Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part II, Volume I

[4] *Part II: Statement of events which attended and followed the commencement of the civil war and of the course pursued in relation to it by Great Britain and other Maritime Powers.

[undated.]

Part II.—Introductory statement. Before approaching the cases of the vessels to which the claims in question are understood to relate, it is necessary to state concisely the previous course of events, and to place clearly before the tribunal the course of conduct which had been pursued during the earlier period of the war by Her Britannic Majesty’s government.

general propositions.

The following propositions are believed by Her Majesty’s government to be in accordance with the principles of international law and the practice of nations:

1. It is the duty of a neutral government, in all matters relating to the war, to act impartially toward the belligerent powers; to concede to one what it concedes to the other; to refuse to one what it refuses to the other.

2. This duty, inasmuch as it flows directly from the conception of neutrality, attends the relation of neutrality wherever it exists, and is not affected by considerations arising from the political relation which before the war the belligerents may have sustained to one another.

3. Maritime war being carried on by hostilities on the high seas, and through the instrumentality (ordinarily) of vessels commissioned by public authority, a neutral power is bound to recognize, in matters relating to the war, commissions issued by each belligerent, and captures made by each, to the same extent and under the same conditions as it recognizes commissions issued and captures made by the other.

4. Where either belligerent is a community or body of persons not recognized by the neutral power as constituting a sovereign state, commissions issued by such belligerent are recognized as acts emanating, not indeed from a sovereign government, but from a person or persons exercising de facto, in relation to the war, the powers of a sovereign government.

the civil war.

In the year 1861 a civil war broke out in the United States. Seven States—South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had one by one formally renounced their allegiance to the Union and declared themselves independent. They had formed themselves into a separate confederation, under the title of the “Confederate States of North America;” had adopted a federal constitution, instituted a federal legislature, executive, and judiciary; taken measures to raise an army of 100,000 men, and appropriated sums of money amounting to $2,029,485 (equal to more than 10,000,000 francs) toward the creation of a navy. This series of events commenced in November, 1860, and was completed before the end of March, 1861, at which time the confederate legislature had been for more than a month in session. In April, 1861, hostilities commenced between the Government of the Union and the Confederated States of the South $ and shortly afterward tour other States—Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas—likewise separated themselves from the Union and joined the confederacy, which thus embraced a vast and compact territory, extending from the river Potomac to the confines of the republic of Mexico.

[5] The war began with the attack and bombardment by the confederates of Fort Sumter, a fort situate at the mouth of Charleston Harbor, and held by a small garrison of United States troops. On the reduction of this place, which was speedily effected, followed within a few days the seizure, by Virginian militia, of Harper’s Ferry, an important military arsenal at the confluence of the rivers Shenandoah and Potomac, and of the great naval arsenal and ship-building yards of Norfolk, where the James River discharges itself into Chesapeake Bay. Fort Sumter surrendered on the 13th April. On the 15th the *President of the United States issued a proclamation calling out militia to the number of 75,000 men.¹ On the 17th Mr. Jefferson Davis (who had been elected in February to the office of President of the Confederate States) published a counter-proclamation, inviting applications for letters of marque and reprisal to be granted under the seal of the Confederate States against ships and property of the United States and their citizens.² By a further proclamation, dated the 19th April, President Lincoln, after referring to the proposed issue of letters of marque, declared that he had deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the seven States then in revolt, “in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the law of nations in such case provided.”³

For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave any of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the said blockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such warning; and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize as may be deemed advisable.

By another proclamation, dated the 27th April,⁴ the blockade was declared to be extended to the ports of Northern Virginia.

On the publication of these proclamations, Lord Lyons, then Her Britannic Majesty’s envoy at Washington, requested of the Government of the United States that he might be furnished, for the guidance of British merchants, with definite information as to the manner in which the blockade was to be enforced. He was assured, in reply, by Mr. Seward, then United States Secretary of State, that it would be conducted as strictly according to the recognized rules of public law, and with as much liberality toward neutrals, as any blockade ever was by a belligerent.⁵

To the minister of the Queen of Spain, Mr. Seward wrote as follows:⁵

Sir: In acknowledging the receipt of your note of the 30th ultimo, on the subject of the-blockade of the ports in several of the States, I deem it proper to state for your further information:

1. That the blockade will be strictly enforced upon the principles recognized by the law of nations.

2. That armed vessels of neutral states will have the right to enter and depart from the interdicted ports.

3. That merchant-vessels in port at the time the blockade took effect will be allowed a reasonable time for departure.

I avail, &c.,

(Signed)

W. H. SEWARD.

The blockade declared by the foregoing proclamations was actually instituted, as to the ports within the State of Virginia, on the 30th April;¹ and was extended to the principal ports on the sea-board of the other Confederate States before the end of May. A considerable number of neutral ships and cargoes were captured for breaches or alleged breaches of blockade, some at or near the mouths of blockaded ports, others on the high seas. Vessels or cargoes so captured were carried before, and condemned by, courts of the United States exercising jurisdiction in matters of prize; and the validity of the sentences thus pronounced was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the highest court of appeal in such matters. Mr. Justice Grier, in delivering the judgment of the court on this question, said:

To legitimate the capture of a neutral vessel or property on the high seas, a war must exist de facto, and the neutral must have a knowledge or notice of the intention of one of the parties belligerent to use this mode of coercion against a port, city, or territory in possession of the other.

In a subsequent part of the same judgment he added:

[6] Whether the President, in fulfilling his duties as commander-in-chief in suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance, and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents, is a question to be decided by him; and this court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was intrusted. He must determine what degree of force the crisis demands. The proclamation of the blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure under the circumstances peculiar to the case. The correspondence of Lord Lyons with the Secretary of State admits the fact, and concludes the question.

*On the 3d May, 1861, President Lincoln directed that the naval force of the United States should be increased by the enlistment of 18,000 additional seamen, and their land forces by fifty additional regiments, partly of regular troops and partly of volunteers, with an aggregate maximum of 61,748 men.

It is needless to refer particularly to the subsequent history of the war waged on the American continent. It is well known that the forces of the United States, attempting to penetrate into Virginia, encountered a severe defeat; that great armies were raised on both sides; that hostilities were carried on over an immense area, with varying fortune, for nearly four years; and that the contest terminated, in 1865, in the complete reconquest of the eleven Confederated States, which, after being held for a considerable time under military control, were finally re-admitted to their original position in the Union.

The events stated above are matters of general notoriety, recorded in the history of the period.

On the 30th April, 1861, Mr. Jefferson Davis, as President of the Confederated States, addressed to the congress of those States a message, which contained the following passage:

The operations of the navy department have been necessarily restricted by the fact that sufficient time has not yet elapsed for the purchase or construction of more than a limited number of vessels adapted for the public service. Two vessels have been prepared and manned, the Sumter and McRae, and are now being prepared for sea at New Orleans with all possible dispatch.

On the 1st May, 1861, Mr. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States, addressed to the British Minister at Washington a dispatch of that date, which contained the following passage:¹

The so-called Confederate States have waged an insurrectionary war against this Government. They are buying, and even seizing, vessels in several places for the purpose of furnishing themselves with a naval force, and they are issuing letters of marque to privateers to be employed in preying on the commerce of this country. You are aware that the President has proclaimed a blockade of the ports, included within the insurgent States. All these circumstances are known to the world.

On the 6th May, 1861, the congress of the Confederate States passed an act entitled “An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States, and concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize-goods.”² The first section of this act was as follows:

The congress of the Confederate States of America do enact that the president of the Confederate States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the Confederate States to meet the war thus commenced, and to issue to private vessels commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, under the seal of the Confederate States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the United States, and of the citizens or inhabitants of the States and Territories thereof; provided, however, that property of the enemy (unless it be contraband of war) laden on board a neutral vessel, shall not be subject to seizure under this act; and provided further, that vessels of the citizens or inhabitants of the United States now in the ports of the Confederate States, except such as have been since the 5th April last, or may hereafter be in the service of the Government of the United States, shall be allowed thirty days after the publication of this act to leave said ports and reach their destination; and such vessels and their cargoes, excepting articles contraband of war, shall not be subject to capture under this act during said period, unless they shall have previously reached the destination for which they were bound on leaving said ports.

The act then proceeded to lay down in detail regulations as to the conditions on which letters of marque should be granted to private vessels, and the conduct and behavior of the officers and crews of such vessels, and the disposal of prizes made by them, similar to the regulations which have been ordinarily prescribed and enforced with respect to privateers in the United States and by the maritime powers of Europe.

