ance rendered to them by citizens of the United States, will clearly appear by reference to the fourth article of the project of a treaty proposed by Lord Grenville to Mr. Jay, on the 30th of August, 1794. The words are these:

"And it is further agreed, that if it shall appear that, in the course of the war, loss and damage has been sustained by his Majesty's subjects by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise, such capture having been made either within the limits of the jurisdiction of the said States, or by vessels armed in the ports of the said States, or by vessels commanded or owned by the citizens of the said States, the United States will make full satisfaction for such loss or damage, the same being to be ascertained by commissioners in the manner already mentioned in this article."

If, by the preceding representation, I have succeeded in making myself clearly understood by your lordship, then will it, I flatter myself, be made to appear that in both these cases, that in 1794 as well as that in 1862, the claim made rests on one and the same basis, to wit, the reparation by a neutral nation of a wrong done to another nation with which it is at peace, by reason of a neglect to prevent the cause of it originating among its own citizens in its own ports.

The high character of Lord Grenville is a sufficient guarantee to all posterity that he never could have presented a proposition like that already quoted, except under a full conviction that it was founded on the best recognized principles of international law. Indeed, it is most apparent, in the face of the preamble, that even the statute law of both nations on this subject is but an attempt to give extraordinary efficacy to the performance of mutual obligations between states which rest on a higher and more durable basis of justice and of right. It was on this ground, and on this alone, that Lord Grenville obtained the concessions then made of compensation for damage done to her commerce on the high seas by belligerent cruisers fitted out in the ports of the United States. I shall never permit myself to believe that her Majesty's government will be the more disposed to question the validity of the principle thus formally laid down, merely from the fact that in some cases it may happen to operate against itself. This consideration naturally brings me back to the examination of that portion of your lordship's note which relates to the alleged violations in Great Britain of her Majesty's proclamation by the respective parties engaged in this war. Although this subject be not absolutely connected with that on which I made my representation, I cheerfully seize the opportunity thus furnished me to attempt, in some degree, to rectify your lordship's impressions of the action of the government of the United States even on that question. Your lordship does me the honor to observe that I cannot be ignorant of the fact, which it is impossible to deny, "that, in defiance of the Queen's proclamation, many subjects of her Majesty owing allegiance to her crown have enlisted in the armies of the United States." "Her Majesty's government, therefore, have just ground for complaint against both the belligerent parties, but most especially against the government of the United States, for having, systematically and in disregard of that comity of nations which it was their duty to observe, induced subjects of her Majesty to violate those orders which, in conformity with her neutral position, she has enjoined all her subjects to obey."

As these words, taken in their connexion, might seem to imply a serious charge against myself as well as the government of the United States, I must pray your lordship's pardon if I desire to know whether there be any particulars in my own conduct in which your lordship has found the evidence for such a statement. So far as I have been made acquainted with the course of my own government, or I remember my own, I must most respectfully take issue with your lordship upon it, and challenge you to the proof. That very many of the subjects of Great Britain voluntarily applied to me for engagements in the service of the United States is most true. That I ever induced one of them to violate her Majesty's orders, either directly or indirectly, is not true. That numbers

of her Majesty's subjects have voluntarily crossed the ocean and taken service under the flag of the United States I have reason to believe. That the government of the United States systematically and in disregard of the comity of nations induced them to come over to enlist I have not yet seen a particle of evidence to show, and I must add, praying your lordship's pardon, I am authorized explicitly to deny. In response to a remonstrance, made to me by your lordship, it is but a few days since I took occasion, so far as my action was concerned or the action of any of the officers of the United States in this kingdom, to place the country right before you on that score. After the very explicit retraction made in your lordship's reply to me, dated on the 16th instant, it is not without great surprise that I now perceive what I cannot but regard as a renewal of the imputation.

Your lordship is pleased carefully to join the two parties to this war, as if, in your estimation, equally implicated in the irregular proceedings conducted. within this kingdom, and equally implicating the subjects of Great Britain in the violation of her Majesty's proclamation. Hence it is argued that the omission to hold any one to his responsibility affords no more just ground of complaint to one party than to the other. I cannot but think that your lordship has overlooked a just distinction to be observed in these cases; and in order to show it the more clearly I shall be compelled to ask your lordship to follow me in a brief investigation of the facts.

The only allegation which I find in your lordship's note in connexion with the United States is this, that "vast supplies of arms and warlike stores have been purchased in this country, and have been shipped from British ports to New York for the use of the United States government."

Admitting this statement to be true to its full extent; conceding even the propriety of the application of the term "vast" to any purchases that may have been made for the United States, the whole of it amounts to this, and no more, that arms and warlike stores have been purchased of British subjects by the agents of the government of the United States. It nowhere appears that the action of the British went further than simply to sell their goods for cash. There has been no attempt whatever to embark in a single undertaking for the assistance of the United States in the war they are carrying on; no ships of any kind have been constructed or equipped by her Majesty's subjects for the purpose of sustaining their cause, either by lawful or unlawful means, nor a shilling of money, so far as I know, expended with the intent to turn the scale in their favor. Whatever transactions may have taken place have been carried on in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale without regard to any other consideration than the mere profits of trade.

