•^^ 
 y 
 
 .5^ 
 
 
 
 .0' 
 
 
 
 .<^^ 
 
 4 O 
 
 .0' 
 
 
 
-^^ .:;^% ^ 
 
 
 .■^ . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <?>' - 1 '.-<«>. "" ^^' „,. ^, 
 
 -oV* 
 
 
 x^' -^^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 '^..-^ 
 
 ^•1°^ 
 
 
 
 
 0' 
 
 
 
 
V n \\\ \uAQxe-j To'n n (j^torg^ 
 
 CASE 
 
 OF 
 
 
 THE SEIZURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SOUTHERN EKYOYS. 
 
 EEPEINTED, WITH ADDITIONS, 
 
 FKOM THE "SATTJEDAY EEVIEW. 
 
 " Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum. 
 " Intactum Pallanta, et cum spolia ista diemquei! 
 " Oderit." 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JAMES EIDaWAY, PICCADILLY, W. 
 
 1861. 
 

THE SEIZURE 
 
 or 
 
 THE SOUTHERN ENVOYS 
 
 A CRISIS lias arrived— a little sooner than was ex- 
 pected — which raises questions of jiublic policy and 
 public law of the gravest character. The facts which 
 have led to this result are now known to every news- 
 paper reader in both hemispheres, and may be stated 
 in a few words. A screw- steamer of war, the San 
 Jacinto, belong-ing- to the North American States, 
 waylaid the Eng'hsh Royal West India Mail steamer 
 in the Bahama Channel (whether in Spanish waters 
 or not is uncertain), on the 8th of November, and 
 brought her to by firing- a round shot across her bows. 
 A lieutenant from the San Jacinto boarded her, and 
 afterwards, aided by a larg-e force of sailors with 
 drawn cutlasses, forcibly took possession of Mr. Mason 
 and Mr. Slidell, Envoys supposed to be accredited by 
 the Southern States to Great Britain and to France, 
 and of their two secretaries, with certain papers and 
 bag-g-age. The officer in charg'e of the mail-bag's, 
 
 A 2 
 
^ 
 
 a Commander in the Royal Navy, protested strong-ly 
 ag-ainst the insult offered to the British flag-, as did 
 the captain of the vessel ; and both claimed the 
 Envoys as under the ' protection of Eng-land. The 
 American lieutenant disreg-arded the protest, seized 
 the men, and suffered the E03 al Mail Steamer to 
 pursue her voyag"e. Stripped of criminations and 
 recriminations as to the coarseness and brutality of 
 the manner in which the act is said to have been 
 done on the one side, and as to the violence of the 
 remonstrances on the other, these are the material 
 facts of the case. 
 
 As soon as the intellig'ence reached Eng-land, the 
 Government met in Cabinet Council. Nothing- could 
 be more dig-nified, calm, and honourable than the atti- 
 tude of Eng-land at this moment. She waited, with 
 firm resolve indeed, but without petulance, rodomon- 
 tade, or fury, for the announcement of the advice 
 which the Ministers would tender to the Queen. 
 Nothing- could be wiser than the course which the 
 Ministers pursued. They g-ravely considered whether 
 the laws which g-overn the intercourse of independent 
 States had or had not been broken. Settino- aside all 
 questions of mere feeling-, they called in the counsel of 
 the leg-al officers whom the Constitution provides for 
 their aid ; and after adequate deliberation they deter- 
 
mined^ we believe quite unanimously, that international 
 law had been doubly violated by the act of the San 
 Jacinto — that by this act both the honour of their 
 country had been assailed, and an injury done to 
 those whom she was under an oblig-ation to protect. 
 Let us pause here for an instant ; for the lesson is 
 worthy of our study. Nobody can be much in society 
 without being- acquainted with a class of persons who 
 decr}^ the study of international jurisprudence. '^ AVhat 
 " can it matter now what Grotius has said ? who cares 
 ^^ about Bynkershoek? Never mind Vattel. Times 
 " are chang-ed since the days of Lord Mansfield and 
 " Lord Stowell. Story and Wheaton are dead, 3^ou 
 " know 3 and then the verses in the Anti- Jacobin. ^^ 
 Another class of persons point to the instances in 
 which the law has been broken, and by the precedents 
 of crime defend the invasion of rig-ht. But the flip- 
 pancy of the former and the shallowness of the latter 
 declaimers leave untouched the fact that there is, after 
 all, a law to which States, in time of hostilities, appeal 
 for their justification— that there are writers whose 
 exposition of that law has been stamped as impartial 
 and just by the consent of the g-reat family of States — 
 that they are only slighted by those upon whose crimes 
 they have, by anticipation, passed sentence— that 
 municipal, as well as international law is often evaded 
 
6 
 
 and trampled down^ but exists nevertheless — that 
 States cannot^ without dang-er as well as obloquy^ 
 depart from doctrines which they have professed as 
 the g'uide of their relations with the commonwealth of 
 Christendom. To see a mighty State like Eng-land 
 doing" homag"e to this principle is a noble spectacle. 
 She mig'ht^ in hot haste^ have smitten her ag'g'ressor 
 in his most vulnerable part. She mig'ht have raised 
 his blockade^ and been hailed as a benefactor by her 
 own citizens and every maritime State. She mig'ht 
 have revelled in the applause of the many^ at home 
 and abroad^ who confound rashness with vig^our and 
 violence with energy. But she put aside the tempta- 
 tion. She inquired what justice and rig'ht, affirmed 
 by usag-e and precedent, warranted j and, finding- their 
 voice in her favour, she demanded the reparation 
 which is her due, and with the triple armour of a 
 just cause she calmly abides the issue. The question 
 which we are about to examine is, whether she has 
 rig-htly interpreted the law which she professes to 
 obey. In the prosecution of this inquiry we will 
 endeavour to leave no arg-ument or precedent adverse 
 to her claim unconsidered. 
 
