IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 i.O 
 
 I.I 
 
 l^|2£ |2.5 
 
 mm m22 
 ^ U& 12.0 
 
 L25 nil 1.4 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 1.6 
 
 ■4,0. 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 V 
 
 <^ 
 
 ■SJ 
 
 <^ 
 
 rv 
 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 87^-4503 
 
 V^ 
 
 o^ 
 

 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
T«chnie«l and Bibliographie Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa 
 
 Tha Instituta haa anamptad to obtain tha boat 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia 
 copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua. 
 which may altar any of tha imag« a in tha 
 raproduction. or which may signi /icantly changa 
 tha uaual mathod of filming, ara ehaclcad balow. 
 
 □ Colourad covara/ 
 Couvartura da eoulaur 
 
 pn Covara damagad/ 
 
 Couvartura andommagia 
 
 n Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ 
 Couvartura raatauria at/ou palliculAa 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Covar titia miaaing/ 
 
 La titra da couvartura manqua 
 
 |~n Colourad mapa/ 
 
 Cartaa gAographiquaa %n eoulaur 
 
 Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ 
 Encra da eoulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) 
 
 rn Colourad plataa and/or illuatrations/ 
 
 D 
 
 Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an eoulaur 
 
 Bound with othar matarial/ 
 RaliA avac d'autraa documanta 
 
 Tight binding may eauaa ahadowa or diatortion 
 along intarior margin/ 
 
 La r« liura larria paut cauaar da I'ombra ou da la 
 diatoraion la long da la marga intiriaura 
 
 Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may 
 appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibla. thaaa 
 hava baan omittad from filming/ 
 11 aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa 
 ion d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta. 
 mala, loraqua cala Atait poaaibla, eaa pagaa n'ont 
 paa ^i fllm^aa. 
 
 Additional commanta:/ 
 Commantairaa supplAmantairaa: 
 
 Tha 
 toti 
 
 L'Inatitut a microfilmA la maillaur axamplaira 
 qu'il lui a itA poaaibla da aa procurar. Laa ditaiit 
 da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-Atra uniquaa du 
 point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modif iar 
 una imaga raproduita, ou qui pauvant axigar una 
 modification dana la mithoda normaia da filmaga 
 •ont indiquAc cl-daaaoua. 
 
 □ Colourad pagaa/ 
 Pagaa da eoulaur 
 
 Pagaa damagad/ 
 Pagaa andommagiaa 
 
 p~| Pagaa raatorad and/or laminatad/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pagaa raatauriaa at/ou pallieul4aa 
 
 Pagaa diacoiourad. stainad or foxai 
 Pagaa dAcoioriaa, tachatiaa ou piquAaa 
 
 Pagaa datachad/ 
 Pagaa d4taeh*aa 
 
 Showthrough> 
 Tranaparanca 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 QualitA inAgala da I'impraaaion 
 
 Includaa aupplamantary matarii 
 Comprand du matirial auppl4mantaira 
 
 Only adition availabia/ 
 Saula Mition diaponibia 
 
 Q Pagaa diacoiourad. stainad or foxad/ 
 Pagaa 
 
 r~n Pagaa datachad/ 
 
 r~y| Showthrough/ 
 
 r^ Quality of print variaa/ 
 
 r~l Includaa aupplamantary matarial/ 
 
 r~~| Only adition availabia/ 
 
 Tha 
 pos) 
 of tl 
 film 
 
 Oris 
 
 bag 
 
 tha 
 
 sior 
 
 oth« 
 
 first 
 
 sior 
 
 or 11 
 
 Tha 
 aha 
 TIN 
 whi 
 
 Mai 
 diff 
 anti 
 
 rig 
 
 raq 
 
 ma 
 
 Pagaa wholly or partially obacurad by errata 
 slips, tisjuaa, ate., hava baan rafilmad to 
 anaura tha bast possibia imaga/ 
 Laa pagaa totalamant ou partiailamant 
 obacurciaa par un fauillat d'arrata. una pelura, 
 ate. ont tti filmAas i nouvaau da faqon i 
 obtanir la maiilaura imaga poaaibla. 
 
 Thia Itam is fiimad at tha raduetion ratio chackad balow/ 
 
 Ca document ast film* au taux da rMuction indlquA ci-daaaoua. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 y 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 aox 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exempiaire film* fut reproduit grtce h la 
 gAnArositA de: 
 
 BibliothAque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in Iceeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images sulvantes ont 4t4 reproduites ovec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetA de l'exempiaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrst de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the lest page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other originel copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est ImprimAe sent filmte en commen9ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmis en commen^siit par la 
 premiire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustrstion et en terminant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ► (meening "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol Y (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un dee symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon ie 
 cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUSVRE". le 
 symboie ▼ signifie "FIN". 
 
 ■Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableeux. etc.. peuvent Atre 
 filmte A des taux de rMuction diff Arents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul ciichA. il est film* A partir 
 de Tangle supArieur gauche, de geuche A droite. 
 et de haut en bos. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m^thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

THE SEIZURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SOUTHERN COMMISSIONERS, 
 
 CONSIDEREI» WtTlf RKKEUENCK TO 
 
 INTERNATIONAL LAW, 
 
 AND 
 
 TO TIIR QUESTION OF 
 
 WAR OR PEACE. 
 
 BY 
 
 PHILIP ANSTIE SMITH, M.A.,LL.B., 
 
 BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 JAMES lilDGWAY, 169, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1862. 
 
A large part of this pamphlet had been printed 
 before the writer was aware of the publication of 
 others on the same occasion, by authors who 
 have evidently studied the subject with care, and 
 discussed it with ability. But, while some leading 
 cases and topics have been mentioned in every instance, 
 independent inquiries cannot but vary in some parts of 
 their paths, and the merits of the question are not 
 likely to receive too careful or full consideration. 
 This contribution to the discussion is therefore left to 
 take its place among others, if it shall be thought to 
 deserve it. 
 
THE SEIZURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SOUTHEEN COMIISSIONERS, 
 
 CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO 
 
 Jnt^i|imtwnal 3nw, ^t. 
 
 The subject of these pages requires very 
 few prefatory words, since it has for some 
 weeks occupied the attention of the country, 
 and been so frequently mentioned that its 
 supposed facts have become generally known ; 
 while the very great importance of its possible 
 consequences has contributed to awaken 
 public interest and stamp the particulars 
 more strongly on the mind. In such 
 circumstances, the following very concise 
 statement of the occurrence in questics; will 
 serve to introduce a discussion of some points 
 of international law which it involves. 
 
 Two Commissioners from the American 
 Southern Confederacy were passengers on 
 board a British Mail Steamship. This was 
 stopped by an armed vessel in the service of 
 the Federal Government, and the Commis- 
 sioners were taken from on board as prisoners 
 by the compulsion of superior force. 
 
