sustained the course of the existing Government Proof of unfriendly feeling of British Cabinet. in the unfriendly acts and omissions which resulted members of the so disastrously to the United States. The United States complain before this Tribunal only of the acts and omissions of the British Government. They refer to the expressions and statements from unofficial sources as evidence of a state of public opinion, which would naturally encourage the members of that Government in the policy and acts of which the United States complain. It is not worth while to take up the time of the Tribunal of Arbitration, by an inquiry into the reasons for this early and long-continued unfriendliness of the British Government, toward a government which was supposed to be in sympathy with its political and moral ideas, and toward a kindred people with whom it had long maintained the attitude of friendship. They may have been partly political, as expressed in Parliament by an impetuous member, who spoke of the bursting of the bubble republic,' (for which he received a merited rebuke from Lord John Russell)2; or they may have been those declared without rebuke at a later date in the House of Commons by the present Marquis of Salisbury, then Lord Robert Cecil, when he said3 that "they [the people of the South Hansard, 3d series, Vol. 163, page 134. *Same, page 276. 3 Vol. V, page 671. friendly feeling of members of the British Cabinet. Proof of un- ern States] were the natural allies of this country, as great producers of the articles we needed and great consumers of the articles we supplied. The North, on the other hand, kept an opposition-shop in the same departments of trade as ourselves;" or they may have been those announced by Earl Russell last year, when saying, "It was the great object of the British Government to preserve for the subject the security of trial by jury, and for the nation the legitimate and lucrative trade of ship-building." Conclusions. 1 Without pursuing an inquiry in this direction, which, at the best, would be profitless, the United States invite the careful attention of the Arbitrators to the facts which appear in the previous pages of this Case. In approaching the consideration of the third branch of the subjects herein discussed, in which the United States will endeavor to show that Great Britain failed in her duties toward the United States-as those duties will be defined in the second branch thereof-the Tribunal of Arbitration will find in these facts circumstances which could not but influence the minds of the members of Her Majesty's Government, and induce them to look with disfavor upon efforts to repress the attempts of British subjects, and of 1 Earl Russell's Speeches and Dispatches, Vol. II, page 266. other persons, to violate the neutrality of British soil and waters in favor of the rebels. Some of the members of the British Government of that day seem to have anticipated the conclusion which must inevitably be drawn from their acts, should the injuries and wrongs which the United States have suffered ever be brought to the adjudication of an impartial tribunal. Lord Westbury, (appointed Lord High Chancellor on the death of Lord Campbell, in June, 1861,) declared, in the House of Lords, in 1868, that "the animus with which the neutral Powers acted was the only true criterion. The neutral Power might be mistaken; it might omit to do something which ought to be done, or direct something to be done which ought not to be done; but the question was whether, from beginning to end, it had acted with sincerity and with a real desire to promote and preserve a spirit of neutrality. He [Mr. Seward] said, in effect, 營 'Whether you were a sincere and loyal neutral was the question in dispute, and that must be judged from a view of the whole of your conduct. I do not mean to put it merely upon the particular transaction relative to the Alabama. I insist upon it in that case undoubtedly; but I contend that, from beginning to end, you had an undue preference and predilection for the Confederate States; Conclusions. Conclusions. that you were therefore not loyal in your neutrality; and I appeal to the precipitancy with which you issued your Proclamation, thereby involving a recognition of the Confederate States as a belligerent power, as a proof of your insincerity and want of impartial attention.' And now, could we prevent him from using that document for such a purpose? How unreasonable it was to say, when you go into arbitration, you shall not use a particular document, even as an argument upon the question whether there was sincere neutrality or not." "1 Such is the use which the United States ask this Tribunal to make of the foregoing evidence of the unfriendliness and insincere neutrality of the British Cabinet of that day. When the leading members of that Cabinet are thus found counselling in advance with France to secure a joint action of the two governments, and assenting to the declaration of a state of war between the United States and the insurgents, before they could possibly have received intelligence of the purposes of the Government of the United States; when it is seen that the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs advises the representatives of the insurgents as to the course to be 1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, Vol. CXCI, pages 347-348. pursued to obtain the recognition of their inde- Conclusions. 1 |