270 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATION'S. 



have no tendency to encourage and create into a 

 civil war a political convulsion which otherwise 

 would have remained a mere local insurrection. If 

 it were true that an insurrection acquires no new 



Eowers, faculties, and attributes when it receives 

 om its own or a foreign government the baptismal 

 name of civil war, the point which Lord Stanley 

 raises might require grave consideration. Such, 

 however, is not generally the case, and certainly it 

 was not the case in the late contest here. Provi- 

 sions and treasures, arms, ordnance, and munitions 

 of war, and even ships-pf-war, began to pour forth 

 from the British shores in support of the insurgent 

 cause, as soon as the Queen's recognition of it as a 

 belligerent was proclaimed, and they constantly in- 

 creased, until it was finally suppressed by the vigor 

 and energy of this Government. The commercial 

 losses of the United States, which are the immediate 

 subject of the present correspondence, are only a 

 small part of the damage which this country has sus- 

 tained at the hands of British abettors of the in- 

 surgents. But will Lord Stanley please to refer to 

 the table in which these special losses are presented, 

 showing ninety-five merchant-vessels, with ten mil- 

 lions of property, destroyed by the cruisers, which 

 practically were sent forth from the British shores, 

 and say whether he believes it possible that such de- 

 structive proceedings could have occurred if Great 

 Britain had not conceded belligerent rights to the 

 insurgents ? Nor is it to be overlooked that foreign 

 moral sanction and sympathy are of more value to a 

 local insurrection than even fleets and armies. 



Lord Stanley presents the considerations which 

 induced the issue of the Queen's proclamation. He 

 says that her Majesty's Government had to provide 

 at a distance for the loss and interests of British sub- 

 jects in or near the seat of war. But who required 

 British subjects to be there ? Who obliged them to 

 remain in a place of danger ? If they persisted in 

 remaining there, had they not all the protection that 

 citizens of the United States enjoyed? Were they 

 entitled to more? Moreover, does the jurisdiction 

 of Great Britain extend into our country to protect 

 its citizens sojourning here from accidents and casu- 

 alties to which our own citizens are equally exposed? 

 Lord Stanley continues : "Her Majesty's Government 

 had to consider the rapidity with which events were 

 succeeding one another on the American continent, 

 and the delay which must elapse before intelligence 

 of those events could reach them, and the pressing 

 necessity of definite instructions to the authorities in 

 their colonies and on their naval stations near the 

 scene of conflict." On the contrary, it seems to us 

 that prudence and friendship, had they been de- 

 liberately consulted, would have suggested to her 

 Majesty's Government to wait for the development 

 of events and definite action of the United States. 



The plea that the British Government had but two 

 courses open to them either to acknowledge the 

 blockade and proclaim neutrality, or refuse acknowl- 

 edgment and insist on the right to trade with South- 

 ern ports is attacked, and the Secretary asserts 

 that recognition of the blockade did not make neces- 

 aary a declaration of belligerent rights to the rebels. 

 I do_ not deem it necessary to reply at large to the 

 reflections which Lord Stanley makes upon the con- 

 duct of this Government in 'regard to the proceed- 

 ings of the so-called Fenians. The Fenian move- 

 ment neither begins nor ends in the United States. 

 The movers in those proceedings are not native citi- 

 zens of the United States, but they are natives of 

 Great Britain, though some of them have assumed 

 naturalization in the United States. Their quarrel 

 with Great Britain is not an American, but a British 

 one, as old I sincerely hope it may not be as last- 

 ingas the union of the United Kingdom. Their 

 aim is not American, but British revolution. In 

 seeking to make the territory of the United States 

 a base for the organization of a republic in Ireland, 

 and of military and naval operations for its estab- 



lishment there, they allege that they have follow ed 

 as an example proceedings of British subjects in re- 

 gard to our civil war, allowed by her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment. The policy and proceedings of the two 

 governments in regard to these parallel movements 

 have not assimilated. The United States Govern- 

 ment has not recognized the Irish republic as a belli- 

 gerent, and has disarmed its forces within its terri- 

 tories and waters. 



With regard to the manner in which this pro- 

 tracted controversy shall be brought to an end, we 

 agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by 

 Lord Stanley. We should even think it better that 

 it be brought to an end which might, perhaps, in 

 some degree disappoint the parties, than it should' 

 continue to alienate the two nations, each of which 

 is powerful enough to injure the other deeply, while 

 their maintenance of conflicting principles in regard 

 to intervention would be a calamity to all nations. 

 The United States think it not only easier and more 

 desirable that Great Britain should acknowledge and 

 satisfy the claims for indemnity which we have sub- 

 mitted, than it would be to find an equal and wise 

 arbitrator who would consent to adjudicate them. 

 If, however, her Majesty's Government, for reasons 

 satisfactory to them, should prefer the remedy of 

 arbitration, the United States would not object. 

 The United States, in that case, would expect to re- 

 fer the whole controversy just as it is found in the 

 correspondence which has taken place between the 

 two governments, with such further evidence and 

 arguments as either party may desire, without im- 

 posing restrictions, conditions, or limitations upon 

 the umpire, and without waiving any principle or 

 argument on either side. They cannot consent to 

 waive any question upon the consideration that it in- 

 volves a point of national honor; and, on the other 

 hand, they will not require that any question of na- 

 tional pride or honor shall be expressly ruled and 

 determined as such. If her Majesty's Government 

 shall concur in these views, the President will be 

 ready to treat concerning the choice of an umpire. 

 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



Lord Stanley, under date of March 9, 1867, 

 declines to reenter upon a discussion of the 

 case, and instructs Sir Frederick Bruce, on the 

 question of an arbitration as suggested by Mr. 

 Seward, as follows : 



To such an extensive and unlimited reference her 

 Majesty's Government cannot consent, for this" rea- 

 son, among others, that it would admit of, and in- 

 deed compel, the submission to the arbiter of the 

 very question which I have already said they cannot 

 agree to submit. The real matter at issue between 

 the two governments, when kept apart from collat- 

 eral considerations, is, whether, in the matter con- 

 nected with the vessels out of whose depredations 

 the claims of American citizens have arisen, the 

 course pursued by the British Government, and by 

 those who acted under its authority, was such 

 as would involve a moral responsibility on the 

 part of the British Government to make good, 

 either in whole or in part, the losses of American 

 citizens. 



This is a plain and simple question, easily to be 

 considered by an arbiter, and admitting of solution 

 without raising other and wider issues ; and on this 

 question her Majesty's Government are fully pre- 

 pared to go to arbitration ; with the further provi- 

 sion, that if the decision of the arbiter is unfavorable 

 to the British view, the examination of the several 

 claims of citizens of the United States shall be re- 

 ferred to a mixed commission, with a view to the 

 settlement of the sums to be paid on them. But, as 

 they consider it of great importance, for the main- 

 tenance of good understanding between the two 

 countries, that the adjudication of this question in 