 First, it must be admitted that America was clearl^^ 
 entitled to visit and search a neutral merchant ship 
 on the hig'h seas. She has never parted with a 
 
bellig-erent rig'ht firmly established by the case of 
 the Maria, and which she foresaw might one day be 
 of great value to her. The Trent, however, was not 
 a vessel of that class. She was on the contrary of 
 a class which one of the oracles of American juris- 
 prudence has pronounced, not unreasonabl}^, to be 
 exempt from liability to condemnation for carr}dno' 
 the despatches of the enemy. Mr. Lawrence, in his 
 last edition of Wheaton (Ed. 1855, p. 567), observ- 
 ino- on the dictum of Lord Stowell with respect to 
 the penalties incurred by a neutral vessel carrying- 
 despatches, says: — 
 
 It is conceived that the carrying of despatches can only invest 
 a neutral vessel with a hostile character in the case of its being 
 employed for that purpose by the belligerent, and that it cannot 
 affect with criminality either a regular postal packet or a mer- 
 chant ship which takes a despatch in its ordinary course of convey- 
 ing letters, and with the contents of which the master must 
 necessarily be ignorant. This view, it is supposed,, is not incon- 
 sistent with the text, which refers to a fraudulent carrying of the 
 " despatches of the enemy." 
 
 Since the former European wars, some Governments have esta- 
 blished regular postal packets, whose mails, by international 
 conventions, are distributed throughout the civilized world ; while 
 in other countries every merchant vessel is obliged to receive, till 
 the moment of its setting sail, not only the despatches of the 
 Grovemment, but aU letters sent to it from the post-offices. 
 
 The author cites Hautefeuille, Droits des Nations 
 Neutres, t. 2, p. 463, who is of the same opinion, and 
 the Postal Treaty of December 1848, between the 
 
United States and Great Britain. This treaty pro- 
 vides that when war has broken out between the two 
 countries, their respective mail packets shall be per- 
 mitted to continue without molestation their service, 
 until six weeks' notice be given by the Government 
 of either country ; after the lapse of which period, the 
 packets are to return under special protection to their 
 ports. Certainly, the inference from this partial im- 
 munity of the mail packets between the two countries 
 when belligerents, is favourable, at least, to the sug*- 
 g'estion of the entire immunity of this class of vessels 
 when either country is neutral, 
 
 Nor is it immaterial to observe that on board this 
 Royal mail steamer there was a Commander of the 
 Royal Nav}^, not, indeed, in command of the ship, 
 but representing- the Crown as far as the mail was con- 
 cerned, and imparting" a character to the vessel which 
 at least took it out of the character of an ordinary 
 private vessel. We are satisfied that not only America, 
 as we have shown, but France, would have reg-arded 
 it as apuhlic vessel. It is clear that neithei* the Com- 
 mander nor the letters in his custody were amenable to 
 the Prize Court. Let us concede, however, this point 
 in favour of America, ag*ainst her own authority. 
 The act of the San Jacinto in visitino* and searchino;- 
 the Trent is by this concession, reduced from the 
 violation of a strict right to a violation of comity. 
 
9 
 
 We will pass to the next point. If the San Jacinto 
 had a rig-ht with respect to the Trent, she had also a 
 duty. The duty was to take the English vessel into 
 an American port and there to try her fairly^ with full 
 right of appeal^ in the Court of international justice, 
 required by the law, usage, and treaties of Christen- 
 dom, called the Prize Court. The attempt to claim 
 the privileges and shirk the obligations of a beUigerent 
 is simply a monstrous outrage which affects every 
 neutral State. It is worse than idle to suggest that 
 the decision of the Prize Court must have been hostile 
 to the Trent because she carried despatches and envoys 
 from the belligerents. In the first place, it proves too 
 much, for it renders the proceedings of all Prize 
 Courts nugatory, and makes the rough sailor at once 
 captor and judge. The individual might as well exe- 
 cute his own justice on the person he alleges to have 
 injured him. It is an argument subversive of all ami- 
 cable relations between States. It can have but one 
 effect — to render neutrality impossible. It has often 
 happened that Prize Courts have condemned captors 
 belonging to their own country in the costs and damages 
 of their capture. No longer ago than during the last 
 war, England paid large sums to feeble foreig'n States 
 in consequence of decisions of her Supreme Court 
 of Prize adverse to EngUsh caj^tors. There is no 
 
10 
 
 reason to doubt that the judg-es who sit in the chair 
 of Story would do justice as well as the successor of 
 Stowell* — though^ alas ! it mig-ht be practically of 
 little consequence^ if the President should subject the 
 Judg-e of the Prize Court^ as well as the Judg-e of 
 the municipal tribunal^ to the custody of a military 
 sentinel. 
 
