regard such manifesto as tantamount to the existence of a war and thereupon to recognize two belligerent parties, equally entitled to neutral consideration.

If on this latter point the record shall make against me, I shall appeal with full confidence from the judgment of English lawyers to the enlightened opinion of European and American publicists.

But, on the other hand, I venture, with all the confidence in the world, to enforce my other position with regard to the blockade proclamation, that provided the Crown lawyers gave the advice attributed to them by Earl Russell, and in that connection, yet the British Government, represented by the Foreign Secretary, never made any account of that advice; and, that the true reason for British action in acknowledging Rebel belligerency and Rebel equality was that set forth in Earl Russel's despatch to Lord Lyons of May 6th, 1861, in which the Foreign Secretary declares in effect, that the American Union has gone to pieces, that the Southern Government has duly organized itself, and that Her Majesty's Government does not wish any secret to be made of its recognition and acceptance of these facts in its future dealings with the "late Union."

I ask the reader's special attention to this despatch, which I am confident that no advice of the Crown lawyers and no apology of juridical journalists can explain away or render unimportant. Unlike, too, some of the other diplomatic documents which I am obliged to quote in their excerpted state, as prepared for publication, this State-paper is not a mere" extract." The whole of its text is given, pure and simple, under the official imprimatur of a Blue Book; and I presume to say, that that text will stand in history as a truer key to British intervention at the first stage of the American struggle, in the shape of what was called British Neutrality, than any new gloss first devised or first made much account of, as late as March, 1865.

I deem it highly probable that the Foreign Secretary's friends will say for him, or he for himself, in extenuation of this State-paper, that it was a hasty document, penned under the influence of what seemed at that moment, a dark juncture in American affairs; and that it was

only subsequent events which rendered the opinions therein put forth inopportune and unfounded. Perhaps Earl Russell's friends will even urge in his behalf that he knew more, at that crisis of the rebellion, of the dangers which threatened the American Union, than the American Government itself. If so, I would ask, Did Earl Russell get that knowledge from Rebel conspirators and from traitors against their own government? Not that I would necessarily imply that as a diplomatist he had not a right to listen to any plots that American conspirators might see fit to break to his ear; but if he had had that superior knowledge, would it not have been an act of national friendliness, which would have redounded to the advantage of the British nation to all posterity, if he had imparted it to the government of the United States and put them on their guard against unforeseen perils from a gigantic plot of treason?

But, supposing the Foreign Secretary to have had no such illegitimate source of information opened to him, or not to have availed himself of it, if opened, as that suggested; yet, if in any way he had a better information as to the magnitude of the dangers which were about to assail the United States, than the United States Government itself, had he a right, I ask, to act upon those threatened dangers till they had actually come to pass and wrought out their evil results? Had he a right to declare a state of belligerency as actually existing, when he only saw it as a future contingency, however inevitable? Had he a right to say to the United States, -You are gone to pieces; you are hopelessly separated into fragments; your rebels are as duly an organized a government as yourself; - when the American people had hardly begun, as yet, to dream of the possibility of Separation, much less of the dire necessity of Civil War?

The Foreign Secretary avows in this dispatch of the 6th of May, 1861, that he knew what a tremendous struggle might be in store for the American Republic and the momentous consequences which a declaration of European neutrality would draw after it;— why so hasty, then, in taking such a fearful step? Would it have done any harm to have waited twenty-four hours, or even eight days, to get speech

with the new American Minister? But, instead of waiting for Mr. Adams's explanatory statements and authentic intelligence, Earl Russell, as appears by this dispatch of the 6th of May, did not even wait for his own envoy's. While in one breath he is complaining that the delay of the steamers or the interruption of railroad and telegraph communication between Washington and New York has cut him off from the latest (and one would say most indispensable) intelligence from the seat of war, he is announcing before the close of the document, that he is prepared to act and take all the consequences of the step of "investing" the Rebels "with all the rights and prerogatives belonging to belligerents."

There may, possibly, have been no unfriendliness, no positive ill-wishing, in all this; but I appeal to the world, whether it was not unduly precipitate, and whether it can be excused by any plea of unavoidable necessity?

BOSTON, May 30, 1865.

NOTE. It seems proper to add, for the information of a certain portion of my readers, that a considerable part of the following paper appeared as a communication in the columns of the Boston Daily Advertiser, of May 3d, by the favor of whose editors I was thus enabled to come before the public with so much of my matter, at an earlier day of publication, and before a larger circle of readers than I should otherwise have had an opportunity of addressing.

To those who took an interest in that communication I would say that I have added about a third part of new matter; giving (inter alia) the remarkable despatch, in full, of Earl Russell, of May 6th, above commented on. I also subjoin, in another connection, some further strictures upon one of the closing paragraphs of that despatch, the significance of which escaped my attention at that time. I have also added another piece of evidence telling against the Foreign Secretary's regard for the American proclamation of block

ade, which I derive from his Blairgowrie speech of September, 1863, in reply to Mr. Sumner, at the Cooper Institute in New York, the same month. For the reference to this piece of confirmatory proof I am indebted to a clerical friend who shows his appreciation of "things to come" by keeping himself well informed in public events" that now are."

I have also added to my main discussion, a more detailed reply to Historicus's communication to the Times, in defence of British Neutrality; thinking that, as I subjoin that communication to this article by way of Appendix, I may justly avail myself of this occasion to add some further criticisms which would have too much swollen my former communication for the columns of a daily newspaper. To those who are interested in seeing justice done to the speculations and statements of Historicus, I would suggest as the logical mode of estimating the fairness of my strictures upon them to commence the perusal of the pamphlet with the Appendix. In that way at least, by reading the eminent English publicist's paper entire and in one connection, they will get a specimen of his racy style and bold rhetoric.

Perhaps it is due to the fairness of literary and legal discussion to add that I have also availed myself of the present occasion to correct several errors of quotation from the language of others, and some inaccuracies of expression of my own, which were overlooked in the haste of preparing the newspaper communication. I believe, however, that they are all of a comparatively unimportant character

CONTENTS.

I.

THE NEW POSITION OF THE BRITISH MINISTRY — THAT THE AMERICAN PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE OF THE CONFEDERATE PORTS NECESSITATED THE QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY — AN AFTERTHOUGHT, .

. 1

II.

THE AMERICAN PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE NOT THE OCCASION OF THE RECOGNITION OF CONFEDERATE BELLIGERENCY, BECAUSE, SUPPOSING THE FORMER TO HAVE BEEN OFFICIALLY COMMUNICATED, IT WAS NOT KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN ENFORCED AT THE DATE OF THE LATTER; AND FURTHERMORE, IF ENFORCED, WAS NOT SUCH AN ACT AS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INTERNATIONALLY TREATED AS AN ACT OF WAR,

22

III.

CORRECTION OF VARIOUS MISSTATEMENTS OF HISTORICUS IN HIS ARTICLE OF MARCH 22D, AND INCIDENTAL NOTICE OF EARL RUSSELL'S DESPATCH TO LORD LYONS OF MARCH 6ти, 1861,

30

IV.

THE RECOGNITION OF

CONFEDERATE BELLIGERENCY NOT A BY-GONE, BUT A

CONTINUING REALITY, .

44

APPENDIX.

COMMUNICATION OF HISTORICUS TO THE LONDON TIMES OF MARCH 22D, 1865,

47