Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.
Sir: Her Majesty’s government have considered the note which you did me the honor to address to me on the 11th of November last,* and the papers which accompanied it, respecting the circumstances connected with the imprisonment in the Old Capitol prison, at this place, of the late Mr. James Hardcastle, and his death in consequence of a shot fired by a sentry at that prison; and her Majesty’s government have directed me to express their regret at the unsatisfactory nature of the explanation offered by the United States government for this unhappy act of its officer, and to address, in their name, a strong remonstrance to the government of the United States.
Her Majesty’s government contend that, according to all the well-known rules of civilized warfare, Hardcastle was unlawfully imprisoned, and that for the consequences, whether accidental or not, which ensued upon this unlawful imprisonment those who ordered it must be considered responsible. It is admitted that Hardcastle arrived within the territory of the United States, and within the federal lines, having previously submitted all his papers, including the confederate pass, to the United States authorities, and having obtained, in answer to his in quiry, full permission to enter the federal lines.
It appears, therefore, to her Majesty’s government that he was, to all intents and purposes, under what is known, wherever war is carried on between civilized nations, as a safe-conduct; and her Majesty’s government are wholly at a loss to understand the interpretation which (they believe for the first time) is now sought to be put on such an agreement. The doctrine that the person holding a safe-conduet may be detained as a prisoner precisely in the same manner as if it had not been granted to him is, her Majesty’s government conceive [Page 635] , without warrant from the writing of any accredited jurist. It is impossible to consult those writings without seeing that such agreements are held sacred by all states, and that a safe-conduct is always defined as a privilege which insures safety to those who hold it while passing or being within the place permitted. (See Vattel, L. 3, C. 17.)
It is manifest that, not only is the effect of a safe-conduct rendered null and void by the pretence that the party holding it may be detained as a prisoner precisely in the same manner as if it had not been granted to him, but that such an interpretation in fact would make what is called an instrument of safe-conduct a mere snare to the unfortunate person who had been deceived into placing faith in it; and would be wholly contrary to the usage and practice of civilized states, as well as to the common notions of justice and good faith.
Her Majesty’s government are equally unable to concur in the validity of the reasons assigned as a justification of the proceedings with regard to Hard-castle. Her Majesty’s government observe that none of the acts alleged in justification could possibly have caused the imprisonment of Mr. Hardcastle, inasmuch as they rest solely upon the statements of the jailer of conversations with the unfortunate man (who is no longer alive to contradict him) after his imprisonment, and her Majesty’s government conceive that there is literally no other evidence throughout the papers from which the faintest trace of guilty or improper conduct on the part of Hardcastle can be inferred.
There is another point in the papers which accompanied your note of the 11th November which appears to her Majesty’s government to be not a little remarkable. It is now alleged that Hardcastle, as well as a prisoner named Pleasonton, had put his head over the screen, when he was shot by the sentry, but no mention of this circumstance is made in the reports made by Captain Mix and General Martin dale at the time of the occurrence, which were enclosed in your previous note of the 18th of June.* It was then represented that Pleasonton’s head was over the screen; but it was not stated that Hardcastle’s head was also in the same position; and it is hardly possible to conceive (regard being had to the gravity of the matter) that such a fact, if really true, should not have appeared as the result of the first inquiry.
Her Majesty’s government have therefore instructed me to address to the United States government a firm protest with regard to what has occurred in this case, on the ground both of the unlawfulness of Hardcastle’s imprisonment, in view of the safe-conduct which must be regarded as having been assured to him by the United States military authorities, and of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence which has been adduced as justifying the proceedings which led to his death; and her Majesty’s government have desired me to add, that her Majesty’s government reserve to themselves the right of presenting a claim for compensation to the government of the United States, should any such be hereafter advanced by the relatives of the deceased.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.