 In the second place^ the anticipation of the judge- 
 ment of the Prize Court is wholly erroneous. The 
 Trent was not, so far as we know, carrying* con- 
 traband despatches; and she was carrying" persons 
 whose character exempted them from the operation 
 of hostilities. The despatches which are contraband 
 are communications from a bellig-erent to another 
 part of its own kingdom, or to a colony, or to an ally 
 with respect to naval or military operations, or 
 political affairs. These are the kind of despatches 
 which Lord Stowell held (with the approval of Ame- 
 rican jurists) to be contraband. (The Caroline — The 
 Atalanta,2 RoUnson, Ad. Rep. 440 — 4G1.) But 
 despatches from a belligerent (Lord Stowell saj^s) to 
 
 * The adoption by America of the decisions of the English 
 Prize Court is a fact of great value, " there is scarcely a decision 
 " in the English Prize Courts at AVestminster which has not 
 " received the express approbation and sanction of our national 
 " Courts," says the great American Chancellor Kent, vol. i. p. 68. 
 
11 
 
 his consul resident in a neutral State may lawfully be 
 carried by a neutral vessel, because the functions of 
 the consul relate to the joint commerce in which the 
 neutral as well as the bellig-erent is eng-ag-ed. {The 
 Madisoiiy Edwards, Ad. Rep. 224.) Much less, then, 
 are the despatches of a bellig'erent to a neutral re- 
 lating merely to questions of amicable intercourse 
 between the two States, of the nature of contraband. 
 {Tlie Caroline, 6 Hob. Ad. Hep. 468.) It is mani- 
 fest that the interests of the neutral may imj^era- 
 tively demand such an intercourse. Indeed, but little 
 reflection will show that the lawfulness of such inter- 
 course is a necessary consequence from even the 
 limited recog'nition of a de facto State as a bellig-erent. 
 A State so recognised must have org-ans of commu- 
 nication with the neutral. How is the neutral, for 
 instance, to obtain redress for injuries done to her 
 own subjects ? She must make her complaints throug-h 
 some reg-ular channel— in other words^ she must 
 recog-nise, for this purpose at least, a Government and 
 a diplomatic officer. But the neutral has rig-hts 
 beyond this. She is entitled to communicate with 
 both the belligerents for the purpose of bringing- 
 about peace ; for a state of war is a state of un- 
 merited suffering to the neutral, which she is justified 
 in seeking- by all lawful means to bring* to an end. 
 
1§ 
 
 " It would be almost tantamount (Lord Stowell 
 says) to preventing" the residence of an ambassador 
 in a neutral State, if he were debarred from the 
 means of communicating- with his own." Most 
 clearly, therefore, the despatches were not of the 
 nature of contraband j and on this g-round the Trent 
 would have succeeded in the Prize Court. 
 
 The next question is as to the persons of the envo3^s. 
 It would be strang-e if the living" man were to be con- 
 traband when his despatches were innocent. But it is 
 reported to be said in America, that thoug-h the envoy 
 is not exactly contraband (which would be ridiculous), 
 Phillimore may be cited as an authority to show, that 
 he may be seized on his voj'^ag'e. In PhilHmore's 
 book there are two passag-es on the subject — one in 
 which he is deahng* with the question of a civil war, 
 and he says: — '^ When rebellion has g'rown, from the 
 numbers who partake in it, the severity of the strug-g-le, 
 and other causes, into the terrible mag-nitude of a civil 
 war, the emissaries of both parties have been consi- 
 dered as entitled to the privileg-e of ambassadors so far 
 as their personal safety is concerned ^ in hoc eventu 
 [Grotius says] gens una quasi duce gentes habetur" — a 
 very remarkable expression. Phillimore is here speak- 
 ing of emissaries between the parties to the civil war. 
 The argument is of course still stronger as to emis- 
 
13 
 
 saries to a third State ; and in a note he cites the 
 opinion of B3 nkershoek, which is to the effect that 
 if both parties to the civil war be de facto independent, 
 they enjoy the full rights of legation • but if one party 
 be still strug-g-ling", and not yet independent, he enjoys 
 these rig-hts with regard to third States only : — " ut 
 legatio pleno jure utrimque consistat status utrim- 
 que liber desideratur, qui si ab un^ parte duntaxat 
 liber sit ab e4 missi tantum jure legatorum utuntur/' 
 Then follow these words, decisive of the present ques- 
 tion : — " ab alia missi ad externum principem habentur 
 pro nunciis" [Phillimore, v. 2, pp. 143-4). This 
 is exactly the position of law now rehed upon by 
 England. In the other passage — to which alone it 
 appears the Americans have referred — (vol. iii. p. 368), 
 Phillimore is dealing with the subject of contraband, 
 and he uses the very words of Lord Sto well's judg- 
 ment in the Caroline^ which leg'alizes the carrying of 
 diplomatic despatches by the neutral vessel. Lord 
 Stowell says : — 
 
 It is, indeed, competent for a belligerent to stop the ambassador 
 of his enemy on his passage ; but when he has arrived, and has 
 taken upon himself the functions of his office, and has been ad- 
 mitted iato his representative character, he is entitled to peculiar 
 privileges, as set apart for the protection of the relations of amity 
 and peace, ia maintaining which all nations are, in some degree, 
 interested. With respect to this question, the convenience of the 
 neutral State is also to be considered; for its interests may 
 
14 
 
 require that the intercourse of correspondence with the enemy's 
 country should not be altogether interdicted ; it would be almost 
 tantamount to preventing the residence of an ambassador in a 
 neutral State, if he were debarred from the means of communi- 
 cating with his own. 
 
