Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward
Sir: I availed myself yesterday of a favorable opportunity to present to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys the subject of your despatch No. 28*. I began by saying that some time since, in the summer or fall of last year, Mr. Benjamin, the secretary of state of the insurgent States of America, addressed to the principal powers of Europe, and notably to France and England, some new dogmas in regard to the rights of neutrals which were adapted to the exceptional situation of the insurgent government. One of these dogmas contemplated the case of the capture of an enemy’s vessel laden in whole or in part with neutral cargo, (No. 2.) A second contemplated the case of the capture of a neutral vessel laden in whole or in part with enemy’s cargo; and a third case contemplated the capture of a vessel suspected of belonging to the enemy and sailing with false papers under a neutral flag. In all these cases it is proposed by the insurgent government,” I remarked, “to treat the quarter-deck of their cruisers as a port, and the captain’s will or caprice as a competent tribunal for the adjudication of prizes.” “These dogmas,” I continued, “have been pressed upon the attention of the great maritime powers of western Europe I am told, and I am instructed to inquire of your excellency what view the Emperor’s government took of them, and what reply was given to those who submitted them.”
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys replied, “that he remembered to have received a communication answering generally to the description I had given, though he could not remember the details; he remembered distinctly that he declined the proposals and never made any answer whatever to the communication.”
I said that his answer did not surprise me, but that I thought it just to inform him that the representative of the insurgent organization in Paris had conveyed a very different impression to Mr. Benjamin; that Mr. Slidell had, in fact, represented his excellency as favorable to the new dogmas and disposed to intercede in their favor with the British ambassador at Paris.
His excellency then went on to say that “he had submitted the paper to two of his colleagues, who were entitled to be consulted upon such subjects, and they decided that they could not entertain such doctrines; that he might have asked [Page 238] what the English government proposed to do upon the subject, though he did not remember to have done so, and thinks he did not, but he might have done so. He felt quite sure he had not written anything on the subject, for he had never treated the representative of the Confederate States in a way that would admit of any official correspondence with him. Whether this remark was general or limited to this particular subject, I will not be sure.”
I said, “No, it is not pretended that your excellency wrote anything upon the subject, though Mr. Slidell did communicate to Mr. Benjamin a letter written in French by ‘a friend,’ as he styled him, ‘in the ministry of foreign affairs,’ my information is not sufficiently authentic.” I added parenthetically, to justify me in naming the person probably referred to, “in that letter your excellency is represented as favorable to the new dogmas, and disposed to confer about them with Lord Cowley, whom you were expecting to meet at Compiegne.”
His excellency then repeated substantially what he had said before, but a little more cautiously, and without any intimation that “the friend,” in the Foreign Office, had or had not committed any offence in writing what he did. The impression that I received was that the confederate agents, for reasons which may be susceptible of different interpretations, were permitted to suppose that their proposals were entertained not unfavorably.
I expressed my satisfaction with what he had said to me, and which I should have pleasure in communicating to my government. I then went on to say that this was a subject which interested us only indirectly, as the insurgents were our enemies, but we, of course, could not be indifferent to any new doctrine of neutral rights which the two great maritime powers of western Europe might be disposed to entertain. Though I had executed my instructions in addressing to his excellency the questions to which he had so satisfactorily responded, I hoped that he would allow me to make a suggestion which seemed worthy of the attention of his government. Without vexing the question of belligerent rights originally accorded to the insurgent States, I submitted to him whether vessels built and equipped notoriously in violation not only of international law, but of the municipal laws of the country from whence they took their departure, for, I added, the insurgents have not a single vessel afloat which was not built and equipped in violation of the municipal laws of France or England, were entitled to the belligerent privileges which both these countries were in the habit of according to them. He interrupted me here to say, “There seems to be great justice and strength in the point you take.”
I went on to say, “there is the Rappahannock, now lying at Calais, (about which we had already had some conversation, referred to in another despatch of this date,) she was taken out of England in violation of the laws of that country, and not a day has elapsed since her arrival in Calais that she has not transgressed the laws of France.” “I cannot see,” said, I, “why it is not perfectly consistent with the theory of belligerent rights which the Emperor adopted at the commencement of the war to withhold the privileges of belligerents from parties who respect neither your laws nor the best-established principles of the law of nations.”
His excellency listened to this with profound attention, by frequent inclination of his head, assenting apparently to everything I said, and then remarked that he should send a copy of my letter, in relation to the use of the Rappahannock as a receiving-ship, to the minister of marine, and he would have that stopped.
He seemed impressed with the suggestion I had made, and which he was evidently willing that I should think that he approved of. I told him if the imperial government could only see its way to give of its own motion to, our government some such practical evidence of its friendly dispositions as I had suggested, for I said I had no authority to ask anything of the kind, and to grant it upon a formal application would strip it of half its value, I begged to assure him that it would exert a most desirable influence upon both sides of the Atlantic. His excellency then went on to reassure me of the friendly dispositions [Page 239] of the government, and of his determination to do everything he could to cultivate a perfect understanding with us, &c.
There was something in his manner, if not in his words, and in the whole tone of his conversation, of which I have given but a very brief abstract, that gave me the impression that the policy of his government towards the United States had recently undergone, or was about to undergo, a substantial change, provided nothing new occurred on our side to disturb the present tendency of events.
As I was about leaving his excellency mentioned that the Marquis de Chateaurenard had been prevented by illness in his family from going to the United States to replace Mr. Mercier, and that the Count de Montholon had been appointed by the Emperor as minister plenipotentiary at Washington. His commission was signed on Tuesday, the 2d instant. Mr. Montholon was for so many years consul-general of France at New York, where, I believe, he became united to one of our countrywomen by marriage, that it is unnecessary for me to attempt to give you any information in regard to him. As Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys did not speak of him to me as the present minister of France in Mexico, I did not feel at liberty to inquire why his residence in that country was so brief, or who, if any one, was destined to replace him.
I am, sir, with great respect, your very obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State.
- Same, mutatis mutandis, as No. 1256 to Mr. Adams.↩