I 
 
 IS 
 
 
 Several questions arise out of this trans- 
 action, which may he classified, as they relate^ 
 on the one hand, to the supposed liahility of 
 the Commissioners to detention in some 
 regular mode, or, on the other, to the mode 
 in which their detention has heen actually 
 effected. The latter of these topics shall 
 he noticed first :— 
 
 Is, then, the forcible seizure of the Com- 
 missioners from on board a neutral vessel 
 defensible by international law ? 
 
 The writer is not aware of any decision 
 relating expressly to the removal of goods 
 or persons, liable to seizure, from the neutral 
 ship on which they are found. The difficulty 
 of finding an instance in point indicates, at 
 any rate, the infrequency of such occur- 
 rences. 
 
 In the absence of any known judicial 
 statement of the law relating to such an act, 
 it may be remarked — 
 
 Mrst — That the general rule of maritime 
 capture requires captured vessels to be taken 
 into port, in order to a trial of the case be- 
 fore some competent tribunal. — " Regularly 
 a captor is bound by the law of his own 
 country, conforming to the general law of 
 nations, to bring in for adjudication, in order 
 
that it may be ascertained whether it be 
 enemy's property, and that mistakes may not 
 be committed by captors in the eager pursuit 
 of gain, by which injustice may bo done to 
 neutral subjects, and national quarrels pro- 
 duced with the foreign states to which they 
 belong."* If the captor " neglects to apply 
 to any tribunal, he would be guilty of a great 
 misdemeanour," says Sir William Scott in 
 another case.f And elsewhere the rule is 
 thus given, with some account of the occa- 
 sion for it : — " In later times, an additional 
 formality has been required — that of a sen- 
 tence of condemnation, in a competent court, 
 decreeing the capture to have been rightly 
 made, jure belli ; it not being thought fit, in 
 civilised society, that property of this sort 
 should be converted without the sentence 
 of a competent court, pronouncing it to have 
 been seized as the property of an enemy, and 
 to be now become jure belli the property 
 of the captor. The purposes of justice re- 
 quire, that such exercises of war should be 
 placed under public inspection ; and there- 
 fore the mere deductio infra prcesidia has 
 not been deemed sufficient."! The authority 
 
 * Judgment of Sir W. Scott. The Felicity, 2 Dodson, 385. 
 
 t The Huldah, 3 Robinson, 238. 
 
 X Sir W. Scott, The Henrick and Maria. 4 Robinson, 55. 
 
]}. 
 
 of Chancellor Kent may also be cited : — 
 ** When a prize is taken at sea, it must be 
 brought, with due care, into some convenie. ' 
 port, for adjudication by a competent court, 
 though, strictly speaking, as between the 
 belligerent parties, the title passes, and is 
 vested when the capture is complete ; and 
 that was formerly held to be complete and 
 perfect when the battle was over, and the 
 spes recuperandi was gone."* 
 
 The rule above mentioned has, indeed, ex- 
 ceptions ; for " if a king*s ship, bound on the 
 public service, makes a capture in her course, 
 such a vessel cannot depart from her instruc- 
 tions, but must proceed upon her original des- 
 tination. That would be a case of necessity, 
 arising out of the public service, for which 
 states must make allowance reciprocally.***!' 
 And if a man-of-war belonging to a belli- 
 gerent government be by very urgent occa- 
 sions of the public service prevented from 
 bringing a captured vessel to any port what- 
 ever for adjudication, then, if the vessel 
 taken be hostile, it is said that she may 
 lawfully be destroyed. But in connexion 
 with this statement the peculiar rights of 
 
 ♦ Rentes Coiuraeiitarics, Vol. 1, 101. 
 
 t Sic W. bcott, Tlie Anna. 5 Robinson, 385. 
 
 ii. 
 
II 
 
 I 
 
 neutral, as distinguishod from hostile, ships 
 arc strongly expressed. " If impossible to 
 bring in, their next duty is to destroy 
 enemy's property. Where doubtful whether 
 enemy's property, and impossible to bring in, 
 no such obliiration arises, and the safe and 
 proper course is to dismiss. Where it is 
 neutral, the act of destruction cannot be 
 justified to the neutral owner, by the gravest 
 importance of such an act to the public 
 service of the captor's own state ; to the 
 neutral it can only be justified, under any 
 such circumstances, by a full restitution in 
 value. These are rules so clear in principle 
 and established in practice, that they require 
 neither reasoning nor precedent to illustrate 
 or support them."* The general duty, in 
 cases of maritime capture, to bring in for 
 adjudication, has been discussed in some of 
 the previous remarks in connection origi- 
 nally with cases where the vessels captured 
 have been hostile, jind those remarks are, 
 therefore, not addrefiseJ to the specific case 
 of captures consequent on the right of search 
 of neutral vessels. But— 
 
 Secondljj —In the mention made by some 
 writers on international law of the right of 
 
 * Sir W. Scott, The Felicity. 1 Doclson, 386. 
 
u 
 
 II 
 
 
 8 
 
 search itsolf, the duty of bringing in for ad- 
 judication is noticed. The authority of 
 Chancellor Kent and of Mr, Wheaton shall 
 be cited here. The former says that — 
 " If, upon making the search, the vessel be 
 found employed in contraband trade, or in 
 carrying enemy's property, or troops, or des- 
 patches, she is liable to be taken and brought 
 in for adjudication before a prize court."* 
 The latter has the following words : — 
 " If the seizure were made in time of war, 
 the adjudication must necessarily take place, 
 according to the well known law and usage 
 of nations, in the prize court of the country 
 of the captor, who is responsible to his own 
 government, whose commission he bears, for 
 bis acts under that commission ; and that 
 government again is responsible over to 
 the neutral state, whose subjects may com- 
 plain of the injury by them sustained.^f At 
 another place there is the following passage : 
 " If a vessel sailing under the neutral flag 
 is boarded and examined by a belligerent 
 armed and commissioned cruiser, and the 
 result of the examination establishes her 
 
 * Kent's Com., Vol. 1, 153. 
 
 t Wheaton's Enquiry into the validity of the British claim 
 to a right of visitation and search of American vessels suspected 
 to be engaged in the African Slave Trade, p. 138 (Ed. 1858). 
 
•neutrality in the judgment of the hoarding 
 officer, or his superior commander, she is of 
 coqirse released, and suffered to pursue her 
 voyage. But if, on the other hand, their 
 prima facie judgment he, that the ship or 
 <cargo is in reality enemy's property, or that 
 the latter is contrahand of war, or that the 
 proprietor or master have been guilty of 
 some unneutral act, hy which the property 
 ds rendered liable to confiscation, the vessel 
 is, of course, ■detained, and sent in for trial 
 in tbe competent prize court of the captor's 
 country.*** A little after, he says, " We 
 repeat, if the seizure had been made in time 
 of war, the captured vessel must be carried 
 into port for adjudication before the compe- 
 tent prize court of the captor*s country .'*f 
 
 It may be objected that, in the whole of 
 the arguments founded on the authorities 
 before cited, it has been tacitly assumed that 
 no judicial investigation before a proper 
 tribunal will really take place. That the 
 fact of the removal of the Commissioners 
 
 * lb., pp. 155-6. 
 
 t Wheaton'fl Enquiry, p. 156. It is fair to mention, in reference 
 to these passages, that they occur in a very able ex parte argu- 
 ment ; and that the author would be naturally disposed, with 
 reference to it, to enforce the view contained in those passages. 
 Still they come stamped with the authority belonging to Mr. 
 Wheaton's knowledge of the subject. 
 