 Lord Stowell does not here lay down the doctrine 
 that a beUig-erent ma}' take an envoy out of a neutral 
 ship. That question was not before him. He 
 founds chiefly upon Vattel (whom the earher part of 
 his judgment especially cites) the general dictum that 
 the belhgerent may seize the ambassador of another 
 belligerent at a certain period, namely, before he has 
 been accepted by the State to which he is sent j after 
 that event, the belligerent may not seize him any- 
 where. Before that event, he may seize him — but 
 where ? Why, the reference to Vattel clearly shows 
 — when he is passing through his own territory. 
 Vattel justifies the seizure by England of a French 
 ambassador in passing, on his way to Berlin, through 
 the Electorate of Hanover, because Hanover at that time 
 belonged to England. '" Non seulement done on pent 
 justement refuser le passage aux ministres qu'un 
 ennemi envoie h d'autres souverains: on les arrete 
 meme s'ils entreprennent de passer secrMement et 
 sans permission." Where? ''Dans les lieux dont 
 on est maUre^ — {Droit des Gens, 1. 4^ c. 7, s. 85.) 
 Not on board a neutral royal mail ship on the high 
 
15 
 
 seas. Let Lord Stovvell's judg-ment be read b}^ the 
 lig-ht of this passag-e in Vattel, to whom he had 
 referred. These are his words : 
 
 The former eases were cases of neutral ships, carrying the 
 enemy's despatches from his colonies to the mother country. In 
 all such cases you have a right to conclude that the effect of those 
 despatches is hostile to yourself, because they must relate to the 
 security of the enemy's possessions, and to the maintenance of a 
 communication between them ; you have a right to destroy these 
 possessions and that communication ; and it is a legal act of 
 hostility to do so. But the neutral country has a right to pre- 
 serve its relations with the enemy ; and you are not at liberty to 
 conclude that any communication between them can partake, in 
 any degree, of the nature of hostility against you. 
 
 The enemy may have his hostile projects to be attempted with 
 the neutral State ; but your reliance is on the iutegi'ity of that 
 neutral State, that it will not favour nor participate in such 
 designs, but, as far as its own councils and actions are concerned, 
 will oppose them. And if there should be private reason to 
 suppose that this confidence in the good faith of the neutral State 
 has a doubtful foundation, that is matter for the caution of the 
 Government, to be counteracted by just measures of preventive 
 policy ; but is no ground on which this Court can pronounce that 
 the neutral carrier has violated his duty by bearing despatches 
 which, as far as he can know, may be presumed to be of an inno- 
 cent nature, and in the maintenance of a pacific connexion. — 
 (Robinson, Reports. Vol. vi. p. 466. The Caroline.) 
 
 It does not seem to be denied in America that this 
 is both the g*eneral and the correct law respecting- 
 ambassadors ; but the conduct of Eng-land eig-hty-two 
 3^ears ag-o is cited ag-ainst her. It is stated in a letter 
 of Mr. Sumner (not we believe the Chairman of the 
 
16 
 
 Committee of Foreig-n Relations in Congress) that 
 Eng-land^ in 1780^ took Mr. Laurens, the Envoy, from 
 the rehel colonies of North America to Holland, out 
 of a Dutch ship, and committed him to the Tower as 
 a traitor. For the moment we pass by the chang-e 
 effected in International Law since those days with 
 reference to colonies which have established their 
 independence. We presume that America does not 
 think Mr. Laurens was a rebel, thoug-h the denial 
 places her at present in an awkward dilemma — that 
 she does not approve his being- sent to the Tower — 
 that she does not, in fact, adopt the only precedent 
 which she quotes. Suppose, however, these diflSculties 
 are surmounted, our next remark is, that the facts 
 of the seizure are not only most superficially but 
 most inaccurately stated. We will take from Adol- 
 phus a very correct epitome of them : — 
 
 Meanwhile, [says this historian] the state of sullen dissatisfac- 
 tion which occasioned the abolition of the ancient connexion 
 between Great Britain and Holland, resolved itself into active 
 hostility ; the mystery which had covered the views and conduct 
 of the Dutch was removed ; and the Court of Grreat Britain was 
 impelled to a firm and decisive mode of conduct, as well in resent- 
 ment of past treachery, as with a view to counteract the effects of 
 the neutral league. The Vestal frigate, commanded by Captain 
 Keppel, took, near the banks of Newfoundland, a Congress pacJcet. 
 The papers were thrown overboard ; but, by the intrepidity of an 
 English sailor, recovered with little damage. 
 
 They fully proved the perfidy of the Dutch, who, before the 
 
17 
 
 existence of any dispute with Great Britain, had entered into a 
 formal treaty of amity and commerce with the revolted colonies, 
 fuUy recognising their independence, and containing many stipula- 
 tions highly injurious to England and beneficial to her enemies, 
 both in Europe and America. Disagreements on some of the 
 arrangements had occasioned delays in its completion ; but Henry 
 Laurens, late President of the Congress, who was one of the 
 passengers in the captured vessel, was authorized to negociate 
 defijiitively, and entertained no doubt of success. On his arrival 
 in London, Mr. Laurens was examined before the Privy Council, 
 and, on his refusal to answer interrogatories, committed to the 
 Tower. — {Adolphus, History of England, vol. iii. p. 221.) 
 