The fourth and seventh sections were as follows:

4. That, before any commission or letters of marque and reprisal shall be issued as aforesaid, the owner or owners of the ship or vessel for which the same shall be requested, and the commander thereof for the time being, shall give bond to the Confederate States, with at least two responsible sureties not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of $5,000, or, if such vessel be provided with more than 150 men, then in the penal sum of $10,000, with condition that the owners, officers, and crew who shall be employed on board such commissioned vessel shall and will observe the laws of the Confederate States, and the instructions which shall be given them according to law for the regulation of their conduct, and will satisfy all damages and injuries which shall be done or committed contrary to the tenor thereof by such vessel during her commission, and to deliver up the same when revoked by the president of the Confederate States.

7. [7] That before breaking bulk of any vessel which shall be captured as aforesaid, or other disposal or conversion thereof, or of any articles which shall be found on board the same, such captured vessel, *goods, or effects, shall be brought into some port of the Confederate States, or of a nation or State in amity with the Confederate States, and shall be proceeded against before a competent tribunal; and after condemnation and forfeiture thereof shall belong to the owners, officers, and crew of the vessel capturing the same, and be distributed as before provided; and in the case of all captured vessels, goods, and effects which shall be brought within the jurisdiction of the Confederate States, the district courts of the Confederate States shall have exclusive original cognizance thereof, as the civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and the said courts, or the courts being courts of the Confederate States into which such cases shall be removed, in which they shall be finally decided, shall and may decree restitution in whole or in part, when the capture shall have been made without just cause. And, if made without probable cause, may order and decree damages and costs to the party injured, for which the owners and commanders of the vessels making such captures, and also the vessels, shall be liable.

A farther act, entitled “An act regulating the sale of prizes and the distribution thereof,” was likewise passed by the Congress of the Confederate States on the 14th of May, 1861.¹

Many persons who had served as officers in the Navy of the United States offered themselves for employment in the naval service of the Confederate States, and those for whom employment could be found were received and employed in such service.

In and soon after the month of May, 1861, a number of armed ships, mostly of small tonnage, were fitted out in and sent to sea from ports in the Confederate States, and a considerable number of captures were made by them. Some of these were commissioned as public ships of war of the Confederate States, and commanded by officers in the naval service of the confederacy; others as private ships of war or privateers. Among the armed vessels which were so fitted out and made prizes were the Calhoun, a steamer of upwards of 1,000 tons, sent to sea in May, 1861; the Jeff. Davis, Savannah, St. Nicholas, Winslow, and York. More than twenty prizes were made by these vessels. The Sumter (to which reference will be made hereafter) went to sea in June, 1861; the Sallie and Nashville in October, 1861; the Echo in 1862; the Retribution and Boston in 1863: the Chickainauga, Olustee, and Tallahassee in 1864. These vessels are said to have taken from sixty to seventy prizes.

It appears from an official report of the Secretary of the Navy of the United States that the number of vessels captured and destroyed by vessels of the United States during the war, for breach of blockade or in battle, exceeded 1,200.

neutrality of the maritme powers.

The maritime powers, on receiving information of the outbreak of the war, resolved to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in their relations with the belligerents, holding that it did not belong to them, as governments, to decide on the questions which had unhappily divided the American people, nor to take any part in the contest on which the future of the American Commonwealth appeared to depend.

Of all the nations of the world, Great Britain, by reason of her geographical position, the activity of her manufacturing and trading industries, her vast commerce with America, the extent and number of her transatlantic possessions, the magnitude of her military and commercial marine, and its dispersion, not only over the seas bordering on the American coast but over every part of the world, was the power most immediately and profoundly affected by a civil war in the United States. The European power which, after Great Britain, possessed the largest marine was France.

On the 14th May, 1861, Her Britannic Majesty’s government issued the following proclamation, intended for the information of the officers of the government and of British subjects in general:²

Victoria R.

Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereigns, powers, and states;

And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America;

And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the United States, have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the-contest between the said contending parties;

We therefore have thought lit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to issue this our royal proclamation.

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.

[8] And whereas in and by a certain statute made and passed in the fifty-ninth year of His Majesty King George III, entitled “An act to prevent enlisting or engagement of His Majesty’s subjects *to serve in a foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in His Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes, without His Majesty’s license,” it is among other things declared and enacted as follows:

“That if any natural-born subject of His Majesty, his heirs and successors, without the leave or license of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, for that purpose first had and obtained, under the sign manual of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or signified by order in council, or by proclamation of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall take or accept, or shall agree to take or accept, any military commission, or shall otherwise enter into the military service as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer, or shall enlist or enter himself to enlist, or shall agree to enlist or to enter himself to serve as a soldier, or to be employed or shall serve in any warlike or military operation in the service of, or for, or under, or in aid of any foreign prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province or people, either as an officer or soldier, or if any other military capacity; or if any natural-born subject of His Majesty shall, without such leave or license as aforesaid, accept, or agree to take or accept, any commission, warrant, or appointment as an officer, or shall enlist or enter himself, or shall agree to enlist or enter himself, to serve as a sailor or marine, or to be employed, or engaged, or shall serve in and on board any ship or vessel of war, or in and on board any ship or vessel used or fitted out, or equipped or intended to be used, for any warlike purpose, in the service of, or for, or under, or in aid of any foreign power, prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province or people; or if any natural-born subject of His Majesty shall, without such leave and license as aforesaid, engage, contract, or agree to go, or shall go, to any foreign state, country, colony, province or part of any province, or to any place beyond the seas, with an intent or in order to enlist or enter himself to serve, or with intent to serve in any warlike or military operation whatever, whether by land or by sea, in the service of, or for, or under, or in aid of any foreign prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or in the service of, or for, or under, or in aid of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province or people, either as an officer or a soldier, or in any other military capacity, or as an officer or sailor or marine in any such ship or vessel as aforesaid, although no enlisting money or pay or reward shall have been or shall be in any or either of the cases aforesaid actually paid to or received by him, or by any person to or for his use or benefit; or if any person whatever, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any part of His Majesty’s dominions elsewhere, or in any country, colony, settlement, island, or place belonging to or subject to His. Majesty, shall hire, retain, engage, or procure, or shall attempt or endeavor to hire, retain, engage, or procure, any person or persons whatever to enlist, or to enter or engage to enlist, or to serve or to be employed in any such service or employments as aforesaid, as an officer, soldier, sailor, or marine, either in land or sea service, for, or under, or in aid of any foreign prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or for, or under, or in aid of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government as aforesaid, or to go, or to agree to go, or embark from any part of His Majesty’s dominions, for the purpose or with intent to be so enlisted, entered, engaged, or employed as aforesaid, whether any enlisting money, pay, or reward shall have been or shall be actually given or received, or not; in any or either of such cases, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon being convicted thereof, upon any information or indictment, shall be punishable by tine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court before which such offender shall be convicted.”

And it, is in and by the said act further enacted:

“That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom, or in any part of His Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the leave and license of His Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, lit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavor to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming, of any ship or vessel, with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any foreign state, colony, province, or part of any province or people, as a transport or store-ship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostilities against any prince, state, or potentate, or against the subjects or citizens of any prince, state, or potentate, or against the persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in any colony, province, or part of any province or country, or against the inhabitants of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or country, with whom His Majesty shall not then be at war; or shall, within the United Kingdom, or any of His Majesty’s dominions, or in any settlement, colony, territory, island, or place belonging or subject to His Majesty, issue or deliver any commission for any ship or vessel, to the intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof upon any information or indictment, be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court in which such offender shall be convicted; and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may belong to or be on board of any such ship or vessel, shall be forfeited; and it shall be lawful for any officer of His Majesty’s customs or excise, or any officer of His Majesty’s navy, who is by law empowered to make seizures for any forfeiture incurred under any of the laws; of customs or excise, or the laws of trade and navigation, to seize such ships and vessels aforesaid, and in such places and in such manner in which the officers of His Majesty’s customs or excise and the officers of His Majesty’s navy are empowered respectively to make seizures under the laws of customs *and excise, or under the laws of trade and navigation; and that every such ship and vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may belong to or be on board of such ship or vessel, may be prosecuted and condemned in the like manner and in such courts as ships or vessels may be prosecuted and condemned for any breach of the laws made for the protection of the revenues of customs and excise, or of the laws of trade and navigation.”

And it is in and by the said act further enacted:

“That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any part of His Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, without the leave and license of His Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, shall, by adding to the number of the guns of such vessel, or by changing those on board for other guns, or by the addition of any equipment for war, increase or augment, or procure to be increased or augmented, or shall be knowingly concerned in increasing or augmenting, the warlike force of any ship or vessel of war, or cruiser, or other armed vessel which at the time of her arrival in any part of the United Kingdom, or any of His Majesty’s dominions, was a ship of war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any colony, province, or part of any province or people belonging to the subjects of any such prince, state, or potentate, or to the inhabitants of any colony, province, or part of any province or country under the control of any person or persons so exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon being convicted thereof upon any information or indictment, be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court before which such offender shall be convicted.”

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command, that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure.