10 
 
 I 
 
 t ,' 
 
 from the Trent is no proof that regular pro- 
 ceedings, with a view to adjudication, will 
 not be instituted, and that, perhaps, they 
 may have been already instituted. 
 
 In reply, it may be said, first and chiefly, 
 that at present there is not proof or indication 
 that this has been, or will be, done. And it 
 may be said further, that a proper degree of 
 promptitude is required in taking such steps.* 
 It may be added that the course pursued in 
 this instance is objectionable, as removing 
 the evidence of the other persons on board 
 the Trent. An inquiry, in order to be of 
 use, should be one in which all necessary 
 witnesses might be forthcoming. If it be 
 answered that there is no substantial doubt 
 as to the official character of the Commis- 
 sioners, even this (if the fact were assumed 
 to be so), though it might affect materially 
 the importance of evidence, would not make 
 a judicial inquiry unnecessary; for, as will 
 be seen, the international law on the subject 
 turns in great part on the inferences to be 
 drawn from that official character, and is of 
 a kind not to be determined by naval officers. 
 
 The very nature of the right of search 
 requires particular correctness in its exercise. 
 
 * The " Zee Star," 4 Rob,, 7 1 . The " Madonna del Burso, ib. 171." 
 
11 
 
 l» 
 
 The right itself is well established, and 
 resistance to it would, be unlawful ;* but it 
 is " a right of force, though of lawful force,*' 
 and therefore one in which the rules direct- 
 ing it should not be open to arbitrary exten- 
 sion or variation. It may be supposed (and 
 it may be the fact) that the owners of the 
 neutral vessel have really suffered less in- 
 convenience and loss than if the vessel, as 
 well as the Commissioners, had been taken 
 into port for regular examination of the 
 seizure; but this would not establish the 
 correctness of the course which was pursued, 
 or justify it if incorrect. 
 
 Thus, then, it appears that the general 
 rule with respect to maritime captures, 
 requires that ships, when taken, should be 
 brought to some port, and that the lawful- 
 ness of the seizure should be established 
 before a competent tribunal ; and this rule 
 is expressly mentioned as applicable to cap- 
 tures consequent on search of neutral vessels. 
 If there is no express prohibition of the 
 removal from a neutral ship of persons 
 claimed as liable to seizure, neither is there, 
 to the writer's knowledge, any instance where 
 the act has been judicially sanctioned, or 
 
 * See especially the case of " The Maria," 1 Rob., 340. 
 
m 
 
 even where it has heen macfe the suibject of 
 a trial. And the right of search, being a 
 right of some hardship (though of necessary 
 hardship) towards neutrals, is one whiich 
 should not be arbitrarily modified in it» 
 exercise. In the present instance, it does not 
 appear that any legal proceedings have been 
 instituted ; and such a seizuve,^if aUowed^to 
 stand on the mere strength of the origkial 
 capture, would tend to constitute n&val 
 officers judges of international rights^ and to 
 expose unarmed yessels to risks and injuries, 
 the seribus importance of which scarcely 
 needs comment. 
 
 The questions considered hit^herto relate 
 to the manner in which the arrest and 
 detention of the commissioners have been 
 effected. But, if all exceptions to irregu* 
 Ibrity of procedure be laid aside, what are 
 the doctrines of international law as to the 
 further question of UabiUty to seizure f 
 
 Were the Commissioners, in a neutral 
 ship, liable to arrest and detention' at all f 
 
 According to the English decisions^ per^ 
 sons connected iasome way with the military 
 or naval service of the enemy appear to^ be 
 the only persons so liable. And incidental 
 references in an account given by Mr. 
 
Wheaton of the judgment in an American 
 case (with which no other case, so far as the 
 writer knows, is in conflict) confirm this 
 view. "It was," he says, "stated in the 
 judgment of the court, that it had heen 
 solemnly adjudged in the British prize 
 courts, that heing engaged in the transport 
 service of the enemy, or in the conveyance 
 of military persons in his employment, or 
 the carrying of despatches, are acts of hos- 
 tility, which subject the property to confisca- 
 tion. ♦ #*♦♦#♦♦ The principle of 
 these determinations was asserted to be, that 
 the party must be deemed to place himself 
 in the service of the enemy state, and to 
 assist in the warding off the pressure of the 
 war, or in favouring its offensive projects."* 
 In one important case before Sir William 
 Scott, he states that the principle " that the 
 carrying military persons to the colony of an 
 enemy, who are there to take on them the 
 exercise of their military functions, will lead 
 to condemnation,"! was that on which he 
 determined the case. The same judgment 
 contains, in an earlier part, a passage which, 
 
 * Reference to the case of '* The Commercen," in Wlieaton's 
 Elements of International Law, VoL II., p. 221. (Ed. 183G.) 
 t « The Orozembo," 6 Rob., 436. 
 
u 
 
 at first sight, may seem tu have a contrary 
 tendency, as throwing out an opinion that 
 even the act of carrying persons in the civil 
 service of the government might, in the cir- 
 cumstances of that instance, have occasioned 
 the forfeiture of the vessel ; yet, on exami- 
 nation, it will be seen that the relation of the 
 transport of such persons to the conduct of 
 the war is intimated, for the vessel is spoken 
 of as let out for a purpose " intimately con- 
 nected with the hostile operations.*' And 
 the learned judge afterwards states the de- 
 cision of the case before him to rest on the 
 principle mentioned in the extract already 
 given. The passage relating to the civil 
 servants of the enemy runs thus : — " In this 
 instance the military persons are three, and 
 there are, besides, two other persons who 
 were going to be employed in civil capacities 
 in the government of Batavia. Whether the 
 principle would apply to them alone, I do 
 not feel it necessary to determine. I am not 
 aware of any case in which that question has 
 been agitated; but it appears to me, on 
 principle, to be but reasonable that, when- 
 ever it is of sufficient importance to the 
 enemy, that such persons should be sent out 
 on the public service, at the public expense, 
 
15 
 
 it should aflford equal ground of forfeiture 
 against the vessel, that may he let out for a 
 purpose so intimately connected with the 
 hostile operations."* It will he seen that 
 these civil servants were to he engaged in 
 the government of a colony of the enemy, 
 and this formed one element in the case. 
 Lord Stowell's remarks, on another occasion 
 throw light on the theory which he expresses 
 here, that persons so occupied may he 
 considered as connected with the war itself. 
 " It is the right of the belligerent to inter- 
 cept and cut off all communication between 
 the enemy and his settlements, and, to the 
 utmost of his power, to harrass and disturb 
 this connexion, which it is one of the de- 
 clared objects of the ambition of the enemy 
 to preserve."! "The former cases were cases 
 of neutral ships, carrying the enemy's dis- 
 patches, from his colonies to the mother 
 country. In all such cases you have a right 
 to conclude, that the effect of those des- 
 patches is hostile to yourself, because they 
 must relate to the securitv of the enemv's 
 possessions, and to the maintenance of a 
 communication between them ; you have a 
 
 * Sir W. Scott. " The Orozerabo." 6 Rob., 434. 
 t Sir W. Scott. The " Caroline." 6 Rob., 466. 
 
