Great Britain and the American Civil War Part 20

[Footnote 407: _Ibid._, pp. 53-4. Adams' Diary MS. Nov. 12, 1861.]

[Footnote 408: _Ibid._, p. 55.]

[Footnote 409: A full year later, after the publication of the American volume of despatches for the year 1862, Russell took up this matter with Adams and as a result of an interview wrote to Lyons, November 28, 1862:

"Lord Palmerston stated to Mr. Adams on the occasion in question that Her Majesty's Government could not permit any interference with any vessel, British or Foreign, within British waters; that with regard to vessels met with at sea, Her Majesty's Government did not mean to dispute the Belligerent right of the United States s.h.i.+ps of War to search them; but that the exercise of that right and the right of detention in certain conditions must in each case be dealt with according to the circ.u.mstances of the case, and that it was not necessary for him to discuss such matters then because they were not in point; but that it would not do for the United States s.h.i.+ps of War to hara.s.s British Commerce on the High Seas under the pretence of preventing the Confederates from receiving things that are Contraband of War.

"I took an opportunity of mentioning to Mr. Adams, the account which Lord Palmerston had given me of the language which he had thus held, and Mr. Adams agreed in its accuracy.

"Nothing must be said on this Subject unless the false statements as to Lord Palmerston's language should be renewed, when you will state the real facts to Mr. Seward." (F.O., Am., Vol. 822. No. 295. _Draft_.)

This resume by Russell contained still other variations from the original reports of both Palmerston and Adams, but the latter did not think it worth while to call attention to them.]

[Footnote 410: Walpole, _Russell_, II, p. 357, is evidently in error in stating that the law officers, while admitting the right of an American war vessel to carry the British Packet into an American port for adjudication, added, "she would have no right to remove Messrs. Mason and Slidell and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the s.h.i.+p to pursue her voyage." Certainly Palmerston did not so understand the advice given.]

[Footnote 411: Lyons Papers. Hammond to Lyons. F. O., Private. Nov. 16, 1861. This statement about explicit orders to Captain Marchand "not to endeavour, etc.," is in line with Palmerston's understanding of the conversation with Adams. But that there was carelessness in reporting Adams is evident from Hammond's own language for "no instructions to meddle," which Adams did state, is not the same thing as "instructions not to meddle." Adams had no intent to deceive, but was misunderstood.

He was himself very anxious over the presence of the _James Adger_ at Southampton, and hurried her Captain away. Adams informed Russell that Palmerston had not understood him correctly. He had told Palmerston, "I had seen the Captain's [Marchand's] instructions, which directed him to intercept the _Nashville_ if he could, and in case of inability to do so, to return at once to New York, keeping his eye on such British s.h.i.+ps as might be going to the United States with contraband of war. Lord Palmerston's recollections and mine differed mainly in this last particular. Lord Russell then remarked that this statement was exactly that which he had recollected my making to him. Nothing had been said in the instructions about other British s.h.i.+ps." (State Dept., Eng., Vol.

78. No. 80. Adams to Seward. Nov. 29. 1861.) Hammond's letter mentions also the excitement of "the Southerners" in England and that they had "sent out Pilot Boats to intercept and warn the Packet...."]

[Footnote 412: Lyons Papers. Lyons to Milne, Dec. 1, 1861.]

[Footnote 413: _Ibid._, Russell to Lyons, Nov. 16, 1861.]

[Footnote 414: Gladstone Papers. Argyll to Gladstone, Nov. 29, 1861.]

[Footnote 415: C.F. Adams, _The Trent Affair_. (_Proceedings_, Ma.s.s.

Hist. Soc., XLV, p. 58.)]

[Footnote 416: Moore, _Int. Law Digest_, VII, p. 772. The much argued international law points in the case of the _Trent_ are given _in extenso_ by Moore.]

[Footnote 417: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence respecting the _Trent_." No. 2.]

[Footnote 418: _Ibid._, No. 4.]

[Footnote 419: _Ibid._, No. 29. Inclosure.]

[Footnote 420: Troops were in fact s.h.i.+pped for Canada. This resulted, after the _Trent_ affair had blown over, in a circ.u.mstance which permitted Seward, with keen delight, to extend a courtesy to Great Britain. Bancroft (II, 245) states that these troops "finding the St.

Lawrence river full of ice, had entered Portland harbour. When permission was asked for them to cross Maine, Seward promptly ordered that all facilities should be granted for 'landing and transporting to Canada or elsewhere troops, stores, and munitions of war of every kind without exception or reservation.'" It is true that the American press made much of this, and in tones of derision. The facts, as reported by Lyons, were that the request was merely "a superfluous application from a private firm at Montreal for permission to land some Officers' Baggage at Portland." (Russell Papers, Lyons to Russell, Jan. 20, 1862.) Lyons was much vexed with this "trick" of Seward's. He wrote to the Governor-General of Canada and the Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, protesting against an acceptance of Seward's permission, and finally informed Russell that no English troops were marched across the State of Maine. (Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell, Feb. 14, 1862. Also Lyons Papers. Lyons to Monck, Feb. 1, 1862.)]

[Footnote 421: Martin, _Life of the Prince Consort_, V, pp. 418-26.]

[Footnote 422: Still another letter from Russell to Lyons on November 30, but not intended for Seward, outlined the points of complaint and argument, (1) The _San Jacinto_ did not happen to fall in with the _Trent_, but laid in wait for her. (2) "Unnecessary and dangerous Acts of violence" were used. (3) The _Trent_, when stopped was not "searched"

in the "ordinary way," but "certain Pa.s.sengers" were demanded and taken by force. (4) No charge was made that the _Trent_ was violating neutrality, and no authority for his act was offered by Captain Wilkes.

