276 



DIPLOMATIC OOREESPONDENCE. 



letter from Prince Gortchakoff to the Eussian 

 Minister at Washington, expressive of the views 

 of the Emperor. (See PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.) 



The diplomatic correspondence with Spain 

 contains a decree relative to the position of 

 the Spanish Government' on American affairs. 

 (See PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.) The King of Portu- 

 gal issued a similar decree. (See PUBLIC DOCU- 

 MENTS.) 



The Trent, Affair. Near the close of the year 

 a supplement was added to the correspondence 

 with Great Britain, by the occurrence of the 

 " Trent affair," as it is called. (See TRENT.) 



On the 30th of November, Mr. Seward writes to 

 Mr. Adams that Capt. Wilkes, in the steamer San 

 Jacinto, had boarded a British colonial steamer, 

 and taken from her deck two insurgents who were 

 proceeding to England on an errand of treason 

 against their own country. He then proceeds: 



"We have done nothing on the subject to anticipate 

 the discussion, and we have not furnished you with 

 any explanations. We adhere to that course now, be- 

 cause we think it more prudent that the ground taken 

 by the British Government should be first made known 

 to us here, and that the discussion, if there must be 

 one, shall be had here. It is proper, however, that 

 you should know one fact in the case, without indi- 

 cating that we attach much importance to it, namely, 

 that, in the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on 

 board a British vessel, Captain Wilkes having acted 

 without any instructions from the Government, the 

 subject is therefore free from the embarrassment 

 which might have resulted if the act had been spe- 

 cially directed by us. 



Earl Eussell on the same day writes to Lord 

 Lyons, the British Minister at Washington, re- 

 lating the facts of the case as he had received 

 them from the commander of the colonial 

 steamer Trent, and thus states the demands of 

 his Government in relation to the matter : 



Her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind the 

 friendly relations which have long subsisted between 

 Great Britain and the United States, are willing to be- 

 lieve that the United States naval officer who commit- 

 ted the aggression was not acting in compliance with 

 any authority from bis Government, or that if he con- 

 ceived himself to be so authorized he greatly misun- 

 derstood the instructions which he had received. For 

 the Government of the United States must be fully 

 aware that the British Government could not allow 

 such an affront to the national honor to pass without 

 full reparation, and her Majesty's Government are un- 

 willing to believe that it could be the deliberate inten- 

 tion of the Government of the United States unneces- 

 sarily to force into discussion between the two Gov- 

 ernments a question of so grave a character, and with 

 regard to which the whole British nation would be 

 sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. 



Her Majesty's Government, therefore, trust that 

 when this matter shall have been brought under the 

 consideration of the Government of the united States, 

 that Government will, of its own accord, offer to the 

 British Government such redress as alone could satisfy 

 the British nation, namely, the liberation of the four 

 gentlemen and their delivery to your lordship, in order 

 that they may again be placed under British protec- 

 tion, and a suitable apology for the aggression which 

 has been committed. 



Should these terms not be offered by Mr. Seward 

 you will propose them to him. 



Later, on the same day, Lord John Eussell 

 addressed another note to Lord Lyons, of a pri- 

 rate nature, as follows : 



In my previous despatch of this date I have instructed 

 you, by command of her Majesty, to make certain de- 

 mands of the Government of the United States. 



Should Mr. Seward a,sk for delay in order that this 

 grave and painful matter should be deliberately con- 

 sidered, you will consent to a delay not exceeding 

 seven days. If, at the end of that time, no answer is 

 given, or if any other answer is given except that of a 

 compliance with the demands of her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment, your lordship is instructed to leave Washing- 

 ton with all the members of your legation, bringing 

 with you the archives of the legation,, and to repair 

 immediately to London. 



If, however, you should be of opinion that the re- 

 quirements of her Majesty's Government are substan- 

 tially complied with, you may report the facts to her 

 Majesty's Government for their consideration, and re- 

 main at your post till you receive further orders. 



A copy of the first despatch was sent to Mr. 

 Seward by Lord Lyons, who gave him a reply 

 on the 26th of December. After stating the 

 facts in the case, Mr. Seward proceeds thus : 



Your lordship will now perceive that the case before 

 us, instead of presenting a merely flagrant act of vio- 

 lence on the part of Captain Wilkes, as might well be 

 inferred from the incomplete statement of it that went 

 up to the British Government, was undertaken as a 

 simple legal and customary belligerent proceeding by 

 Captain Wilkes to arrest and capture a neutral vessel 

 engaged in carrying contraband of war for the use and 

 benefit of the insurgents. 



The question before us is, whether this proceedin-g 

 was authorized by, and conducted according to the law- 

 of nations. It involves the following inquiries : 



1st. Were the persons named and their supposed 

 despatches contraband of war ? 



2d. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and search 

 the Trent for these contraband persons and de- 

 spatches V 



3d. Did he exercise that right in a lawful and proper 

 manner? 



4th. Having found the contraband persons on board 

 and in presumed possession of the contraband de- 

 spatches, had he a right to capture the persons ? 



5th." Did he exercise that right of capture in the 

 manner allowed and recognized by the law o nations? 



If all these inquiries shall be resolved in the affirm- 

 ative, the British Government will have no claim for 

 reparation. 



The first four questions are briefly answered 

 by himself in the affirmative, and only the fifth 

 remained for consideration. This he examines 

 at some length, and thus draws to a conclusion 

 the most important paper that has emanated 

 from his department : 



I trust that I have shown to the satisfaction of the 

 British Government, by a very simple and natural 

 statement of the facts, and analysis of the law ap- 

 plicable to them, that this Government has neither 

 meditated, nor practised, nor approved any deliberate 

 wrong in the transaction to which they have called its 

 attention ; and, on the contrary, that what has hap- 

 pened has been simply an inadvertency, consisting in 

 a departure, by the naval officer, free from any wrong- 

 ful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and 

 probably by the several parties concerned either im- 

 perfectly understood or entirely unknown. For this 

 error the British Government has a right to expect 

 the same reparation that we, as an independent State, 

 should expect from Great Britain or from any other 

 friendly nation in a similar case. 



I have not been unaware that, in examining this ques- 

 tion, I have fallen into an argument for what seems to 

 be the British side of it against my own country. But 

 I am relieved from all embarrassment on that subject. 

 I had hardly fallen into that line of argument when I 

 discovered that I was really defending and maintain- 