16 
 
 right to destroy these possessions and that 
 communication ; and it is a legal act of 
 hostility so to do.*'* 
 
 Thus, then, it does not appear that any 
 of the enemy's subjects, except those belong- 
 ing or attached in some manner to the mili- 
 tary or naval service, have been judicially 
 held liable to seizure. And in the instance 
 above mentioned, in which Sir William 
 Scott expressed an opinion that particular 
 individuals, although not so belonging or 
 attached, might have been considered liable, 
 they were persons who were going out to be 
 employed in the civil government of an 
 enemy's colony. Those among the enemy's 
 subjects who do not belong to either class, 
 and cannot fairly be brought within the 
 compass of Sir William Scott's reasoning in 
 relation to either, are exempt as well from the 
 force of his opinion above stated as from the 
 greater authority of the adjudged cases. 
 
 Thus far the argument has been negative 
 — that no liability, according to interna- 
 tional law, was shown to exist. And at that 
 point the matter might be left; for if a 
 person who is taking a passage in a neutral 
 ship does not sustain any character which 
 renders him liable to detention, it is not 
 
 ♦ lb., 466. 
 
17 
 
 . necessary to go further and show that a 
 character which he does sustain carries with 
 it any special reason for his immunity. 
 
 But something may ho urged on this 
 ground also; for, on the assumption that 
 the Commissioners were entrusted with 
 the task of attempting to institute diplo- 
 matic relations hetween the Southern Con- 
 federacy and any of the neutral Sovereign 
 States in Europe, some parts, at all events* 
 of the judgment in the case of the Caroline 
 may he applied to this transaction. The 
 despatches referred to in that judgment are 
 said to be "despatches from persons who 
 are, in a peculiar manner, the favourite 
 objects of the protection of the law of 
 nations, Ernhassadors, resident in a neutral 
 country, for the purpose of preserving the 
 relations of amity between that state and 
 his own government. 
 
 " On these grounds a very material distinc- 
 tion arises, with respect to the right of fur- 
 nishing the conveyance. The former cases 
 were cases of neutral ships, carrying the 
 enemy's despatches, from his colonies to the 
 mother country. ***** 
 But the neutral country has a right to pre- 
 serve its relations with the enemy, and you 
 
 111 
 
18 
 
 If 
 
 "are not at liberty to conclude, that any com- 
 munication between them can partake, in 
 any degree, of the nature of hostility against 
 you. The enemy may have his hostile pro- 
 jects to be attempted with 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 doubt- 
 ful foundation, that is matter for the caution 
 of the Government, to be counteracted bv 
 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 dispatches, which, as far as he 
 can know, may be presumed to be of an 
 innocent nature, and in the maintenance of 
 a pacific connection. One material ground, 
 therefore, is wanting, on which the judgment 
 of the court proceeded in the former cases. 
 Another distinction arises, from the character 
 of the person, who is employed in the cor- 
 respondence. He is not an executive officer 
 of the Government, acting simply in the 
 conduct of its own affairs within its own 
 
19 
 
 ** territories, but an Embassador resident in 
 a neutral state, for the purpose of supporting 
 an amicable relation with it. 
 
 " I have before said that persons discharg- 
 ing the functions of Embassadors are, in a 
 peculiar manner, objects of the protection 
 and favour of the law of nations. The limits 
 that are assigned to the operations of war 
 against them, bv Vattel and other writers 
 upon those subjects, are, that you may ex- 
 ercise your right of war against them, 
 wherever the character of hostility exists ; 
 you may stop the Embassador of your enemy 
 on his passage ;* but when he has arrived, 
 
 * May he be stopped in any other place than those in 
 which the state wliich stops liim has full riglits of exercising 
 hostility If The words of the judgment may raise a doubt, but 
 the following extract from Vattel favours the latter construc- 
 tion, " The enemy's men may also be attacked and seized 
 wherever there is a right of exercising acts of hostility. Thus 
 a passage may not only be refused to the ministers of an enemy 
 sent to other sovereigns, but if they undertake to pass privately, 
 and without permission, into places belonging to their 
 master's enemy, they are liable to be arrested ; and of this the 
 last war furnishes a signal instance. An ambasador of France 
 going to Berlin, by the imprudence of his guides, took his way 
 through a village within the electorate of Hanover, of which the 
 sovereign, the king of England, was at war with J'rance ; he 
 was arrested, and afterwards sent over to England. As liis 
 Britannic Majesty had herein only made use of the rights of 
 war, neither the court of B'rancc nor that of Prussia complained 
 about it."* 
 
 * Vattel's Law of Natlous, itook IV., cb. vii., sec. 8A. The passage ia 
 quoted from an EDglish translation from the French, dated 1793. It ia 
 tbe only version which the writer has at hand. 
 
20 
 
 " and has taken upon himself the functions of 
 his office, and has hcen admitted in his re- 
 presentative character, he becomes a sort of 
 rniddle-manf entitled to peculiar priviiegcs, 
 as set apart for the protection of the rela- 
 tions of amity and peace, in maintaining 
 which all nations are in some degree inter- 
 ested. It has been argued that he retains 
 his national character unmixed, and that 
 even his residence is considered as a resi- 
 dence in his own country. But that is a 
 fiction of law invented for his further pro- 
 tection only, and, as such a fiction, it is not 
 to be extended beyond the reasoning on 
 which it depends. It was intended as a 
 privilege ; and I am not aware of any instance 
 in which it has been urged to his disadvan- 
 tage. Could it be said that he would, on 
 that principle, be subject to any of the rights 
 of war in a neutral territory ? Certainly 
 not. He is there for the purpose of carry- 
 ing on the communications of peace and 
 amity, for the interest of his own couiilry 
 primarily, but, at the same time, ' -■ tiic 
 furtherance and protection of the interests, 
 which the neutral country also has in the 
 continuance of those relations. 
 
fi 
 
 " It is to be considered, also with regard to 
 this question, what niay be due to the conve- 
 nience of the neutral state ; for its interests 
 may require that the intercourse of corres- 
 pond<ince with the enemy*s country should 
 v.o' be altogether interdicted. It might be 
 tiic light to amount almost to a declaration, 
 that an Embassador from the enemy shall 
 not reside in the neutral state, if he is de-^ 
 Glared to be debarred from the only means 
 of communicating with his own. For to 
 what useful purpose can he reside there, with- 
 out the opportunities of such a communica- 
 tion ? It is too much to say, that all the 
 business of the two states shall be trans- 
 acted by the Minister of the neutral state, 
 resident in tlie enemy's country. The prac- 
 tice of nations has allowed to neutral states 
 the privilege of receiving Ministers from the 
 belligerent states, and the use and conve- 
 nience of an immediate negotiation with 
 them. 
 
