the British Government was not premature,-was not the first, in giving practical effect to the declaration of belligerency. The United States Government had already put the blockade in force, within the State of Virginia, as early as the 30th April, (thirteen days before the Queen's Proclamation), and it was extended to the other Confederate States before the end of May. A considerable number of neutral ships and cargoes were captured for breaking the blockade, some at or near blockaded ports, others on the high seas. Vessels or cargoes so captured were carried before, and condemned by, American prize courts, and the validity of the sentences so pronounced, was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. 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;" and in another part he said: "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."

One would have thought that, upon reflection, the American Government would have seen it prudent, as well as respectable, to allow this weak and silly charge of "unfriendliness" to pass without further notice, in the hope that it might be forgotten. But

no; in their Counter-case they return to the charge, and impute to us that in this recognition of belligerency we had assumed that "these rebels against the United States were invested with some undefined political attributes;" and that "this was the origin of certain errors which run through the Case of Her Majesty's Government." Whereas, all that we did was, whilst acknowledging the belligerent action of the United States in establishing a blockade over a wide sea-board of their territories, to recognize also the belligerency of the revolted provinces with whom they were at war; which latter, by the primary rules of natural law, we were bound to do. Further than that, we did not go; we did not send a Minister to Mr. President Davis, we did not receive his ministers or agents, nor in any way hold those relations with the Confederate States, which are usual between Sovereign States. Nay more, the American "Case," with consistent inaccuracy, when contrasting our conduct during the civil war with that of other states, instances the fact that "the Russian Government ordered that even the flags of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted." It is a fact that our Government issued similar orders addressed to all the Governors of British Colonies. Experience gives hard lessons. Had our Government foreseen the manner in which their loyal and considerate conduct was to be requited by the United States, they would, perhaps, have done well to disregard the United States blockade and belligerent position altogether, letting things take their chance, fully pre

pared to accept the less onerous responsibilities of belligerents if required.

The affair of the "Trent," in which the British Government promptly and righteously resented an unparallelled outrage offered to its flag, is, with equal reasonableness, complained of as having "indicated an unfriendliness so extreme as to approach to a desire for war. There can be no doubt that from one end to the other of the land, and throughout the colonies where the news of the event had reached, there was not a "desire," but a determination, as out of solemn duty, to resort to war, if fitting reparation were not made for this outrage; and preparations were promptly set afoot in all our arsenals, which took our American friends a little aback. But our Government behaved with great consideration, not to say leniency in the matter. In the first place, the release of the captured agents of the Southern States was demanded, together with "an apology" for the outrage; but when Lord Russell received from Mr. Adams an assurance that the act complained of had not been authorized by the American Government, he consented to accept that statement in lieu of the "apology" demanded. What "unfriendliness," then, it may be asked, could be construed out of our taking exception to an act of violence committed by a person ostensibly acting in the service of another power, but who, in fact, was not authorized by it to commit the wrong complained of? As an instance of the candour and bonâ fides which mark, throughout, this extraordinary state document, we must add that the "Case " follows up its previous

general complaints of "unfriendliness" in this matter, with the very serious charge against our Government, that the intelligence of Mr. Adams' official disavowal of the conduct of Captain Wilkes, "was suppressed, and public opinion encouraged to drift into a state of hostility against the United States," and that "the peremptory instructions to Lord Lyons were neither revoked nor in any sense modified." The reader, perhaps, would be "surprised to hear" that the whole of this statement is entirely false. The outrage complained of took place on the 9th November, 1861; and upon becoming known to the British Government, was at once taken notice of in the emphatic manner already indicated—and, be it added, with prompt response. Lord Russell received a despatch from Lord Lyons, announcing the submission of the American Government on the 9th January, 1862, and on the following day sent back a reply, fully accepting the settlement arrived at, and adding: “It gives her Majesty's Government great satisfaction to arrive at a conclusion favourable to the maintenance of the most friendly relations between the two nations." The Government of the United States, on its part, marked its displeasure at the perilous indiscretions of Capt. Wilkes, by forthwith promoting him to the rank of Admiral.*

* As there are some people who yet have doubts as to the legality of the seizure of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, the Confederate envoys, on board the Trent, it may be well to give a few words of explanation on the subject. There is no question that the despatches of a belligerent are contraband of war.

Heffter enumerates amongst the acts illegal to neu

THE NEW CODE OF NEUTRAL OBLIGATIONS. THE American Case, in a dissertation occupying 109 pages, and headed "Duties of a Neutral," and

trals, “the forwarding of despatches to or from a belligerent.” But they must be despatches in connection with the war, and for the purpose of promoting it; as from one part of a belligerent's dominions, or from one part of his field of operations to another, or to an ally in respect of the conduct of the war, or on political affairs connected with it. So it is laid down by Lord Stowell, and he adds that "despatches from a belligerent to his consul resident in a neutral state, may lawfully be carried in a neutral vessel, because the functions of the consul relate to the joint commerce in which the neutral, as well as the belligerent, is engaged." Much less are the despatches of a belligerent to a neutral state to be held contraband of war; -whether they relate to matters of interest to the subjects of the two states, in their commercial relations, or to some important question affecting the political position of one or other of the states, as, for instance, proposals for the interposing of good offices between the belligerents. "It would be," says Lord Stowell, "almost tantamount to preventing the residence of an ambassador in a neutral state if he were debarred from the means of communicating with his own." So much as to despatches, and when they are contraband: there now comes the question of the envoys. "Is it reasonable," as suggests Sir R. Phillimore, "that a man should be cantraband for carrying despatches, which are not contraband." There are, however, circumstances under which an envoy from a belligerent to a neutral state may be taken: but what are those circumstances? According to Vattel, he cannot be taken :-First, when he has been accepted by the neutral to whom he is accredited. Secondly, anywhere except within the territory of the belligerent, or where he is in possession. Certainly, therefore, although the confederate envoys had not been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, they could not be taken on board a neutral vessel on the high seas.