 Adolphus is perfectly accurate in saying* that 
 the Mercury y commanded by Captain Pickles y was, 
 as the names indicate, an American bellig-erent vessel. 
 The despatches from Captain Keppel to the Admiralty 
 aiFord proof of the fact. The vessel was condemned 
 in the Yice-Admiralty Court (commissioned as a 
 Prize Court), in Newfoundland. Laurens was broug-ht 
 to Eng-land. Now observe the difference (setting* 
 aside the question of the Royal Mail Packet) between 
 this case and that of the Southern Envoys. First, 
 despatches were thrown overboard — an act which 
 alone almost enures to the condemnation of a neutral 
 ship. Secondly, the ship was not Dutch, and neutral, 
 but American, and bellig-erent. Thirdly, Holland was 
 only professedly neutral, but really belligerent ag-ainst 
 England, as those very despatches demonstrated. 
 The declaration of war by England ag-ainst her fol- 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 lowed close^ namely^ on the 20th December, 1780. 
 Fourthly, the ship as well as the man was captured. 
 So clear, indeed, was the justice of the seizure, that 
 neither Holland herself nor any other State uttered, 
 then or afterwards, the semblance of a remonstrance 
 ag-ainst the act. This supposed precedent turns out, 
 then, to be no precedent at all. Were it otherwise, 
 international law is not made out of a single bad 
 precedent, but out of sound principles applied to each 
 case as it arises, and illustrated by consistent practice. 
 Next we come to what may be called the impressment 
 argument. It is urg-ed by Americans that England, 
 during the last war, continually took by force English 
 sailors and soldiers out of American ships. This is 
 a strange argument in the mouth, so to speak, of 
 America. She always complained of this conduct as 
 an unjust extension of English municipal law beyond 
 its proper limits — as an invasion upon the most sacred 
 rights of independent nations. Does America mean 
 now to practise what she then condemned ? to stultify 
 her most solemn repeated public acts ? How can 
 a State which deliberately does what she has up to 
 this moment consistently reprobated, appeal hereafter 
 to any princij)les of International justice. Retaliatory 
 measures of this kind at the time would perhaps not 
 strengthen the moral influence of a State; but re- 
 
19 
 
 taliatory injustice in a subsequent war for the offences 
 of a former war, is a solecism in public morality, 
 policy, and justice. We are inclined to think that 
 Eng*land was wrong* and America rig-ht in this matter. 
 We subscribe to the reasonino- of her President in 
 1812. We desire to impress the language of Madison 
 most deeply upon all our readers : — 
 
 British cruisers [says the President] have been xa the continued 
 practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of 
 nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it, 
 not in the exercise of a belligerent right, founded on the law of 
 nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over 
 British subjects. Britisli jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral 
 vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of 
 nations and the law of the country to which the vessels belong. . . 
 Could the seizure of British subjects iu such cases be regarded as 
 within the exercise of a beUigerent right, the acTcnoioledged laws 
 of war, which forbid an article of captured froperty to be adjudged 
 without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal, would 
 imperiously demand the fairest trial, where the sacred right of 
 persons are at issue. In place of such trial, these rights are sub- 
 jected to the will of every petty commander. — {^Annual Beg. for 
 1812,^7.435.) 
 
 A person surely does not lose, but increase, his 
 " sacred rig'hts" by becoming" an ambassador » But, after 
 all, the cases of the forcible impressment of seamen 
 and the seizure of the envoys are wholly distinct. 
 England claimed and had a right to search the neutral 
 vessels for enemy's g-oods ', and finding- accidentally in 
 the course of her search deserters from her navy on 
 
20 
 
 board, she claimed — unjustly if you will — the muni- 
 cipal rig-ht of bringing them back to the service from 
 which they had escaped. Such a ri^ht was never 
 claimed against passengers or civilians. The impress- 
 ment of General Washington's nephews, mentioned 
 in Jefferson's Memoir (vol. iv. p. 133), if it ever hap- 
 pened, was a simple outrage, unless it were founded 
 upon a complete error as to the persons. Be, how- 
 ever, the conduct of England right or wrong as to 
 the impressment of seamen, it furnishes not even a 
 bad precedent, not even exemplum scelerisj for the 
 seizure of envoys. It remains to say a few words 
 upon the other cases put forth in support of the 
 San Jacinto. 
 
 The case of the Friendship (6 Robinson's Eep. 430), 
 has been also cited against the demand of England, 
 but how foolishly, appears from the following statement 
 of facts. 
 
 The Friendship was a neutral vessel, engaged as a 
 transport by the French Government, for the conve}^- 
 ance of 90 mariners and others from a port in the 
 United States to Bordeaux. That vessel was con- 
 demned on the ground that she was a transport in 
 the service of the French Government. It was con- 
 tended that the persons on board were only a few in- 
 vahds, returning to their country, and Lord Stowell, 
 
21 
 
 in g'iving" judgrnent^ observed^ (p. 428) " It would be a 
 " very different case if a vessel appeared to be carrying- 
 ^' only a few individual invalided soldiers or discharged 
 ^' sailors^ taken on board by chance^ and at their own 
 "charg-e. Looking* at the description g-iven of the 
 ^^ men on board^ I am satisfied that they are still as 
 "effective members of the French Marine as any 
 
 "can be They are persons in a military 
 
 " capacity who could not have made theu* escape in 
 " a vessel of their own country." 
 
