Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.
Sir: Her Majesty’s government have had under their consideration the note which you did me the honor to address to me, on the 2d of last month, respecting the case of the Telegraph.
[Page 616]Her Majesty’s government accept with satisfaction the apology which you offer for the act of the captor, in compelling the papers of the Telegraph to be taken on board his ship. Her Majesty’s government regret, however, that with regard to the other subjects of complaint, namely, the seizure of the vessel, and the placing of British seamen in irons, they cannot look upon your answer as equally satisfactory.
It does not appear to her Majesty’s government to he quite clear whether it is intended in your note to found the defence of the captor, and the refusal of the government of the United States to pay compensation, upon the ground that the Telegraph committed a breach of municipal law, or upon the ground that she committed a breach of international law. Her Majesty’s government must, however, assume that the refusal has reference, as the demand had, to the law of nations; and it is to be remembered that it is not competent to the belligerent to enforce fiscal or municipal regulations upon the neutral by the exercise of the strictly belligerent right of visitation, search, or detention.
Her Majesty’s government observe that you justify the seizure of the Telegraph by saying, “It seems to me that the United States could not accede to the demands of her Majesty’s government in this case without admitting that they have no right to forbid and prevent vessels under a neutral or friendly flag, even in a time of blockade and civil war, from landing when and where they please upon the American shores for the purpose of rendering aid and assistance to insurgents, and to detain for examination vessels which infringe its established military and naval regulations.”
Her Majesty’s government are, however, at a loss to understand how this reasoning, be it ill or well founded, is to be applied to the particular case of the Telegraph. That vessel has not even been accused of having rendered aid or assistance to insurgents; nor is it a question whether the United States have a right to forbid the subjects of friendly states from visiting their shores; but it is a question whether the severe rights of visitation, search, and detention, which interfere with the general liberty of commerce, and which are conceded by neutral states to belligerents only, are to be exercised according to acknowledged principles and precedents of the law of nations, and not according to the private military and naval regulations of the particular belligerent state. In this case, the captor is stated in your note to have asserted “that it was illegal for the Telegraph to deviate from her outward-bound voyage and enter the (Florida) keys.” Her Majesty’s government cannot conceive that it is intended to affirm that a neutral ship is not at liberty to deviate from her outward-bound voyage, if by so deviating she does not interfere with the belligerent rights of blockade. Such a doctrine her Majesty’s government would regard as indeed alarming to all neutral states. But there is no suggestion in this case that the Telegraph intended to break the blockade, that her cargo was suspicious, or that her papers were irregular. Moreover, when she was taken back to Key West it turned out that her clearance was regular, and her conduct perfectly and in every respect innocent.
Her Majesty’s government cannot suppose that the United States prize courts would not have administered justice in this case, and, applying the recognized principles of maritime international law to the circumstances of it, have dismissed the Telegraph with her costs and damages.
With respect to placing the British sailor in irons for three days and three nights, the defence appears to her Majesty’s government to be, that while smarting under the provocation of the seizure of his ship, a ship since admitted to have been perfectly innocent, the man swore, on board his own ship, when ordered to obey some directions of the captor, and that his own captain said he could not prevent him from doing so. Upon this he was taken out of his own ship and placed in irons on board the captor’s ship for three days and three nights. It is, indeed, said that it was apprehended that the man would do some [Page 617] act of violence, but no attempt to commit any act of the kind is alleged. No rescue was apprehended, and her Majesty’s government cannot admit that a belligerent has a right to expect that neutral states will acquiesce “in their subjects being treated with ignominy, and a severity not far removed from cruelty, upon such slender grounds as these.
Her Majesty’s government cannot, therefore, consider the answer contained in your note as satisfactory, either as to the seizure of the ship or the treatment of the sailor; and they have, accordingly, directed me to make to you the foregoing representation.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.