268 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



pect us to accede to this noble act otherwise than upon 

 the same equal footing upon which all the other par- 

 ties to it are standing. We could not consent to accede 

 to the declaration with a modification of its terms un- 

 less all the present parties to it should stipulate that 

 the modification should be adopted as one of universal 

 application. The British Government cannot but know 

 that there would be little prospect of an entire refor- 

 mation of the declaration of Paris at the present time, 

 and it has not even told us that it would accept the 

 modification as a general one if it were proposed. 



It results that the United States must accede to the 

 declaration of the Congress of Paris on the same terms 

 with all the other parties to it, or that they do not ac- 

 cede to it at all. 



Thus ended this negotiation, and the question 

 arises, says Mr. Seward 



What, then, are to be the views and policy of the 

 United States in regard to the rights of neutrals 

 in maritime war in the present case? My previous 

 despatches leave no uncertainty on this point. We 

 regard Great Britain as a friend. Her Majesty's 

 flag, according to our traditional principles, covers 

 enemy's goods not contraband of war. Goods of her 

 Majesty's subjects, not contraband of war, are exempt 

 from confiscation though found under a neutral or dis- 

 loyal flag. No depredations shall be committed by 

 our naval forces or by those of any of our citizens, so 

 far as we can prevent it, upon the vessels or property 

 of British subjects. Our blockade, being effective, must 

 be respected. 



The unfortunate failure of our negotiations to amend 

 the law of nations in regard to maritime war does not 

 make us enemies, although, if they had been success- 

 ful, we should have perhaps been more assured friends. 



The reasons for inserting the declaration pro- 

 posed by Lord John Russell in the convention 

 fontemplated with the United States, are stated 

 by him in a letter to Mr. Adams dated August 

 28th: 



The undersigned has notified Mr. Adams his inten- 

 tion to accompany his signature of the proposed con- 

 vention with a declaration to the effect that her Majesty 

 "does not intend thereby to undertake any engage- 

 ment which shall have any bearing, direct or indirect, 

 on the internal differences now prevailing in the United 

 States." 



The reasons for this course can be easily explained. 

 On some recent occasions, as on the fulfilment of the 

 treaty of 1846, respecting the boundary, and with re- 

 spect to the treaty called by the name of the " Clayton- 

 Bulwer treaty," serious differences have arisen with 

 regard to the precise meaning of wordsj and the inten- 

 tion of those who framed them. 



It was most desirable in framing a new agreement 

 not to give rise to a fresh dispute. 



But the different attitude of Great Britain and of the 

 United States in regard to the internal dissensions 

 now unhappily prevailing in the United States, gave 

 warning that such a dispute might arise out of the 

 proposed convention. 



Her Majesty's Government, upon receiving intelli- 

 gence that the President had declared by proclamation 

 his intention to blockade the ports of nine of the States 

 of the Union, and that Mr. Davis, speaking in the 

 name of those nine States, had declared his intention 

 to issue letters of marque and reprisals ; and having 

 also received certain information of the design of both 

 ides to arm, had come to the conclusion that civil 

 war existed in America, and her Majesty had there- 

 upon proclaimed her neutrality in the approaching 

 contest. 



The Government of the United States, on the other 

 hand, spoke only of unlawful combinations, and desig- 

 nated those concerned in them as rebels and pirates. 

 It would follow logically and consistently, from the 



attitude taken by her Majesty's Government, that the 

 so-called Confederate States, being acknowledged as a 

 belligerent, might, by the law of nations, arm priva- 

 teers, and that their privateers must be regarded as 

 the armed vessels of a belligerent. 



With equal logic and consistency it would follow, 

 from the position taken by the United States, that the 



Erivateers of the Southern States might be decreed to 

 e pirates, and it might be further argued by the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States that a European power 

 signing a convention with the United States, declaring 

 that privateering was and remains abolished, would 

 be bound to treat the privateers of the so-called Con- 

 federate States as pirates. 



Hence, instead of an agreement, charges of bad faith 

 and violation of a convention might be brought in the 

 United States against the power signing such a con- 

 vention, and treating the privateers of the so-called 

 Confederate States as those of a belligerent power. 



The undersigned had at first intended to make ver- 

 bally the declaration proposed. But he considered it 

 would be more clear, more open, more fair to Mr. 

 Adams to put the declaration in writing, and give no- 

 tice of it to Mr. Adams before signing the convention. 



The remainder of this extensive correspond- 

 ence with the British Government is devoted to 

 the cases of individuals and of vessels supposed 

 to have infringed upon the strict laws of neutral- 

 ity ; and although many interesting topics were 

 discussed, no important principle was disputed. 

 For correspondence on the capture of Mason and 

 Slidell from the steamer Trent, see page 276. 



France. The correspondence with theFrench 

 Government is no less interesting than that with 

 the Government of Great Britain. The letter of 

 instructions to Mr. Dayton, Minister to France, 

 commences with a simple statement of the ori- 

 gin, nature, and purposes of the contest in which 

 the United States was involved. Secretary Sew- 

 ard says : " I have thus written only for the pur- 

 pose of deducing from it the arguments you will 

 find it necessary to employ in opposing the appli- 

 cation of the so-called Confederate States to the 

 Government of his Majesty the Emperor, for are- 

 cognition of its independence and sovereignty." 

 He then proceeds to deduce these arguments : 



The President neither expects nor desires any inter- 

 vention, or even any favor, from the Government of 

 France, or any other, in this emergency. Whatever 

 else he may consent to do, he will never invoke nor 

 even admit foreign interference or influence in this or 

 any other controversy in which the Government of the 

 United States may be engaged with any portion of the 

 American people. It has been simply his aim to show 

 that the present controversy furnishes no one ground 

 on which a great and friendly power, like France, can 

 justly lend aid or sympathy to the party engaged 

 in insurrection, and therefore he instructs you to insist 

 on the practice of neutrality by the Government of the 

 Emperor, as all our representatives are instructed to 

 insist on the neutrality of the several powers to which 

 they are accredited. 



Not entertaining the least apprehension of the de- 

 parture from that course by his Majesty's Government, 

 it is not without some reluctance that the President 

 consents to the suggestion of some considerations 

 affecting France herself, which you may urge in sup- 

 port of it. France is an agricultural and manufactur- 

 ing country. Her industry depends very largely pn_a 

 consumption of her productions and fabrics within 

 the United States, and on the receipt, in exchange, of 

 cotton, or other staples, or their equivalent in money, 

 from the United States. The ability of the United 

 States to thus consume and furnish depends on their 

 ability to maintain and preserve peace. War here will 