[9] And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf; as, for example, and more especially, by entering into the military service of either of the said contending parties as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any ship or vessel of war or transport of, or in the service of, either; of the said contending parties; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any privateer bearing letters of marque of or from either of the said contending parties; or by engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas with intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by procuring or attempting to procure, within Her Majesty’s dominions at home or abroad, others to do so; or by fitting out, arming, or equipping any ship or vessel to be employed as a ship of war or privateer or transport by either of the said contending parties; or by breaking or endeavoring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, dispatches, arms, military stores, or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war, according to the law of modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed or denounced.

And we do hereby declare, that all our subjects, and persons entitled to oar protection, who may misconduct themselves in the premises, will do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they will in nowise obtain any protection from us against any liabilities or penal consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.

Given at our court at the White Lodge, Richmond Park, this 13th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the 24th of our reign.

This proclamation was published fourteen days after the receipt in London of the news that Fort Sumter had been reduced by bombardment, that the President of the United States had called out 75,000 men, and that Mr. Jefferson Davis had taken measures for issuing letters of marque;¹ twelve days after receipt of intelligence that President Lincoln had published a proclamation of blockade;² nine days after a copy of that proclamation had been received from Her Britannic Majesty’s consul at New York;³ and three days after the same proclamation had been officially communicated to Her Majesty’s secretary of state for foreign affairs by the United States minister, Mr. Dallas.⁴

On the 1st June, 1861, Her Britannic Majesty’s government issued orders by which the armed ships of both belligerents, whether public ships of war or privateers, were interdicted from carrying prizes made by them into the ports, harbors, roadsteads, or waters of the United Kingdom, or of any of Her Majesty’s colonies or possessions abroad.⁵

[10] The government of the Confederate States remonstrated warmly against these orders, as practically unequal in their operation, and unduly disadvantageous to the belligerent whose ports were blockaded. The Secretary of State of the United States expressed his satisfaction with them, as likely to “prove a death-blow to southern privateering.”

*These orders were strictly enforced throughout the whole period of the war, and no armed vessel was suffered to bring prizes into any British port.

On the 10th June, 1861, the government of the Emperor of the French issued a declaration, which was as follows:⁶

Paris, le 10 juin, 1861.

Le ministre des affaires étrangères a soumis à l’empereur la déclaration suivante, que sa majesté a revêtue de son approbation:

déclaration.

Sa majesté l’empereur des Francois, prenant en considération l’état de paix qui existe entre la France et les États-Unis d’Amérique, a résolu de maintenir une stricte neutralité dans la lutte engagée entre le gouvernément de l’union et les états qui prétendent former une confédération particulière.

En conséquence, sa majesté, vu 1’article 14 de l’ordonnance de la marine du mois d’août 1861, Particle 3 de la loi du 10 avril 1825, les articles 84 et 85 du code pénal, 65 et suivants du décret du 24 mars 1852, 313 et suivants du code pénal maritime, et l’article 21 du code Napoléon;

Déclare:

1. Il ne sera permis à aucuu navire du guerre ou corsaire de l’un ou l’autre des belligérants d’entrer et de séjourner avec des prises dans nos ports ou rades pendant plus de vingt-quatre heures, hors le castle relâche forcée.

2. Aucune vente d’objets provenant de prises ne pourra avoir lieu dans nos dits ports on rades.

3. Il est interdit à tout Français de prendre commission de rune des deux parties pour armer des vaisseaux en guerre, ou d’accepter des lettres de marque pour faire la course maritime, ou de concourir d’une manière quelconque à l’équipement ou 1’arme-ment d’un navire de guerre ou corsaire de l’une des deux parties.

4. Il est également interdit à tout Francais, résidant en France ou à l’étranger, de s’enrôler ou prendre du service, soit dans l’armée de terre, soit à bord des bâtiments de guerre ou des corsaires de l’un ou de l’autre des belligérants.

5. Les Francais résidant en France ou à l’étranger devront également s’abstenir de tout fait qui, commis en violation des lois de l’einpire ou dii droit des gens, pourrait être considéré comme un acte hostile à l’une des deux parties, et contraire à la neutralité que nous avons résolu d’observer.

Les contrevenants aux défenses et recommendation contenues dans la présente déclaration seront poursuivis, s’il y a lieu, conformément aux dispositions de la loi du 10 avril 1825, et aux articles 84 et 85 du code pénal, sans préjudice de l’application qu’il pourrait y avoir lieu de faire aux dits contrevenants cles dispositions de l’article 21 du code Napoléon, et des article 65 et suivants du décret du 24 mars 1825, sur la marine march an de, 313 et suivants du code pénal pour l’arniée de mer.

Sa inajesté déclare, en outre, que tout Français qui ne se sera pas conformé aux présentes préscriptions ne pourra prétendre à aucune protection de son gouvernement contre les actes ou mesures, quels qu’ils soient, que les belligérants pourraient exercer ou décréter.

NAPOLÉON.

Le ministre des affaires étrangères,
E. Thouvenel.

A decree, of which a translation is subjoined, was on the 17th June, 1851, issued by the government of the Queen of Spain”:¹

[Translation.]

Palace, June 17, 1861.

Taking into consideration the relations which exist between Spain and the United States of America, and the desirability that the reciprocal sentiments of good understanding should not be changed by reason of the grave events which have taken place in that republic, I have resolved to maintain the most strict neutrality in the contest begun between the Federal States of the Union and the States federated at the South; and in order to avoid the damage which might accrue to my subjects and to navigation and commerce, from the want of clear provisions to which to adjust their conduct, I do decree the following:

• Article 1. It is forbidden in all the ports of the monarchy to arm, provide, or equip any privateer vessel, whatever may be the flag she displays.
• Art. 2. It is forbidden in like manner to the owners, masters, or captains of merchant-vessels to accept letters of marque, or contribute in any way whatsoever to the armament or equipment of vessels of war or privateers.
• Art. 3. It is forbidden to vessels of war or privateers with their prizes, to enter or to remain for more than twenty-four hours in the ports of the monarchy, except in case of stress of weather. Whenever this last shall occur, the authorities will keep watch over the vessel, and oblige her to go out to sea as soon as possible, without permitting her to take in any stores except those strictly necessary for the moment, but in no case arms nor supplies for war.
• Art. 4. Articles proceeding from prizes shall not be sold in the ports of the monarchy.
• Art. 5. The transportation under the Spanish flag of all articles of commerce is guaranteed, except when they are directed to blockaded ports. The transportation of effects of war is forbidden, as well as the carrying of papers or communications for belligerents. Transgressors shall be responsible for their acts, and shall have no right to the protection of my government.
• Art. 6. It is forbidden to all Spaniards to enlist in the belligerent armies, or take service on board of vessels of war or privateers.
• [11] *Art. 7. My subjects will abstain from every act which, in violation of the laws of the kingdom, can be considered as contrary to neutrality.
• Art. 8. Those who violate the foregoing provisions shall have no right to the protection of my government, shall suffer the consequences of the measures which the belligerents may dictate, and shall be punished according to the laws of Spain.

Signed with the Royal Hand.

The Minister of State,
Saturnino Calderon Collantes.

The following public notifications were, previously to the 16th June, 1861, issued by the government of the King of the Netherlands:¹

[Translation.]

The Hague.

In obedience to the King’s orders, the ministers for foreign affairs, of justice, and of the marine, present to the knowledge of all whom it may concern, that to guard against probable difficulties during the doubtful complications in the United States of North America, no privateers under any flag, or provided with any commission or letters of marque, or their prizes, shall be admitted into our havens or sea-ports, unless in case of distress, and that requisite orders be issued that under any circumstances such privateers and their prizes be required to go again to sea as speedily as possible.

The ministers above named.

[Translation.]

The Hague.

The minister for foreign affairs and the minister of justice, by the King’s authority, warn, by these presents, all inhabitants of the kingdom, that during the existing disturbances in the United States of America they in nowise take part in privateering, because the Netherlands government has acceded to the declaration upon maritime rights set forth by the Paris conference of 1856, whereby, among other matters, privateering is abolished, and no recognition of commissions obtained for letters of marque is permitted. Also that commissions and letters of marque, in conflict with the aforesaid prohibition, which may be issued to inhabitants of the Netherlands, cannot have legal effect in behalf of the King’s subjects, or of any abroad who are in subjection to the laws of the kingdom. Those who, under such circumstances, engage in privateering or lend their aid in it to others, will be considered as pirates, and prosecuted according to law in the Netherlands, and subjected to the punishment provided for the commission of such offenses.

The ministers above named.

[Translation.]

The Hague, June, 1861.