 Lord Stowell then proceeds to say — " It is asked 
 ^^ will you lay down a principle that may be carried 
 " to the length of preventing* a military officer^ in 
 " the service of the enemy^ from finding* his way home 
 " in a neutral vessel, from America to Europe ? If 
 " he was g'oing* merely as an ordinary passeng*er, as 
 "other passeng*ers do, and at his own expense, the 
 "question would present itself in a very different 
 "form. Neither the Court, nor any other British 
 "tribunal, has ever laid down the principle to that 
 " extent. This is a case differently composed. It is 
 " the case of a vessel letting* herself out in a distinct 
 " manner, under a contract with the enemy's Govern- 
 " ment, to convey a number of persons, described as 
 ^^ being in the service of the enemy, with their military 
 " character travelling* with them, and to restore them 
 ^^ to their own country in that character,'' 
 
We consider the law here laid down to be quite 
 sound^ but unless we have been much deceived, not 
 long" ag-o, an American vessel, carrying a General 
 Corti, soldiers, and ammunitions of war, going to the 
 aid of the Neapolitan rehelsy was captured by a 
 cruiser of the then legitimate Sovereign of Naples, 
 and nevertheless claimed by the Americans, upon the 
 averment that she had committed no breach of in- 
 ternational law, and was restored by that tottering 
 Government. Fifty such precedents, we admit, would 
 not be law, but the recollection of this very recent 
 event may be useful to the Northern States at this 
 moment. 
 
 The case of the Orozembo (6 Eob. Ad. Eep. 430) 
 in 1807, was that of a neutral ship employed in the 
 service of the enemy in transporting military persons 
 to its colonies. Nobody questions the right of 
 America to bring for adjudication into the Prize 
 Court a private neutral vessel so misconducting her- 
 self. Then as to the case of Lucien Buonaparte, it 
 is misstated in all the material points. 
 
 Lucien Bonaparte, compelled by the tyranny of his 
 brother to fly from his retreat in Italy, applied to 
 his brother-in-law, the King of Naples, for a vessel 
 to transport him to America. Murat gave him the 
 desired aid. The Hercules, an American vessel 
 
03 
 
 which had lately been sequestrated by the orders of 
 Napoleon at Naples, was fitted up at g-reat cost by 
 Murat for the conveyance of Lucien, his family, and 
 suite to the United States, the American captain was 
 put on board, and she was escorted by a Neapohtan 
 ship-of-war to Civita Vecchia. Lucien applied to the 
 English Minister atCag'hari for a passport g'uaranteeing' 
 the vessel from the seizure of British cruizers and was 
 refused. The Hercules weig'hed anchor with Lucien's 
 very numerous suite on the 5th of August, 1810. 
 A storm drove the vessel into Cagliari. The King* of 
 Sardinia refused permission to Lucien to land, and 
 desired the Hercules to leave the bay. The Eng-lish 
 Minister was again asked for a guarantee against 
 British cruizers, and he again refused the request. 
 The Hercules had scarcely left the Sardinian waters 
 before she was captured by two British frigates j a 
 prize crew was put on board the Hercules. Lucien, 
 at his own request, and for his own personal conve- 
 nience, was transferred to the Pomone, one of the 
 frigates. Both the Hercules and the frigate sailed 
 for Malta, where there was a Prize Court. Lucien 
 was afterwards conveyed to England, where he 
 remained three years. {Memoirs of Lucien Buona- 
 parte, vol. 2, pp. 29—43.) 
 
 It is therefore perfectly clear that the Hercules was 
 
24 
 
 a belligerent ship lawftilly seized and broug-ht into the 
 Prize Court, and that Lucien neither claimed nor 
 possessed any personal or professional immunity 
 from capture. 
 
 Again, as to the Caroline, in 1837, never was a • 
 more justifiable act than the burning" of that vessel. 
 She was supplied by American citizens on the Ame- 
 rican side of the Niagara, with implements of war for 
 the purpose of attacking an English colony j remon- 
 strances having proved unavailing, the vessel was 
 seized as a matter of self-defence, and the act fully 
 justified at the time to the American Government. 
 (3 Phillimore, p. 50.) 
 
 Lastly, as to the seizure of the Irish rebel, McManus, 
 in 1848, he was taken by the police, in an English 
 port, within English territorial jurisdiction, out of an 
 American merchant-ship. No jurist ever did or will 
 deny the lawfulness of the act. 
 
