DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



267 



2 



as the necessary arrangements can be perfected in 

 London and Pa'ris, so that the conventions may be 

 simultaneously at those two capitals. 

 t'd scarcely add" that on the part of Great Britain 

 the engagement will be prospective, and will not iu- 

 Validato any thing already doue. 



Mr. So ward's opinion of this qualification of 

 John Russell appears in a letter addressed 

 . Adams on the 17th of August, in which 

 he writes thus : 



Your letter to Lord John Russell is judicious, and 

 is approved. Lord John Russell's answer is satisfac- 

 tory, with the exception of a single passage, upon 

 which it is my duty to instruct you to ask the British 

 iry for "Foreign Affairs for an explanation. That 

 _'e "is as follows : 



' 1 need scarcely add that on the part of Great 



ritain the engagement will be prospective, and will 

 not invalidate any thing already done. 



A brief statement of the objects of the proposed ne- 

 gotiation will bring the necessity for an explanation 

 of this passage into a strong ligh't. We have hereto- 

 fore proposed to other maritime States certain meli- 

 orations of the laws of maritime war affecting the 

 rights of neutrals. These meliorations are : 1st. That 

 the neutral flag shall protect enemy's goods not con- 

 traband of war. 2d. That the goo'ds of neutrals, not 

 contraband, though found under an enemy's flag, shall 

 not be confiscated. 3d. That blockades, to be respected, 

 must be effective. 



The Congress at Paris adopted these three prin- 

 ciples, adding a fourth, namely, that privateering 

 shall be abolished. The powers which constituted 

 that congress invited the adhesion of the United 

 States to that declaration. The United States an- 

 swered that they would accede on condition that the 

 other powers would accept a fifth proposition, namely, 

 that the goods of private persons, non-combatants, 

 should be exempt from confiscation in maritime war. 



"When this answer was given by the United States, 

 the British Government declined to accept the pro- 

 posed amendment, or fifth proposition, thus offered by 

 the United States, and the negotiation was then sus- 

 pended. We have now proposed to resume the nego- 

 tiation, offering our adhesion to the declaration of 

 Paris, as before, with the amendment which would 

 exempt private property from confiscation in mari- 

 time war. 



The British Government now, as before, declares 

 this amendment or fifth proposition inadmissible. It 

 results that, if the United States can at all become a 

 party to the declaration of the Congress of Paris by 

 the necessary consent of the parties already committed 

 to it, this can be done only by their accepting that 

 declaration without any amendment whatever in 

 other words, "pure and simple." Under these cir- 

 cumstances you nave proposed in your letter to Lord 

 John Russell to negotiate our adhesion to the decla- 

 ration in that form. It is at this stage of the affair 

 that Lord John Russell interposes, by way of caution, 

 "' ie remark, that " on the part of Gre'at Britain the en- 



'.gement will be prospective, and will not invalidate 



iy thing already done." 



I need dwell on this remark only one moment to 



ow that, although expressed in a very simple form 



id in a quite casual manner, it contains'what amounts 

 to a preliminary condition, which must be conceded by 

 the United States to Great Britain, and either be in- 

 serted in the convention, and so modify our adhesion 

 to the declaration of Paris, or else must be in some 

 confidential manner implied and reserved, with the 

 same effect 



The letter then enlarges upon the possible 

 meaning and object of the British Government 

 without arriving at a satisfactory impression, and 

 concludes with instructions to Mr. Adams to re- 

 quest respectfully, and with reasonable prompt- 



ness, an explanation. This had been previously 

 done, and Lord John Russell's explanation was 

 given on the 19th of August, in a letter to Mr. 

 Adams : 



SIR : I have the honor to enclose a copy of a dec- 

 laration which I propose to make upon signing the 

 convention of which you gave me a draft embodying 

 the articles of the declaration of Paris. 



I propose to make the declaration in question in a 

 written form, and to furnish you with a copy of it. 



You will observe that it is'intended to prevent any 

 misconception as to the nature of the engagement to 

 be taken oy her Majesty. 



If you have no objection to name a day in the course 

 of th'is week for the signature of the convention, Mr. 

 Dayton can on that day, and at the same time, sign 

 with M. Thouvenel a convention identical with that 

 wliich you propose to sign with me. 



Draft of I)eclaration.-r-Iu affixing his signature to 

 the convention of this day between her Majesty the 

 Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United 

 States of America, the Earl Russell declares, br order 

 of her Majesty, that her Majesty does not intend there- 

 by to undertake any engagement which shall have anj 

 bearing, direct or indirect, on the internal differences 

 now prevailing in the United States. 



Mr. Adams writes to Mr. Seward in August 

 23d, that this proceeding was " of so grave and 

 novel a character as to render further action 

 unadvisable until he obtained further instruc- 

 tions." The reply of Mr. Seward to this decla- 

 ration, and the course decided upon by the 

 Government, are stated by Mr. Seward in a 

 letter to Mr. Adams dated September 7th : 



I am instructed by the President to say that the 

 proposed declaration is inadmissible. 



It would be virtually a new and distinct article in- 

 corporated into the p'rojected convention. To admit 

 such a new article would, for the first time in the his- 

 tory of the United States, be to permit a foreign power 

 to take cognizance of and adjust its relations upon as- 

 sumed internal and purely domestic differences exist- 

 ing within our own country. 



This broad consideration supersedes any necessity 

 for considering in what manner or in what degree the 

 projected convention, if completed either subject to 

 the explanation proposed or not, would bear directly 

 or indirectly on the internal differences which the 

 British Government assume to be prevailing in the 

 United States. 



I do not enlarge npon this branch of the subject. It 

 is enough to say that the view thus adopted by the 

 President seems to be in harmony equally with a pru- 

 dent regard to the safety of the Republic and a just 

 sense of its honor and dignity. 



The proposed declaration" is inadmissible, among 

 other reasons, because it is not mutual. It proposes a 

 special rule by which her Majesty's obligations shall 

 be meliorated in their bearing upo'n internal difficulties 

 now prevailing in the United States, while the obli- 

 gations to be assumed by the United States shall not 

 be similarly meliorated or at all affected in their bear- 

 ing on internal differences that may now be prevail- 

 ing, or may hereafter arise and prevail, in Great 

 Britain. 



It is inadmissible, because it would be a substantial 

 and even a radical departure from the declaration of 

 the Congress at Pans. That declaration makes no 

 exception in favor of any of the parties to it in regard 

 to the bearing of their obligations upon internal differ- 

 ences which may prevail in the territories or domin- 

 ions of other parties. 



The declaration of the Congress of Paris is the joint 

 act of forty-six great and enlightened powers, design- 

 ing to alleviate the evils of maritime war, and promote 

 the first interest of humanity, which is peace. The 

 Government of Great Britain will not, I am sure, ex- 



