Earl Russell to Lord Lyons.
My Lord: In my despatch to you of the 30th of November, after informing you of the circumstances which had occurred in relation to the capture of the four persons taken from on board the Trent, I stated to you that it thus appeared that certain individuals had been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral power, while such vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage—an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law. I concluded by directing you, in case the reparation which her Majesty’s government expected to receive should not be offered by Mr. Seward, to propose to that minister to make such redress as alone would satisfy the British nation, namely: first, the liberation of the four gentlemen taken from on board the Trent, and their delivery to your lordship in order that they might again be placed under British protection; and, secondly, a suitable apology for the aggression which had been committed.
I received, yesterday, your lordship’s despatch of the 27th ultimo, enclosing a note to you from Mr. Seward, which is, in substance, the answer to my despatch of the 30th of November.
Proceeding at once to the main points in discussion between us, her Majesty’s government have carefully examined how far Mr. Seward’s note and the conduct it announces comply substantially with the two proposals I have recited.
With regard to the first, viz: the liberation of the prisoners with a view to their being again placed under British protection, I find that the note concludes by stating that the prisoners will be cheerfully liberated, and by calling upon your lordship to indicate a time and place for receiving them.
[Page 246]No condition of any kind is coupled with the liberation of the prisoners.
With regard to the suitable apology which the British government had a right to expect, I find that the government of the United States distinctly and unequivocally declares that no directions had been given to Captain Wilkes or to any other naval officer to arrest the four persons named, or any of them, on the Trent or on any other British vessel, or any other neutral vessel, at the place where it occurred, or elsewhere.
I find, further, that the Secretary of State expressly forbears to justify the particular act of which her Majesty’s government complained. If the United States government had alleged that although Captain Wilkes had no previous instruction for that purpose, he was right in capturing the persons of the four prisoners and in removing them from the Trent on board his own vessel to be afterwards carried into a port of the United States, the government which had thus sanctioned the proceeding of Captain Wilkes would have become responsible for the original violence and insult of the act. But Mr. Seward contents himself with stating that what has happened has been simply an inadvertency consisting in a departure by a naval officer, free from any wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and probably by the several parties concerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. The Secretary of State goes on to affirm that for this error the British government has a right to expect the same reparation which the United States, as an independent state, should expect from Great Britain or from any other friendly nation in a similar case.
Her Majesty’s government having carefully taken into their consideration the liberation of the prisoners, the delivery of them into your hands, and the explanation to which I have just referred, have arrived at the conclusion that they constitute the reparation which her Majesty and the British nation had a right to expect.
It gives her Majesty’s government great satisfaction to be enabled to arrive at a conclusion favorable to the maintenance of the most friendly relations between the two nations. I need not discuss the modifications in my statement of facts which Mr. Seward says he has derived from the reports of officers of his government.
I cannot conclude, however, without adverting shortly to the discussions which Mr. Seward has raised upon points not prominently brought into question in my despatch of the 30th of November. I there objected, on the part of her Majesty’s government, to that which Captain Wilkes had done. Mr. Seward, in his answer, points out what he conceives Captain Wilkes might have done without violating the law of nations. It is not necessary that I should here discuss in detail the five questions ably argued by the Secretary of State. But it is necessary that I should say that her Majesty’s government differs from Mr. Seward in some of the conclusions at which he has arrived, and it may lead to a better understanding between the two nations on several points of international law which may, during the present contest or at some future time, be brought into question, that I should state to you for communication to the Secretary of State wherein those differences consist. I hope to do so in a few days. In the meantime it will be desirable that the commanders of the United States cruisers should be instructed not to repeat acts for which the British government will have to ask redress, and which the United States government cannot undertake to justify. You will read and give a copy of this despatch to the Secretary of State.
I am, &c.,
Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.