

"2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war.

"3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag.

"4. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective,—that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy."

The Powers signing the Declaration engaged to bring it to the knowledge of those Powers which had not taken part in that Congress of Paris, and to invite them to accede to it; and they agreed that "the present Declaration is not and shall not be binding except between those Powers which have acceded or shall accede to it." It was accepted by all the European and South American Powers. The United States, Mexico, and the Oriental Powers did not join in the general acceptance.

The English and French consuls in Charleston, having received these instructions, sought and found an intermediary whose position and diplomatic experience would satisfy the requirements. This agent accepted the trust on two conditions,—one, that he should be furnished with the instructions as proof to the Confederate Government of the genuineness of the negotiation, the other, that the answer of the Confederate Government should be received in whatever shape that government should think proper to frame it. The negotiations in Richmond which had by this time become the seat of the Insurgent Government were speedily concluded, and on the 13th of August, 1861, the Confederate Government passed the following resolution:—

"WHEREAS the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, in a conference held at Paris on the 16th of April, 1856, made certain declarations concerning Maritime Law, to serve as uniform rules for their guidance in all cases arising out of the principles thus proclaimed;

"AND WHEREAS it being desirable not only to attain certainty and uniformity as far as may be practicable in maritime law, but also to maintain whatever is just and proper in the established usages of nations, the Confederate States of America deem it important to declare the principles by which they will be governed in their intercourse with the rest of mankind: Now therefore be it

"Resolved, by the Congress of the Confederate States of America,

"1st, That we maintain the right of privateering as it has been long established by the practice and recognized by the law of nations.

"2d, That the neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war.

"3d, That neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag.

"4th, Blockades in order to be binding must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy."

ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND THE CONFEDERACY.

"These resolutions," says Mr. Bunch to Lord Lyons on Aug. 16, 1861, "were passed on the 13th inst., approved on the same day by the President, and I have the honor to enclose herewith to your Lordship the copy of them which has been sent to Mr. —— by the Secretary of State to be delivered to M. de Belligny and myself." On Aug. 30, 1861, Lord Lyons wrote to Lord John Russell: "I have received, just in time to have the enclosed copy made for your Lordship, a dispatch from Mr. Consul Bunch reporting the proceedings taken by him in conjunction with his French colleague M. de Belligny to obtain the adherence of the so-called Confederate States to the last three articles of the Declaration of Paris;" and a few days later he says, "I am confirmed in the opinion that the negotiation, which was difficult and delicate, was managed with great tact and judgment by the two consuls."

Upon the discovery of this "difficult and delicate negotiation," Mr. Seward demanded the removal of Mr. Bunch. Lord John Russell replied to Mr. Adams Sept. 9, 1861, "The undersigned will without hesitation state to Mr. Adams that in pursuance of an agreement between the British and French Government, Mr. Bunch was instructed to communicate to the persons exercising authority in the so-called Confederate States the desire of those governments that the second, third, and fourth articles of the Declaration of Paris should be observed by those States in the prosecution of the hostilities in which they were engaged. Mr. Adams will observe that the commerce of Great Britain and France is deeply interested in the maintenance of the articles providing that the flag covers the goods, and that the goods of a neutral taken on board a belligerent ship are not liable to confiscation. Mr. Bunch, therefore, in what he has done in this matter, has acted in obedience to the instructions of his government, who accept the responsibility of his proceedings so far as they are known to the Foreign Department, and who cannot remove him from his office for having obeyed instructions."

Here then was a complete official negotiation with the Confederate States. Mr. Montagu Bernard, in his ingenious and learned work, The Neutrality of Great Britain during the American War, conceals the true character of the work in which the British Government had been engaged: "The history of an unofficial application made to the Confederate States on the same subject is told in the two following dispatches. It will be seen that the channel of communication was a private person instructed by the British and French consuls, who had been themselves instructed by the ministers of their respective governments at Washington." The presence of a private intermediary at one point cannot break the chain of official communication if the communications are themselves official. For certain purposes the governments of England and France consulted and determined upon a specific line of policy. That policy was communicated in regular official instructions to their minister in Washington. The Ministers were to select the instruments to carry it out, and the persons selected were the official consular representatives of France and England, who although residing at the South held their exequatures from the United-States Government. They were instructed to make a political application to the government of the Confederacy, and Lord John Russell could not disguise that government under the mask of "the persons exercising authority in the so-called Confederate States." Their application was received by the Confederate Government through their agent just as it would have been received through the mail addressed to the Secretary of State. Their application was officially acted upon by the Confederate Congress, and the result contained in an official document was transmitted to them, and forwarded by them to their immediate official superiors in Washington, who recognized it as a successful result of "a difficult and delicate negotiation." It was then sent to the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries, and the responsibility of the act was fully and finally assumed by those ministers.

Nor can it be justified as an application to a belligerent, informing him that in the exercise of belligerent rights England and France would expect a strict conformity to International Law. The four articles of the Treaty of Paris were not provisions of International Law. They were explicit modifications of that law as it had long existed, and the Declaration itself stated that it was not to bind any of the Powers which had not agreed expressly to accept it. It was therefore an invitation, not to a belligerent but to the Southern Confederacy, to accept and thus become a part to an international compact to which in the very nature of things there could be no parties save those whose acceptance constituted an international obligation. It has never yet been claimed that a mere insurgent belligerent, however strong, occupied such position. If instead of declaring by resolution that the second, third, and fourth articles of the Declaration of Paris were principles which by their own voluntary action they would adopt as rules for their own government, the Confederate States had, with an astute policy which the invitation itself seems intended to suggest, demanded that they should be allowed to accept the Declaration in the same method in which it had been accepted "by every other nation," it is difficult to see how their demand could have been refused; and if it has been admitted, what would have been wanting to perfect the recognition of the independence of the Southern Confederacy?