If such be then the extent of the agency of the United States on this side of the Atlantic during the present war, and no more, it appears clear, from the positions assumed by your lordship in the very note to which I have the honor to reply, that thus far they have given no reasonable ground for complaint at all. The citations to which your lordship has done me the favor to call my attention, as drawn from American authors of admitted eminence, all contribute to establish the fact that the mere purchase or export by a belligerent from a neutral of arms and munitions of war does not involve any censure on either party. I do not at the present moment entertain a design to question the correctness of that doctrine. As a necessary consequence, I can scarcely perceive the fitness of associating such action as I have shown that of the United States to be in the same category with that of which the government of the United States has heretofore instructed me to complain. And here I beg to call your lordship's attention to the fact that it is not the mere purchase or exportation of arms and warlike stores by the agents of the insurgents in America of which I have ever complained. There is another and a very important element in the case, to which your lordship does not appear to have given the consideration which, so

far as one may be permitted to judge from the concurring testimony of all writers of international law, it certainly deserves. The United States have made an actual blockade of all the ports occupied by the insurgents, a blockade the validity of which Great Britain does not dispute. They are therefore entitled to consider every neutral who shall attempt to enter one of them or carry anything to the besieged as violating his neutrality and converting himself into an enemy. Hence it happens that every British subject engaged in the work of aiding the insurgents by introducing contraband of war into blockaded ports not only violates his duty to his sovereign, but commits an exceedingly aggravated and injurious offence to the government of the United States. To associate such proceedings with the mere purchase and export of arms on behalf of the United States as of equal significance would seem to be most inequitable.

It is a fact that few persons in England will now be bold enough to deny, first, that vessels have been built in British ports, as well as manned by her Majesty's subjects, with the design and intent to carry on war against the United States; secondly, that other vessels owned by British subjects have been, and are yet, in the constant practice of departing from British ports laden with contraband of war, and many other commodities, with the intent to break the blockade and to procrastinate the war; thirdly, that such vessels have been, and are, insured by British merchants in the commercial towns of this kingdom with the understanding that they are despatched for that illegal purpose. believed to be beyond denial that British subjects have been, and continue to be, enlisted in this kingdom in the service of the insurgents, with the intent to make war on the United States, or to break the blockade legitimately estab lished, and, to a proportionate extent, to annul its purpose. It is believed that persons high in social position and in fortune contribute their aid, directly and indirectly, in building and equipping ships-of-war, as well as other vessels, and furnishing money as well as goods, with the hope of sustaining the insurgents in their resistance to the government. To that end the port of Nassau, a colonial dependency of Great Britain, has been made, and still continues to be, the great entrepôt for the storing of supplies, which are conveyed from thence with the greater facility in evading the blockade. In short, so far as the acts of these numerous and influential parties can involve them, the British people may be considered as actually carrying on war against the United States. Already British property valued at eight millions of pounds sterling is reported to have been captured by the vessels of the United States for attempts to violate the blockade, and property of far greater value has either been successfully introduced or is now stored at Nassau awaiting favorable opportunities.

If it be necessary to furnish to your lordship a clearer idea of the nature and extent of this warfare, it may perhaps be obtained by reference to the two papers, marked A and B, which I have the honor to append to the present note. The one contains a list of all screw steamers and sailing vessels which have been, or still are, engaged in this illegal commerce, furnished to me from observation by the consul of the United States at Liverpool. The other is a copy of a letter from the consul in London, giving a further list of vessels, together with some particulars as to the mode by which, and the persons by whom, this hostile system is carried on. Neither of these lists can be regarded as complete, but the two are sufficiently so for the present purpose, which is to place beyond contradiction the fact of the extensive and systematic prosecution by British subjects of a policy towards the United States, which is uniformly characterized by writers on international law as that of an enemy.

I am not unaware of the regret expressed in your lordship's note at the existence of this state of things, as well as of the readiness with which you have acquiesced in the possible application, by the forces of the United States, of the penalty held over the heads of the offenders in her Majesty's proclamation. But my present object in referring so much at large to these offences is to show the

great injustice of your lordship in proceeding to comment upon the action of the respective belligerents as if there was a semblance of similarity between them. So far as the United States are shown to be involved in censure, it is simply by the purchase and export of arms and munitions of war from a neutral, an act which your lordship expressly points out eminent authority to my attention to prove implies no censurable act on either party. Whilst, on the other hand, it is American insurgents who find British allies to build in this kingdom, and to equip and send forth, war ships to depredate on the commerce of a friendly nation, and it is British subjects who load multitudes of British vessels with contraband of war, as well as all other supplies, with the intent and aim to render null and void, so far as they can, a blockade legitimately made by a friendly nation, as well as to procrastinate and make successful a resistance in a war in which that nation is actually engaged. Surely this is a difference not unworthy of your lordship's deliberate observation.

