which not without show of reason claimed for the former the right to fit out cruisers against its enemies in the ports of the United States. Although very properly denying this to be the correct version, the Government of the United States felt unwilling to act on a policy of repression until due notice given of its determination to abide by an opposite construction. In the interval, certain captures of British vessels took place, which the Government, because of its failure, for the reasons assigned, to prevent them, considered itself bound to make good. Here are the very words of Mr. Jefferson in his letter to Mr. Hammond :

'Having for particular reasons forborne to use all the means in our power for the restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7, the President thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them; and though nothing was said in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances and brought in after June 5, and before the date of that letter, yet where the same forbearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion that compensation would be equally due.'

From these words the deduction appears to be inevitable that the principle of compensation in the case derived its only force from the omission by the United States to prevent a wrong done to the commerce of a nation with which they were at peace. So likewise may it be reasonably urged in the present case, that the omission of Her Majesty's Government upon full and seasonable notice to carry into effect the provisions of its own law, designed to prevent its subjects from inflicting injuries upon the commerce of nations with which it is at peace, renders it justly liable to make compensation to them for the damages which may ensue.

That the British Government of that day did consider itself equitably entitled to full indemnity, not simply for the hostile acts of Frenchmen in American ports but for the loss and damage suffered on the high seas by reason of assistance rendered to them by citizens of the United States, will clearly appear by reference to the IVth Article of a project of a Treaty proposed by Lord Grenville to Mr. Jay on August 30, 1794. The words are these:

And it is further agreed, that if it shall appear that in the course of the war loss and damage has been sustained

by His Majesty's subjects, by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandize, such capture having been made either within the limits of the jurisdiction of the said States, or by vessels armed in the ports of the said States, or by vessels commanded or owned by citizens of the said States, the United States will make full satisfaction for the loss or damage, the same being to be ascertained by Commissioners in the manner already mentioned in this Article.'

If by the preceding representation I have succeeded in making myself clearly understood by your Lordship, then will it, I flatter myself, be made to appear that in both these cases, that in 1794 as well as that in 1862, the claim made rests on one and the same basis, to wit, the reparation by a neutral nation of a wrong done to another nation with which it is at peace by reason of a neglect to repress the cause of it, originating among its own citizens in its own ports.

The high character of Lord Grenville is a sufficient guarantee to all posterity that he never could have presented a proposition like that already quoted, except under a full conviction that it was founded on the best recognized principles of international law. Indeed, it is apparent on the face of the preamble that even the later statute law of both nations on this subject is but an attempt to give extraordinary efficacy to the performance of mutual obligations between States, which rest on a higher and more durable basis of justice and of right. It was on this ground, and on this alone, that Lord Grenville obtained the concessions then made of compensation for damage done to her commerce on the high seas by belligerent cruisers fitted out in the ports of the United States. I shall never permit myself to believe that Her Majesty's Government will be the more disposed to question the validity of the principle thus formally laid down merely from the fact that in some cases it may happen to operate against itself.

This consideration naturally brings me back to the examination of that portion of your Lordship's note which relates to the alleged violations in Great Britain of Her Majesty's Proclamation by the respective parties engaged in this war. Although this subject be not absolutely connected with that on which I made my representation, I cheerfully seize the opportunity thus furnished me

E

attempt in some degree to rectify your Lordship's impressions of the action of the Government of the United States even on that question.

Your Lordship does me the honour to observe that I cannot be ignorant of the fact, which it is impossible to deny, 'that in defiance of the Queen's Proclamation many subjects of Her Majesty, owing allegiance to Her Crown, have enlisted in the armies of the United States.' 'Her

Majesty's Government, therefore, have just ground for complaint against both the belligerent parties, but most especially against the Government of the United States, for having systematically, and in disregard of that comity of nations which it was their duty to observe, induced subjects of Her Majesty to violate those orders which, in conformity with her neutral position, she has enjoined all her subjects to obey.'