 " It is said, and truly said, that this excep- 
 tion may be liable to great abuses, and so, 
 perhaps, will any rule that can be laid down 
 on this subject : — 
 
 Mille addc catenas ; 
 
 Eftugict taincn hacc 
 
 R1li Kl 
 
 - 
 
 If 
 
1 1 
 
 \f: 
 
 
 I , 
 
 " Opportunities of conveying intelligence 
 may always exist in some form or other."* 
 
 A lengthened extract from this able 
 judgment has been given, notwithstanding 
 the distinctions between the circumstances 
 then before the court and those belonging 
 to the present case. For although that judg- 
 ment related to despatches, and to a Minister 
 received by a neutral government and 
 clothed with the full privileges of his official 
 character, yet much of the reasoning is 
 applicable to a case where no diplomatic re 
 lations as yet exist. If it is for the advantage 
 of a neutral country to retain such relations, 
 it may be for its advantage to commence 
 them. And that regard to the fair interests 
 of the neutral country, which is recognized 
 in the judgment as forming one of the 
 reasons for the decision, appears to be appli- 
 cable, though in a less degree, in the other 
 case also, unless there be something incon- 
 sistent mth the duties of a neutral state 
 towards belligerents in commencing^ during 
 a war, diplomatic negotiations with one of 
 the contending powers. 
 
 This topic is connected with other ques- 
 tions, which the nature of the present con- 
 
 * Sir W. Scott, « The CaroUne." 6 Bob., 466, 7, 8, 9. 
 
28 
 
 flict in America may suggest. Is the 
 Southern Confederacy entitled, by interna- 
 tional law, to send ambassadors ? Or, rather, 
 are neutral sovereign states at liberty to re- 
 ceive ambassadors from it, without, in so 
 doing, committing an oflTence against the 
 Federal government, or violating the duties 
 which attach to neutrals ? 
 
 These questions shall be answered in the 
 words of Mr. Wheaton's work on Interna- 
 tional Law. Parts of the extracts relate 
 rather to internal revolutions than to 
 the severance of particular provinces ; but 
 these different cases are treated together in 
 some of the remarks upon them. 
 
 " Until the revolution is consummated, 
 whilst the civil war involving a contest for 
 the Government continues, other states may 
 remain indifferent spectators of the contro- 
 versy, still continuing to treat the ancient 
 Government as sovereign, and the Govern- 
 ment de facto as a society entitled to the 
 rights of war against its enemy; or may 
 espouse the cause of the party which they 
 believe to have justice on its side. In the 
 first case, the foreign state fulfils all its 
 obligations under the law of nations ; and 
 neither party has any right to complain, 
 
24 
 
 "provided it maintains an impartial neu- 
 trality.*** " If the foreign state professes 
 neutrality, it is bound to allow impartially to 
 both belligerent parties the free exercise of 
 those rights which war gives to public 
 enemies against c;ich other ; such as the right 
 of blockade, and of capturing contraband 
 and enemy's property. But the exercise of 
 those rights, on the part of the revolting 
 colony or province against the metropolitan 
 country, may be modified by the obligation 
 of treaties previously existing between that 
 country and foreign states.**! " If the revo- 
 lution in a state be effected by a province or 
 colony shaking off its sovereignty, so long 
 as the independence of the new state is not 
 acknowledged by other powers, it may seem 
 doubtful, in an international point of view, 
 whether its sovereignty can be considered as 
 complete, however it may be regarded by its 
 own Government and citizens. It has already 
 been stated, that whilst the contest for the 
 sovereignty continues, and the civil war 
 rages, other nations may either remain pas- 
 sive, allowing to both contending parties all 
 the rights which war gives to public enemies, 
 
 * Wheaton's Elements of International I^w. 6th Ed., p. 32. 
 t /*., 32. 
 
. 25 
 
 ** or may acknowledge the independence of 
 the new state, forming with it treaties of amity 
 and commerce, or may join in alliance with 
 one party against the other. In the first 
 case, neither party has any right to com- 
 plain so long as other nations maintain an 
 impartial neutrality, and abide the event of 
 the contest."* " In the case of a revolution, 
 civil war, or other contest for the sovereignty, 
 although, strictly speaking, the nation has 
 the exclusive right of determining in whom 
 the legitimate authority of the country 
 resides, yet foreign states must of necessity 
 judge for themselves whether they will 
 recognise the Government de Jdcto, by 
 sending to, and receiving Embassadors from 
 it, or whether they will continue their accus- 
 tomed diplomatic relations with the Prince 
 whom they choose to regard as the legitimate 
 sovereign, or suspend altogether these rela- 
 tions with the nation in question. So also 
 where an empire is severed by the revolt of 
 a province or colony declaring and maintain- 
 ing its independence, foreign states are 
 governed by expediency in determining 
 whether they will commence diplomatic 
 intercourse with the new state, or wait for 
 
 lb., 34. 
 
i,\ 
 
 \ 
 
 " it8 recognition by the metropolitan country. 
 "For the purpose of avoiding the difficulties 
 which might arise from a formal and positive 
 decision of these questions, diplomatic agents 
 are frequently substituted, who are clothed 
 with the powers, and enjoy the immunities 
 of ministers, though they are not invested 
 with the representative character, nor en- 
 titled to diplomatic honours."* 
 
 From what has been said upon this second 
 branch of the subject, it may be inferred that 
 persons connected with the military or naval 
 service of the enemy are alone certainly 
 liable to seizure in a neutral ship ;f that 
 civil servants of the enemy, if sent out in the 
 public service to take part in the govern- 
 ment of one of its colonies, may possibly be 
 liable; but that there is not authority to 
 support the detention of any other of the 
 enemy's subjects, and that here the case 
 might be left as complete. 
 
 * lb., 275—6. 
 
 f Some Inference as to what is usually understood to be the 
 rule in this matter may be formed from the warning in the 
 Queen's Proclamation of May 13, 1861, against "carrying 
 officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, military stores, or materials, 
 or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contra- 
 band of war according to the law or modem usage of nations, 
 for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, 
 
 ." Why are officers and soldiers only mentioned, if 
 
 other persons also are supposed to be liable ? 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
■, : 27 
 
 But further, as has been seeii,there is ground 
 to contend that persons in the position of the 
 Southern Commissioners have some claims to 
 a special immunity, inasmuch as, on the one 
 hand, the later extracts indicate that foreign 
 neutral states are at liberty to receive Ambas- 
 sadors from revolting provinces at war with a 
 parent state ; and, on the other, in the judg- 
 ment of Sir William Scott, in the case of The 
 Caroline^ the freedom from seizure allowed 
 to the dispatches of an Ambassador is based 
 in part on the right of a neutral state to 
 maintain free diplomatic intercourse with a 
 belligerent. The principle last adverted to 
 is, at all events, susceptible of some applica- 
 tion to the case in question. 
 