The minister for foreign affairs, apprised by a communication from the minister of marine that the King had authorized the naval force in the West Indies to be seasonably strengthened by His Majesty’s steam-frigate Zealand and the screw propellers Dyambi and Vesuvius, for the purpose of giving protection to the trade and navigation of the Netherlands during the contest which seems to be in existence in the United States of North America, wherever it may be desired, accordingly esteems it to be his duty to direct the attention of shipmasters, consignees, and freighters to the peril to which their insurance against loss will be exposed by any violation of the obligations imposed on neutral powers to respect actual blockades, and not to carry contraband of war, or dispatches of belligerents.

In these cases they will be subject to all the resulting losses that may follow, without the benefit of any protection or intervention on the part of His Majesty’s government. Of which take notice.

The minister above named.

The government of the Emperor of Brazil issued the following circular, addressed to the presidents of provinces within the Brazilian Empire:²

Circular to the presidents of provinces.

[Translation.]

Rio de Janeiro, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
August 1, 1851.

Illustrious and Excellent Sir: The strife that has broken out between the Federal Government of the United States of North America and some of those States which have declared themselves constituted as a separate confederation, may produce questions for our country, for the solution of which it is important that your excellency should he prepared; and I have, therefore, received orders from His Majesty the Emperor to declare to your excellency that the imperial government considers that it ought to maintain itself in the most strict neutrality during the war in which those States are unhappily engaged; and in order that that neutrality may be preserved, it is fitting that the following determinations be observed:

The Confederate States have no recognized existence; but, having constituted a distinct government de facto, the imperial government cannot consider their naval armaments as acts of piracy, nor refuse them, with the necessary restrictions, the character of belligerents which they have assumed.

In conformity with this, Brazilian subjects are to abstain from all participation and aid in favor of one of the belligerents, and they must not take part in any acts which can be considered as hostile to one of the two parties, and contrary to the obligations of the neutrality.

The exportation of warlike articles from the ports of the empire for the new Confederate States is absolutely prohibited, whether it is intended to be done under the Brazilian flag or that of another nation.

[12] *The same trade in contraband of war must be forbidden to Brazilian ships, although they may be destined for the ports subject to the government of the North American Union.

No ship with the flag of one of the belligerents, and which may be employed in this war, or intended for it, can be provisioned, equipped, or armed in the ports of the empire; the furnishing of victuals and naval provisions indispensable for the continuation of the voyage not being included in this prohibition.

No ship of war or cruiser shall be allowed to enter and remain with prizes in our ports or bays more than twenty-four hours, except, in case of forced arrival, and they shall in no way be allowed to dispose of the said prizes, or of objects corning from them.

In the execution of these measures, and in the solution of the questions which may arise, your excellency will be guided by the principles of international law, keeping in mind the instructions issued by this ministry on the 18th of May, 1854, retaining the purport of the circular of the 30th of July, 1859, relative to the United States at strife with the Confederate States; and you will communicate to the imperial government any difficulties or extraordinary occurrences that require fresh instructions.

I repeat. &c.

BENVENUTO AUGUSTO De MAGALHAES TAQUES.

To his Excellency the President of the Province of ________.

Declarations, decrees, or notifications were likewise issued by other maritime powers.

the sumter.

Of the armed ships sent to sea by the Confederate States during the first year of the war, two only, the Sumter and Nashville, entered any port belonging to a European power. It is necessary to state briefly the circumstances which occurred in relation to these vessels.

The Sumter was a steamship which had been purchased by the navy department of the government of the. Confederate States, was commissioned as a public ship of war in the service of those States, and was commanded by an officer who had previously held a commission in the Navy of the United States. It appears from the message of Mr. Jefferson Davis, dated 29th April, 1861, and hereinbefore referred to, that she had at that date been purchased and manned, and was being actively prepared for sea. She sailed from the Mississippi River on the 30th June, 1861, cruised for six months, and captured seventeen prizes.

In the course of this cruise she entered (in the order herein named) ports within the dominions of the following sovereigns and states, namely, the Queen of Spain, the King of the Netherlands, the republic of Venezuela, the Queen of Great Britain, the Emperor of Brazil, and the Emperor of the French. She obtained coal and supplies in the ports of Cienfuegos, Curaçoa, Paramaribo, Trinidad, and Martinique successively.

At the time of her arrival at Cienfuegos she had with her six prizes, captured since her departure from New Orleans, and these she left behind her in harbor when she sailed. The Government of the United States complained to the Spanish government of the admission of the Sumter into port, and of her having been permitted to take in coal and water; and demanded that the prizes should be released, on the ground that the capturing vessel was a pirate. The Spanish government did not assent to the demand that the Sumter should be treated as a pirate: but the prizes which she had left in port were set at liberty by order of the captain-general of the island, on the ground that they were proved, on examination, to have been captured within the territorial waters of Cuba, under unlawful circumstances.

The Sumter approached the port of St Anne’s, Curaçoa, on the 15th, July, hoisted the flag of the Confederate States, and requested permission to enter. The governor of the island withheld this permission until assured that she was not a privateer, the regulations issued by the government of the Netherlands prohibiting the admission of privateers unless in case of distress, but granted it upon receiving from her commander a declaration in writing that the “Sumter was a ship of war duly commissioned by the government of the Confederate States.” In accepting this declaration as sufficient, without further proof, he acted upon the unanimous advice of his colonial council. The Sumter remained, eight days in port, and took in coal.

With reference to these facts the Government of the United States, on the 15th of August, 1881, addressed to the government of the Netherlands a complaint and a demand for reparation.¹ The latter government answered that it had faithfully fulfilled its duty as a neutral power, and would continue to adhere to it in future. In the dispatch conveying this answer the following propositions (among others) were laid down and affirmed by the government of the Netherlands:²

*1. [13] According to the principles of the law of nations, all nations, without exception, may admit vessels of war belonging to a belligerent state to their ports, and accord to them all the favors which constitute an asylum.

2. As evidence that the Sumter was not a privateer, the governor of Curaçoa was bound to be satisfied with the word of her commander given in writing, and had no right to demand further proofs.

3. The Sumter was not, however, in fact a privateer, not being the property of private owners. She was a ship of war.

4. It cannot be admitted that all vessels carrying the confederate flag should, as contended by the Government of the United States, be considered as privateers: because the principles of the law of nations, as well as the examples of history, require that the rights of war should be accorded to those States.

5. Much less can these vessels be regarded as pirates, or “engaged,” in the words of the American Secretary of State, “in a piratical expedition against the commerce of the United States.” This would be incompatible with neutrality.

Adhering to these principles the government of the Netherlands recognized, at the same time, that it is the duty of a neutral state to take care that vessels of the belligerent parties commit no act of hostility within the limits of its territory, and do not keep watch in the ports of its dominion to attack from them vessels of the enemy; and it informed the Government of the United States that instructions on this head would, be sent to the governors of the King’s colonial possessions.

Subsequently to this correspondence, and on the 19th of August, 1861, the Sumter was admitted into the port of Paramaribo, in Dutch Guiana, and coaled there, remaining in port eleven days.¹

The government of the Netherlands shortly afterwards issued orders to the authorities in its colonial possessions to the effect that no vessel of either belligerent should be allowed to take in more coal than would be sufficient for twenty-four hours’ consumption, or to remain in port during a longer period than forty-eight hours.²

Before arriving at Paramaribo the Sumter had visited Puerto Cabello, in Venezuela, and the British island of Trinidad. She remained in port, at the latter place, during six days, and purchased from private merchants coal and provisions. Her commander had applied for permission to purchase coal from the government stores; but this had been refused by the governor.

With reference to these facts the subjoined correspondence passed between the Government of the United States, through its minister in London (Mr. Adams) and the government of Her Britannic Majesty:³

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States, September 30, 1861.

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, regrets to be obliged to inform the right honorable Earl Russell, Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, that he has been instructed by the President of the United States to prefer a complaint against the authorities of the island of Trinidad for a violation of Her Majesty’s proclamation of neutrality, by giving aid and encouragement to the insurgents of the United States. It appears by an extract from a letter received at the Department of State from a gentleman believed to be worthy of credit, a resident of Trinidad, Mr. Francis Bernard, a copy of which is submitted herewith, that a steam-vessel known as an armed insurgent privateer, called the Sumter, was received on the 30th of July last at that port, and was permitted to remain for six days, during which time she was not only furnished with all necessary supplies for the continuance of her cruise, under the sanction of the attorney-general, but that Her Majesty’s flag was actually hoisted on the government flag-staff in acknowledgment of her arrival.

The undersigned has been directed by his Government to bring this extraordinary proceeding to the attention of Lord Russell, and, in case it should not be satisfactorily explained, to ask for the adoption of such measures as shall insure, on the part of the authorities of the island, the prevention of all occurrences of the kind during the continuance of the difficulties in America.

