DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE: 



345 



to hold any one to his responsibility affords no more 

 just ground of complaint to one party than to the 

 other. I cannot but think that your lordship has over- 

 looked a just distinction to be observed in these cases; 

 and in order to show it the more clearly I shall be 



/mpelled to ask your lordship to follow me in a brief 

 restigation of the facts. 

 The only allegation which I find in your lordship's 

 note in connection with the United States is this, that 

 " vast supplies of arms and warlike stores have been 

 purchased in this country, and have been shipped from 

 British ports to New York for the use of the United 

 States Government." 



Admitting this statement to be true to its full ex- 

 tent; conceding even the propriety of the application 

 of the term " vast" to any purchases that may have 

 been made for the United States, the whole of it 

 amounts to this, and no more, that arms and warlike 

 stores have been purchased of British subjects by the 

 agents of the Government of the United States. It no- 

 where appears that the action of the British went further 

 than simply to sell their goods for cash. There has been 

 no attempt whatever to embark in a single undertak- 

 ing for the assistance of the United States in the war 

 they are carrying on ; no ships of any kind have been 

 constructed or equipped by her Majesty's subjects for 

 the purpose of sustaining their cause, either by lawful 

 or unlawful means, nor a shilling of money, so far as I 

 know, expended with the intent to turn the scale in 

 their favor. Whatever transactions may have taken 

 place have been carried on in the ordinary mode of 

 bargain and sale without regard to any other consider- 

 ation than the mere profits of trade. 



If such be then the extent of'the agency of the Unit- 

 ed States on this side of the Atlantic during the pres- 

 ent war, and no more, it appears clear, from the posi- 

 tions assumed by your lordship in the very note to 

 which I have the honor to reply, that thus far they 

 have given no reasonable ground for complaint at all. 

 The citations to which vour lordship has done me the 

 favor to call my attention, as drawn from 'American 

 authors of admitted eminence, all contribute to estab- 

 lish the fact that the mere purchase or export by a 

 belligerent from a neutral of arms and munitions of 

 war does not involve any censure on either party. I 

 do not at the present moment entertain a design to 

 question the correctness of that doctrine. As a neces- 

 sary consequence, I can scarcely perceive the fitness of 

 associating such action as I have shown that of the 

 United States to be in the same category with that of 

 which the Government of the United States has here- 

 tofore instructed me to complain. And here I beg to 

 call your lordship's attention to the fact that it is not 

 the mere purchase or exportation of arms and warlike 

 stores by the agents of the .insurgents in America of 

 which I have ever complained. There is another and 

 a very important element in the case, to which your 

 lordship does not appear to have given the considera- 

 tion which, so far as one maybe permitted to judge 

 from the concurring testimony of all writers of inter- 

 national law, it certainly deserves. The United States 

 have made an actual blockade of all the ports occupied 

 by the insurgents a blockade, the validity of which 

 Great Britain does not dispute. They are therefore en- 

 titled to consider every neutral who shall attempt to 

 enter one of them or carry anything to the besieged as 

 violating his neutrality, and converting himself into an 

 enemy. Hence it happens that every British subject 

 engaged in the work of aiding the insurgents by intro- 

 ducing contraband of war into blockaded ports not 

 only violates his duty to his sovereign, but commits an 

 exceedingly aggravated and injurious offence to the 

 Government of the United States. To x associate such 

 proceedings with the mere purchase and export of 

 arms on behalf of the United States as of equal signifi- 

 cance would seem to be most inequitable. 



It is a fact that few persons in England will now be 

 bold enough to deny, first, that vessels have been built 

 in British ports, as well as manned by her Majesty's 

 subjects, with the design ajnd intent to carry on war 

 against the United States; secondly, that other ves- 



sels, owned by British subjects, have been, and are 

 yet, in the constant practice of departing from Brit- 

 ish ports laden with contraband of war, and many 

 other commodities, with the intent to break the block- 

 ade and to procrastinate the war ; thirdly, that such 

 vessels have been, and are, insured by British mer- 

 chants in the commercial towns of this kingdom, with 

 the understanding that they are despatched for that 

 illegal purpose. It is believed to be beyond denial that 

 British subjects have been, and continue to be, enlist- 

 ed in this kingdom in the service of the insurgents, 

 with the intent to make war on the United States, or 

 to break the blockade legitimately established, and, to 

 a proportionate extent, to annul its purpose. It is be- 

 lievea that persons high in social position and in fortune 

 contribute their aid, directly and indirectly, in build- 

 ing and equipping ships-of-war, as well as other ves- 

 sels, and furnishing money, as well as goods, with the 

 hope of sustaining the insurgents in their resistance to 

 the Government. To that end the port of Nassau, a 

 colonial dependency of Great Britain, has been made, 

 and still continues to be, the great entrepot for the 

 storing of supplies, which are conveyed from thence 

 with the greater facility in evading the blockade. In 

 short, so mr as the acts of these numerous and influen- 

 tial parties can involve them, the British people may 

 be considered as actually carrying on war against the 

 United States. Already British property, valued at 

 eight millions of pounds sterling, is reported to have 

 been captured by the vessels of the United States for 

 attempts to violate the blockade, and property of far 

 greater value has either been successfully introduced 

 or is now stored at Nassau awaiting favorable oppor- 

 tunities. 



If it be necessary to furnish to your lordship a clearer 

 idea of the nature and extent of this warfare, it may 

 perhaps be obtained by reference to the two papers, 

 marked A and B, which I have the honor, to append to 

 the present note. The one contains a list of all screw 

 steamers and sailing vessels which have been, or still 

 are, engaged in this illegal commerce, furnished to me 

 from observation by the consul of the United States at 

 Liverpool. The other is a copy of a letter from the 

 consul in London, giving a further list of vessels, 

 together with some particulars as to the mode by 

 which, and the persons by whom, this hostile system 

 is carried on. Neither of these lists can be regarded 

 as complete, but the two are sufficiently so for the 

 present purpose, which is to place beyond contradic- 

 tion the fact of the extensive and systematic prosecu- 

 tion by British subjects of a policy toward the United 

 States, \yhich is uniformly characterized by writers on 

 international law as that of an enemy. 



I am not unaware of the regret expressed in your 

 lordship's note at the existence of this state of things, 

 as well as the readiness with which you have ac- 

 quiesced in the possible application, by the forces of* 

 the United States, of the penalty held over the heads 

 of the offenders in her Majesty's proclamation. But 

 my present object in referring so much at large to 

 these offences is to show the great injustice of your lord- 

 ship in proceeding to comment upon the action of the 

 respective belligerents, as if tnere was a semblance of 

 similarity between them. So far as the United States 

 are shown to be involved in censure, it is simply by 

 the purchase and export of arms and munitions of war 

 from a neutral, an act which your lordship expressly 

 points out eminent authority to my attention to prove, 

 implies no censurable act to either party. Whilst, on 

 the other hand, it is American insurgents who find 

 British allies to build in this kingdom, and to equip 

 and send forth war ships to depredate on the com- 

 merce of a friendly nation, and it is British subjects 

 who load multitudes of British vessels with contraband 

 of war, as well as all other supplies, with the intent 

 and aim to render null and void, so far as they can, a 

 blockade legitimately made by a friendly nation, as 

 well as to procrastinate and make successful a resist- 

 ance in a war in which that nation is actually engaged. 

 Surely this is a difference not unworthy of your lord- 

 ship's deliberate observation. 