 And here the authority of Lord Stowell 
 may be again introduced : — " All law is 
 resolvable into general principles : The cases 
 which may arise under new combinations of 
 circumstances, leading to an extended appli- 
 cation of principles, ancient and recognized, 
 by just corollaries, may be infinite ; but so 
 long as the continuity of the original and 
 established principles is preserved pure and 
 unbroken, the practice is not new, nor is it 
 justly chargeable with being an innovation 
 on the ancient law ; when, in fact, the Court 
 
 I 
 
 / 
 
28 
 
 doea nothing more than apply old principles 
 to new circumstances.*** 
 
 There is another point of importance 
 relating to the liability of the Commissioners 
 to which it is proper to advert. 
 
 It has been assumed that the Federal 
 Government and the Confederate States occu. 
 pied (as far as neutrals are concerned) the 
 ordinary position of Belligerent Powers, and 
 that the liability of the Commissioners 
 depended on the law relating to persons 
 of that class, being subjects of one of such 
 powers, and holding towards the other the 
 relation of public enemies. 
 
 But the doubt has been sometimes sug- 
 gested whether they were not rather to be 
 treated by Great Britain as revolted sub- 
 jects — in which case the whole aspect of 
 the matter would be changed. A threefold 
 reply may be given to this suggestion : 
 for, Jirst, from the extracts before given 
 from Mr. Wheaton*s work on International 
 Law, it may be gathered that, on occasions of 
 the revolt of provinces, foreign nations are at 
 liberty to remain passive, allowing to both 
 contending parties all the rights which war 
 
 * Sir W. Scott. The " Atalanta." 6 Robinson, 458. 
 
29 
 
 gives to public enemies ; and that, in that 
 case, neither party has any right to complain, 
 so long as the other nations maintain an im- 
 partial neutrality, and ahide the event of the 
 contest.* Secondly^ the Queen's proclama- 
 tion is evidence that Great Britain has taken 
 such a position, and therefore that she acts 
 regularly in allowing to both contending 
 parties all the rights which war gives to 
 public enemies.f And, thirdly, in this 
 instance the seizure has been made in the 
 exercise of the right of search. But the 
 
 * One ot these passages has, it is true, a qualifying clause to 
 the effect that the exercise of the rights of war, " on the part of 
 the revolting colony or province against the metropolitan 
 country, maybe modified by theobligation of treaties previously 
 existing between that country and foreign states." The writer 
 is not aware, however, that this proviso is applicable to the 
 present case. 
 
 f See the following clauses— "Whereas we are happily at 
 peace with all sovereigns, powers, and states : 
 
 And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between 
 the Government of the United States of America and certain 
 states styling themselves the Confederate States of America : 
 
 And whereas we, being at peace with the government of the 
 United States, have declared our royal determination to maintain 
 a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said 
 contending parties : 
 
 We, therefore, have thought fit, by and with the advice of 
 our Privy Council, to issue this our royal proclamation : 
 
 And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving 
 subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the afore- 
 said hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening 
 either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the 
 law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the 
 contrary at their peril." 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
80 
 
 right of search rests on the assumption that 
 a war is subsisting. For " at present,** to 
 quote the words of Lord Stowell, " under 
 the law as now generally understood and 
 practised, no nation can exercise a right of 
 visitation and search upon the common and 
 unappropriated parts of the sea, save only on 
 the belligerent claim. If it be asked why 
 the right of search does not exist in time of 
 peace as well as in war, the answer is prompt ; 
 that it has not the same foundation on which 
 alone it is tolerated in war — the necessities oi* 
 self-defence. They introduced it in war, and 
 practice has established it. No such neces- 
 sities have introduced it in time of peace, 
 and no such practice has established it."* 
 
 It is by no means to be inferred that, 
 because Great Britain thus treats the Con- 
 federate States as belligerents and as entitled 
 to the privileges which international law 
 confers on public enemies, she thereby 
 expresses a judgment as to the lawfulness of 
 the secession. She abstains from pronounc- 
 
 * (Sir W. Scott.) The "Le Louis," 2 Dodson, 245. And 
 American authority may be cited to the same purpose. " The 
 duty of self-preservation gives to belligerent nations this right. 
 It is founded upon necessity, and is strictly and exclusively a 
 war-right, and does not exist in time of peace." Kent's Comm., 
 vol. 1, p. 153. 
 
31 
 
 Ing any judgment upon that point. Havinj^ 
 determined that her own part is to maintain 
 a strict neutrality, she owes to both parties 
 the fulfilment of all the duties which a 
 neutral has to fulfil towards a belligerent ; and 
 the due and faithful performance of these 
 duties is consistent with a public opinion 
 reprobating in the strongest degree what 
 appears to be evil in either of the contending 
 parties. The strength, and even the direc- 
 tion, of this feeling will vary with individual 
 minds and characters, but its variety and its 
 contradictions are consistent with a steady 
 and uniform concession to each party of its 
 authorized belligerent claims. 
 
 Another point which has engaged a good 
 deal of public attention in reference to this 
 seizure is the fact that the Trent was bound 
 from one neutral port to another. Upon 
 this point, however, it seems proper to notice 
 some distinctions. As to floods alleged to 
 he contrabandf the fact of destination to a 
 neutral port appears to be, by itself, a suffi- 
 cient answer. Sir William Scott treats such a 
 destination as one on which ** no question of 
 contraband could arise ; inasmuch as goods 
 going to a neutral port cannot come under 
 
 i 
 
82 
 
 tho description of contraband, all goods 
 going there being equally lawful."* 
 
 But, in cases relating to the conveyance 
 of military persons^ or of despatches, other 
 principles, already noticed, sometimes claim 
 attention. Whore neutral ships carry a 
 belligerent's despatches from his colony to 
 the mother country, his enemy has, it is 
 stated, a right to conclude, that the effect of 
 those despatches is hostile to himself, because 
 they must relate to the security of the othor 
 belligerents possessions, and to the main- 
 tenance of a communication between them ; 
 and it is a legal act of hostility to destroy 
 those possessions, and that communication.* 
 And in the case of such communis lations, the 
 fact that the voyage of the neutral ship docs 
 not extend over the whole distance between 
 the ultimate points of the journey is not an 
 answer, if the assistance rendered to the 
 enemy by carrying the despatches part of 
 the way was conscious and intentional on the 
 part of the neutral. 
 
 Thus in one case of a neutral ship carrying 
 a packet from a hostile to a neutral port, tho 
 packet having a further destination to a 
 
 *■ The " Imina." 3 Rob., 167. 
 
 * The " Caroline." 6 Robinson, 446, ante, p. 
 
