of the blockade. The coast was very extensive, stretching along the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico a great way. Was it the design of the United States to institute an effective blockade in its whole extent, or to make only a declaration to that effect as to the whole, and to confine the actual blockade to particular points? Considering the uniform doctrine of the government refusing to recognize the validity of mere paper blockades, he could hardly suppose they designed the latter. To this I replied that I knew nothing directly of the President's intentions on this subject; but that inasmuch as the government had always protested against mere paper blockades, I could not suppose that it was now disposed to change its doctrine. On the contrary, I had every reason for affirming that it was the intention to make an effective blockade; and this was more practicable than at first sight might appear from the fact that there were few harbors along the coast, however great its extent, and these were not very easy of access. might not be perfect, it would be sufficiently so to come within the legiti I thought, therefore, that even though the blockade mate construction of the term. His lordship then alluded to the other point, which was, that the procla mation assigned no precise date for the commencement of the blockade, which he believed was necessary; but he presumed that that defect might be remedied at any time. To which I added that I did not doubt any such omission of form would be supplied as soon as it was pointed out. His lordship then made some remarks upon the adoption of the tariff; to which I replied that, in my belief, that law was mainly passed as a revenue measure, with incidental protection; that it was not in any way aimed in a hostile spirit to foreign nations; and that the people of the United States would always buy from Great Britain as much as they could pay for, and generally a good deal more. This last remark raised a smile; and thus ended his lordship's series of inquiries. Having thus disposed of these secondary questions, I returned once more to the charge, and asked him what answer I should return to the inquiry which I had been directed to make. In order to avoid 'any ambiguity, I took out of my pocket your despatch No. 4, and read to him the paragraph recapitulating the substance of Mr. Dallas's report of his interview, and the very last paragraph. I said that it was important to me that I should not make any mistake in reporting this part of the conversation; therefore I should beg him to furnish me with the precise language. did not himself know what he was to say. He said that he give any pledge of an absolute nature that his government would not at If it was expected of him to any future time, no matter what the circumstances might be, recognize an existing State in America, it was more than he could promise. If I wished an exact reply, my better way would be to address him the inquiry in writing. I said that I was well aware of that, but I had hoped that I might be saved the necessity of doing so. that by offering to transmit to Lord Lyons directions to give such a reply to On reflection, he proposed to avoid the President as, in his own opinion, might be satisfactory. To this arrangement I gave my assent, though not without some doubt whether I was doing right. In truth, if I were persuaded that her Majesty's government were really animated by a desire to favor the rebellion, I should demand a categorical answer; but thus far I see rather division of opinion, consequent upon the pressure of the commercial classes. Hence I preferred to give the short time demanded, as well as to place in the hands of the President himself the power to decide upon the sufficiency of the reply. * * * * * * * * * It may be as well to state that, both in matter and manner, the conference, which has been reported as fully and as accurately as my memory would permit, was conducted in the most friendly spirit. I have likewise to acknowledge the reception of a printed circular addressed to my predecessor, Mr. Dallas, and dated the 27th of April, 1861, transmitting the proclamation of the President declaring the blockade of the ports of Virginia and North Carolina. In this connexion it may be as well to call your attention to the manner in which these measures are viewed here, so far as it may be gathered from what is casually dropped by members of Parliament as well as what is published in the newspapers. A leading article in the Times newspaper of this morning is especially deserving of attention. It would seem from this that a scheme to overturn the old and recognized British law of blockade, through the means of a joint declaration of the European powers, somewhat after the fashion of the armed neutrality of the last century, is among the things now floating in the minds of people here. Great Britain, so long known and feared as the tyrant of the ocean, is now to transform herself into a champion of neutral rights and the freedom of navigation, even into the ports of all the world, with or without regard to the interests of the nations to whom they may belong. * * * I beg to call your attention to the language used by Lord John Russell and by Mr. Gladstone in the debate in the House of Commons last evening, in relation to a passing remark of Sir John Ramsden upon American affairs on the preceding Monday. They indicate what I believe to be true, that the feeling toward the United States is improving in the higher circles here. It was never otherwise than favorable among the people at large. I was myself present and heard Sir John Ramsden on Monday night. His remark was partially cheered by the opposition, who were ready to receive anything favorably from a new convert; but I have reason to believe that it met with decided condemnation from a large majority of the members. The proof of this was established last night in the manner in which the castigation of Mr. Gladstone, which I also witnessed, was listened to and approved. Sir John seems to have gained no laurels in this conflict. The ministry sustained themselves in the division last night, which is, I presume, the decisive test for the year. I believe this may be regarded as a favorable result to the United States. I shall reserve some general observations on the subject for a separate despatch in the early part of next week. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, SIR: Your despatch of May 17 (No. 1) has been received. Your speech at Liverpool was equally prudent and happy. Your prompt. ness in passing through the town to the seat of government, although to be regretted in some respects, is, in view of the circumstances, approved. Every instruction you have received from this department is full of evidence of the fact that the principal danger in the present insurrection which the President has apprehended was that of foreign intervention, aid, or sympathy; and especially of such intervention, aid, or sympathy on the part of the government of Great Britain. The justice of this apprehension has been vindicated by the following facts, namely: 1. A guarded reserve on the part of the British secretary of state, when Mr. Dallas presented to him our protest against the recognition of the insurgents, which seemed to imply that, in some conditions, not explained to us, such a recognition might be made. 2. The contracting of an engagement by the government of Great Britain with that of France, without consulting us, to the effect that both governments should adopt one and the same course of procedure in regard to the insurrection. 