THE PARIS CONVENTION.

The motive of England and France in this extraordinary negotiation with the Confederacy is plain. The right of privateering was not left untouched except with deep design. By securing the assent of the Confederacy to the other three articles of the Paris Convention, safety was assured to British and French cargoes under the American flag, while every American cargo was at risk unless protected by a Foreign flag—generally the flag of England. It would have been impossible to invent a process more gainful to British commerce, more harmful to American commerce. While the British and French consuls were conducting this negotiation with the Confederate States, the British and French ministers were conducting another to the same purport with the United States. Finally Mr. Seward offered to waive the point made by Secretary Marcy many years before at the date of the Declaration, and to accept the four articles of the Paris Convention, pure and simple. But his could not be done, because the Confederate States had not accepted the first article abolishing privateering and her privateers must therefore be recognized. England and France used this fact as a pretext for absolutely declining to permit the accession of the United States, one of the great maritime powers of the world, to a treaty which was proclaimed to be a wise and humane improvement of the old and harsh law of nations, and to which in former years the United States had been most earnestly invited to give her assent. This course throws a flood of light on the clandestine correspondence with the Confederacy, and plainly exposes the reasons why it was desired that the right of privateering should be left open to the Confederates. Through that instrumentality great harm could be inflicted on the United States and at the same time England could be guarded against a cotton famine. To accomplish these ends she negotiated what was little less than a hostile treaty with an Insurgent Government. This action was initiated before a single battle was fought, and was evidently intended as encouragement and inspiration to the Confederates to persist in their revolutionary proceedings against the Government of the United States. Any reasonable man, looking at the condition of affairs, could not doubt that the public recognition of the independence of the Confederacy by England and France, was a foregone and rapidly approaching conclusion.

With this condition of affairs leading necessarily to a more pronounced unfriendliness, an incident occurred towards the close of the year which seriously threatened a final breach of amicable relations. On the 9th of November, 1861, Captain Wilkes of the United-States steamer San Jacinto, seized the persons of James M. Mason and John Slidell, ministers from the Southern Confederacy, and their secretaries, on board the British mail-steamer Trent on her way from Havana to Kingston. Messrs. Mason and Slidell were accredited by the Executive of the Southern Confederacy to the Governments of England and France. Their avowed object was to obtain the recognition by those governments of the independence of the new Southern Republic, and their success would have been a most dangerous if not a fatal blow to the cause of the Union. But they were not by any recognized principle of international law contraband of war, and they were proceeding from a neutral port to a neutral port in a neutral vessel. The action of the officer who seized them was not authorized by any instructions, and the seizure was itself in violation of those principles of maritime law for which the United States had steadily and consistently contended from the establishment of its national life. The difficulty of adjustment lay not in the temper or conviction of either government, but in the passionate and very natural excitement of popular feeling in both countries. In the United States there was universal and enthusiastic approval of the act of Captain Wilkes. In England there was an equally vehement demand for immediate and signal reparation.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL AND LORD LYONS.

Lord John Russell, after reciting the facts, instructed Lord Lyons in a dispatch of Nov. 30, 1861: "Her Majesty's Government therefore trust that when this matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the Government of the United States, that government will of its own accord offer to the British Government such redress as alone would satisfy the British nation; namely, the liberation of the four gentlemen and their delivery to your Lordship in order that they may again be placed under British protection, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed. Should these terms not be offered by Mr. Seward you will propose them to him." In a dispatch of the same date Lord John Russell says to Lord Lyons: "In my previous dispatch of this date I have instructed you by command of Her Majesty to make certain demands of the Government of the United States. Should Mr. Seward ask for delay in order that this grave and painful matter should be deliberately considered, you will consent to a delay not exceeding seven days. If at the end of that time no answer is given, or if any other answer is given except that of compliance with the demands of Her Majesty's Government, your Lordship is instructed to leave Washington with all the members of your Legation, bringing with you the archives of the Legation, and to repair immediately to London. If however you should be of opinion that the requirements of Her Majesty's Government are substantially complied with you may report the facts to Her Majesty's Government for their consideration, and remain at your post until you receive further orders." The communication of this peremptory limitation of time for a reply would have been an offensive threat; but it was a private instruction to guide the discretion of the minister, not to be used if the condition of things upon its arrival promised an amicable solution. It must also in justice be remembered that excited feeling had been shown by different departments of our own Government as well as by the press and the people. The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted a resolution thanking Captain Wilkes "for his brave, adroit, and patriotic conduct;" and the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Gideon Welles, had publicly and officially approved his action.

The spirit in which Lord Lyons would receive his instructions was indicated in advance by his own dispatch to Lord John Russell of Nov. 19, 1861: "I have accordingly deemed it right to maintain the most complete reserve on the subject. To conceal the distress which I feel would be impossible, nor would it if possible be desirable; but I have expressed no opinion on the questions of international law involved; I have hazarded no conjecture as to the course which will be taken by Her Majesty's Government. On the one hand I dare not run the risk of compromising the honor and inviolability of the British flag by asking for a measure of reparation which may prove to be inadequate. On the other hand I am scarcely less unwilling to incur the danger of rendering a satisfactory settlement of the question more difficult by making a demand which may turn out to be unnecessarily great. In the present imperfect state of my information I feel that the only proper and prudent course is to wait for the orders which your Lordship will give, with a complete knowledge of the whole case. I am unwilling moreover to deprive any explanation or reparation which the United-States Government may think it right to offer, of the grace of being made spontaneously. I know too that a demand from me would very much increase the main difficulty which the government would feel in yielding to any disposition which they may have to make amends to Great Britain. The American people would more easily tolerate a spontaneous offer of reparation made by its government from a sense of justice than a compliance with a demand for satisfaction from a foreign minister."

