Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.
My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note which your lordship addressed to me on the 4th instant, concerning certain restrictions upon trade between the port of New York and British colonies.
I learn from that note, with profound regret, that her Majesty’s government do not feel themselves at liberty to accede to the views which have been heretofore expressed by this department concerning these restrictions. I have, therefore, given a very candid consideration to the arguments which your lordship has now submitted in support of the position which her Majesty’s government maintains on the subject in question.
Having heretofore fully submitted the views of this government, I have not [Page 673] now any new or original arguments to offer upon the subject. I confess, however, that I am equally unable to perceive that the position of her Majesty’s government is materially fortified by the considerations which your lordship has now submitted.
I have been very unfortunate if I have not heretofore succeeded in making it understood that it is claimed by this government that when a nation is actually at war it has the right to prevent the exportation of materials of war, the exportation of which would endanger the public safety. I have heretofore observed that this abstract right of prevention is affirmed by all authorities on international law, and sanctioned by the practice of all nations, including Great Britain. Our usual form of the exercise of this right is that of prohibition against exports. Her Majesty’s government have, during the present civil war in the United States, enforced the right in question by prohibition, not on the ground that Great Britain was actually engaged in war, but on the ground that she apprehended the breaking out of war. The greater includes the less— restriction may, therefore, be adopted in lieu of prohibition. And in the present case, the United States have adopted the form of restriction to prevent the exportation of material that would be used by their enemies. It is admitted that the remedy is less effective than is desirable. But this is a misfortune to the United States, and is not a wrong of which neutrals can complain All that they can require is that the remedy be adopted in good faith, and be made to bear impartially upon all neutrals alike.
Nor am I able to concede that our blockade of the insurgent ports is to be deemed ineffectual, because, while maintaining the blockade, we find it expedient also to employ the remedy of commercial restriction upon exports. Blockade is one of many belligerent operations, all of which may be lawfully practiced at the same time.
“Whether the blockade is effectual or not is a question which can be decided most satisfactorily by an examination of its results. The principal trade of the insurgents is in cotton. The blockade has raised the value of cotton imported into England seven-fold, although new fields of supply have been opened in all the tropical climates. The United States blockade is probably the first one which has been attempted in any considerable scale since steam became the chief agent of maritime commerce. It has been so effectual as to disappoint universal predictions of its failure. I think I hazard little in expressing the belief that no maritime power can ever hereafter maintain so effectual a blockade as ours against steam mercantile navigation. I think, therefore, with great deference, that either our blockade must be acknowledged to be sufficient, or it must be held that no lawful blockade can be maintained against contraband traders who enjoy the advantage of steam navigation.
I have the honor to be, with high consideration, my lord, your obedient servant,
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.