The undersigned deems it proper to add, in explanation of the absence of any official representation from Trinidad to substantiate the present complaint, that there was no consul of the United States there at the time of the arrival of the vessel. The undersigned had the honor, a few days since, to apprise Lord Russell of the fact that this deficiency had been since supplied by preferring an application for Her Majesty’s exequatur for a new consul, who is already on his way to occupy his post.

The undersigned. &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[14] *[Inclosure.]

Mr. Bernard to Mr. Seward.

[Extract.]

Trinidad, August 7, 1881.

Sir: I beg to inform you that on the 30th ultimo a steam sloop of war (Semmes commander) carrying a secession flag, five guns, some of a large caliber, and a crew of from 120 to 150 men, sailed boldly into our harbor, and reported herself to the authorities of this island as being on a cruise. She was last from Puerto Cabello; and since she succeeded in getting out of the Mississippi River she has already captured no less than eleven American vessels. I have ascertained the names of some of them, viz: the Joseph Maxwell, Abe Bradford, Minnie Miller, West Wind, of Westerly, with a cargo of sugar from Havana, and Golden Rocket, which was burnt by her off the coast of Cuba.

The Sumter landed, eight of her prisoners here in a destitute condition; but a contribution has been raised here for their benefit, sufficient to supply their immediate wants, and I will take care that they are provided for until an opportunity offers to ship them to the States.

The Sumter remained here till the 5th instant, and was allowed to supply herself with coals and other necessary outfits. The British flag was hoisted on the government flag-staff for her arrival, and the officers of the British war vessel Cadmus appeared to be on amicable terms with those of the Sumter. The merchant who supplied the Sumter with coals did it with the consent and approval of our attorney-general.

Being a loyal American, I consider it my duty to send you these informations, as there has been no consul of our nation in this island for many months.

I am, &c.,

(Signed)

FRANCIS BERNARD.

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.¹

Foreign Office, October 4, 1861.

The undersigned, Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has had the honor to receive a complaint from Mr. Adams, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at this court, against the authorities of the island of Trinidad for a violation of Her Majesty’s proclamation of neutrality, by giving aid and encouragement to the insurgents of the United States.

It appears, from the accounts received at the Colonial Office, and at the Admiralty, that a vessel bearing a secession flag entered the port of Trinidad on the 30th of July last.

Captain Hillyar, of Her Majesty’s ship Cadmus, having sent a boat to ascertain her nationality, the commanding officer showed a commission signed by Mr. Jefferson Davis, calling himself the President of the so-styled Confederate States.

The Sumter, which was the vessel in question, was allowed to stay six days at Trinidad, and to supply herself with coals and provisions; and the attorney-general of the island perceived no illegality in these proceedings.

The law-officers of the Crown have reported that the conduct of the governor was in conformity to Her Majesty’s proclamation.

No mention is made by the governor of his hoisting the British flag on the government flag-staff; and if he did so, it was probably in order to show the national character of the island, and not in acknowledgment of the arrival of the Sumter.

There does not appear, therefore, any reason to believe that Her Majesty’s proclamation of neutrality has been violated by the governor of Trinidad, or by the commanding officer of Her Majesty’s ship Cadmus.

The undersigned, &c.

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

The Government of the United States instructed Mr. Adams to inform the government of Great Britain “that the President deeply regrets that Lord Russell is altogether unable to give to our complaint satisfactory solution.” The reason alleged for this expression of dissatisfaction was the same which had been previously rejected by the government of the Netherlands; namely, that the Sumter was a piratical vessel, and that her officers and crew were pirates, and that they ought to be treated as such in foreign ports and waters.

Further communications on the subject subsequently passed between the two governments. These communications are stated in the subjoined dispatches, addressed respectively by Her Britannic Majesty’s minister at Washington to Her Majesty’s secretary of state for foreign affairs, and by the minister of the United States in London to the Secretary of State of the United States:

Lord Lyons to Earl Russell.

Washington, November 4, 1861.

My Lord: Mr. Seward spoke to me, the day before yesterday, respecting the admission of the confederate vessel Sumter into British and Dutch ports.

[15] With regard to the Dutch government, Mr. Seward said that he had been obliged to cause very *serious remonstrances to be addressed to them, but that lie had now been informed that they had given orders that the Southern privateers should not be allowed to remain more than twenty-four hours in a Dutch port. It was true, he said, that it had been declared that these orders had not been issued in deference to the representations of the United States Government, but this was immaterial; so long as the privateers were excluded in practice, he did not care to inquire on what ground that was done.

Mr. Seward then mentioned the reception of the Sumter at Trinidad, and alluded to your lordship’s note to Mr. Adams of the 4th of October on the subject. He said he had been obliged to send immediately instructions to Mr. Adams with regard to that note. He did not tell me the nature of those instructions, but he spoke to me of the affair in a tone of complaint, and dwelt especially on the length of time during which the Sumter had been allowed to remain at Trinidad, and on the supplies which she had obtained there. He said that France and, he thought, all the other powers of Europe, refused to allow privateers to remain for more than twenty-four hours in their ports. He could hardly conceive that England wished to stand alone as the only power which admitted the enemies of the United States without restriction into its harbors. He supposed that the matter could hardly have been presented in this light to Her Majesty’s government.

I observed to Mr. Seward that I supposed that in this matter each power had looked back to precedents, and taken the course which had been usual with it on similar occasions in former times. In one point the English rule was, I said, more stringent than that of France and many other powers, for armed vessels were not allowed to carry their prizes into British ports for any time, however short.

Mr. Seward did not pursue the conversation. He merely said that he had wished to mention the matter to me in the hope that I might do something toward getting it satisfactorily settled.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

LYONS.

Lord Lyons to Earl Russell.

Washington, November 9, 1861.

My Lord: With reference to my dispatch of the 4th instant, I have the honor to inform your lordship that this morning Mr. Seward spoke to me again on the subject of the admission of confederate vessels into British ports. He used very nearly the same language on this as on the former occasion. He seemed, however, to wish now to be understood as requesting me positively to suggest to Her Majesty’s government to adopt the rule in this respect which had, he said, been adopted by all the other powers of Europe. He seemed to desire to make this suggestion through me, rather than in a more formal manner through the United States minister in London.

I said to Mr. Seward that Great Britain had, I thought, been the first power to place any restriction upon the admission into her ports of the armed vessels of the belligerents in the present war; and that she had no doubt followed the precedents afforded by her own previous conduct in similar cases. I did not make any difficulty about conveying Mr. Seward’s suggestion to your lordship, but I did not express any opinion as to the reception it would meet with.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

LYONS.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

[Extract.]

Legation of the United States,
London, December 20, 1861.

Sir: * * * * * * * I decided to ask a conference of Lord Russell for the purpose of talking over the substance of your communications to me in dispatches No. 136 and No. 137. It was appointed for yesterday at 3 o’clock, when I enjoyed an opportunity for full and frank conversation.

* * * * * * *

On the third point his lordship contested the fact as stated in the dispatch. He recapitulated what the government had done as regards the assistance said to have been rendered to privateers in the colonies. Supplies had been refused by the authorities in all cases. Whatever had been obtained had come from purchases of individuals. The only difference that he could find between the action of this government and that of other nations was that the stay of belligerent vessels was confined by the latter to twenty-four hours. As to that, he said that the omission to insert the same provision in the British orders was by no means owing to unfriendliness to the United States. On the contrary, it was thought that if a government vessel of theirs should put into any port, such as Malta, for example, to stay a short time, it had seemed to them churlish to issue a decree to limit it to a single day. He said he had taken some pains to make inquiries as to the action of other governments, and, so far as he could learn, he found it in other respects substantially the same.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

With the view of preventing the recurrence of similar complaints, in future, and also of preventing as far as might be the possibility of any abuse of the asylum granted in British ports (as in those of other neutral powers) to belligerent vessels, the British government on the 31st of January, 1862, issued the subjoined orders, to be observed in all the ports of the United Kingdom, and those of Her Majesty’s transmarine territories and possessions:

[16] *The secretary of state for foreign affairs to the lords commissioners of the

admiralty.¹

Foreign Office, January 31, 1862.

My Lords: Her Majesty being fully determined to observe the duties of neutrality during the existing hostilities between, the United States and the States calling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” and being, moreover, resolved to, prevent, as far as, possible, the use of Her Majesty’s harbors, ports, and coasts, and the waters within Her Majesty’s territorial jurisdiction, in aid of the warlike purposes of either belligerent, has commanded me to communicate to your lordships, for your guidance, the following rules, which are to be treated and enforced as Her Majesty’s orders and directions.

Her Majesty is pleased further to command that these rules shall be put in force in the United Kingdom and in the Channel Islands on and after Thursday, the 6th day of February next, and in Her Majesty’s territories and possessions beyond the seas six days, after, the day when the governor or other chief authority of each of such territories or possessions, respectively, shall have notified and published the same, stating in such notification that the said rules are to be obeyed by all persons within the same territories and possessions.

