Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.
Sir: The attention of her Majesty’s government has been directed to the “Act further to regulate proceedings in prize cases, and to amend various acts of Congress in relation thereto,” which was approved by the President on the 3d March last
Her Majesty’s government are advised that the first section of this act is in accordance with the usual practice in such cases, enabling the court to sell, when the vessel is likely to become injured, when the cost of keeping it would be disproportioned to its value, or when all the parties interested agree to the sale; but that the second section appears to furnish ground for remonstrance, more especially after the communication which I had the honor to make to you, by command of her Majesty’s government, on the 31st December last.
It was pointed out in that communication that the true doctrine with regard to sale before condemnation was that the interests of the owners required it; and her Majesty’s government conceive that it is manifest, upon principles of natural justice, that the sale of a vessel of a neutral owner before any sentence of condemnation has been passed upon it, and, consequently, before the owner has been found guilty of any offence against the belligerent, is an act which cannot be fairly justified by reference to necessities of a belligerent, or necessities other than those incident to the state of the neutral vessel itself. The jurisdiction of the prize court, and the duty of the neutral to submit both to it and to the right of capture, are founded upon the doctrine that he will be fairly tried, not by the captor who seizes him, but by an impartial judge who tries both parties. But it appears to her Majesty’s government that if the neutral vessel be sold for the good of the captor or the captor’s government before trial, the obligation of the belligerent and the corresponding right of the neutral are much impaired, because compensation in money, however fairly assessed, on the abstract value of the property, may afford no practical protection to an innocent owner from considerable loss in the particular circumstances of his case.
Her Majesty’s government have, therefore, directed me to express to you the [Page 592] concern with which they have observed the extent to which the second section of the recent act of Congress derogates from the usual rights of neutral states, and their hope that it will not be put in force; and her Majesty’s government have also instructed me to express their, regret that such an enactment should have been made so soon after the communication which I had the honor to address to you, by their desire, on the subject, and without any notice, except a mere formal one, being taken of that communication, nor any mention made of the measure which was about to be adopted.
Her Majesty’s government have, moreover, commanded me to point out to you the encouragement which such a clause may afford to making seizures, known, at the time when they are made, to be unwarrantable by law, because the seized vessels may now in every case minister to the necessities of the belligerent, and the captor may, very probably, suppose that he will not be severely rebuked by his government for conduct which, however unjustifiable and intolerable to the neutral, may be regarded as having a patriotic object.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.