Government of the United States admitted the principle that her Majesty's mail-bags shall neither be searched nor detained.

In answer to this Earl Russell received from Mr. Stuart a despatch dated November 4th, stating that Mr. Seward showed great readiness to admit the principle for which her Majesty's Government would otherwise have been prepared to contend, with respect to mail-bags clearly certified to be such; and in order that there might be no misunderstanding upon the subject, it was agreed between them that Mr. Stuart should make the inquiry in an unofficial letter, to which he would give a satisfactory reply.

Mr. Stuart accordingly wrote to Mr. Seward, in order to prevent misapprehension, that the principle which her Majesty's Government expected that he would admit, was that all mail-bags, clearly certified to be such, shall be exempt from seizure and visitation, and that some arrangement shall be made for immediately forwarding such bags to their destination. in the event of the ship which carries them being detained. If this principle was admitted, the necessity for discussing the claim, as a matter of strict right, that her Majesty's mails on board a private vessel should be exempt from visitation or detention, might be avoided.

And Mr. Seward answered on the 3rd November, 1862, that as regards the exemption of her Britannic Majesty's mail-bags on board of private vessels, from visitation or detention, he had issued a letter to the secretary of the navy to the effect that it was thought expedient that instructions should be given to the blockading and naval officers that, in case of capture of merchant-vessels suspected or found to be vessels of the insurgents or contraband, the public mails of any friendly or neutral power, duly certified and authenticated as such, should not be searched or opened, but be put, as speedily as may be convenient, on their way to their designated destinations. This instruction, however, would not be deemed to protect simulated mail-bags, verified by forged certificates or counterfeited seals.

Correspondence with Mr. Adams respecting Neutral Rights and Duties.

On the 29th April, 1862, Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams, complaining of the circum

stances under which the British steamer, Labuan, was seized at Matamoras, Mexico, by the United States' frigate, Portsmouth, and conveyed to New York as a prize. To this Mr. Adams answered that he was not acquainted with the particular facts, but he added that it was his duty to represent to his lordship the fact that the Government of the United States found itself involved in peculiar embarrassment in regard to its policy towards the vessels of Great Britain, from the difficulty, to which he repeatedly called his lordship's attention, of distinguishing between the lawful and the unlawful trade carried on upon the coast of the United States in vessels bearing her Majesty's flag. It came presented to him in so many forms of evidence that he could not avoid the painful conviction that a systematic plan founded on the intent to annul her Majesty's proclamation by steady efforts to violate the blockade, through vessels either actually British or else sailing under British colours, has been in operation in this island. for many months, and became more rather than less extensive with the progress of time. If, therefore, it happened that a Spanish or a Danish ship, when seized, was more readily released than a British ship, the reason must be found not in any disposition to be more partial to those nations so much as in the fact that they have been incomparably less involved in the suspicion of attempting illegitimate methods of trade.

The channels through which these enterprizes served so unfortunately to procrastinate the war by encouraging the hopes of the insurgents were too well known to admit of dispute. It was equally certain that her Majesty's Government, in reply to the representations and remonstrances heretofore made by him under instructions from his Government, had candidly admitted their inability to put any stop to them whatever. Hence it must naturally have occurred to his lordship's mind that if in some cases the Government, driven to the necessity of applying more stringent measures of prevention than it desired to this illicit commerce, should happen occasionally to involve an innocent party in the suspicion attached to so many guilty ones, it must seek its justification in the painful necessity consequent upon the inefficiency of the British law

to give it that protection which as a friendly nation it would seem entitled to enjoy.

It might then be reasonably presumed at first blush that the mere fact of sending the steamer Labuan to be adjudicated upon by a Prize Court would find its justification in the fact that that vessel had become involved in a suspicion not unfairly attaching itself to all vessels sailing under British colours in the neighborhood of the place where she was taken. But he regretted to be compelled further to apprise his lordship that in this particular instance the intentions of the steamer Labuan, from the period of her first departure from Great Britain, have been understood to be such as justly to excite the strongest suspicion, and, taken in connection. with her appearance in the spot where she was scized, to constitute a fair question at least for the determination of a Prize Court.