I. During the continuance of the present hostilities between the Government of the United States of North America and the’ States calling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” or until Her Majesty shall otherwise order, no ship of war or privateer belonging to either of the belligerents shall be permitted to enter or remain in the port of Nassau, or in any other port, roadstead, or waters of the Bahama Islands, except by special leave of the lieutenant-governor of the Bahama Islands, or in case of stress, of weather. If any such vessel should enter any such port, roadstead, or Wafers by special leave, or under stress of weather, the authorities of the place shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible, without permitting her to take in any supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use.

If, at the time when this order is first notified in the Bahama Islands, there shall be any such vessel already within any port, roadstead, or waters of those islands, the lieutenant-governor shall give notice to such vessel to depart, and shall require her to put to sea, within such time as he shall, under the circumstances, consider proper and reasonable. If there, then, shall be ships of war or privateers belonging to both the said belligerents within the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, in or near the same port, roadstead, or waters, the lieutenant-governor shall fix the order of time in which such vessels shall depart. No such vessel of either belligerent shall be permitted to put to sea until after the expiration of at least twenty-four hours from the time when, the last preceding vessel of the other belligerent (whether the same shall be a ship of war, or privateer, or merchant-ship) which shall have left the same port, roadstead, or waters, in waters adjacent thereto, shall have passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty.

II. During the continuance of the present hostilities between the Government of the United States of North America and the States calling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” all ships of war and privateers of either belligerent are prohibited from making use of any port or roadstead in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in the Channel Islands, or in any of Her Majesty’s colonies or foreign possessions or dependencies, or of any waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the British Crown, as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose or for the purpose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment; and no ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall hereafter be permitted to sail out of or leave any port, roadstead, or waters subject to British jurisdiction, from which any vessel of the other belligerent (whether the same shall be a ship of war, a privateer, or a merchant-ship) shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of at least twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty.

III. If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall, after the time when this order shall be first notified and put in force in the United Kingdom and in the Channel Islands, and in the several colonies and foreign possessions and dependencies of Her Majesty respectively, enter any port, roadstead, or waters belonging to Her Majesty, either in the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands, or in any of Her Majesty’s colonies or foreign possessions or dependencies, such vessel shall be required to depart and to put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such port, roadstead, or waters, except in case of stress of weather, or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or repairs; in either of which cases the authorities of the port, or of the nearest port, (as the case may be,) shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel, which may have been allowed to remain within British waters for the purpose of repair, shall continue in any such port, roadstead, or waters for a longer period than twenty-four hours after the necessary repairs shall have been completed: Provided, nevertheless, that in all cases in which there shall be any vessels (whether ships of war, privateers, or merchant-ships) of both the said belligerent parties in the same port, roadstead, or waters within the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, there shall be an interval of not less than twenty-four hours between the departure therefrom of any such vessel (whether a ship of war, a privateer, or a merchant-ship) of the one belligerent, and the subsquent departure therefrom of any ship of war or privateer of the other belligerent; and the times hereby limited for the departure of such ships of war and privateers, respectively, shall always, in case of necessity, be extended, so far as may be requisite for giving effect to this proviso, but not further or otherwise.

IV. [17] No ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall hereafter be permitted, while in any port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, to take in any supplies, except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew; and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own *country, or to some nearer destination; and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war or privateer in the same or any other port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters, as aforesaid.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

J. RUSSELL.

By the first and second of the foregoing orders belligerent vessels were absolutely excluded from the ports, roadsteads, and waters of the Bahama Islands, except in case of stress of weather or of special leave granted by the lieutenant-governor. These islands being very near to the American coast, access to them was of little importance to the armed vessels of the United States, unless under stress of weather; while to vessels of the Confederate States it was of great importance, the harbors of these States being generally, though not always, effectively blockaded.

The orders thus issued by Her Britannic Majesty’s government were more stringent and comprehensive by far than those of any other neutral government. It was not the fact that in the ports of the French empire, or in those of other neutral powers generally, belligerent vessels entering without prizes were prohibited from remaining more than twenty-four hours or from purchasing supplies other than arms and military supplies.

The Sumter, after leaving Trinidad, entered in succession the ports of Paramaribo, of San Juan de Maranham in the empire of Brazil, where she remained ten days$ of Port Royal and St. Pierre in Martinique; and of Cadiz, where’ she remained fourteen days. She was during fourteen days in the waters of Martinique, and procured there, under the written authority of the governor of the island, as much coal as her commander wished to take on board to enable him to extend his cruise across the Atlantic, together with other supplies. A few days after her arrival, the Iroquois, a war steamer of the United States, entered Port Royal harbor, and the subjoined correspondence passed between her captain and the governor:

Captain Palmer to the governor of Martinique.

United States Steamship Iroquois,
Off St. Pierre, November 15, 1861.

Sir: As circumstances prevent my paying my personal respects to your excellency or your representative at this place, I write to announce my arrival in the afternoon of yesterday, as well as to inform you that, to my surprise, I find a notorious steamer called the Sumter quietly coaling at the wharves and enjoying the hospitalities of the port.

As your excellency cannot be aware of the character of this vessel, I denounce her to you as one that has been for some time engaged in pirating upon the commerce of the United States, robbing, burning, or otherwise destroying all American vessels which come within her reach.

May I not hope, therefore, that your excellency, upon this representation, will not allow her to enjoy the privileges I complain of, but direct her to leave the protection of the French flag and the immunities of a French port?

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

JAS. S. PALMER, Commanding United States Steamship Iroquois.

His Excellency the Governor of Martinique.

The governor of Martinique to Captain Palmer.

[Translation.]

Gouvernement de la Martinique, Cabinet du Gouverneur,
No. 430 Fort-de-France, le 15 Novembre, 1861.

M. le Commandant: I have the honor to reply to the letter which you addressed me this morning.

I am not ignorant, M. le commandant, of the presence in the roads of St. Pierre of a vessel belonging to the States of the South, who profess to have formed a separate confederation.

To accomplish the generous intentions of the Emperor, I wish to be hospitable to the vessels of the two belligerent parties, but I will not, nor can, without violating the orders of His Majesty, divest myself of the absolute neutrality that I ought to observe.

That is to say to you, M. le commandant, that if it is not my intention to refuse an anchorage to a vessel belonging to the States of the South, I offer to you, on the other hand, the same hospitality and the same facilities to the vessels belonging to the Government of the Union which you have the honor to command.

There exist, besides, international laws, that every civilized nation scrupulously observes, and which I need scarcely recall to you, M. le commandant, nor to the commander of the Sumter.

Accept, &c.

(Signed)

LE AMIRAL, Gouverneur de la Martinique, &c.

M. le Commandant de l’Iroquois.

[18] The captain of the Iroquois was also informed that, if the Sumter should leave *the port before him, he would not be permitted to weigh anchor until twenty-four hours should have elapsed after her sailing. He quitted his anchorage immediately, and cruised in the offing, with the design of intercepting her, till the night of the 23d, when she succeeded in making her escape.

On the 18th of January, 1862, the Sumter arrived at Gibraltar. The American consul at that port immediately addressed a letter to the governor, informing him of the fact, and expressing the hope that he would “give such orders as may prevent this rebel cruiser from obtaining the necessary facilities, and making equipments for the continuance of her unlawful vocation.” To this letter the following answer was returned by the colonial secretary of the dependency:¹

Mr. Freeling to Mr. Sprague.

Secretary’s Office, Gibraltar, January 19, 1882.

Sir: I am directed by his excellency the governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday’s date on the subject of the confederate steamer Sumter, now at anchor in this bay.

His excellency desires me, in reply, to inform you that the instructions contained in Her Majesty’s proclamation of the 13th of May last (published in the Gibraltar Chronicle of the 1st of June, 1861) with reference to the strict neutrality to be observed by Her Majesty’s subjects in the contest between the Government of the United States, of America and certain States styling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” will be strictly carried out with regard to the rights and obligations toward both beh ligerent parties.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

S. FREELING, Colonial Secretary.

On the 21st January, 1862, the consul addressed a letter to the senior naval officer at Gibraltar, asking to be informed, for the guidance of the masters of American vessels then lying in the bay, what rules he intended to lay down and enforce “in case any American vessels should leave port before the Sumter, or if the Sumter should be outside the port, waiting to intercept them.” He was informed, in answer, that “American merchant-vessels quitting Gibraltar while the Sumter is in the bay, are entitled to a start of twenty-four hours before being pursued with a hostile intention, and it is the duty of the authorities concerned to see that such protection is extended over them.” He was farther informed that notice of this regulation had been given to the commander of the Sumter.²

On the same 21st of January, the consul telegraphed to the minister of the United States in London information that the Sumter was still in harbor, and added, “The British governor observes strict neutrality, in conformity with the Queen’s proclamation.”