33 
 
 hostile possession, the master made an affi- 
 davit averring his ignorance of the 
 contents, and the court treated the case as 
 one of " an offence originating chiefly in the 
 misconduct or culpable negligence of the 
 master."* ' 
 
 In another case of a similar voyage to a 
 neutral portf there were on board despatches, 
 and also a military officer of rank. There, 
 also, the question of ignorance arose, and 
 the Court remarked on its being " scarcely 
 credible, that the master could have been 
 deceived with respect to the character of a 
 military officer of high rank," so as to be im- 
 posed upon by the disguise he had pretended 
 to assume.f 
 
 Another case was that of The Rapid 
 (Edwards, 228), in which the distinction is 
 expressed that the presumption of innocence is 
 in favor of the master of a ship passing between 
 neutral ports, but there is a strong implica- 
 tion of his liability if he were in fact aware 
 of what he was carrying. Sir William Scott 
 said that it was " to be observed, that where 
 the commencement of the voyage is in a 
 neutral country, and it is to terminate at a 
 neutral port .... there is less to 
 
 * The Susan. 6 RobuiBon, 461, 2 n. a. 
 i The Hope. 6 Robinson, 463, n. a. 
 
 I 
 
 :: ;;l 
 
 m 
 
 111 
 
34 , 
 
 excite the party's vi|^ilance, and, thorofore, 
 it may bo proper to make some allowance for 
 any imposition which may be practiced upon 
 him." • 
 
 . It appears, then, that the mere f. .t of a 
 neutral vessel starting from one neutral port 
 on a voyage to another port also neutral, is 
 not conclusive proof oi its freedom from 
 liability, since, at any rate, its master would 
 be guilty of an offence against the law of 
 nations if, on such a voyage, he carried des- 
 patches of a belligerent on their way between 
 the mother country and its colony, being 
 himself a conscious and willing agent in 
 doing so. 
 In the present instance, however, there 
 
 * A passage from Mr. Wlieaton's work on International Law 
 may be adduced in conflrniation of the present argument as to 
 the doctrine of the English Comts. He mentions that, in a case 
 before the Supreme Court of the United States, it was stated 
 in the judgment of the Court " that it had been solemnly 
 adjudged in the British Prize Courts, that being engaged in the 
 transport service of the enemy, or in the conveyance of military 
 persons in his employment, or the carrying of despatches, are 
 acts of hostility which subject the property to confiscation. In 
 these cases, the fact that the voyage was to a neutral port was not 
 thought to change the cliaracter of the transaction. The prin- 
 ciple of these determinations was asserted to be, that the paiiy 
 must be deemed to place himself in the service of the enemy 
 state, and to assist in warding off the pressure of the war, or in 
 favouring its offensive projects." Vol. 2, p. 221. Ed. 1836. 
 The reference given, as to the American case, is to Wlieaton's 
 Rep., vol. 1, p. 382. The Commercen. 
 
35 
 
 appears to be nothing corresponding with an 
 ultimate destination to a colony ; and there 
 is a case which tends to show that where the 
 ultimatti destination is not to a hostile port, 
 a vessel would be free from liability, even if 
 conveying despatches which might otherwise 
 occasion its condemnation. 
 
 This is the case of the Trende Sostre* 
 where a vessel was carrying a cargo of 
 cordage and other things, and also despatches 
 from a Dutch minister of state to Governor 
 Jansen, at the Cape of Good Hope. Before 
 she reached the Cape, that settlement had 
 surrendered to the British, and thus lost its 
 character of hostility, and it would seem that 
 by that fact not only did the goods lose their 
 nature of contraband, but that the despatch 
 also no longer endangered the vessel's secu- 
 rity. For, in his judgment in the Atalanta 
 (a case relating to despatches), Sir William 
 Scott is reported as speaking thus : " In the 
 Trende Sostre, in which the same fact came 
 incidentally before this court, the question of 
 law was avoided, as was also that of contra- 
 band, by the circumstance, that, before the 
 seizure, the Cape of Good Hope, to which 
 port the vessel ivas goingy had ceased to be 
 
 * (i Kubinsoii, 390, ii. a. 
 
 i. 
 

 36 
 
 a colony of the enemy, and had hecome an 
 English settlement."* 
 
 Thus it would seem that the destination to 
 a subject, and hence probably to a neutral, 
 port, is in some cases an absolute protection 
 to a neutral ship, even in the case of des- 
 patches ; and the writer is not aware of any 
 case in which it has failed to destroy the 
 liability attendant on carrying them, except 
 when they had an ulterior destination beyond 
 the neutral territory. 
 
 If a real offence has been committed 
 against the rights of neutrals, as recognised 
 by existing International law, what conse- 
 quent steps should be taken by Great 
 Britain ? 
 
 That Law, associated as it is with the 
 security and mutual rights of States, is not 
 to be disregarded ; and it cannot be 
 maintained in respect, while contempt 
 is with impunity thrown upon its rules. 
 But the great weight of such considera- 
 tons, and of others connected with the 
 practical administration of government, is 
 likely to be felt especially by those with 
 whom the national decisions will rest. 
 
 * 6 Kobinsoii, 457. 
 
37 
 
 A sense of their importance is therefore 
 consistent with the desire to urge rather 
 some of those reasons which tend to for- 
 bearance and peace, and which are not less 
 real, or less entitled to regard, than the 
 others. 
 
 The occasions for enforcing International 
 Law will vary in their urgency, with the 
 clearness of the case, and with the wilfulness 
 of the oflfence. If no explicit orders 
 were at hand to guide the commander 
 as a naval officer, it may have seemed 
 to him less oflPensive to a neutral, to 
 seize the Commissioners alone, than to 
 take them and the neutral ship together. 
 Yet, had he taken the latter course and 
 brought the ship before an Admiralty court 
 for trial, the question of costs and damages 
 remaining to abide the event of the inquiry, 
 there would have boen no cause of national 
 quarrel, and the matter might have been well 
 despatched by such a tribunal. But if even 
 the conduct of the officer is not necessarily 
 to be thought a wilful outrage, still less is 
 this to bo charged on the Federal Govern- 
 ment, as there appears to be no proper 
 ground for imputing to it a participation in 
 the original offence. And if, without their 
 
 i 
 

 38 
 
 fault, they have been placed in their present 
 painful and difficult position, that fact itself 
 makes a strong appeal on their behalf for the 
 exercise of all possible forbearance and 
 conciliation. 
 
 The principles of international law itself 
 sanction and even require this, independently 
 of the particular fact just noticed. " War 
 is nat to be resorted to without absolute 
 necessity, nor unless peace would be more 
 dangerous, and more miserable than war 
 itself.*** And " as we approach these awful 
 confines, we must remember that it is the 
 bounden and most sacred duty of every state 
 to exhaust every legal means of redress, 
 before it has recourse to the dreadful necessity 
 of war."t And again " ev ery pacific mode of 
 redress is to be tried faithfully and persever- 
 ingly, before the nation resorts to arms."t 
 
 * Kent's Coram. Vol. L, p. 48. 
 " Sed quia bellum pacis causa suscipilur, . . ." 
 