In answer to this despatch Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams, on the 6th May, that he was quite willing to leave the case of the Labuan to the zealous exertions of Lord Lyons. It was a plain case of justice, and the representation of her Majesty's Government with regard to it ought to be successful. But with regard to the "systematic plan" which Mr. Adams said had been pursued by her Majesty's subjects, "to violate the blockade by steady efforts," Earl Russell said the United States' Government, on the allegation of a rebellion pervading from nine to eleven States of the Union, had for more than a twelvemonth endeavoured to maintain a blockade of 3000 miles of coast. This blockade, kept up irregularly, but when enforced, enforced severely, had seriously injured the trade and manufactures of the United Kingdom. Thousands of persons were obliged to resort to the poor-rate for subsistence, owing to this blockade. Yet her Majesty's Government never sought to take advantage of the obvious imperfections of this blockade in order to declare it ineffective. They, to the loss and detriment of the British nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain towards a friendly state. But when her Majesty's Government were asked to go beyond this, and to overstep the existing powers given them by municipal and international law for the purpose of imposing arbitrary restrictions on the trade

of her Majesty's subjects, it was impossible to listen to such suggestions. The ingenuity of persons engaged in commerce would always in some degree defeat attempts to starve or to debar from commercial intercourse an extensive coast inhabited by a large and industrious population. If, therefore, the Government of the United States considered it for their interest to inflict this great injury on other nations, the utmost they could expect was that European powers should respect those acts of the United States which were within the limits of the law. The United States' Government could not expect that Great Britain should frame new statutes to aid the Federal blockade, and to carry into effect the restrictions on commerce which the United States, for their own purposes, have thought fit to institute, and the application of which it is their duty to confine within the legitimate limits of international law.

To this Mr. Adams answered on the 8th of May, stating that, in declaring the blockade, the Government of the United States did nothing which had not been repeatedly done heretofore, and the right to do which at any time hereafter, whenever the necessity shall appear to call for it, was not distinctly affirmed by the Government of Great Britain. Neither did the fact that this procecding pressed with the greatest severity upon the interests of neutral nations appear formerly to have been regarded in any other light than as an incidental damage, which, however, much to be regretted in itself, unavoidably followed from the gravity of the emergency which created it. For it could scarcely be supposed that so onerous a task as a veritable blockade would be undertaken by any nation for causes not deemed of paramount necessity, or would be persevered in moment longer than those causes continue to operate. Mr. Adams was very sure that it was the desire of the Government of the United States to accelerate the period when the blockade then in operation might be safely raised. To that end it was bending all its efforts; and in this it claimed to be mindful, not simply of the interests of its own citizens, but likewise of those of all friendly nations. Hence it was that it viewed with deep regret the strenuous efforts of evil-disposed persons in foreign countries, by undertakings carried on in defiance of all recognized law, to impair, as

far as they could, the efficacy of its measures, and, in a corresponding degree, to protract the severity of the struggle. Hence it was, likewise, that it had been profoundly concerned at the inefficacy of the laws of Great Britain, in which a large proportion of the undertakings originate, to apply any adequate policy of prevention. For he doubted not his lordship would see, at a glance, the embarrassment in which a country was necessarily involved by complaints raised of the continued severity of the blockade by a friendly nation which, at the same time, confesses its inability to restrain its subjects from stimulating the resistance that necessitates a continuance of the very state of things of which they make complaint.

And on the 10th of May, Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams a despatch to the effect that it appeared to him that Mr. Adams had in his letter confounded two things totally distinct. The Foreign Enlistment Act was intended to prevent the subjects of the Crown from going to war when the Sovereign was not at war. Thus private persons were prohibited from fitting out a ship of war in our ports, or from enlisting in the service of a foreign state at war with another state, or in the service of insurgents against a foreign sovereign or state. In these cases the persons so acting would carry on war, and thus engage the name of their sovereign and of their nation in belligerent operations. But owners and masters of merchant-ships carrying warlike stores do nothing of the kind. If captured for breaking a blockade or carrying contraband of war to the enemy of the captor, they submitted to capture, were tried, and condemned to lose their cargo. This was the penalty which the law of nations had affixed to such an offence, and in calling upon her Majesty's Government to prohibit such adventures, Mr. Adams in effect called upon her Majesty's Government to do that which it belonged to the cruizers and the courts of the United States to do for themselves.