The Sumter was, in fact, according to the statements of the United States consul, unable to leave Gibraltar for want of coal, the consul having succeeded in inducing the merchants of the place to refuse to supply her with coal, though her commander offered 50 per cent, more than the market price. She then applied to be allowed to purchase coal from the government stores; but this was refused, in conformity with the rule observed throughout the war, at all British ports, toward the vessels of both belligerents.³

On the 12th February, 1862, the United States war steamer Tuscarora arrived at Gibraltar, and proceeded to coal at the neutral port of Algeciras. She was soon afterward joined by the United States war steamer Ino, and subsequently by the Kearsarge; and the Ino and Kearsarge remained off Algeciras waiting to intercept the Sumter. The Sumter was paid off in April, and lay in harbor till December, 1862, when she was sold by public auction (after having been first deprived of her armament) to a British subject resident at Liverpool. The United States consul addressed to the, governor a protest against the sale, on the ground, first, that the Sumter had come into the possession of the confederate government as a prize of war, (which was proved not to be the fact, the vessel having been purchased by that government from a private owner,) and secondly, that the sale was made “for the purpose of avoiding a capture by the cruisers of the United States.” This protest was not accompanied by any proofs, but notice of it was officially published by the colonial secretary before the day fixed for the sale.¹

With reference to this sale the subjoined letters passed between the United States minister in London and Her Britannic Majesty’s secretary of state for foreign affairs:²

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, December, 30, 1862.

[19] My Lord: On the 19th of this month, I am informed by the consul of the United States at Gibraltar, that a public sale is said to have been made of the steamer Sumter, a vessel which had committed *much depredation upon the commerce of the United States, and which had taken shelter in that port from pursuit from the national ships.

Having the strongest reason, from the known character and previous conduct of the alleged purchaser, to believe that this sale is effected solely for the purpose of rescuing the vessel from its present position, and of making use of Her Majesty’s flag to convert it to new purposes of hostilities to the United States, I must pray your lordship’s attention to the necessity under which I am placed of asking the assistance of Her Majesty’s government to prevent any risk of damage to the United States from a fraudulent transaction in one of her ports; or, in default of it, of declining to recognize the validity of the transfer, should that vessel subsequently be found by the armed ships of the United States sailing on the high seas.

Renewing, &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Earl Russell to Mr. Adame.³

Foreign Office, January 1, 1863.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, calling my attention to the circumstances attending the sale of the steamer Sumter at Gibraltar, and I have the honor to state to you, in reply, that the law-officers of the Crown have already the case before them.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.⁴

Foreign Office, January 15, 1863.

Sir: With reference to my letter of the 1st instant, in winch I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, respecting the sale of the Sumter at Gibraltar, I have now the honor to inform you that Her Majesty’s naval and military officers at that port have received instructions not to give any protection to that vessel beyond the waters of Gibraltar; but it will of course be clearly understood that those instructions do not preclude the owners of the Sumter, if that vessel should be taken by United States cruisers, from appealing, according to the usage and practice of international law, to the prize court in the United States against the captors; nor will Her Majesty’s government be precluded from taking any course which may appear hereafter to them proper, if the Sumter, now assumed to be British property, should be hereafter condemned, or otherwise dealt with in any manner which might not be, in their judgment, warranted by international law.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

Mr. Adams had on the 3d January, 1863, telegraphed to the American consul at Gibraltar that Captain Bryson, commanding the United States war steamer Chippewa, was to endeavor to capture the Sumter should she leave Gibraltar under the British flag; and on the 19th January, 1863, he again telegraphed, The Sumter should be captured if she goes out of the British waters on the high seas. If she have nominal British papers she must be sent home for adjudication as prize.” The American consul, on the 21st January, answered as follows: “Your telegram communicated to our commanders: Sumter coaling again and provisioning to-day.” She sailed from Gibraltar on the 7th February, was not captured, and reached. Liverpool on the 13th.¹ At Liverpool she remained until the 3d July, 1863, when she sailed as a merchant-vessel, without armament, and carrying as freight some heavy ordnance, which could not possibly have been used on board of her. She had undergone repairs, but all fittings for warlike purposes had been removed from her, and she had been re-named the Gibraltar. While in port she had been carefully watched by order of Her Majesty’s government, as a precaution lest she should be in any way armed or equipped for war; and she was not permitted to clear till it had been satisfactorily shown that she was in no respect so equipped and had no armament.² She is believed to have been wrecked at last in attempting to enter Charleston. After the time when she entered the harbor of Gibraltar she never appeared at sea as an armed ship, nor was employed to commit hostilities against the United States or their citizens.

With reference to the sale and transfer of this vessel, the views of Her Britannic Majesty’s government were further expressed in the following, letter addressed to the minister of the United States in London:³

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, April 20, 1863.

[20] Sir: There are several statements in your letter of the 14th of March respecting the sale of the Sumter, at Gibraltar, to a British owner, upon which, if any advantage were likely to result from further discussion of the subject, I should feel ie right to observe. But it appears to me sufficient to *say, that you seem to have confounded, both in your reasoning upon the subject and in your reference to authority, the positions of a neutral and belligerent in regard to the sale of ships belonging to another belligerent, and to have forgotten, as in the instance of your reference to a statement in a passage on the law of prize, that no neutral state, such as Great Britain now is, administers prize law in favor of either belligerent.

The neutral and belligerent have distinct rights in the matter: the neutral has a right to acquire such property offered to him for purchase, but the belligerent may, in the particular circumstances of the case, not recognize the transfer of such property, as being that of his enemy, only parted with to the neutral in order to protect it from capture on the high seas. The prize court of the belligerent, when property so circumstanced is brought before it, decides whether the transfer is fair or fraudulent.

The British government, when neutral, is not bound to refuse to a British subject the right to acquire by purchase a vessel which a belligerent owner may desire to part with, but it would not deny the right of the adverse belligerent to ascertain, if such vessel were captured by its cruisers, whether the vessel had rightfully, according to the law of nations, come into the possession of the neutral; and if Great Britain were herself belligerent, she would not complain of a neutral government allowing one of its subjects to acquire by purchase a vessel which her adversary might desire to part with, though she would have the right of capturing such vessel on the high seas, and sending it before the prize court for judgment as to whether the vessel had rightfully, according to the law of nations, become the property of a neutral owner.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

The course pursued by Her Majesty’s government in this case was adhered to in 1864, in the case of the confederate ship Georgia. It was afterward judged expedient by the government to prohibit vessels of war belonging to either belligerent from being dismantled or sold in British ports.

It is not the duty of a neutral government to prohibit the sale within its territory of a ship owned by a belligerent to a neutral purchaser. This is a transaction which in no way concerns the neutral government, and with which it cannot be called upon to interfere. Under certain circumstances, indeed—as in the case of a ship of war driven by superior force to take refuge in a neutral port—such a sale may be liable to be declared void by a prize court of the other belligerent. But this is a jurisdiction exercised by prize courts alone. Until so set aside, the sale (even in the case supposed above) is valid everywhere, and operates to transfer the property to the neutral purchaser. Nor again can a neutral government be called upon to apply rules applicable exclusively to vessels of war to a vessel which, having originally been armed for war, has been disarmed and sold as aforesaid, unless it clearly appear that the sale was a fictitious transaction, intended to disguise, without altering, the true character of the ship.

the nashville.

The Nashville, an armed steamer commissioned as a ship of war of the Confederate States, arrived at the British dependency of Bermuda on the 30th of October, 1862, having sailed from Charleston on the 26th.¹ Her commander applied for leave to draw a supply of coals from Her Majesty’s dock-yard, but this request was refused. She procured coal from a private yard, and sailed on the 4th November. On the 21st November she entered the harbor of Southampton, having, on her way, taken and destroyed an American packet-ship, (the Harvey Birch,) and on the 22d went into dock for repairs.² On the same day directions were sent from the Foreign Office that she “should not be allowed to equip herself more completely as a vessel of war, or to take in guns or munitions of war.”

[21] On the same 22d of November, Mr. Adams addressed a note to: Earl Russell in reference to the Nashville, inclosing certain papers received from the consul of the United States in London.³ From statements in these papers, it would, Mr. Adams alleged, appear that the Nashville was not equipped under a commission as-a ship of war, nor even with the pretense of a letter of marque; and, further, that she was sent to England with the avowed design that she should be refitted in English ports and made a formidable vessel of war, and that the officers who came in her should be put in command of two other ships which were alleged to be then fitting out in the ports of Great Britain for the purpose of carrying on war against the United States. He proceeded to request that Her Majesty’s government would cause inquiry to be made, and would adopt; such measures as the case, upon investigation, might seem to demand. “This inquiry may be solicited to the ascertainment of two classes of facts: the first, as to the authority possessed by this vessel to commit so aggressive an act on the citizens of a friendly power, and then to claim a refuge and recognition in the harbors of Great Britain. The second, in case *the nature of that authority be deemed sufficient—at least in the view of Her Majesty’s government—as to the purposes for which the ship is alleged to have come across the ocean, to wit, the making more effective preparation in the ports of Great Britain for carrying on a war against the people of a friendly nation. In the former case, the question will arise whether the vessel be or be not subject to due process of law as a common, disturber of the peace of the world; in the second, whether a recognized belligerent shall or shall not be permitted with impunity to violate the terms of Her Majesty’s proclamation forbidding the fitting out, within the ports of Great Britain, of any armament intended to be used against a nation with which she is at peace.”

