Contrast between the decisions of Sir William Scott,' with its course conduct of Great Britain toward the concerning the open, undisguised, oft-repeated, United States, in the Trent affair, and toward viola flagrant, and indefensible violations of British sov tors of British insurgent interest. neutrality, in the ereignty by the agents of the insurgents in Liverpool, in Glasgow, in London, in Nassau, in Bermuda, it may almost be said wherever the British flag could give them shelter and protection. When the information as to the Florida was conveyed to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he interposed no objection to her sailing from Liverpool. When the overwhelming The Atlanta, 6. Charles Robinson's Reports, page 440. On the receipt of the news in London, the Times of November 28, 1861, published a leading article which contained some statements worthy of note. Among other things it said: "Unwelcome as the truth may be, it is nevertheless a truth, that we have ourselves established a system of International Law which now tells against us. In high-handed and almost despotic manner we have, in former days, claimed privileges over neutrals which have at different times banded all the maritime powers of the world against us. We have insisted even upon stopping the ships of war of neutral nations, and taking British subjects out of them; and an instance is given by Jefferson in his Memoirs in which two nephews of Washington were impressed by our cruisers as they were returning from Europe, and placed as common seamen under the discipline of ships of war. We have always been the strenuous asserters of the rights of belligerents over neutrals, and the decisions of our courts of law, as they must now be cited by our law officers, have been in confirmation of these unreasonable claims, which have called into being confederations and armed neutralities against us, and which have always been modified in practice when we were not supreme in our dominion at sea. Owing to these facts the authorities which may be cited on this question are too numerous and too uniform as to the right of search by belligerent ships of war over neutral merchant vessels to be disputed. * * * "It is, and it always has been, vain to appeal to old folios and bygone authorities in justification of acts which every Englishman and every Frenchman cannot but feel to be injurious and insulting." See also the case of Henry Laurens, Dip. Cor. of Revolution, Vol. I, page 708, et seq. 4 proof of the complicity of the Alabama was laid before him, he delayed to act until it was too late, Contrast between conduct of Great Britain toward the United States, in the Trent affair, tors of British insurgent interest. and then, by his neglect to take notice of the no- and toward viola- Mr. Dudley to Mr. Seward, Vol. II, page 315. Contrast between evidence of those facts worthy of his attention, or conduct of Great Britain toward the of the action of Her Majesty's Government.1 United States, in the Trent affair, and toward violators of British insurgent interest. It is not surprising that the consistent course of neutrality, in the partiality towards the insurgents, which this Minister evinced throughout the struggle, should have drawn from Mr. Adams the despairing assertion that he was "permitting himself to be deluded by what I cannot help thinking the willful blindness and credulous partiality of the British authorities at Liverpool. From experience in the past I have little or no confidence in any application that may be made of the kind." The probable explanation of Lord Russell's course is to be found in his own declaration in the House of Lords: "There may be one end of the war that would prove a calamity to the United States and to the world, and especially calamitous to the negro race in those countries, and that would be the subjugation of the South by the North." He did not desire that the United States should succeed in their efforts to obtain that result. The policy of Great Britain, under his guidance, but for the exertions and sacrifices of the people of the United States, might have pre M. Rolin-Jacquemyns on the British neutrality. vented it. The insincere neutrality which induced the Cabinet of London to hasten to issue the Queen's Proclamation upon the eve of the day that Mr. 1 Vol. I, page 578. 2 Vol. I, page 529. 3 Vol. IV, page 535. Adams was to arrive in London, and which prompted the counselings with France, and the tortuous courses as to the Declaration of the Congress of Paris which have just been unraveled, has been well described by Mr. Rolin-Jacquemyns: “L'idéal du personage neutrarum partium, c'est le juge qui, dans l'apologue de l'huitre et les plaideurs, avale le contenu du mollusque, et adjuge les écailles aux deux belligérents. Il n'est d'aucun parti, mais il s'engraisse scrupuleusement aux dépens de tous deux. Une telle conduite de la part d'un grand peuple peut être aussi conforme aux précédents que celle du vénérable magistrat dont parle le fable. Mais quand elle se fonde sur une loi positive, sur une règle admise, c'est une preuve que cette règle est mauvaise, comme contraire à la science, à la dignité et à la solidarité humaine." This feeling of personal unfriendliness towards the United States in the leading members of the British Government continued during a long portion or the whole of the time of the commission or omission of acts hereinafter complained of. Thus, on the 14th day of October, in the year 1861, Earl Russell said, in a public speech made at Newcastle: "We now see the two parties (in the 1 De la neutralité de la Grande-Bretagne pendant la guerre civile américaine, d'aprés M. Montague Bernard, par. G. Rolin-Jacquemyns, page 13. * London Times, October 16, 1861. M. Rolin-Jacque myns on the Brit ish neutrality. friendly feeling of members of the Proof of un British Cabinet. Proof of un- United States) contending together, not upon the friendly feeling of members of the question of slavery, though that I believe was probably the original cause of the quarrel, not con- * * * * * |