In accordance with the sentiments thus expressed, Lord Lyons, interpreting his discretion liberally and even generously, called upon Mr. Seward on the 19th of December, 1861, and the following is his official account of the interview: "The Messenger Seymour delivered to me at half-past eleven o'clock last night your Lordship's dispatch of the 30th ultimo, specifying the reparation required by Her Majesty's Government for the seizure of Mr. Mason and Mr. Slidell and their secretaries on board the royal mail-steamer Trent. I waited on Mr. Seward this afternoon at the State Department, and acquainted him in general terms with the tenor of that dispatch. I stated in particular, as nearly as possible in your Lordship's words, that the only redress which could satisfy Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's people would be the immediate delivery of the prisoners to me in order that they might be placed under British protection, and moreover a suitable apology for the aggression which had been committed. I added that Her Majesty's Government hoped that the Government of the United States would of its own accord offer this reparation; that it was in order to facilitate such an arrangement that I had come to him without any written demand, or even any written paper at all, in my hand; that if there was a prospect of attaining this object I was willing to be guided by him as to the conduct on my part which would render its attainment most easy. Mr. Seward received my communication seriously and with dignity, but without any manifestation of dissatisfaction. Some further conversation ensued in consequence of questions put by him with a view to ascertain the exact character of the dispatch. At the conclusion he asked me to give him to- morrow to consider the question and to communicate with the President. On the day after he should, he said, be ready to express an opinion with respect to the communication I had made. In the mean time he begged me to be assured that he was very sensible of the friendly and conciliatory manner in which I had made it."

SECRETARY SEWARD AND LORD LYONS.

On the 26th of December Mr. Seward transmitted to Lord Lyons the reply of the United States to the demand of the British Government. In forwarding it to his Government Lord Lyons said: "Before transmitting to me the note of which a copy enclosed in my immediately preceding dispatch of to-day's date, Mr. Seward sent for me to the State Department, and said with some emotion that he thought that it was due to the great kindness and consideration which I had manifested throughout in dealing with the affair of the Trent, that he should tell me with his own lips that he had been able to effect a satisfactory settlement of it. He had now however been authorized to address to me a note which would be satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government. In answer to inquiries from me Mr. Seward said that of course he understood Her Majesty's Government to leave it open to the Government of Washington to present the case in the form which would be most acceptable to the American people, but that the note was intended to be and was a compliance with the terms proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He would add that the friendly spirit and discretion which I had manifested in the whole matter from the day on which the intelligence of the seizure reached Washington up to the present moment had more than any thing else contributed to the satisfactory settlement of the question."

In his reply Mr. Seward took the ground that we had the right to detain the British vessel and to search for contraband persons and dispatches, and moreover that the persons named and their dispatches were contraband. But he found good reason for surrendering the Confederate envoys in the fact that Captain Wilkes had neglected to bring the Trent into a Prize Court and to submit the whole transaction to Judicial examination. Mr. Seward certainly strained the argument of Mr. Madison as Secretary of State in 1804 to a most extraordinary degree when he apparently made it cover the ground that we would quietly have submitted to British right of search if the "Floating Judgment-seat" could have been substituted by a British Prize Court. The seizure of the Trent would not have been made more acceptable to the English Government by transferring her to the jurisdiction of an American Prize-Court, unless indeed that Court should have decided, as it most probably would have decided, that the seizure was illegal. Measuring the English demand not by the peremptory words of Lord John Russell but by the kindly phrase in which Lord Lyons in a personal interview verbally communicated them, Mr. Seward felt justified in saying that "the claim of the British Government is not made in a discourteous manner." Mr. Seward did not know that at the very moment he was writing these conciliatory words, British troops were on their way to the Dominion of Canada to menace the United States, and that British cannon were shotted for our destruction.

Lord John Russell, however much he might differ from Mr. Seward's argument, found ample satisfaction to the British Government in his conclusion. He said in reply: "Her Majesty's Government having carefully taken into their consideration the liberation of the prisoners, the delivery of them into your hands, and the explanations to which I have just referred, have arrived at the conclusion that they constitute the reparation which Her Majesty and the British nation had a right to expect." And thus, by the delivery of the prisoners in the form and at the place least calculated to excite or wound the susceptibilities of the American people, this dangerous question was settled. It is only to be regretted that the spirit and discretion exhibited by the eminent diplomatist who represented England here with such wisdom and good temper, had not been adopted at an earlier date and more steadily maintained by the British Government. It would have prevented much angry controversy, much bitter feeling; it would have averted events and consequences which still shadow with distrust a national friendship that ought to be cordial and constant.

ENGLAND, FRANCE, PRUSSIA, AND AUSTRIA.