But your lordship, in accounting for the admitted failure to enforce the enlistment law in Great Britain, has done me the honor to remind me that not long since her Majesty's government was itself so far made sensible of injuries of the same kind with those of which I now complain either inflicted or threatened against Great Britain in the ports of the United States as to have made them the subject of remonstrance through her Majesty's representative at Washington. With so fresh a sense of these evils before your lordship there will be no further cause of surprise at the earnestness with which I have followed the precedent then set. You do me the honor to recall the fact that the enlistment law of the United States, which preceded in its date of enactment that of Great Britain, is almost identical with it. And you further state that "the notorious evasion of its provisions during the late war waged by Great Britain and her allies against Russia" was the cause of the remonstrance to which I have already alluded. Your lordship further remarks that "Great Britain was then, as on other occasions, assured that every effort which the law would permit had been made to prevent such practices; that the United States government could only proceed upon legal evidence, the law as to which is almost, if not entirely, the same as in this country, and that without such evidence no conviction could be procured."

In an earlier portion of your lordship's note you did me the favor to cite, as good authority, to me an extract of the message of the President of the United States of the 31st December, 1855, which went to show the extent to which assistance not only had been, but might be, rendered without censure by neutrals to belligerents. Perhaps your lordship will not deny equal weight to the very next passage in that message, even though it should somewhat conflict with your own allegation.

"Whatever concern may have been felt by either of the belligerent powers, lest private armed cruisers or other vessels in the service of one might be fitted out in the ports of this country to depredate on the property of the other, all such fears have proved to be utterly groundless. Our citizens have been withheld from any such act or purpose by good faith and by respect for the law.”

I forbear from quoting the text which follows, because it may revive unpleasant recollections in your lordship's as it does in my mind. I will content myself solely with the remark that the very last thing which your lordship would be likely to object to, the facts there stated would be the want of ability of the government of the United States to proceed with energy and effect in the repression of acts in violation of their enlistment act.

But, if evidences of another kind as to its energy under that law be needed, I have only to remind your lordship once more of the fact that on the 11th of October, 1855, her Majesty's representative at Washington, Mr. Crampton, addressed to the government of the United States a note, with evidence to show that a vessel called the Maury was then fitting out at the port of New York,

armed to depredate on British vessels. On the 12th the Attorney General sent, by telegraph, to the proper officer at New York to consult with the British consul, and to prosecute, if cause appear. On the 13th the collector stopped the vessel, then about to sail. On the 16th the district attorney had prepared and filed a libel of the vessel, and in the mean time ordered a thorough examination of her cargo. On the 19th the marshal had made a full report of his examination. On the same day the complainant, on whose evidence the minister and the consul had acted, confessed himself satisfied, and requested the libel to be lifted. On the 23d Mr. Barclay, her Majesty's consul at New York, published a note withdrawing every imputation made against the vessel. Thus it appears that in the brief space of four days the government's action under the enlistment law had been sufficiently energetic completely to satisfy the requisition of her Majesty's representative.

If any similar action has been had since the first day that I had the honor to call your lordship's attention to outfits of the same nature made in Great Britain, I can only say that I have not enjoyed a corresponding opportunity to express my satisfaction with the result.

The owners of the Maury were never compensated for the trouble and expense to which they were put by this process. But the Chamber of Commerce of New York adopted a series of resolutions, two of which may serve as a sufficient comment on the remark which your lordship has been pleased to let fall touching the "notorious evasion" of the enlistment law in America at the time alluded to:

66

Resolved, That no proper amends or apology have been made to A. A. Low & Brothers for the charge brought against them, which, if true, would have rendered them infamous; nor to the merchants of this city and country so falsely and injuriously asserted.

"Resolved, That the merchants of New York, as part of the body of merchants of the United States, will uphold the government in the full maintenance of the neutrality laws of the country; and we acknowledge and adopt, and always have regarded the acts of the United States for preserving its neutrality as binding in honor and conscience as well as in law; and that we denounce those who violate them as disturbers of the peace of the world, to be held in universal abhorrence."

I pray your lordship to give one moment's attention to the manner in which the conduct imputed to Messrs. Low is stigmatized. I am sorry to confess that I have not seen the like indignation shown in this kingdom against similar charges made against distinguished parties in Liverpool, nor yet can I perceive it so forcibly expressed as I had hoped even in the tone of your lordship's note. I beg to assure your lordship that it gives me no pleasure to review the recollections of the events of that period. But inasmuch as they had been voluntarily introduced in the note which I had the honor to receive, and they seemed to me necessarily to imply an unmerited charge against the policy of the United States, I felt myself imperatively called upon to show that at least in one instance in which her Majesty's government made a complaint, there was no failure either in the manner of construing the powers vested in the government of the United States, or in their promptness of action under their enlistment law.

I pray your lordship to accept the assurance of the distinguished consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Right Honorable EARL RUSSELL, &c., &c., &c.