296 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



law, it could not get a condemnation in a Prize Court unless it was 

 shown that the offence had been committed contrary to the canons of 

 international law. 



1074 The nation might consider itself justified in seizing the ship 

 going to run the blockade, though the blockade was not effect- 

 ive, — though the international conditions were not complied with; but 

 it does so at its own risk. It does so at the risk of having to defend 

 itself; and it does so with the consequence that, if it invokes the aid of 

 an international Tribunal to condemn that ship, it cannot invoke it suc- 

 cessfully. The nation seizes because it is thought the occasion justified 

 it; because it is important that it should be done; but it is not a thing 

 which, by international law, they are justified in doing. 



Now, there is a good illustration of the distinction between what a 

 nation will do and what a nation may legally do, in the well-known case 

 of the " Trent ", which occurred at the time when the United States 

 was engaged in the great struggle of its Civil War. I would like to 

 remind the Tribunal of what the circumstances of that case were. Cer- 

 tain gentlemen, among others a Mr. Mason and a Mr. Slidell, were on 

 board the " Trent". These gentlemen were on board a neutral ship, an 

 English ship, carrying the mails, not however that that gave any par- 

 ticular importance to it. They were bound on a mission to Europe, I 

 think to England and France, to seek the aid of those Powers in their 

 atteu]pted revolt against the Federal Government of the United States. 

 Tbe "Trent" was seized, and possession of tbese gentlemen taken 

 by the authority of the United States; and I have before me the Par- 

 liamentary Papers, which set out the whole of the correspondence in 

 relation to this matter. Tbe whole of it I do not intend, as you will con- 

 jecture, to trouble the Tribunal with; but what I do wish to call atten- 

 tion to is the position taken by the United States Minister Mr. Seward. 

 He argues at very great length that these gentlemen might be treated 

 as contraband of war; they were not soldiers, they were not carrying 

 arms, but that nevertheless they might be treated as contraband of war. 

 But that subject being treated by him at very great length in a despatch 

 of the 26th of December, 1861, which extends to a great many pages, he 

 finally, upon the remonstrances of Lord John Eussell (who was then 

 Foreign Secretary of Great Britain), feeling that he could not defend 

 his position upon any international legal principle, agrees to release the 

 men; and he adds that, as to this release, he does it the more willingly 

 because he says all danger which might arise from their not being 

 further detained had practically passed away. 



To make this clear, I must go back a little. On the 9th of Novem- 

 ber, 1861, the announcement of the seizure is made; and Lord John 

 Eussell writes to the British representative at Washington on the 30th 

 of November, 1861, announcing that intelligence of a very grave nature 

 had reached Her Majesty's Government; and he proceeds to mention 

 the facts, and he concludes by making a demand for the release of the 

 men : he says : 



It thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a 

 British vessel, the ship of a neutral Power, while such vessel was pursuing a 



1075 lawful and innocent voyage, an act of violence which was an affront to the 

 British flag and a violation of international law. 



Her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind the friendly relations which have long 

 subsisted between Great Britain and the United States,' are willing to believe that 

 the United States naval officer who committed this aggression was not acting in 

 compliance with any authority from his Government, or that if he conceived himself 

 to be so authorized, he greatly misunderstood the instructions which he had received. 



For the Government of the United States must be fully aware that the British 

 Government could not allow such an affront to the national honour to pass without 