The painful event impressed upon the Government of the United States a profound sense of its isolation from the sympathy of Europe. The principle of maritime law, which was so promptly and rigorously applied, was one for which the United States had contended in its weakness against the usages of the world and against the arms of Great Britain. There was apparent now an eager resolution to enforce it, when that enforcement was sure to embarrass us and to provoke a spirit of derisive triumph in our foes. It was clear that no effort would be spared to restrict our belligerent rights within the narrowest possible limits. Not content with leaving us to settle this question with England, France and Prussia and Austria hastened to inform us in language professedly friendly, that England would be supported in her demand for reparation, cost what it might to us in prestige, and in power to deal with the Rebellion at home. At this time there was but one among the great nations of the world which adhered to an active and avowed friendship for us. "We desire above all things the maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation," was the kindly and always to be remembered greeting that came to us from the Emperor of Russia.

The profound ability exhibited by Mr. Seward as Secretary of State has long been acknowledged and emphasized by the admiration and gratitude of the country. In the Trent affair he acted under a pressure of circumstances more harassing and perplexing than had ever tested the skill of American diplomacy. It is with no disposition to detract from the great service rendered by him that a dissent is expressed from the ground upon which he placed the surrender of Mason and Slidell. It is not believed that the doctrine announced by Mr. Seward can be maintained on sound principles of International Law, while it is certainly in conflict with the practice which the United States had sought to establish from the foundation of the Government. The restoration of the envoys on any such apparently insufficient basis did not avoid the mortification of the surrender; it only deprived us of the fuller credit and advantage which we might have secured from the act. It is to be regretted that we did not place the restoration of the prisoners upon franker and truer ground, viz., that their seizure was in violation of the principles which we had steadily and resolutely maintained—principles which we would not abandon either for a temporary advantage or to save the wounding of our National pride.

The luminous speech of Mr. Sumner, when the papers in the Trent case were submitted to Congress, stated the ground for which the United States had always contended with admirable precision. We could not have refused to surrender Mason and Slidell without trampling upon our own principles and disregarding the many precedents we had sought to establish. But it must not be forgotten that the sword of precedent cut both ways. It was as absolutely against the peremptory demand of England for the surrender of the prisoners as it was against the United States for the seizure of them. Whatever wrong was inflicted on the British Flag by the action of Captain Wilkes, had been time and again inflicted on the American flag by officers of the English Navy,—without cause, without redress, without apology. Hundreds and thousands of American citizens had in time of peace been taken by British cruisers from the decks of American vessels and violently impressed into the naval service of that country.

Lord Castlereagh practically confessed in Parliament that this offense against the liberty of American citizens had been repeated thirty-five hundred times. According to the records of our own department of State as Mr. Sumner alleges "the quarter-deck of a British man-of-war had been made a floating judgment-seat six thousand times and upwards, and each time some citizen or other person was taken from the protection of our national flag without any form of trial whatever." So insolent and oppressive had British aggression become before the war of 1812, that Mr. Jefferson in his somewhat celebrated letter to Madame de Stael-Holstein of May 24, 1813, said, "No American could safely cross the ocean or venture to pass by sea from one to another of our own ports. It is not long since they impressed at sea two nephews of General Washington returning from Europe, and put them, as common seamen, under the ordinary discipline of their ships of war."

After the war of 1812 these unendurable insults to our flag were not repeated by Great Britain, but her Government steadily refused to make any formal renunciation of her right to repeat them, so that our immunity from like insults did not rest upon any better foundation than that which might be dictated by considerations of interest and prudence on the part of the offending Power. The wrong which Captain Wilkes committed against the British flag was surely not so great as if he had seized the persons of British subjects—subjects, if you please, who were of kindred blood to one who stands as high in the affection of the British people as Washington stands in the affection of the American people,—if indeed there be such a one in English tradition.

The offense of Captain Wilkes was surely far below that in the essential quality of outrage. He had not touched the hair of a British subject's head. He had only removed from the hospitality and shelter of a British ship four men who were bent on an errand of destruction to the American Union. His act cannot be justified by the canons of International Law as our own Government has interpreted and enforced them. But in view of the past and of the long series of graver outrages with which Great Britain had so wantonly insulted the American flag, she might have refrained from invoking the judgment of the civilized world against us, and especially might she have refrained from making in the hour of our sore trial and our deep distress, a demand which no British Minister would address to this Government in the day of its strength and its power.

FRIENDLY POSITION OF THE QUEEN.

It would be ungracious to withhold an expression of the lasting appreciation entertained in this country of the course pursued by Her Majesty, the Queen of England, throughout this most painful ordeal. She was wiser than her Ministers, and there can be little doubt but for her considerate interposition, softening the rigor of the British demand, the two nations would have been forced into war. On all the subsequent occasions for bitterness towards England, by reason of the treatment we experienced during the war, there was an instinctive feeling among Americans that the Queen desired peace and good will, and did not sympathize with the insidious efforts at our destruction, which had their origin in her dominions. It was fortunate that the disposition of the Queen, and not of her Ministry, was represented in Washington by Lord Lyons. The good sense and good temper of His Lordship were of inestimable value to both countries, in making the task of Mr. Seward practicable, without increasing the resentment of our people.

It was well that the Government and people of the United States were so early taught that their value to the world of foreign principles, foreign feeling, and foreign interests was only what they could themselves establish; that in this contest they must depend upon themselves; and that the dissolution of their National Unity and the destruction of their free, popular Government from the lack of courage and wisdom in those whose duty it was to maintain them, would not be unwelcome to the Principalities and Powers that "were willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike." This is not the time to describe the vacillating and hesitating development of this hostile policy; but as the purpose of the United-States Government grew more steady, more resolute, and more self-reliant, a sickening doubt seemed to becloud the ill-concealed hope of our ruin. It was not long until the brave and deluded rebels of the South learned that there was no confidence to be placed in the cruel and selfish calculation which encouraged their desperate resistance with the show of sympathy, but would not avow an open support or make a manly sacrifice in their behalf.