(5) No force ought to be used against an "_unresisting_ Neutral s.h.i.+p"

except just so much as is necessary to bring her before a prize court.

(6) In the present case the British vessel had done nothing, and intended nothing, warranting even an inquiry by a prize court. (7) "It is essential for British Interests, that consistently with the obligations of neutrality, and of observing any _legal_ and _effective_ blockade, there should be communication between the Dominions of Her Majesty and the Countries forming the Confederate States." These seven points were for Lyons' eye alone. They certainly add no strength to the British position and reflect the uncertainty and confusion of the Cabinet. The fifth and sixth points contain the essence of what, on more mature reflection, was to be the British argument. (F.O., Am., Vol. 758.

No. 447. Draft. Russell to Lyons Nov. 30, 1861).]

[Footnote 423: Russell Papers. Cowley to Russell, Dec. 2, 1861.]

[Footnote 424: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on Civil War in the United States." No. 78. Russell to Yancey, Rost and Mann, Aug. 24, 1861.]

[Footnote 425: _Ibid._, No. 124. Russell to Yancey, Rost and Mann, Dec.

7, 1861.]

[Footnote 426: Gladstone Papers. Gladstone to Robertson Gladstone, Dec.

7, 1861.]

[Footnote 427: _Ibid._, Argyll to Gladstone, Mentone. Dec. 10, 1861.]

[Footnote 428: Maxwell, _Clarendon_, II, p. 255. Lewis to Clarendon, Dec. 18, 1861.]

[Footnote 429: _Ibid._, p. 254. Clarendon to d.u.c.h.ess of Manchester, Dec.

17, 1861.]

[Footnote 430: Palmerston MS.]

[Footnote 431: _Ibid._, Russell to Palmerston, Dec. 20, 1861.]

[Footnote 432: Many citations from the _Times_ are given in Harris, _The Trent Affair_, to show a violent, not to say scurrilous, anti-Americanism. Unfortunately dates are not cited, and an examination of the files of the paper shows that Harris' references are frequently to communications, not to editorials. Also his citations give but one side of these communications even, for as many argued caution and fair treatment as expressed violence. Harris apparently did not consult the _Times_ itself, but used quotations appearing in American papers.

Naturally these would print, in the height of American anti-British feeling, the bits exhibiting a peevish and unjust British temper. The British press made exactly similar quotations from the American newspapers.]

[Footnote 433: C.F. Adams, _The Trent Affair (Proceedings_, Ma.s.s. Hist.

Soc. XLV, p. 43, note.) John Bigelow, at Paris, reported that the London Press, especially the Tory, was eager to make trouble, and that there were but two British papers of importance that did not join the hue and cry--these being controlled by friends of Bright, one in London and one in Manchester (Bigelow, _Retrospections of An Active Life_, I, p. 384.) This is not exactly true, but seems to me more nearly so than the picture presented by Rhodes (III, 526) of England as united in a "calm, sorrowful, astonished determination."]

[Footnote 434: Cowley sent to Russell on December 3, a letter from Percy Doyle recounting an interview with Scott in which these statements were made. (F.O., France, Vol. 1399. No. 1404. Inclosure.)]

[Footnote 435: Dec. 13, 1861. C.F. Adams, _The Trent Affair.

(Proceedings_, Ma.s.s. Hist. Soc., XLV, p. 95.)]

[Footnote 436: _Ibid._, p. 37.]

[Footnote 437: _Ibid._, p. 49. The _New York Times_, November 19, stated, "We do not believe the American heart ever thrilled with more genuine delight than it did yesterday, at the intelligence of the capture of Messrs. Slidell and Mason.... We have not the slightest idea that England will even remonstrate. On the contrary, she will applaud the gallant act of Lieut. Wilkes, so full of spirit and good sense, and such an exact imitation of the policy she has always stoutly defended and invariably pursued ... as for Commodore Wilkes and his command, let the handsome thing be done, consecrate another _Fourth_ of July to him.

Load him down with services of plate and swords of the cunningest and costliest art. Let us encourage the happy inspiration that achieved such a victory." Note the "_Fourth_ of July."]

[Footnote 438: Lyons Papers. Lousada to Lyons. Boston, Nov. 17, 1861.

"Every other man is walking about with a Law Book under his arm and proving the _right_ of the Ss. Jacintho to stop H.M.'s mail boat."]

[Footnote 439: "Mr. Galt, Canadian Minister, is here. He has frightened me by his account of the defencelessness of the Province at this moment." (Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell. Private. Dec. 3, 1861.)]

[Footnote 440: Lyons Papers. Lyons to Monck, Dec. 9, 1861.]

[Footnote 441: Rogers, _Speeches by John Bright_, I, p. 189 _seq_.]

[Footnote 442: Among the communications were several on international law points by "Historicus," answering and belittling American legal argument. W.V. Harcourt, under this pseudonym, frequently contributed very acute and very readable articles to the _Times_ on the American civil war. The _Times_ was berated by English friends of the North.

Cobden wrote Sumner, December 12, "The _Times_ and its yelping imitators are still doing their worst." (Morley, _Cobden_, II, 392.) Cobden was himself at one with the _Times_ in suspicion of Seward. "I confess I have not much opinion of Seward. He is a kind of American Thiers or Palmerston or Russell--and talks Bunk.u.m. Fortunately, my friend Mr.

Charles Sumner, who is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and has really a kind of veto on the acts of Seward, is a very peaceable and safe man." _(ibid._, p. 386, to Lieut.-Col.