 Grotius, de Jure Belli ac Tacis, T, 1 . 
 
 " The love of peace should equally prevent the beginning of 
 wviT without necessity, or continuing it when this necessity 
 ceases." Vattel, book 4, c. 1. 
 
 " If war is sometimes lawful, and even necessary, as we have 
 alreauy shewn, tliis is to Ik; understood when it is undertaken 
 only for just reasons, and on condition that he who undertakes 
 it, proposes by that means to obtain a solid and lasting peace." 
 Burlamaqui, Politic Law, part 4, c. 2 (Nugent's Translation). 
 
 t Phillimore's International Law, vol. 3, p. 2. 
 
 X I^nt, V, 49. 
 
39 
 
 Statesmen are entitled, and it is a part of 
 their duty, to consider not only the particular 
 occasion of a controversy, but its connection 
 with what preceded and what may follow. 
 Sometimes, when the rules of public Law may 
 allow a particular offence to be a just cause 
 of war, it may be unlikely that this would 
 prove an efficient method of redress. War, 
 if successful, may yet be unable to provide 
 so sure guarantees against the renewal ot an 
 offence, as might he procured by judicious 
 negociation. Or, apart from the particular 
 cause of quarrel, it may be thought, from the 
 circumstances of the world at the time, that, 
 if war was resorted to, further and quite 
 different complications would probably arise, 
 which, without it, might neverexist. And on a 
 statesmanlike view of the relative importance 
 of these considerations, the strict legal rights 
 of the offended state may be waived, or a less 
 satisfaction accepted. For national govern- 
 ments are not bound by the limitations which 
 restrict the discretion of Admiralty judges. 
 The rules of these courts mav be broken in 
 upon " by considerations of comity or of 
 policy, by which it may be fit that the admin- 
 istration of this species of law should be 
 tempered in the hands of those tribunals 
 
 
 ill; 
 
 i ;i 
 
40 
 
 which have a right to entertain and apply 
 them ; for no man can deny that a state 
 may recede from its extreme rights, and that 
 its supreme councils are authorised to deter- 
 mine in what cases it may be fit to do so/** 
 And considerations of humanity, affecting 
 other states, have a claim to be regarded, 
 as well as those which relate to the state 
 whose rights have been infringed. 
 
 International law has been, and should be, 
 progressive in its character, and it is in those 
 cases in which agovernment is free to exercise 
 its discretion, without violating the rights 
 of others, that the tone of international con- 
 troversies may most readily be softened and 
 improved. Where may it be more fairly 
 hoped that such opportunities will be used 
 for that purpose, than in a country so power- 
 ful as Great Britain, and so familiar with 
 the claims of men everywhere to just and 
 kindly treatment ? 
 
 Modern international law is " the law of 
 nations, as it is now acknowledged in Christ- 
 endom."J An appeal to the principles of 
 hristianity is therefore not out of place in 
 
 
 * Sir W. Scott. Tlie " Maria." 1 Robinson, 368. 
 X Sir James Mackintosh's Discourse on the Study of the Law 
 of Nature and Nations, p. 82. 
 
41 
 
 arguments on such a law. But the spirit 
 of Christianity is one of peace and goodwill, 
 and states, in proportion as they are influ- 
 enced by it, will reflect that spirit iu their 
 political conduct. Much has been said about 
 national honour as afibcting this case. But 
 its best title to esteem, is in its power to pro- 
 tect the peace of the world and to strengthen 
 the maintenance of justice and right. One 
 characteristic of great men is a freedom from 
 a readiness to take ofience. Should not this 
 also be characteristic of a great nation ? 
 
 The circumstances of the pending Ameri- 
 can contest furnish strong reasons for depre 
 eating war, and this on grounds of humanity 
 and consistency. The position of the Federal 
 Government calls for the candour and indul- 
 gence of foreign states. Involved at disad- 
 vantage in a costly and difficult war, it is 
 placed in a position which tasks, with peculiar 
 severity, the resources of a republican govern- 
 ment. On the other hand there has never, 
 perhaps, been a time when England could 
 better aff^ord to be forbearing, delivered as 
 she now is, by God's providence, from war 
 without and from internal discord, strong in 
 numbers and wealth and in a spirit of union 
 and grateful loyalty. Is it not becoming at 
 
 
 I 
 
 If 
 
 II 
 
 i 
 
42 
 
 such a time to relax something of that rigidity 
 of rule, which, at another, it might be fit to 
 maintain ? 
 
 But distinct from all this is the subject of 
 slavery. The motives and conduct of the 
 North in reference to it are not here in ques- 
 tion. Whatever these have been, it can 
 scarcely be doubted that the Southern con- 
 federates represent the cause of slavery, and 
 are devoted to its interests, to an extent which 
 has hardly had a parallel before. Their 
 triumph would be its triumph, and we cannot 
 now set limits to the ultimate results which 
 would follow. This is, indeed, no reason why 
 England should violate right principles with 
 a view to resist so great an evil : absolute 
 neutrality may be her duty. But looking 
 back on the toils and triumphs of her philan- 
 thropists in contending with slavery and the 
 slave trade, on her treasures liberally 
 expended in that cause, on the negociations 
 of her diplomatists and statesmen, with the 
 actual results produced by them, it would, 
 indeed, be melancholy, that she, of all 
 nations, should now intervene and, in the 
 very crisis when the upholders of slavery are 
 struggling on its behalf as well as their own, 
 should throw the weight of her counsels. 
 
43 
 
 influence, and arms into the scale ; and by the 
 effects, though not the purpose, of her action, 
 establish the ascendency and vigour, and 
 recruit the resources, of so pernicious a 
 system. Some real prej udice to our interests 
 — mu3h more some offence to national 
 susceptibility, not resulting in more practical 
 evils — would be wisely borne, if by that 
 means such a shock to our best traditions 
 could be escaped. And it would be a 
 memorable distinction for an English states- 
 man that he had been the means of delivering 
 his countrv at once from the evils of war, 
 and from the calamity of such an unblest 
 partizauship. 
 
 And here, lastly, that event may be men- 
 tioned, which though not directly connected 
 with this subject, has occupied the thoughts 
 of the nation at the same period, and has 
 turned them in a direction very unlike that 
 of anger and resentment. Is it unreasonable 
 to think that the memory of the Prince 
 Consort may reinforce the esteem for those 
 blessings of peace which his life contributed 
 to increase and improve ; as his sudden death 
 has for a time renewed the recollection that 
 human power and resources have no inde- 
 pendent control over events, but are 
 
 li^M 
 
 :!:lil 
 
44 
 
 subject to the absolute direction of Divine 
 Providence. If, remembering " that eternal 
 chain by which the Author of the universe 
 has bound together the happiness and tho 
 duty of his creatures," we make the discovery 
 of what is right our chief object, earthly 
 vicissitudes need not discourage us, for they 
 point to better sources of trust than even the 
 best political sagacity can furDish,