Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
[Extracts.]
London, July 26, 1861.
Sir: At the close of my despatch, No. 11, on the subject of my last conference with Lord John Russell, I mentioned my intention to write to Mr. Dayton, at Paris, to know whether he felt authorized to proceed in a simultaneous negotiation on the subject of the declaration of the congress at Paris. I have now to report that I executed my purpose on the 19th instant.
On the evening of the 24th I received a note from Mr. Dayton announcing his arrival in town and his wish to confer with me upon this matter. Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of a full and free conversation with him, in the course of which we carefully compared our respective instructions and the action taken under them.
I am very glad he has taken the trouble to come over to see me, for I confess that I was a little embarrassed by not knowing the precise nature of his proposal to the French government at the time when I heard of it from Lord John Russell. Had I been informed of it I should perhaps have shaped my own course a little differently. So I doubt not that he would [Page 122] have been pleased to know more exactly my own proceedings as well as the more specific character of my instructions. An hour’s interview has had the effect to correct our impressions better than could have been accomplished by an elaborate correspondence.
I can now perfectly understand as well as enter into the reasons which prompted his proposal of the declaration of Paris, connected as it was with the modification first suggested by Mr. Marcy. There can be no doubt that the attempt to secure such an extension of the application of the principle contained in the first point of that declaration was worth making, on the part of the new administration, particularly at a place where there was no reason to presume any disinclination to adopt it. Neither did the reply of Mr. Thouvenel entirely preclude the hope of ultimate success, so far as the disposition of France may be presumed.
The obstacles, if any there are, must be inferred to have been thought to exist elsewhere. And an advance could be expected only when the efforts to remove them had been applied with effect in the proper quarter. It was, therefore, both natural and proper for Mr. Dayton, after having made his offer, and received such an answer, to wait patiently until it should become apparent that such efforts had been made, and made without success.
There can be no doubt that the opposition to this modification centres here. Independently of the formal announcement of Lord John Russell to me that the proposition was declined, I have, from other sources of information, some reason to believe that it springs from the tenacity of a class of influential persons, by their age and general affinities, averse to all sudden variations from established ideas. Such people are not to be carried away by novel reasoning, however forcible. We have cause to feel the presence of a similar power at home, though in a vastly reduced degree.
All modifications of the public law, however beneficent, naturally meet with honest resistance in these quarters for a time. It is to be feared that this may have the effect of defeating, at this moment, the application of the noble doctrines of the declaration of Paris, in the full expansion of which they are susceptible. But to my mind the failure to reach that extreme point will not justify the United States in declining to accept the good which is actually within their grasp. The declaration of the leading powers of civilized Europe, made at Paris in 1856, engrafted upon the law of nations for the first time great principles for which the government of the United States had always contended against some of those powers, and down to that time had contended in vain.
That great act was the virtual triumph of their policy all over the globe. It was the sacrifice, on the part of Great Britain, of notions she had ever before held to with the most unrelenting rigidity. It would therefore seem as if any reluctance to acknowledge this practical amount of benefit, obtained on the mere ground that something remained to require, was calculated only to wither the laurels gained by our victory.
It would almost seem like a retrograde tendency to the barbarism of former ages. Surely it is not in the spirit of the reformed government in America to give countenance to any such impression. Whatever may have been the character of the policy in later years, the advent of another and a better power should be marked by a recurrence to the best doctrines ever proclaimed in the national history. And if it so happen that they are not now adopted by others to the exact extent that we would prefer, the obvious course of wisdom would seem to be to accept the good which can be obtained, and patiently to await another opportunity when a continuance of exertions in the same direction may enable us to secure everything that is left to be desired.
I think that Mr. Dayton has waited only to be convinced that his proposed [Page 123] modification cannot be secured before he acts upon the authority given him to accede to the declaration of Paris, pure and simple.
On my part, I have apprised him of the answer made to me by Lord John Russell at our last conference. Bat he wishes some evidence upon which he can rely a little more securely than a report of conversation. And considering the remarkable discrepancy in the recollection of the conferences with his lordship which has thus far taken place, I am not surprised. In order to meet this difficulty he has addressed to me a letter of inquiry, which I propose to answer. At the same time I design to address a letter to his lordship recapitulating the portion of his conversation that is in question, and informing him that, on the assumption that I understood him right, Mr. Dayton consents to proceed. This will, of course, render it necessary for him to explain himself, if the fact should be otherwise.
Mr. Dayton will, of course, communicate directly with the department as to the later measures which he may think proper to take.
You will have been already informed by the newspapers of the changes which the ministry has undergone in consequence of the necessity imposed upon Lord Herbert by his failing health to retire from his post. As a consequence, Lord John Russell has been called to the House of Lords, though retaining his official station, and some shifting of other places has occurred. The only new appointment is that of Sir Robert Peel. * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
But I have not time at the close of this communication to enter into any speculations so intimately connected with a general view of the state of affairs in the other countries of Europe as well as in the United States. I shall therefore reserve what views I may have to submit on this subject to a future opportunity.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.