This initial policy of foreign powers had developed its natural consequences. It not only excited but it warranted in the Southern Confederacy the hope of early recognition. It seemed impossible that, with this recognized equality between the belligerents, there would not occur somewhere just such incidents as the seizure of the Trent or the capture of the Florida which would render it very difficult to maintain peaceful relations between foreign Powers and the United States. The neutrality laws were complicated. Men- of-war commanded by ambitious, ardent, and patriotic officers would sometimes in the excitement of honorable feeling, sometimes in mistaken sense of duty, vindicate their country's flag; while it was the interest of the officers of the Confederate cruisers, as bold and ingenious men who ever commanded ship, to create, wherever they could, difficulties which would embarrass the interests of neutrals and intensify between the United States and foreign Powers the growing feeling of distrust. Thus from month to month the Government of the United States could never feel secure that there would not arise questions which the indignation of its own people and the pride and latent hostility of foreign government would place beyond the power of friendly adjustment. Such questions did arise with England, France, Brazil, Spain, and even with Mexico, which the common disinclination to actual war succeeded in postponing rather than settling. But as the civil war went on, three classes of questions took continuous and precise shape. Their scope and result can be fully and fairly considered. These were—

1. The building and equipping of Confederate cruisers and their treatment as legitimate national vessels of war in the home and colonial ports of foreign powers.

2. The establishment at such ports as Nassau, in the immediate vicinity of the blockaded ports of the Southern States, of depots of supplies, which afforded to the Confederates enormous advantages in the attempt to break the blockade.

3. The distinct defiance of the traditional policy of the United States by the invasion of the neighboring Republic of Mexico for the avowed purpose of establishing there a foreign and monarchical dynasty.

SECRET SERVICE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

No sooner had Her Brittanic Majesty's proclamation, recognizing the belligerent rights of the Southern Confederacy, been issued, than a naval officer of remarkable ability and energy was sent from Montgomery to Liverpool. In his very interesting history of the services rendered by him, that officer says: "The chief object of this narrative is to demonstrate by a plain statement of facts that the Confederate Government, through their agents, did nothing more than all other belligerents have heretofore done in time of need; namely, tried to obtain from every possible source the means necessary to carry on the war in which they were engaged, and that in so doing they took particular pains to understand the municipal law of those countries in which they sought to supply their wants, and were especially careful to keep with the statutes. . . .

"The object of the Confederate Government was not merely to build a single ship, but it was to maintain a permanent representative of the Navy Department abroad, and to get ships and naval supplies without hindrance so long as the war lasted. To effect this purpose it was manifestly necessary to act with prudence and caution and to do nothing in violation of the municipal law, because a single conviction would both expose the object and defeat the aim." His solicitor "therefore drew up a case for counsel's opinion and submitted it to two eminent barristers, both of whom have since filled the highest judicial positions. The case was submitted; was a general and not a specific proposition. It was not intimated for what purpose and on whose behalf the opinion was asked, and the reply was therefore wholly without bias, and embraced a full exposition of the Act in its bearing upon the question of building and equipping ships in Her Majesty's dominions.

"The inferences drawn from the investigation of the Act by counsel were put in the following form by my solicitor:—

"'1. It is no offense (under the Act) for British subjects to equip, etc., a ship at some country without Her Majesty's dominions though the intent be to cruise against a friendly State.

"'2. It is no offense for any person (subject or no subject) to equip a ship within Her Majesty's dominions if it be not done with the intent to cruise against a friendly State.

"'3. The mere building of a ship within Her Majesty's dominions by any person (subject or no subject) is no offense, whatever may be the intent of the parties, because the offense is not in the building, but the equipping.

"'Therefore any ship-builder may build any ship in Her Majesty's dominions, provided he does not equip her within Her Majesty's dominions, and he had nothing to do with the acts of the purchasers done within Her Majesty's dominions without his concurrence, or without Her Majesty's dominions even with his concurrence.'"— [BULLOCK's Secret Service of the Confederate States, vol. i, pp. 65-67.]

It is an amazing courtesy which attributes to the eminent counsel a complete ignorance of the object and purpose for which their weighty opinion was sought in the construction of British law. Such ignorance is feigned and not real, and the pretense of its existence indicates either on the part of the author or the counsel a full appreciation of the deadly consequences of that malign interpretation of England's duty for which two illustrious members of the English Bar were willing to stand sponsors before the world. Conceding, as we fairly may concede, that the decision in the case of the Alexandra is confirmatory of the opinion given by these leaders of the British bar, the result was simply the establishment and administration of the Naval Department of the Confederacy in England. There was its chief, there were its financial agents, there its workshops. There were its vessels armed and commissioned. Thence they sailed on their mission of destruction, and thither they returned to repair their damages, and to renew their supplies. Under formal contracts with the Confederate Government the colonial ports of Nassau and the Bermudas were made depots of supplies which were drawn upon with persistent and successful regularity. The effects of this thoroughly organized system of so-called neutrality that supplied ports, ships, arms, and men to a belligerent which had none, are not matters of conjecture or exaggeration; they have been proven and recorded. In three years fifteen million dollars' worth of property was destroyed,—given to the flame or sunk beneath the waters,—the shipping of the United States was reduced one- half, and the commercial flag of the Union fluttered with terror in every wind that blew, form the whale-fisheries of the Arctic to the Southern Cross.

MINISTER DAYTON'S INDIGNANT PROTEST.