 What, then, is the conclusion of reason and justice 
 upon the whole case ? Bad precedents, if they existed, 
 would not make the law j but they are shown not to 
 exist. On the other hand, all the reasoning irom 
 acknowledged principles condemns the act of the San 
 Jacinto. Nor must it be forgotten that this question 
 must be looked at by England, not merely from the 
 side, so to speak, of the injury done to herself, but from 
 
25 
 
 the side of her duty towards those who were under 
 her protection. We have not been in the habit of 
 deserting" those who have trusted us. God forbid that 
 we should begin to do so now. Happily the firm 
 attitude of our Government leaves no arround for such 
 a craven fear. The envoys torn by violence from the 
 protection of our flag- must be restored^ and with 
 due apology for the outrag-e. We do not seek to 
 humihate the Northern States of America. To make 
 make reparation is humiliation only to a petty^ mean- 
 spirited State. America^ like Eng-land, is too g-reat 
 to be afraid of admitting- that she has been in the 
 wrong-. The truth is that she has g-ot into this 
 scrape from a silly affectation of not seeing* that 
 which everybody else sees. When dissensions in a 
 State assume the proportions of civil war^ when the 
 status of belhg-erents is constituted, and the rig-hts 
 of war and the oblig-ations of neutrals are involved, 
 it is idle to talk to other States of ^^ rebels" and 
 " rebellion," and demand the a232)lication of municipal 
 law. It is the error into which Eng-land fell nearly 
 a century ag'O when the United States became inde- 
 pendent. Then it was that the great statesman and 
 orator, who incurred the disfavour of courts and mobs 
 for his steady support of the claims of the revolted 
 American colonies, said to Eng-land, on behalf of 
 
 c 
 
26 
 
 America, that which America would now do well 
 to say to herself : " Strangle incong-ruities will ever 
 perplex those who confound the unhappiness of civil 
 dissensions with the crime of treason." — [Burke's 
 letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol on the affairs of 
 America, 1777.) 
 
 THE ENP» 
 
IMPORTANT PAMPHLETS, Etc. 
 
 RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY 
 
 JAMES RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY. 
 
 A LETTER TO LORD EBURY ON THE PRESENT STATE 
 
 OF THE CHURCH. By the Rev. C. Nevile. Price 6d. 
 
 A LETTER TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR on LAW Con- 
 solidation. By Sib John Nodes Dickinson, Kt. Price Is. 
 A FEW WORDS ON THE CLAMOUR FOR A REVISION 
 
 OF THE LITURGY. By the Rev. C. Nevile. Price 3^^. each, or 2s. per dozen. 
 
 POLAND— A LETTER TO THE EARL OF ELLEN- 
 
 BOROUGH. By General Count L. Zamoyski, Price \s. 
 
 BRAHMINS AND PARIAHS. An Appeal by the Indigo Com- 
 
 mittee of India. Price Is. 
 
 INDIGO AND ITS ENEMIES, or FACTS ON BOTH SIDES. 
 
 By Delta. Price Is. 
 
 BRITISH SETTLERS IN INDIA. Memorial delivered to the 
 
 Secretary of State for India, in Answer to a Minute by the Lieut.-Governor of 
 Bengal, &c. &c. Price Is. 
 
 TRIAL OF THE REV. JAMES LONG FOR THE PUBLI- 
 CATION OF THE " NIL DURPAN," &c. &c. Price Is. 
 
 MISSIONARIES AND INDIGO PLANTING. Price 6d. 
 SPEECH OF THE RIGHT HON. R. LOWE, M.P. ON 
 
 MOVING THE EDUCATION ESTIMATE IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. 
 July, 11th 1861. Price Is. 
 
 VENETIA. By Bonamy Price, Esq. Price Is. 
 
 THE REVELATION. With a Short, Plain, Continuous Exposi- 
 
 tion. By the Rev. S. Smith, Vicar of Lois Weedon and Rural Dean. Cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 THE RESPECTIVE DUTIES OF LANDLORDS, TENANTS, 
 
 AND LABOURERS. An Address delivered to a Farmer's Club, By the Hon. 
 and Rev. Lord Sidney G. Osborne. Price \s. 
 
 ADMISSION TO GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS. The 
 
 Common-Sense of Competition. A Plea for an Open Civil Service. Price Is. 
 
 " COUNTY EDUCATION." A Letter addressed to the Right 
 
 Hon. the Earl of Devon. By the Rev. J. L. Brebeton. Second Edition. Price 6d. 
 
 A POPULAR VIEW OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. 
 
 By A. J. B. Beresford Hope, Esq. Price 6d. 
 
 A LETTER TO SIR CHARLES WOOD, Bart., G.C.B., Her 
 
 Majesty's Secretary of State for India, on the Policy of the Hon. J. P. Grant, 
 Governor of Bengal, towards British Settlers, during 1860-61. Price 6d. 
 
 THE ELECTION OF MR. LINCOLN. A Narrative of the 
 
 Contest in 1860 for the Presidency of the United States. By Mons. C. Clarigny. 
 Translated from the " Revue des Deux Mondes." By Sir Willoughby Jones, 
 Bart. Price Is. 
 
 SONS OF INDIAN OFFICERS. SANDHURST AND 
 
 WOOLWICH. A Claim "That the Sons of Indian Officers should be admitted 
 to the above Colleges upon the same terms as the Sons of Officers in the English 
 Army and Navy," set forth in a Correspondence with the War Department. 
 Price Is. 
 
 LORD BROUGHAM'S SPEECH ON LIFE PEERAGES. 
 
 February 22, 1856. Price is. 
 
 THE IONIAN ISLANDS IN RELATION TO GREECE, 
 
 with suggestions for advancing our Trade with the Turkish Countries of the Adriatic 
 and the Danube. By John Dunn Gardner, Esq. Second edition. Price Is. 
 