3. Lord John Russell's announcement to Mr. Dallas that he was not unwilling to receive the so-called commissioners of the insurgents unoffi cially 4. The issue of the Queen's proclamation, remarkable, first, for the circumstances under which it was made, namely, on the very day of your arrival in London, which had been anticipated so far as to provide for your reception by the British secretary, but without affording you the interview promised before any decisive action should be adopted; secondly, the tenor of the proclamation itself, which seems to recognize, in a vague manner, indeed, but does seem to recognize, the insurgents as a belligerent national power. That proclamation, unmodified and unexplained, would leave us no alternative but to regard the government of Great Britain as questioning our free exercise of all the rights of self-defence guaranteed to us by our Constitution and the laws of nature and of nations to suppress the insurrection. I should have proceeded at once to direct you to communicate to the British government the definitive views of the President on the grave subject, if there were not especial reasons for some little delay. These reasons are, first, Mr. Thouvenel has informed our representative at Paris that the two governments of Great Britain and France were preparing, and would, without delay, address communications to this government concerning the attitude to be assumed by them in regard to the insurrection. Their communications are hourly expected. Second. You have already asked, and, it is presumed, will have obtained, an interview with the British secretary, and will have been able to present Ex. Doc. 1-7 the general views of this government, and to learn definitely the purposes of Great Britain in the matter, after it shall have learned how unsatisfactory the action of the British government hitherto has been to the government of the United States. The President is solicitous to show his high appreciation of every demonstration of consideration for the United States which the British government feels itself at liberty to make. He instructs me, therefore, to say that the prompt and cordial manner in which you were received, under peculiar circumstances arising out of domestic afflictions which had befallen her Majesty and the secretary of state for foreign affairs, is very gratifying to this government. A year ago the differences which had partially estranged the British and the American people from each other seemed to have been removed forever. It is painful to reflect that that ancient alienation has risen up again under circumstances which portend great social evils, if not disaster, to both countries. Referring you to previous instructions, and reserving further directions until we shall have your own report of the attitude of the British government as defined by itself for our consideration, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. No. 5.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. [Extract.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your several despatches, No. 7, of the 11th of May, with copies of the correspondence relating to the slave trade and to San Domingo; No. 8, of the 20th, enclosing the commission of Neil McLachlan, esq., as consul at Leith; and No. 9, of the 21st, enclosing the commission of Edward Leavenworth, esq., as consul at Sydney, New South Wales. These commissions have been duly transmitted to her Majesty's secretary for foreign affairs, with the customary request for recognition. The earlier papers have been carefully read, and will be made the subject of consideration at the next conference, which I purpose to ask of his lordship at an early day. I think I can report with confidence a considerable amelioration of sentiment here towards the government of the United States. This may be partly ascribed to the impression made by the news received of vigorous and effective measures in America, and partly to a sense that the preceding action of her Majesty's ministers has been construed to mean more than they intended by it. It cannot be denied that it had opened a most grave question touching the use that might be made of all the ports of Great Britain as a shelter for captures by privateers purporting to be authorized by the rebellious States. After a careful examination of the subject, I had come to the conclusion that, without some further positive action, the preceding practice in this country would authorize the retention of such captures until condemned as prizes in some admiralty court set up by the insurgents at home and the sale of them afterwards. The effect of this, in giving them encouragement, can scarcely be estimated. It would at once enlist in their behalf most of the daring and desperate adventurers of every nation, whose sole object is plunder, and would initiate a struggle between a community of planters, who have nothing to lose on the ocean, and a commercial nation which whitens every sea with the sails of a peaceful navigation. That so serious a consequence as this was ever intended to flow from the precipitate act of the government here I did not believe. Hence it was with great satisfaction that I learned, on Monday, that the question would be proposed on that day by Mr. Forster in the House of Commons, which you will have seen before this in the record of the proceedings of that body, and that it would be fully answered by Lord John Russell on behalf of her Majesty's ministers. This answer, as since made, may be regarded as satisfactory, so far as it closes the door to one bad effect of the proclamation; but it does not remove the main difficulty of putting the legitimate and the spurious authority in the same category. Although in practice the operation is favorable to the former, in theory the admission of equality is equally vicious. The only consolation is to be found in the evident desire betrayed by the government here to avoid in any way a collision with the United States or any direct encouragement of the insurgents. This is the day assigned for the consideration of the motion of Mr. Gregory, the member for Galway. I understand that he means to enter largely into the question of recognition of the confederates, and that he will probably be answered as fully. It is stated to me that the ministry are willing to have the discussion go on. For obvious reasons I do not think it advisable to attend the debate myself; but I shall take measures to obtain the best information of the actual state of feeling in the House from personal observation, and to transmit my own conclusions in the next despatch. Unfortunately it will be necessary to close the present one before evening, in order to be in time for the steamer. SIR: I enclose a copy of a note of this date addressed to Lord Lyons, which will dispel any uncertainty which the British government may entertain in regard to our recognition of a rule of international law which they may deem important. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 8, 1861. MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 5th instant, with the accompanying papers, relative to a claim in the case of the cargo of the bark Winifred, a part of which is represented to belong to British subjects. |