With this condition of affairs, permitted and encouraged by England and France, our distinguished minister at Paris was justified in saying to the Government of Louis Napoleon on the reception of the Confederate steamer Georgia at Brest, in language which though but the bare recital of fact was of itself the keenest reproach to the French Government:—

"The Georgia, like the Florida, the Alabama, and other scourges of peaceful commerce, was born of that unhappy decree which gave the rebels who did not own a ship-of-war or command a single port the right of an ocean belligerent. Thus encouraged by foreign powers they began to build and fit out in neutral ports a class of vessels constructed mainly for speed, and whose acknowledged mission is not to fight, but to rob, to burn, and to fly. Although the smoke of burning ships has everywhere marked the track of the Georgia and the Florida upon the ocean, they have never sought a foe or fired a gun against an armed enemy. To dignify such vessels with the name of ships-of-war seems to me, with deference, a misnomer. Whatever flag may fly from their mast-head, or whatever power may claim to own them, their conduct stamps them as piratical. If vessels of war even, they would by this conduct have justly forfeited all courtesies in ports of neutral nations. Manned by foreign seamen, armed by foreign guns, entering no home port, and waiting no judicial condemnation of prizes, they have already devastated and destroyed our commerce to an extent, as compared with their number, beyond any thing known in the records of privateering."

It would seem impossible that such a state of things could be the result of the impartial administration of an honest neutrality. It must be attributed to one of two causes;—either the municipal law of foreign countries was not sufficient to enable the governments to control the selfishness or the sentiment of their people,—to which the reply is obvious that the weakness and incompetence of municipal law cannot diminish or excuse international obligations: or it must have been due to a misconception of the obligations which international law imposes. How far there may have been a motive for this misconception, how far the wish was father to the thought of such misconstruction, it is perhaps needless now to inquire. The theory of international law maintained by the foreign Powers may be fairly stated in two propositions:—

1. That foreign Powers had the right, and in due regard to their own interests were bound, to recognize belligerency as a fact.

2. That belligerents once recognized, were equals and must be treated with the same perfect neutrality.

It is not necessary to deny these propositions, but simply to ascertain their real meaning. In its primary and simple application, the law of belligerency referred to two or more belligerents, equally independent. Its application to the case of insurgents against an established and recognized government is later, involves other and in some respects different considerations, and cannot even now be regarded as settled. To recognize an insurgent as a belligerent is not to recognize him as fully the equal of the government from which he secedes. This would be simply to recognize his independence. The limitation which international law places upon this recognition is stated in the English phrase, "the right to recognize belligerency as a fact;"—that is, to recognize the belligerent to the extent of his war capacity but no farther. The neutral cannot on this principle recognize in the belligerent the possession of any power which he does not actually possess, although in the progress of the contest such power may be developed.

The Southern Confederacy had an organized government and great armies. To that extent its power was a fact. But when foreign governments recognized in the insurgents the rights of ocean belligerency, they went beyond the fact. They were actually giving to the Confederacy a character which it did not possess and which it never acquired. For the Confederacy had not a ship or an open port. Whenever an insurgent power claims such right, it must be in condition to assume and discharge the obligation which such rights impose. When any power, insurgent or recognized, claims such right,—the right to fly its flag, to deal in hostility with the commerce of the world, to exercise dangerous privileges which may affect the interests and complicate the relations of other nations,—it must give to the world a guaranty that it is both able and willing to administer the system of maritime law under which it claims such rights and powers, by submitting its action to the regular and formal jurisdiction of Prize Courts. Strike the Prize Court out of modern maritime law and the whole system falls, and capture on the sea becomes pure barbarism,—distinguished from piracy only by the astuteness of a legal technicality. The Southern Confederacy could give no guaranty. Just as it undertook to naturalize foreign seamen upon the quarter-deck of its roving cruisers, so it undertook to administer a system of maritime law which precluded the most solemn and important of its provisions— a judicial decision—and converted the humane and legal right of capture into an absolute and a ruthless decree of destruction. No neutral has the right to make or accept such an interpolation into the recognized and essential principles of the law of maritime warfare.

ENGLAND'S MALIGNANT NEUTRALITY.

The application of this so-called neutrality to both the so-called belligerents was not designed nor was it practicable. In referring to the obligation of the neutral to furnish no assistance to either of the belligerents, one of the oldest and most authoritative of international law writers says: "I do not say to give assistance equally but to give no assistance, for it would be absurd that a state should assist at the same time two enemies. And besides it would be impossible to do it with equality: the same things, the like number of troops, the like quantity of arms and munitions furnished under different circumstances are no longer equivalent succors." Assistance is not a theoretical idea; it is a plain, practical, unmistakable fact. When the United States had, at vast cost and by incredible effort, shut the Southern Confederacy from the sea and blockaded its ports against the entry of supplies, when that government had no resources within its territory by which it could put a ship upon the ocean, or break the blockade from within, then it was that England allowed Confederate officers to camp upon her soil, organize her labor, employ her machinery, use her ports, occupy her colonial stations, almost within sight of the blockaded coast, and to do this continuously, systematically, defiantly.

By these acts the British government gave the most valuable assistance to the South and actually engaged in defeating the military operations of the United States. There was no equivalent assistance which Great Britain could or did render to the United States. They might have rendered other assistance, but none which would compensate for this. Let it be supposed for one moment that Mexico had practiced, on the other side of the Rio Grande, the same sort of neutrality,—that she had lined the bank of the river with depots of military supplies; that she had allowed officers of the Confederate army to establish themselves and organize a complete system for the receipt of cotton and the delivery of merchandise on her territory; that her people had served as factors, intermediaries, and carriers,—would any reasonable interpretation of international law consider such conduct to be impartial neutrality? But illustration does not strengthen the argument. The naked statement of England's position is its worst condemnation. Her course, while ingeniously avoiding public responsibility, gave unceasing help to the Confederacy —as effective as if the intention had been proclaimed. The whole procedure was in disregard of international obligation and was the outgrowth of what M. Prevost-Paradol aptly charaterized as a "malignant neutrality."

