Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

friendly act.

It was an un- eign rights of independent nationality, they also maintain "that the rightfulness of such an act depends upon the occasion and the circumstances, and it is an act, like the sovereign act of war, which the morality of the public law and practice requires should be deliberate, seasonable, and just in reference to surrounding facts ;" and "they regard the concession of belligerency by Great Britain as a part of this case only so far as it shows the beginning and animus of that course of conduct which resulted so disastrously to the United States."2

And issued with an unfriendly purpose.

M. Rolin-Jacquemyns on

tion.

the

Viewed in this light, the United States, with deep and unfeigned regret, have been forced to conclude, from all the circumstances, that Her Majesty's Government was actuated at that time by a conscious unfriendly purpose toward the United States.

In the language of a continental publicist, "L'AnQueen's Proclama- gleterre a été bien pressée de faire usage de son droit strict pour constater solennellement que l'Union Américaine était ébranlée, et donner aux insurgés ce que le monde entier a considéré tout au moins comme un appui moral; * l'acte a été posé la veille du jour où le nouvel ambassadeur américain, M. Adams, devait débarquer à Londres,

*

1 Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, September 25, 1869. Vol. VI, page 4. 2 Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, May 15, 1869. Vol. VI, page 1.

et au moment où positivement les insurgés n'existaient pas comme puissance navale, où ils n'avaient de marine et de tribunaux de prise que sur le papier."

This precipitate and unfriendly act of Great Britain did not go forth alone. On the 6th of May, 1861, five days before the receipt of the authentic copy of the President's Proclamation, Lord John Russell instructed Lord Cowley, the British Ambassador at Paris, to ascertain whether the Imperial Government was disposed to make a joint endeavor with Her Majesty's Government "to obtain from each of the belligerents [observe that the insurgents were styled "belligerents" seven days in advance of the Queen's proclamation] a formal recognition of the second and third articles of the Declaration of Paris."

Lord Cowley, on the 9th of May, informed Lord John Russell that "the Imperial Government concurred entirely in the views of Her Majesty's Government, and would be prepared to join Her Majesty's Government in endeavoring to obtain of the belligerents a formal recognition of the second and third articles of the Declaration of Paris."

This proposition to open direct negotiations

1De la neutralité de la Grande-Bretagne pendant la guerrre civile américaine d'aprés M. Montague Bernard, par G. Rolin-Jacquemyns, page 11.

2 Vol. I, page 49.

Unfriendly con

duct of Great Brit

ain as to the decla

rations of the Con

gress of Paris.

Unfriendly

con- with the insurgents was the second step in the

duct of Great Brit

ain as to the decla

gress of Paris.

rations of the Con- joint action which had been agreed upon. For reasons which Her Majesty's Government is in a position to explain, but which can only be conjectured by the United States and by the Tribunal, care appears to have been taken to prevent the knowledge of it from reaching the Government of the United States.

On the receipt of the information from Lord Cowley, Lord John Russell prepared at once a draught of instructions to Lord Lyons, the British Minister at Washington, and, on the 16th of May, sent them to Lord Cowley to be submitted to the Emperor's Government.1

On the next day, Lord Cowley replied that he had seen M. Thouvenel, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and added: "M. Thouvenel had already written to M. Mercier [the French Minister at Washington] in the same terms as your Lordship proposes to address your instructions to Lord Lyons. I need hardly add that His Excellency concurs entirely in the draught.""

2

On the 18th of May, Lord John Russell hastened to send his instructions to Lord Lyons. He told him "to encourage the Government" of the United States "in any disposition which they might evince to recognize the Declaration of Paris in

[blocks in formation]

regard to privateering;" and he added that "Her

Unfriendly con

duct of Great Brit

ain as to the decla

rations of the Con

Majesty's Government do not doubt that they will, without hesitation, recognize the remaining arti- gress of Paris. cles of the declaration." He continued: "You will clearly understand that Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the renunciation of privateering on the part of the Government of the United States, if coupled with the condition that they should enforce its renunciation on the Confederate States, either by denying their right to issue letters of marque, or by interfering with the belligerent operations of vessels holding from them such letters of marque';" and he closed by instructing Lord Lyons to take such means as he might judge most expedient to transmit to Her Majesty's Consul at Charleston or New Orleans a copy of a previous dispatch of the same day, in order that it might be communicated to Mr. Jefferson Davis at Montgomery. Lord Lyons had no instructions to show to Mr. Seward the dispatch from which these citations have been made, and it evidently was contemplated that he should not exhibit it.

He was, however, to read to him the previous instructions of the same date referred to in that dispatch, and to leave a copy with him, if desired. These previous instructions, numbered 136, may be found on the 107th page of the first of the accom

Unfriendly con

duct of Great Brit

rations of the Congress of Paris.

panying volumes. It was not only to be shown to ain as to the decla- Mr. Seward, but a copy of it was to be shown to Mr. Jefferson Davis.' The attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is, in this connection, particularly invited to the fact that these instructions, numbered 136, contain nothing indicating a design on the part of the British Government to put itself in communication with the insurgent authorities, nothing to induce Mr. Seward to think that they were other than what, on their face, they purported to be, a communication from the Government of Great Britain to the Government of the United States, through the ordinary diplomatic channel.

The instructions to Lord Lyons

It is not improbable that the Arbitrators may be might have been of opinion that the use of the British Legation at

regarded as

a

cause of war. Washington for such a purpose was an act which the United States would have been justified in regarding as a cause of war. It was, to say the least, an abuse of diplomatic privilege, and a violation, in the person of Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of the duties of neutrality which Her Majesty's Government was about to impose upon her subjects.

Before relating what Lord Lyons did, under these instructions, it is necessary to pause in order that the Tribunal may be informed what Mr. Seward and Mr. Adams had been doing in the same 1 Vol. I, page 51.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »