790 



PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



On the 12th of June, 1861, the United States Minis- 

 ter in London informed her Majesty's Secretary for 

 Foreign Afl'airs, that the fact of his having held inter- 

 views with the commissioners of this Government had 

 given " great dissatisfaction," and, that a protraction 

 of this relation would be viewed by the United States 

 " as hostile in spirit, and to require some correspond- 

 ing action accordingly." In response to this intima- 

 tion, her Majesty's Secretary assured the Minister that 

 " he had no expectation of seeing them any more." 



By proclamations, issued on the 19th and 27th of 

 April, 1861, President Lincoln proclaimed the block- 

 ade of the entire coast of the confederacy, extending 

 from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, embracing, ac- 

 cording to the returns of the United States coast sur- 

 vey, a coast line of three thousand fiye hundred and 

 forty-nine statute miles, on which the number of rivers, 

 bays, harbors, inlets, sounds, and passes, is one hun- 

 dred and eighty-nine. The navy possessed by the 

 United States for enforcing this blockade was stated, 

 in the reports communicated by President Lincoln to 

 the Congress of the United States, to consist of twen- 

 ty-four vessels of all classes in commission, of which 

 half were in distant seas. The absurdity of the pre- 

 tension of such a blockade, in the face of the authori- 

 tative declaration of the maritime rights of neutrals 

 made at Paris, in 1856, was so glaring that the attempt 

 was regarded as an experiment on the forbearance of 

 neutral powers, which they would promptly resist. 

 This conclusion was justified by the fact that the Gov- 

 ernments of France and Great Britain determined that 

 it was necessary for their interests to obtain from both 

 belligerents " securities concerning the proper treat- 

 ment of neutrals." In the instructions which "con- 

 fided the negotiation on this matter" to the British 

 Consul at Charleston, he was informed that "the most 

 perfect accord on this question exists between her 

 Majesty's Government and the Government of the Em- 

 peror of the French," and these instructions were ac- 

 companied by a copy of a despatch of the British For- 

 eign Office of the 18th May, 1861, stating that there 

 was no difference of opinion between Great Britain 

 and the United States, as to the validity of the princi- 

 ples enunciated in the fourth article of the declaration 

 of Paris, in reference to blockades. Your predeces- 

 sors of the Provisional Congress had, therefore, no 

 difficulty in proclaiming, nor I in approving, the reso- 

 lutions which abandoned, in favor of Great Britain 

 and France, our right to capture enemy's property 

 when covered by the flags of those Powers. The " se- 

 curities " desired by those Governments were under- 

 stood by us to be required from both belligerents. 