As these words, taken in their connection, might seem to imply a serious charge against myself, as well as the Government of the United States, I must pray your Lordship's pardon if I desire to know whether there be any particulars in my own conduct in which your Lordship has found the evidence for such a statement. So far as I have been made acquainted with the course of my own. Government, or I remember my own, I must most respectfully take issue with your Lordship upon it, and challenge you to the proof. That very many of the subjects of Great Britain have voluntarily applied to me for engagements in the service of the United States, is most true. That I ever induced one of them to violate Her Majesty's orders either directly or indirectly, is not true. That numbers of Her Majesty's subjects have voluntarily crossed the ocean and taken service under the flag of the United States I have reason to believe. That the Government of the United States systematically, and in disregard of the comity of nations, induced them to come over to enlist, I have not yet seen a particle of evidence to show, and I must add, praying your Lordship's pardon, I am authorized explicitly to deny. In response to a remonstrance made to me by your Lordship, it is but a few days since I took occasion, so far as my action was concerned, or the action of any of the officers of the United States in this kingdom, to place the country right before you on that score. After

the very explicit retractation made in your Lordship's reply to me, dated on the 16th instant, it is not without great surprise that I now perceive what I cannot but regard as a renewal of the imputation.

Your Lordship is pleased carefully to join the two parties to this war as if in your estimation equally implicated in the irregular proceedings conducted within this kingdom, and equally implicating the subjects of Great Britain in the violation of Her Majesty's Proclamation. Hence it is argued that the omission to hold any one to his responsibility affords no more just ground of complaint to one party than to the other. I cannot but think that your Lordship has overlooked a just distinction to be observed in these cases, and in order to show it the more clearly I shall be compelled to ask your Lordship to follow me in a brief investigation of the facts.

The only allegation which I find in your Lordship's note in connection with the United States is this, that 'vast supplies of arms and warlike stores have been purchased in this country, and have been shipped from British ports to New York for the use of the United States Government.'

Admitting this statement to be true to its full extent, conceding even the propriety of the application of the term 'vast' to any purchases that have been made for the United States, the whole of it amounts to this, and no more, that arms and warlike stores have been purchased of British subjects by the agents of the Government of the United States. It nowhere appears that the action of the British went further than simply to sell their goods for cash. There has been no attempt whatever to embark in a single undertaking for the assistance of the United States in the war they are carrying on; no ships of any kind have been constructed or equipped by Her Majesty's subjects for the purpose of sustaining their cause, either by lawful or unlawful means, nor a shilling of money, so far as I know, expended with the intent to turn the scale in their favour. Whatever transactions may have taken place have been carried on in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, without regard to any other consideration than the mere profits of trade.

If such be, then, the extent of the agency of the United States on this side of the Atlantic during the present war,

and no more, it appears clear from the positions assumed by your Lordship, in the very note to which I have the honour to reply, that thus far they have given no reasonable ground for complaint at all. The citations to which your Lordship has done me the favour to call my attention, as drawn from American authors of admitted eminence, all contribute to establish the fact that the mere purchase, or export by a belligerent from a neutral, of arms and munitions of war, does not involve any censure on either party. I do not, at the present moment, entertain a design to question the correctness of that doctrine. As a necessary consequence, I can scarcely perceive the fitness of associating such actions as I have shown that of the United States to be, in the same category with that of which the Government of the United States has heretofore instructed me to complain.

And here, I beg to call your Lordship's attention to the fact, that it is not the mere purchase or exportation of arms and warlike stores by the agents of the insurgents in America of which I have ever complained. There is another, and a very important element in the case, to which your Lordship does not appear to have given the consideration which, so far as one may be permitted to judge from the concurring testimony of all writers on international law, it certainly deserves. The United States have made an actual blockade of all the ports occupied by the insurgents-a blockade the validity of which Great Britain does not dispute. They are, therefore, entitled to consider every neutral who shall attempt to enter one of them, or carry anything to the besieged, as violating his neutrality and converting himself into an enemy. Hence, it happens that every British subject engaged in the work of aiding the insurgents, by introducing contraband of war into blockaded ports, not only violates his duty to his Sovereign, but commits an exceedingly aggravated and injurious offence to the Government of the United States. To associate such proceedings with the mere purchase and export of arms on behalf of the United States, as of equal significance, would seem to be most inequitable. It is a fact, that few persons in England will now be bold enough to deny, first, that vessels have been built in British ports, as well as manned by Her Majesty's subjects,