Important Pamphlets, ^c. published hy Bidgway, Piccadilly. 
 LECTURE on the PRODUCTS and RESOURCES of BRI- 
 
 TISH INDIA. By Montague Gore, Esq. Delivered before the St. James's Lite- 
 rary and Philosophical Society. Second Edition. Price Is. 
 
 MANNING THE NAVY. VICE-ADMIRAL BOWLES'S 
 
 PAMPHLETS on NAVAL AFFAIRS, from 1815 to 1853, now first collected. 
 With a Preface on the best Means of Manning the Navy. Price 6s bound in cloth. 
 
 A MILITIA, OUR ONLY REAL NAVAL RESERVE. With 
 
 Heads of a Bill for Raising a Naval Militia. By Admiral Bowles. Second 
 Edition. Price &d. 
 
 LORD COLLINGWOOD'S MEMOIRS and CORRESPON- 
 DENCE, PUBLIC and PRIVATE. By G. L. Newnham Collingwood, Esq. 
 F.R.S. Fifth Edition. 2 vols. 12mo. Price 12s. 
 
 *' The portrait of one English worthy more is now secured to posterity." 
 
 Quarterly JReview. 
 
 " We do not know when we have met with so delightful a book as this, or one 
 with which we are so well pleased with ourselves for being delighted. Its attraction 
 consists almost entirely in its moral beauty." — Edinburgh Review. 
 
 " Having thus referred to Lord Collingwood's Life, I maybe allowed to say, that 
 the publication of that volume is indeed a national good ; it ought to be in every officer's 
 cabin, and in every statesman's cabinet." 
 
 Souther's Life of Lord Nelson, New Edition, p. 348. 
 
 THE SPEECHES OF THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE CAN- 
 
 NING, corrected and revised by himself, with Memoirs of his Life ; illustrated by 
 a fine Portrait, Facsimiles of his Hand Writing, a Plate exhibitive of his mode of 
 correcting and revising his speeches, &c., in two important passages in the cele- 
 brated one on Portugal. 6 vols. 8vo. Third Edition. Price £3. 12s. 
 
 The late Right Hon. W. Huskisson, in a Letter to the Editor, alluding to the 
 Work, says, " It is a Work which is destined to convey to posterity the remains of his 
 splendid talents as an orator — to exhibit his principles as a statesman — and to show 
 with what energy and success he carried those principles into execution as a Minister of 
 the Crown." 
 
 THE SPEECHES of the HON. THOMAS ERSKINE (after- 
 
 wards LORD ERSKINE), when at the Bar, on Subjects connected with the Liberty 
 of the Press, and against Constructive Treason. With Preface by the Rt. Hon. Lord 
 Brougham. New Edit. 4 vols. 8vo. Portrait. Price £2. 2s. 
 
 LOIS WEEDON HUSBANDRY. Bv the Author of ''A 
 
 Word in Season to the Farmer." Bound in cloth. Price 2s 6d. Second edition. 
 
 A WORD in SEASON; or, HOW TO GROW WHEAT with 
 
 PROFIT. ICth Edition, corrected, with a Word or Two More to those who have 
 Tried. Price Is. 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS for GROWING ITALIAN RYE GRASS. 
 
 By William Dickinson. Price Is. Second edition. 
 
 JOHNSON and SHAWNS FARMER'S ALMANAC for 1862. 
 
 Containing Lists of Fairs — Farmers' Clubs — Agricultural Societies — and all Agricul- 
 tural Improvements to the Present Time — With Lists and Prices of the best Im- 
 plements and their Makers, &c. &c. &c. — the whole having been re-written for this 
 year. Price Is sewed, and 2s bound and interleaved. 
 
 THE NEW METHOD OF PLANTING, SETTING, or 
 
 DIBBLING GRAIN, PULSE, MANGOLD, fro. &c. By Sigma. Price Is. Third 
 Edition. 
 
 Now ready, in 2 vols. Svo. price 24s boards, 
 
 MEMOIRS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF GEORGE LORD 
 
 LYTTLETON, from 1734 to 1773. Compiled and edited by Robert Phillimore, 
 LL.D. 
 
 JAMES RIDGWAY, 169, PICCADILLY; AND ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 F.Je'lO 
 
CASE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE SEIZURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SOUTHERI^ ENVOYS. 
 
 EEPEINTED, WITH ADDITIONS, 
 
 FROM THE "SATURDAY REVIEW 
 
 " Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum. 
 " Intactum Pallanta, et cum spolia ista dicmque. 
 " Oderit." 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JAMES EIDGWAY, PICCADILLY, AV. 
 
 1861. 
 
 Frice One Shilling. 
 
RD-17 
 
4 O 
 
 ^^ /J^'-. \./ .•^&'.. %/ /^-v %/ 
 
 .V 
 
 
 ^* ^'\ ^M 
 
 
 V s • • A 
 
 
 
 ,*" .^^"X '-y^^ 
 
 ,0* ..'■•. -^o 
 
^/ \-^-\/ ^^^'-Z v/^-\/.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DOBBSBROS. ,<> "Ox^v . 
 
 /% 
 
 LIBRARV BINOINa ^ » ''^'^ 
 
 ,DEC 81/ ^^"^\ 
 
 ST. AUGUSTINE a<^ "^ '" ' ' * A <'j> 
 
 ^^^ FLA. .0^ .^", V <^^ c°r-, <^,