mm vr^ >- /: \»vv l\ OF THL UN IVLRSITY or ILLl NOIS ^ CASE OF THE SEIZURE OP THE SOUTHERN ENVOYS. EEPEINTED, WITH ADDITIONS, ^ FEOM THE *' SATURDAY REVIEW." " Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum. " Intactum Pallanta, et cum spolia ista diemque. '' Oderit." LONDON: JAMES RIDaWAT, PICCADILLY, W. 1861. THE SEIZURE OF THE SOUTHERN ENVOYS A CRISIS has arrived— a little sooner than was ex- pected — which raises questions of public policy and public law of the g-ravest 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-in^ to the North American States, waylaid the Eng-lish 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 Sa7i Jacinto boarded her, and afterwards, aided by a larg-e force of sailors with drawn cutlasses, forcibly took possession of Mr. Mason and Mr. Shdell, 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 charge of the mail-bags, A 2 a Commander in the Royal Navy^ protested strong-ly against 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 Royal 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 intelhg-ence reached Eng-land, the Government met in Cabinet Council. Nothing- could be more dignified, calm, and honourable than the atti- tude of England 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 gravely considered whether the laws which govern the intercourse of independent States had or had not been broken. Setting aside all questions of mere feeling, they called in the counsel of the legal officers whom the Constitution provides for their aid ', and after adequate deliberation they deter- 5 inmed^ 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 oMig-ation to protect. Let us pause here for an instant 3 for the lesson is worthy of our study. Nobody can be much in society without being* acquainted with a class of persons who decry the study of international jurisprudence. ^^ What '' 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, you " know J 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 slig-hted 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 danger 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 mig-hty State like England doing" homag'e to this principle is a noble spectacle. She mig-ht^ in hot haste^ have smitten her aggressor in his most vulnerable part. She might have raised his blockade^ and been hailed as a benefactor by her own citizens and every maritime State. She might have revelled in the applause of the many^ at home and abroad; who confound rashness with vigour and violence with energy. But she put aside the tempta- tion. She inquired what justice and right^ affirmed by usage and precedent^ warranted ; 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 rightly interpreted the law which she professes to obey. In the prosecution of this inquiry we will endeavour to leave no argument or precedent adverse to her claim unconsidered. First; it must be admitted that America was clearly'' entitled to visit and search a neutral merchant ship on the high seas. She has never parted \vith a belligerent rig^ht firmly established by the case of the Mariay and which she foresaw might one day be of great value to her. The Trenty 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 unreasonably, to be exempt from liability to condemnation for carrying the despatches of the enemy. Mr. Lawrence, in his last edition of Wheaton (Ed. 1855, p. 567), observ- iag 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 Grovernment, but all letters sent to it from the post-offices. The author cites Hcmtefeuille, Droits des Nations NeutreSy t. 2, p. 463, who is of the same opinion, and the Postal Treaty of December 1848, between the 8 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-- gestion 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 Eoyal Navy^ 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 <5haracter of an ordinary private vessel. We are satisfied that not only America^ as we have shown, but France, would have regarded it as 2^ public vessel. It is clear that neither 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, against her own authority. The act of the San Jacinto in visiting and searching 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 right with respect to the Trent, she had also a duty. The duty was to take the Enghsh vessel into an American port and there to try her fairly^ with full rig'ht 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 neutraUty 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 foreign States in consequence of decisions of her Supreme Court of Prize adverse to Enghsh captors. There is no 10 reason to doubt that the judges who sit in the chair of Story would do justice as well as the successor of Stowell* — though^ alas ! it might be practically of little consequence^ if the President should subject the Judge of the Prize Court^ as well as the Judge of the municipal tribunal^ to the custody of a military sentinel. * In the second place^ the anticipation of the judg- ment of the Prize Court is wholly erroneous. The Trent was not, so far as we know^ carrying con- traband despatches 3 and she was carrying persons whose character exempted them from the operation of hostilities. The despatches which are contraband are communications from a belligerent 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 Atalantay2 EoUnson, Ad. Bep. 440—461.) But despatches from a belligerent (Lord Stowell says) 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 Westminster which has not " received the express approbation and sanction of our national ** Courts," says the great American Chancellor Kent, yol. 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 belligerent is eng-ag-ed. (The Madison^ 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. {The Caroline, 6 lioh. Ad, Bep. 468.) It is mani- fest that the interests of the neutral may impera- 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 recog-nised 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 through some regular channel— in other words^ she must recognise, for this purpose at least, a Government and a diplomatic officer. But the neutral has rights 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. 12 ^^ 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 ; and on this g'round the Trent would have succeeded in the Prize Court. The next question is as to the persons of the envoys. 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 voyag'e. In Phillimore's book there are two passages on the subject — one in which he is dealing* 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 magnitude of a civil war, the emissaries of both parties have been consi- dered as entitled to the privilege 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 tliird State ) and in a note he cites the opinion of Bynkershoek, 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 struggling, and not yet independent, he enjoys these rights with regard to third States only : — '^ ut legatio pleno jure utrimque consistat status utrim- que liber desideratur, qui si ab un4 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'^ {Phillimorej v. 2, pp. 143-4). This is exactly the position of law now relied 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 Stowell's judg- ment in the Caroline^ which legalizes 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 into his representative character, he is entitled to peculiar privileges, as set apart for the protection of the relations of amity and peace, in 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 may 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 judg-ment especially cites) the general dictum that the belhgerent may seize the ambassador of another belhg-erent at a certain period, namely^ before he has been accepted by the State to which he is sent ; 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 passings 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 a d'autres souverains: on les arrete meme s'ils entreprennent de passer secretement et sans permission." Where? ^^ Dans les lieux dont on est mattreJ^ — {Droit des Gens, 1. 