The foregoing note was immediately answered by Earl Russell, as follows:

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.¹

Foreign Office, November 23, 1861.

Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and begs leave to acquaint him that his letter and the inclosure shall receive the immediate attention of Her Majesty’s government.

Lord Russell has already given directions that no infringement of the foreign enlistment act shall be permitted in regard to the Nashville.

On the 28th November, 1881, Earl Russell addressed to Mr. Adams, with reference to his note of the 22d, a further note, which was as follows:

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.²

Foreign Office, November 28, 1861.

The undersigned, Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has the honor to inform Mr. Adams, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at this court, that his note of the 22d instant has been the subject of careful and anxious consideration by Her Majesty’s government.

Mr. Adams, after reciting the capture and destruction by fire of the United States merchant-ship on the high seas by order of the commander of the armed steamer called the Nashville, and the subsequent arrival of the Nashville in the port of Southampton, asks for an inquiry as to two classes of facts: the first, “as to the authority possessed by this vessel to commit so aggressive an act on the citizens of a friendly power, and then to claim a refuge in the harbors of Great Britain;” the second, “in case the nature of that authority be deemed sufficient, at least in the view of Her Majesty’s government, as to the purposes for which the ship is alleged to have come across the ocean, to wit, the making more effective preparations in the ports of Great Britain for carrying on war against the people of a friendly nation.”

Her Majesty’s government have directed their inquiries to both these points, and also to the state of the law as applicable to the facts thus by them ascertained.

With regard to the first point, the undersigned has to state that the Nashville appears to be a confederate vessel of war; her commander and officers have commissions in the so-styled confederate navy; some of them have written orders from the navy department at Richmond to report to Lieutenant Pegram “for duty” on board the Nashville, and her crew have signed articles to ship in the confederate navy.

In these circumstances the act done by the Nashville, of capturing and burning on the high seas a merchant-vessel of the United States, cannot be considered as an act “voluntarily undertaken by individuals not vested with powers generally acknowledged to be necessary to justify aggressive warfare,” nor does it at all “approximate within the definition of piracy.”

Such being the answer of Her Majesty’s government on the first point raised by Mr. Adams, the undersigned passes to the second.

The undersigned stated to Mr. Adams, in his informal note of the 23d instant, that he had already given directions that no infringement of the foreign enlistment act should be permitted in regard to the Nashville. In fact, directions had already been given to prevent the Nashville from augmenting her warlike forces within Her Majesty’s jurisdiction in contravention of the foreign enlistment act.

With respect to the allegation made by Mr. Adams that some of the officers of the Nashville are to be put in command of vessels now fitting out in British ports for purposes hostile to the Government of the United States, the undersigned can only say that, if reasonable evidence can be procured to that effect, all parties concerned who shall be acting in contravention of the foreign enlistment act shall be legally proceeded against, with a view to the punishment of the persons and to the forfeiture of the vessels.

Having thus answered Mr. Adams upon the two points to which his attention was called, the undersigned has only further to say that if, in order to maintain inviolate the neutral character which Her Majesty has assumed, Her Majesty’s government should find it necessary to adopt further measures within the limits of public law. Her Majesty will be advised to adopt such measures.

It is the earnest desire of Her Majesty to preserve intact the friendly relations between Her Majesty and the United States of America.

The undersigned, &c.

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

[22] *On the 2d December, 1861, Mr. Adams answered the foregoing note as follows:

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.¹

Legation of the United States,
London, December 2, 1861.

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a note from the Right Honorable Earl Russell, Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, dated on the 28th of November, and in answer to the note of the undersigned soliciting an investigation into the case of the armed steamer the Nashville.

While the undersigned regrets that Her Majesty’s government has determined to give what he cannot but think a liberal construction to the evidence furnished of the character of the voyage of the Nashville, it is yet a source of great satisfaction to him to learn the intention expressed by the government to apply all its power to the prevention of measures taken within this kingdom by ill-disposed persons to fit out enterprises of a hostile character to the United States. The undersigned entertains no doubt that this information, which has been already transmitted by him to this government, will be received with much pleasure.

The undersigned, &c.

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Reports of the nature of the repairs which the Nashville was undergoing, showing that nothing whatever was being done to fit her more completely as a vessel of war, were from time to time received at the Foreign Office from the senior naval officer at Southampton, and were forwarded to Mr. Adams for his information. Mr. Adams, in acknowledging the receipt of these reports, added, “It is a source of gratification to him (Mr. Adams) to observe the continued supervision exercised by Her Majesty’s government over the outfit of that vessel.”—(28th December, 1861.)^*

On the 15th December, 1861, the United States war-steamer Tuscarora arrived in Southampton Water. She remained there, occasionally shifting her anchorage, until after the departure of the Nashville, which occurred on the 3d February following. While the two ships remained in British waters, Her Majesty’s government enforced with strict impartiality the rule which had previously been enforced by the French authorities at Martinique in the case of the Sumter and Iroquois, that, if either should sail, the other should not follow within twenty-four hours afterward. The facts are stated in reports addressed by Captain Patey as senior naval officer to Her Majesty’s board of admiralty.³ Both ships coaled at Southampton.

In July, 1862, the Tuscarora returned to Southampton, and remained in that port undergoing repairs for three weeks or thereabouts.

general course pursued by her britannic majesty’s government, and by other maritime powers, in regard to the reception of belligerent cruisers.

From the beginning of the war to the end of it, Her Britannic Majesty’s government scrupulously observed, in respect of vessels entering British ports or waters under the flag of either belligerent, the duties of a neutral power. The cruisers of both were admitted upon the same terms; and the regulations which it was found necessary to make from time to time in order to prevent the hospitality thus accorded from being abused, whether by design or through inadvertence, were impartially applied to both. Unremitting care and vigilance were employed to prevent these necessary precautions from being infringed or eluded, and especially to prevent any belligerent vessel from engaging in hostilities, or from enlisting seamen or otherwise increasing its military force, within British territory, or using such territory as a station from whence to observe and attack enemy’s ships. The difficulties occasioned, especially in Her Majesty’s colonial possessions, by the resort of belligerent cruisers to British ports and waters, were considerable, and called for the exercise of much judgment and moderation on the part of the local authorities. By United States cruisers the ports and waters of Her Majesty’s dominions were resorted to for coaling and other purposes more frequently than by vessels of the. Confederate States, The impartial neutrality maintained in these respects by Her Majesty’s government was nevertheless made a frequent subject of complaint by the Government of the United States, which continued to insist that confederate vessels ought to have been treated as piratical, or at least excluded altogether; whilst the Confederate States, on their part, complained that the regulations enforced were unequal in operation, and unduly disadvantageous to a belligerent whose ports and coasts were under blockade.

The neutrality observed by Great Britain was observed also throughout the war by other maritime powers. By them, as by Great Britain, the armed vessels of both belligerents were admitted impartially and indifferently into their ports, subject to such regulations and conditions as they respectively judged it expedient to impose for their own protection, and to prevent their hospitality from being abused.

1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 2.
2. Ibid., p. 4.
3. Ibid., p. 6.
4. Ibid., p. 9.
5. Ibid., pp. 10, 11.
5. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 10.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 12.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 12.
2. Ibid., p. 13.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 15.
2. Ibid., p. 17.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, pp. 2 and 3.
2. “Times” and “Daily News” of May 2, 1861.
3. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 4.
4. Ibid., p. 7.
5. Ibid., p. 18.
6. Ibid., p. 22.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 22.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 27.
2. Ibid., p. 24.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 725.
2. Ibid., p. 730.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 734.
2. Ibid., p. 737.
3. Ibid., p. 3.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 5.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 18.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 13.
2. Ibid., pp. 9 and 10.
3. Ibid., p. 18.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 45.
2. Ibid., p. 47.
3. Ibid., p. 52.
4. Ibid., p. 54.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 59.
2. Ibid., pp. 64–80.
3. Ibid., p. 62.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 87.
2. Ibid., pp. 90, 91.
3. Ibid., p. 92.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 95.
2. Ibid., p. 101.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 102.
2. Ibid., p. 105.
3. For a summary of the proceedings of the two vessels, see Appendix, vol. ii, p. 120.