386 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



portant of all the questions arising between the 

 two Governments. Nevertheless, her Majesty's 

 Government remained inflexible in the position 

 which it had taken. At one time, on August 

 22d, Mr. Adams writes to Mr. Seward that he 

 had been told, but not by authority such as to 

 place the matter altogether beyond a doubt, 

 that his (Mr. Se ward's) despatch in connection 

 with preceding ones likewise communicated, 

 and other considerations, had had so much 

 effect on the Ministry as to incline them to 

 leave open a way to the revisal of their former 

 policy depending on the issue of the movement 

 upon Richmond. Had that been successful, the 

 recognition of belligerent rights was to have 

 been withdrawn. 



Representations were also made to her Ma- 

 jesty's Government, relative to the proceedings 

 at Nassau, by parties engaged in running the 

 blockade, but they were not successful in ob- 

 taining any interference of the Government. 

 Representations were also made by British sub- 

 jects at Liverpool, relative to a kind of block- 

 ade of the island by American cruisers. (See 

 BLOCKADE.) But the Government made no 

 concessions to the petitioners. 



The case of the ship Emily St. Pierre was 

 one of considerable interest. On the 24th of 

 April, Mr. Adams wrote to Earl Russell that 

 this ship, being under a British register, and 

 belonging to British subjects residing in 

 Liverpool, was found on the 18th of March 

 previous, attempting to run into the port 

 of Charleston, in South Carolina, in viola- 

 tion of the blockade, there legitimately estab- 

 lished. She was seized, and the crew, with 

 the exception of the commander, the steward, 

 and cook, taken out, and a prize crew of three 

 officers and twelve men put on board, with 

 directions to proceed to Philadelphia. The 

 captain being left at liberty on board, concerted 

 a scheme by which he surprised and took pos- 

 session of the vessel, and compelled the sea- 

 men to navigate the ship to the port of Liver- 

 pool, where he sent them ashore, and took 

 shelter for himself under the authority of the 

 British Government. Mr. Adams asked for 

 the restoration of the vessel, on the ground 

 that it had been decided that such an act would 

 work a total confiscation of vessel and cargo, 

 and that the unlawful intent of the voyage was 

 too strongly indicated to justify the extension 

 to it of any protection by the Government. 



Earl Russell replied, on the 7th of May, that 

 her Majesty's Government were unable to com- 

 ply with the request for the restoration of the 

 ship, inasmuch as they had no jurisdiction or 

 legal power whatever to take or to acquire 

 possession of her, or interfere with her owners 

 in relation to their property in her. Further, 

 her Majesty's Government could not raise in 

 an English court the question of the validity of 

 the capture of this ship, or of the subsequent 

 rescue and recapture, for such recapture is not 

 an offence against the municipal law of Eng- 

 land. 



On the 9th of May, Mr. Seward writes to Mr. 

 Adams: "Your proceeding, in asking from 

 the British Government the restoration of the 

 prize ship Emily St. Pierre, is approved, equally 

 for its promptness and the grounds upon which 

 it was adopted." 



Mr. Adams replied to Earl Russell on the 

 10th of May, by quoting the opinion of Lord 

 Stowell, as the highest judicial authority of 

 Great Britain, as follows : " If a neutral master 

 attempts a rescue, he violates a duty which is 

 imposed upon him by the law of nations 

 to submit to come in for inquiry as to "the 

 property of the ship or cargo ; and if he vio- 

 lates that obligation by a recurrence to force, 

 the consequence will undoubtedly reach the 

 property of his owner ; and it would, I think, 

 extend also to the confiscation of the whole 

 cargo intrusted to his care, and thus fraudulent- 

 ly attempted to be withdrawn from the rights 

 of war." 



Mr. Adams then refers to the Queen's procla- 

 mation as warning her subjects, and all persons 

 entitled to her protection, that if they shall 

 presume, in contempt thereof, to do any act in 

 derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral 

 sovereign, or in violation, or contravention of 

 the law of nations in that behalf, they will incur 

 and be liable to the several penalties and penal 

 consequences, by statute or by the law of na- 

 tions imposed. From the words of this proc- 

 lamation he inferred a jurisdiction existing in 

 Great Britain, capable of taking cognizance of 

 cases arising under the law of nations, and be- 

 yond the range of the municipal law. 



On the 12th of June Earl Russell replied by 

 stating the principles involved in the case, and 

 closed the- correspondence on the subject as 

 follows : 



You speak of the rescue of the Emily St. Pierre as 

 being a fraud by the law of nations. But whether the 

 act of rescue be viewed as one of fraud or of force, or as 

 partaking of both characters, the act was done only 

 against the rights accruing to a belligerent under the 

 law of nations relating to war, and in violation of the 

 law of war ; which, whilst it permits the belligerent to 

 exercise and enforce such rights against neutrals by 

 the peculiar and exceptional right of capture, at the 

 same time leaves to the belligerent alone the duty and 

 confers upon him the power of vindicating such rights 

 and of enforcing such law. The same law not only 

 does not require, but does not even permit, neutral 

 nations to carry out belligerent rights. 



You allude to the conduct of the United States Gov- 

 ernment in the case of the Trent; but the flagrant 

 wrong done in that case was done by a naval officer in 

 the service of the United States ; the prisoners whose 

 release was demanded were in the direct custody and 

 keeping of the executive Government, and the Govern- 

 ment of the United States had actually the power to 

 deliver them up, and did deliver them up, to the 

 British Government. But the Emily St. Pierre is not 

 in the power of the Executive Government of this 

 country ; and the law of England, as well as the law 

 of nations, forbids the Executive Government from 

 taking away that ship from its legal owners. 



I do not think it necessary to dwell, or even to re- 

 mark, on the observations which you repeat in your 

 present letter as to the terms of her Majesty's proc- 

 lamation, and as to the course which you suggest her 

 Majesty's Government should adopt tor giving effect 

 to them. 