It cannot be said in reply that the Governments of England and France were unable to restrain this demonstration of the sympathy, this exercise of the commercial enterprise of their people. For the time came when they did restrain it. As soon as it became evident that the Confederacy was growing weaker, that with all its marvelous display of courage and endurance it could not prevent the final success of the Union, there was no longer difficulty in arresting the building of the iron-clads on the Mersey; then the watchfulness of home and colonial authorities was quickened; then supplies were meted out scantily; then the dangers of a great slave empire began to impress Ministerial consciences, and the same Powers prepared to greet the triumph of the Union with well-feigned satisfaction. But even if this change had not occurred the condition of repressed hostility could not have lasted. It was war in disguise —not declared, only because the United-States Government could not afford to multiply its enemies, and England felt that there was still uncertainty enough in the result to caution her against assuming so great a risk. But the tension of the relation was aptly described by Mr. Seward in July, 1863, when he said,—

"If the law of Great Britain must be left without amendment and be construed by the government in conformity with the rulings of the chief Baron of the Exchequer [the Alexandra case] then there will be left for the United States no alternative but to protect themselves and their commerce against armed cruisers proceeding from British ports as against the naval forces of a public enemy. . . . British ports, domestic as well as colonial, are now open under certain restrictions to the visits of piratical vessels, and not only furnish them coals, provisions, and repairs, but even receive their prisoners when the enemies of the United States come in to obtain such relief from voyages in which they have either burned ships they have captured, or have even manned and armed them as pirates and sent them abroad as auxiliaries in the work of destruction. Can it be an occasion for either surprise or complaint that if this condition of things is to remain and receive the deliberate sanction of the British Government, the navy of the United States will receive instructions to pursue these enemies into the ports which thus in violation of the law of nations and the obligations of neutrality become harbors for the pirates? The President very distinctly perceives the risks and hazards which a naval conflict thus maintained will bring to the commerce and even to the peace of the two countries. But he is obliged to consider that in the case supposed, the destruction of our commerce will probably amount to a naval war, waged by a portion at least of the British nation against the government and people of the United States—a war tolerated although not declared or avowed by the British Government. If through the necessary employment of all our means of national defense such a partial war shall become a general one between the two nations, the President thinks that the responsibility for that painful result will not fall upon the United States."

ENGLAND'S MALIGNANT NEUTRALITY.

The truth is that the so-called neutral policy of foreign Powers was the vicious application of obsolete analogies to the conditions of modern life. Because of the doctrine of belligerent recognition had in its origin referred to nations of well established, independent existence, the doctrine was now pushed forward to the extent of giving ocean belligerency to an insurgent which had in reality no maritime power whatever. It was an old and recognized principle that the commercial relations of the neutral should not be interfered with unless they worked positive injury to the belligerent. The new application made the interests of neutral commerce the supreme factor in determining how far belligerent rights should be respected. The ship-building and carrying-trade of England were to be maintained and encouraged at any cost to the belligerent. Under the old law, a belligerent had the right to purchase a ship and a cargo, or a neutral might run a blockade, taking all the risk of capture. By the new construction, power was to be given to a belligerent to transfer the entire administration of its naval service to foreign soil, and to create and equip a navy which issued from foreign waters, ready not for a dangerous journey to their own ports of delivery, but for the immediate demonstration of hostile purpose. No such absurd system can be found in the principles or precedents of international law; no such system would be permitted by the great powers of Europe if to-morrow they should engage in war.

The principle of this policy was essentially mercenary. It professed no moral sense. It might be perfectly indifferent to the high or the low issues which the contest between the belligerents involved; it was deaf to any thing which might be urged by justice of humanity or friendship; it was the cynical recognition of the truth of the old proverb that "It is an ill wind which blows good to no one." It was the same principle upon which England declares with audacious selfishness that she cannot sacrifice that portion of her Indian revenue which comes from the opium trade or the capital which is invested in its growth and manufacture, and that China must therefore take the poison which diseases and degrades her population. But selfish as is this market-policy, it is a policy of circumstance. It may be resisted with success or it may be abandoned because it cannot succeed. It creates bitterness; it leads to war; it may in its selfishness cause the destruction of a nation, but it does not necessarily imply a desire for that destruction. But there was in the foreign policy of Europe towards the United States during the civil war the manifestation of a spirit more intense in its hostility, more dangerous in its consequences. It was the spirit of enmity to the Union itself, and the emphatic demonstration of this feeling was the invasion of Mexico for the purpose of converting the republic by force into an empire. Louis Napoleon's enterprise was distinctly based on the utter destruction of the American Union.

The Declaration of Independence by the British Colonies in America was something more than the creation of a new sovereignty. It was the foundation of a new system both of internal government and foreign relation, a system not entirely isolated from the affairs of the Old World but independent of the dynastic complications and the territorial interests which controlled the political conflicts of Europe. At first, with its material resources undeveloped, its territorial extension limited and surrounded by the colonies of the great Powers, this principle although maintained as a conviction, could not manifest itself in action. But it showed itself in that abstinence from entangling alliances which would avoid the dangers of even a too friendly connection. In time our territory expanded. The colonies of foreign nations following our example became independent republics whose people had the same aspirations, whose governments were framed upon the same basis of popular right. The rapidity of communication, supplied by the railroad and the telegraph, facilitated and concentrated this political cohesion, and there had been formed from the borders of Canada to the Straits of Magellan a complete system of republics (to which Brazil can scarcely be considered an exception) professing the same political creed, having great commercial interests in common, and which with the extinction of some few jealousies, were justified in the anticipation of a prosperous and peaceful future. There was not an interest or an ambition of a single one of these republics which threatened an interest or an ambition of a single European power.