There could be only one plea for asking Great Britain thus to interpose. That plea was, that the blockade was in reality ineffective, and that merchant-ships could enter with impunity the blockaded ports. But this was a plea which he presumed Mr. Adams would not urge. Her Majesty's Government considered the blockade. as an effective blockade, and submitted to all

its inconveniences as such. They could only hope that, if resistance should prove it to be hopeless, the Confederate States would not continue the struggle; and that if, on the other hand, the restoration of the Union should appear to be impossible, the work of devastation now going on would cease. Her Majesty's Government could only desire the prosperity of the inhabitants of the United States, whatever might be the event of the present civil

war.

To this Mr. Adams further rejoined expressing his regret that Earl Russell's language left him little hope of any co-operation of her Majesty's Government, and this was answered by Earl Russell on the 17th May, saying:

"If the British Government, by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, or by authority of Parliament, had prohibited, and could have prevented, the conveyance in British merchantships of arms and ammunition to the Confederate States, and had allowed the transport of such contraband of war to New York and to other Federal ports, her Majesty's Government would have departed from the neutral position they have assumed and maintained. If, on the other hand, her Majesty's Government had prohibited, and could have prevented, the transport of arms and ammunition to both the contending parties, they would have deprived the United States of a great part of the means by which they have carried on the war. The arms and ammunition received from Great Britain, as well as from other neutral countries, have enabled the United States to fit out the formidable armies now engaged in carrying on the war against the Southern States; while by means of the blockade established by the Federal Government, the Southern States have been deprived of similar advantages. The impartial observance of neutral obligations by her Majesty's Government has thus been exceedingly advantageous to the cause of the more powerful of the two contending parties." Correspondence respecting Despatch of Letters

by private Ships to Matamoras.

On the 16th April, 1863, Mr. Hammond wrote to Mr. Hill requesting him to state to the Postmaster-General that Lord Russell was of opinion that under the peculiar circumstances of the time, vessels bound to Matamoras either

from ports in this country or from ports in her Majesty's colonies and possessions should be relieved from the obligation of carrying ship letter mails. Accordingly orders were given to that effect.

Correspondence with Mr. Adams respecting

Confederate Agents in England.

On the 9th of February, 1863, Mr. Adams sent to Earl Russell copies of an intercepted correspondence, showing an attempt to establish within the limits of this kingdom, a system of action in direct hostility to the Government of the United States. The plan embraced not only the building and fitting out of several ships of war under the direction of agents especially commissioned for the purpose, but the preparation of a series of measures under the same auspices for the obtaining from her Majesty's subjects, the pecuniary means essential to the execution of those hostile projects. In answer to this Earl Russell wrote on the 9th March, that the correspondence did not appear to her Majesty's Government to contain any sufficient evidence of "a system of action in direct hostility to the United States," on the part of any of her Majesty's subjects. It went merely to show that agents of the so-styled Confederate States, resident in this country, had received instructions from their own Government to endeavour to raise money on securities of that Government in England, and to enter into contracts for the purchase of munitions of war and for the building of iron-clad vessels. But there was no proof in these papers that the agents referred to had as yet brought themselves within the reach of any criminal law of the United Kingdom. For even supposing that they had acted on their instructions, it was not contrary to law for her Majesty's subjects to lend money on securities, or otherwise, to "the persons administering the Government of the Confederate States," nor to sell to that Government ordinary munitions of war. With respect to the building of iron-clad steamers for either belligerent Government, although this was clearly prohibited by the Foreign Enlistment Act, her Majesty's Government did not find in this correspondence, sufficient information that anything of that kind has actually been done within this country which could form matter for criminal prosecution.

To this Mr. Adams answered on the 14th March, that if a direct appointment of an agent, to establish himself in Great Britain for the purpose of making contracts for the construction and equipment of six iron-clad steamers to be used in warring upon the United States; if the direct nomination of a British subject to act as resident agent for the raising of money to be used in payment of all this warlike outfit; and if the proposed establishment of naval officers in Great Britain for the purpose of superintending and constructing the vessels built to cut up the commerce of the United States,-did not show " a deliberate attempt to establish within the limits of this kingdom a system of action in direct hostility to the Government of the United States," then he must despair of ever being able to convince his lordship of the possibility of any violation of the neutrality of her Majesty's territory, short of a direct attack upon a vessel of the United States within the limits of her jurisdiction. It was not without profound regret that he transmitted a copy of his lordship's note for the consideration of his Government. said that the conviction was very general in the United States that the war has been continued and sustained by the insurgents for many months past mainly by the co-operation and assistance obtained from British subjects in her Majesty's kingdom and its dependencies. Again, on the 2nd April, Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams on the subject to the following effect:

He

"Her Majesty's Government have not failed to consider with the attention it deserved the letter which you addressed to me on the 14th ultimo, in reply to my letter of the 9th ultimo, on the subject of the intercepted correspondence, which you had alleged went to show a deliberate attempt to establish within the limits of the United Kingdom a system of action in direct hostility to the Government of the United States. I have now the honour to observe to you that, while you withhold your acquiescence in the opinion expressed by me of that correspondence, and state that you shall transmit a copy of my note with profound regret to your Government, you, nevertheless, do not controvert the principal positions assumed in that note. You do not deny, first, that it is lawful for her Majesty's subjects to lend money on

securities, or otherwise, to either belligerent; or, secondly, that it is also lawful to sell to either belligerent munitions of war.

66

Upon this subject I beg to call to your notice that no longer ago than the 20th of last November, in answer to the remonstrances of Mexico against an alleged organized system in the United States of aiding France in the war in which she is engaged with that republic, but in which the United States are neutral, Mr. Seward replied by this, among other citations (Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson): As to advances, loans, or donations of money to the Government of Texas, or its citizens, the Mexican Government hardly needs to be informed that there is nothing unlawful in this, so long as Texas is at peace with the United States, and that these are things which no Government undertakes to restrain.' You are, without doubt, perfectly aware that many decisions of tribunals in the United States fully establish that a like exposition of the law as to munitions of war and the sale of armed vessels has been always maintained in the United States when they were neutrals.

"You do not state that the information which you have .communicated to me as to alleged contracts for constructing war-steamers, or the proposed establishment of naval officers to superintend them, would be sufficient to found a criminal prosecution in the United States; you are probably aware that it would not suffice for that purpose, and there is, therefore, no reason why you should complain of my statement that the information which you had furnished would not suffice for the like purpose in England.

"You are not ignorant that agents have been employed, and munitions of war have been purchased, and that it is now again asserted that her Majesty's subjects are being recruited for the purpose of aiding the United States against the so-called Confederate States. And so far, it might be urged, in vague and popular language, by the Confederate States, as well as by the United States as the other belligerent, as it was substantially urged by Mexico against the United States last year, 'that there is evidence of a deliberate attempt to establish within the limits of this kingdom a system of action in direct hostility to their Government;' but the question really is, has

there been any act done in England both contrary to the obligations of neutrality as recognized by Great Britain and the United States, and capable of being made the subject of a criminal prosecution? I can only repeat that, in the opinion of her Majesty's Government, no such act is specified in the papers which you have submitted to me.

"I, however, willingly assure you that, in view of the statements contained in the intercepted correspondence, her Majesty's Government have renewed the instructions already given to the Custom-house authorities of the several British ports where ships of war may be constructed, and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the various authorities with whom he is in communication, to endeavour to discover and obtain legal evidence of any violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, with a view to the strict enforcement of that statute whenever it can really be shown to be infringed; and her Majesty's Government would be obliged to you to communicate to them, or to the local authorities at the several ports, any evidence of illegal acts which may from time to time become known to you.

"I have referred generally to the judicial decisions of the United States on this subject; but it would be as well that I should mention specially two of those decisions, selected out of many, both upon the general question and upon the particular case of the sale of ships of war by the subjects of a neutral to a belligerent state.

"The first decision is that of the eminent Judge Story, given, it may be well to observe, in a case in which the recognition of the Spanish-American Republics was directly concerned, After admitting that the capture had been made by a United States' ship, built in the United States, originally owned in the United States, Judge Story proceeds to say:The question as to the original illegal armament and outfit of the Independence may be dismissed in a few words. It is apparent that, though equipped as a vessel of war, she was sent out to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, contraband indeed, but in no shape violating our laws or our national neutrality. If captured by a Spanish ship of war during the voyage, she would have been justly condemnable as good prize for being engaged in a traffic prohibited by the laws of nations.