4^ c. 7, s. 85.) Not on board a neutral royal mail ship on the high 15 seas. Let Lord Sto well's judg-ment, be read by the lig-ht of this passag-e in Vattel^ to whom he had referred. These are his words : The former cases were cases of neutral ships, carrying the fenemy's despatches from his colonies to the mother country. In ail 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 wdth the neutral State ; but your reliance is on the integrity 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 Grovernment, 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. — (Hobinson, Reports. Vol. vi. p. 4iQQ. The Caroline.) It does not seem to be denied in America that this is both the general and the correct law respecting- ambassadors ; but the conduct of Eng-land eig-hty-two years ago is cited against her. It is stated in a letter of Mr. Sumner (not we believe the Chairman of the 10 Committee of Foreig-n Belations 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 difficulties 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 G-reat 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 pacTcet, 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 Grreat Britain, had entered into a formal treaty of amity and commerce with the revolted colonies, fully 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 definitively, and entertained no doubt of success. On his arrival in London, Mr. Laiu'ens was examined before the Privy Council, and, on his refusal to answer interrogatories, committed to the Tower. — {AdolpJiuSt History of England^ vol. iii. p. 221.) Adolphus is perfectly accurate in saying- that the Mercury^ commanded by Captain Pickles, was, as the names indicate, an American bellig-erent vessel. The despatches from Captain Keppel to the Admiralty afford proof of the fact. The vessel was condemned in the Vice-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 Dutcliy and neutral, but American, and bellig-erent. Thirdly, Holland was only professedly neutral, but really belligerent against England, as those very despatches demonstrated. The declaration of war by England against her fol- 18 lowed close; namel}^^ on the 20th December, 1780. Fourthly^ the ship as well as the man was captured. So clear^ indeed, w^as 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 suj)posed 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 arg'ument. It is urged 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 principles of International justice. Retaliatory measures of this kind at the time would perhaps not strengthen the moral influence of a State; but r^- 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 Avas wrong* and America rig'ht in this matter. We subscribe to the reasoning* of her President in 1812. We desire to impress the lang-uag-e of Madison most deeply upon all our readers : — British cruisers [says the President] have been in 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. British 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 in such cases be regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the achnowledged laws of war ^ which forbid an article of cajptured property 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 ^?6r50/i 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. Eng*land claimed and had a ri^ht to search the neutral vessels for enemy's g-oods 3 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 right was never claimed ag-ainst passeng-ers or civilians. The impress- ment of General Washing-ton's nephews^ mentioned in Jefferson's Memoir (vol. iv. p. 138)^ if it ever hap- pened, w^as a simple outrag-e^ unless it were founded upon a complete error as to the persons. Be^ how- ever, the conduct of England rig*ht or wrong* as to the impressment of seamen, it furnishes not even a bad precedent, not even exemplum sceleris^ 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 Eobinson's Eep. 430), has been also cited against the demand of England, but how foolishly, appears from the following statement of facts. The Friendsliip was a neutral vessel, engaged as a transport by the French Government, for the convey- 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 w^as a transport in the service of the French Government. It was con- tended that the persons on board were only a few in- valids, returning to their country, and Lord S to well. 21 in g'iving" judgment^ observed^ (p. 428) ^^ It would be a ^^ very different case if a vessel appeared to be carrying* ^^ only a few individual invalided soldiers or discharg-ed ^' 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 their 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.'' 22 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^ g'oing' to the aid of the Neapolitan rebels, 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 g-ave him the desired aid. The Hercules, an American vessel 23 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 Neapolitan ship-of-war to Civita Vecchia. Lucien applied to the Eng-lish Minister at Cagliari for a passport guaranteeing* 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 Cag-Hari. The King* of Sardinia refused permission to Lucien to land, and desired the Hercules to leave the bay. The Enghsh Minister was ag-ain 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 ; 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 lawfully 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 ) 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, (a Phillimore, p. 50.) Lastly, as to the seizure of the Irish rebel, McManus, in 1848; he was taken by the police, in an Enghsh 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 ; but they are shown not to exist. On the other hand, all the reasoning from 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 heen 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 g-round for such a craven fear. The envoys torn by violence from the protection of our flag- must be restored^ and with due apolog-y for the outrage. 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 great to be afraid of admitting- that she has been in the wrong". The truth is that she has got 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 belligerents is constituted^ and the rights of war and the obligations of neutrals are involved; it is idle to talk to other States of ^^ rebels" and /^ rebellion/' and demand the application of municipal law. It is the error into which England fell nearly a century ago 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 England^ 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 Sheriff's of Bristol on the affairs of America, 1777.) THE ENP.