THE REPUBLICS OF AMERICA.

It needs no argument to show that the central element of the stability of this system of American republics was the strength of the Federal Union, its growth into a harmonious nationality, and its ability to prevent anywhere on the two continents the armed intervention of foreign Powers for the purpose of political domination. This strength was known and this resolution publicly declared, and it is safe to affirm that before 1861 or after 1865 not one nor all of the European Powers would have willingly challenged this policy. But the moment the strength of the Union seemed weakened, the moment that the leading Republic of this system found itself hampered and embarrassed by internal dissensions, all Europe —that Europe which upon the threatening of a Belgian fortress, or the invasion of a Swiss canton, or the loss of the key to a church in Jerusalem, would have written protocols, summoned conferences, and mustered armies—quietly acquiesced in as wanton, wicked, and foolish an aggression as ever Imperial folly devised. The same monarch who appealed with confidence to Heaven when he declared war to prevent a Hohenzollern from ascending the throne of Spain, appealed to the same Heaven with equal confidence and equal success when he declared war to force a Hapsburg upon the throne of Mexico.

The success of the establishment of a Foreign Empire in Mexico would have been fatal to all that the United States cherished, to all that it hoped peacefully to achieve. The scheme of invasion rested on the assumption of the dissolution of the Union and its division into two hostile governments; but aside from that possibility, it threatened the United States upon the most vital questions. It was at war with all our institutions and our habits of political life, for it would have introduced into a great country on this continent, capable of unlimited development, that curious and mischievous form of government, that perplexing mixture of absolutism and democracy,—imperial power supported by universal suffrage,— which seems certain to produce aggression abroad and corruption at home, and which must have injuriously influenced the political growth of the Spanish-American Republics. Firmly seated in Mexico, it would have spread through Central America to the Isthmus, controlling all canal communications between the two oceans which were the boundaries of the Union, while its growth upon the Pacific Coast would have been in direct rivalry with the natural and increasing power of the United States. Commanding the Gulf of Mexico it would have controlled the whole commerce of the West- Indian islands and radically changed their future. Bound by dynastic connection, checked and directed by European influence, it could not have developed a national policy in harmony with neighboring States, but its existence and its necessary efforts at expansion would have made it not only a constant menace to American Republics but a source of endless war and confusion between the great Powers of the world. The policy signally failed. But surely European statesmen, without miraculous foresight, might have anticipated that its success would have been more dangerous than its defeat, and that the conservative strength of the Union might be even to them an influence of good and not of evil.

FORMER VIEWS OF LORD PALMERSTON.

In 1859 Lord Palmerston wrote to Lord John Russell: "It is plain that France aims through Spain at getting fortified points on each side of the Gut of Gibraltar which in the event of war between Spain and France on the one hand and England on the other would by a cross fire render that strait very difficult and dangerous to pass and thus virtually shut us out of the Mediterranean. . . . The French Minister of War or of marine said the other day that Algeria never would be safe till France possessed a port on the Atlantic coast of Africa. Against whom would such a port make Algeria safe? Evidently only against England, and how could such a port help France against England? Only by tending to shut us out of the Mediterranean." Later in the same year writing to the same colleague, he says, "Till lately I had strong confidence in the fair intentions of Napoleon towards England, but of late I have begun to feel great distrust and to suspect that his formerly declared intention of avenging Waterloo has only lain dormant and has not died away. He seems to have thought that he ought to lay his foundation by beating with our aid or with our concurrence or our neutrality, first Russia, then Austria, and by dealing with them generously to make them his friends in any subsequent quarrel with us. . . . Next he has been assiduously laboring to increase his naval means, evidently for offensive as well as for defensive purposes, and latterly great pains have been taken to raise throughout France and especially among the army and navy, hatred of England and a disparaging feeling of our military and naval means."

Is it not strange that, even with such apprehensions, the destruction of the Union was so welcome in England that it blinded the eyes of her statesmen and her people? They should surely have seen that the establishment of a Latin empire under the protection of France, in the heart of the Spanish-American Republics, would open a field far more dangerous to British interests than a combination for a French port in Africa, and that in pursuing his policy the wily Emperor was providing a throne for an Austrian archduke as a compensation for the loss of Lombardy. There was a time when Lord Palmerston himself held broader and juster views of what ought to be the relations between England and the United States. In 1848 he suggested to Lord John Russell a policy which looked to a complete unification of the interests of the two countries: "If as I hope," said His Lordship, "we shall succeed in altering our Navigation Laws, and if as a consequence Great Britain and the United States shall place their commercial marines upon a footing of mutual equality with the exception of the coasting-trade and some other special matters, might not such an arrangement afford us a good opportunity for endeavoring to carry in some degree into execution the wish which Mr. Fox entertained in 1783, when he wished to substitute close alliance in the place of sovereignty and dependence as the connecting link between the United States and Great Britain? A treaty for mutual defense would no longer be applicable to the condition of the two countries as independent Powers, but might they not with mutual advantage conclude a treaty containing something like the following conditions:—