 Neutrals were exposed on our part to the exercise of 

 the belligerent right of capturing their vessels when 

 conveying the property of our enemies. They were 

 exposed, on the part of the United States, to interrup- 

 tion in their unquestioned right of trading with us, by 

 the declaration of the paper blockade above referred 

 to. We had no reason to doubt the good faith of the 

 proposal made to us, nor to suspect that we were to 

 be the only parties bound by its acceptance. It is true 

 that the instructions of the neutral Powers informed 

 their agents that it was " essential under present cir- 

 cumstances that they should act with great caution, in 

 order to avoid raising the question of the recognition 

 of the new confederation," and that the understand- 

 ing on the subject did not assume, for that reason, the 

 shape of a formal convention. But it was not deemed 

 just by us to decline the arrangement on this ground, 

 as little more than ninety days had elapsed since the 

 arrival of our commissioners in Europe, and neutral 

 nations were fairly entitled to a reasonable delay in 

 acting on a subject of so much importance, and wliich, 

 from their point of view, presented difficulties that we, 

 perhaps, did not fully appreciate. Certain it is that 

 the action of this Government on the occasion, and the 

 faithful performance of its own engagements, have 

 been such as to entitle it to expect on the part of those 

 who sought in their own interests a mutual under- 

 standing, the most scrupulous adherence to their own 

 promises. I feel constrained to inform you that in 



this expectation we have been disappointed, and that 

 not only have the Governments which entered into 

 these arrangements yielded to the prohibition against 

 commerce with us, which has been dictated by the 

 United States, in defiance of the law of nations, but 

 that this concession of their neutral rights to our det- 

 riment, has, on more than one occasion, been claimed, 

 in intercourse with our enemies, as an evidence of 

 friendly feeling toward them. A few extracts from 

 the correspondence of her Majesty's Chief Secretary 

 of State for Foreign Affairs will suffice to show marked 

 encouragement to the United States to persevere in 

 its paper blockade, and unmistakable intimations that 

 her Majesty's Government would not contest its va- 

 lidity. 



On the 21st of May, 1861, Earl* Russell pointed out 

 to the United States Minister in London, that "the 

 blockade might no doubt be made effective, consider- 

 ing the small number of harbors on the Southern 

 coast, even though the extent of three thousand miles 

 were comprehended in terms of that blockade." 



On the 14th of January, 1862, her Majesty's Minis- 

 ter in Washington communicated to his Government, 

 that in extenuation of the barbarous attempt to de- 

 stroy the port of Charleston by sinking a stone tieet 

 in the harbor, Mr. Seward had explained " that the 

 Government of the United States had, last spring, with 

 a navy very little prepared for so extensive an opera- 

 tion, undertaken to blockade upward of three thou- 

 sand miles of coast. The Secretary of the Navy had 

 reported that he could stop up the ' large holes ' by 

 means of his ships, but that he could not stop up the 

 ' small ones.* It has been found necessary, therefore, 

 to close some of the numerous small inlets by sinking 

 vessels in the channel." 



On the 6th of May, 1862, so far from claiming the 

 right of British subjects as neutrals to trade with us 

 as belligerents, and to disregard the blockade on the 

 ground of this explicit confession by our enemy of his 

 inability to render it effective, her Majesty's Secretary 

 of State for Foreign Affairs claimed credit with the 

 United States for friendly action in respecting it. His 

 lordship stated that "the United States Government, 

 on the allegation of a rebellion pervading from nine 

 to eleven States of the Union, have now, for more than 

 twelve months, endeavored to maintain a blockade of 

 three thousand miles of coast. This blockade, kept up 

 irregularly, but, when enforced, enforced severely, has 

 seriously injured the trade and manufactures of the 

 United Kingdom. Thousands are now obliged to re- 

 sort to the poor rates for subsistence, owing to this 

 blockade, yet her Majesty's Government have never 

 sought to take advantage of the obvious imperfections 

 of this blockade, in order to declare it ineffective. 

 They have, to the loss and detriment of the British 

 nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Brit- 

 ain toward a friendly state." 



Again, on the 22d of September, 1862, the same no- 

 ble earl asserted that the United States were "very far 

 indeed" from being in "a condition to ask other na- 

 tions to assume that every part of the coasts of the so- 

 styled Confederate States is effectively blockaded." 



When, in view of these facts, of the obligations of 

 the British nation to adhere to the pledge made by 

 their Government at Paris, in 1856, and renewed to 

 this confederacy in 1861, and of these repeated and 

 explicit avowals of the imperfection, irregularity, and 

 inefficiency of the pretended blockade 01 our coast, I 

 directed our Commissioner at London to cull upon the 

 British Government to redeem its promise, and to with- 

 hold its moral aid and sanction from ihe flngrunt viola- 

 tion of public law committed by our enemies, we were 

 informed that her Majesty's Government could not re- 



ard the blockade of the Southern ports as having 

 een otherwise than " practically effective," in Feb- 

 ruary, 1862, and that ' the manner in which it has 

 since been enforced gives to neutral Governments no 

 excuse for asserting that the blockade has not been ef- 

 fectually maintained." We were further informed, 

 when we insisted that, by the terms of agreement, no 

 blockade was to be considered effective unless " suffi- 







