Year: 1868




Mr. Shaw Lefevre, continuing, said:-The President
considers these terms to be at once comprehensive
and sufficiently precise to include all the claims OF
American citizens for depredations upon their CON-
merce during the late rebellion, which have been the
subject ofcompaint on the part OF this government;
but the United States government in this view would
deem itself at liberty to insist before the arbter that
the actual proceedings and regulations Of the British
government, its officers and agents towards the
United States in regard to the rebellion and the
rebels, as they occurred during that rebellion, are
among the matters which are connected with the
vessels whose depredations are complained OF. The
President will be gratfed if this explanation shall
conduce to remove any of the difficulties which have
heretofore prevented the two governments from
coming to the amcabe and friendly understanding
and arrangement which are SO sincerely desired by
both.


The noble lord replied to that despatch the 10th
OF November. He said, writing to Mr.. Ford:-The
language OF Mr. Seward appears to be open to the
construction that 1t Is the desire OF the United States
government that any tribunal to be agreed upon
might enter into the question whether the actual pol
Icy Of Her Maestys government in recognizing the
Confederate States as bellgerent power
was or was not suitable to the creum-
stances OF the time when the recognition was made.
Her Majesty's government cannot directly or indi-





Power whether the policy of recognizing the Con-
federate States a begercnt Power was or was
not suitable to the circumstances of the time when
the negotiation was made Mr. Seward declined
the reference subject to this restriction. No one
who locked carefully at the last few letters
could fail 10 sperceive that Mr.. Seward had
made considerable change III his position.
At the commencement OF that correspondence
MI SeWard's sole ground OF complaint was
our having recognized the COnfederates as belli-
gerents, whereas ut the close he assented to the
terms proposed by, the noble lord. 1t appeared to
him that there Were three stages In this CORE
spondence. In the first stage Mr.. Seward put the
whole question upon the recognition of beige-
rency all other questions being treated as incidental
and unimportant in the second he offered to refer
the whole correspondence, it then stood, arb-
tration and in the third he accepted the proposition
put by the noble lord-namely, whether they
morally responsible for the damages occasioned by
the Alabama-and stated that that proposition was
sufficient for his purpose. The difference between
the first and last Of these stages was very great and
1t to be regretted that the noble lord had not left
the matter there had thought 1t to be his duty to
make special exception of the recognition question:
which induced Mr. Seward to withdraw from the ne
gotiation altogether. II was one thing to refer the
question itself arbitrator and another specially
10 accept from tne Anu another SuDJect
which might well be introduced an incidental
topic bearing upon the main question at ISSUE
was, II The special recognition were not made it
would lie open to the 6ther side to introduce the
subject as an argument, but at the same time It
would lie open to US to object to its Introduction
being irrelevant in view of the nature of the whole
question between the two countries. He could not
but regard 1t as a mistake on the part of the noble
Lord TO require The total withdrawal of Mr. Seward
and the American people from what was a bad and
a false position. The noble lord might have been
satisfied with the concession that had been
already made in the of the
correspondence, and II mistake to break In
upon Mr.. Seward with special exception which he
must have known would lead to the failure OF the
whole negotiation Looking at the whole tone of the
correspondence II was impossible not to think that
ii was the intention OF the noble lord to bring the
question to point in which 1t was possible that
arbitration was the intention on both sides, and
that at the last moment becoming frightened at
the position at which he had arrived, he
made the special exception in question. The
noble lord had stated the question for ar
btration to be whether we were morally
responsible for the damages caused by the Alabama.
But what was the meaning of the word ''moraly'"
It certainly required some explanation Was the
arbitrator to be at liberty to go beyond the ordinary
strict rules and usages of international law and to
extend the inquiry into the more vague regions
OF moral responsibility II so, what grounds
were we specially to except from arbitration
a branch Of the subject which the Ameri-
can people thought bore strongly upon the
morality OF the question: II the morality OF
the whole question was to come under consideration
he was not sure that 1t might not be for our adyan-
tage that the inquiry should be extended rather than
limited for he believed that the wider the view taken
OF the matter the more would the morality OF our
position become apparent He did not wish 70 ex'
press any opinion upon the main question In dis
pute. lie had ventured during the last few
years to differ from the opinion expressed
by some learned authorities as to what were in
ternatona duties, but he did not desire at the pre-
sent moment to enter into that question. Two classes
OF objections had been raised to arbitration upon this
subject. II was objected in the first place, that the
question OF recognition OF beiigerency certain
that IL was not right to refer It, but that it ought
IN be especally excepted from arbitration; and Sec
| ond,v that the dignity OF this country would not
hermit that question to be raised before an arbtra-
ton For his own part he was perfectly satisfied OF
the strength OF our position in this question: that he
| could not conceive an arbitration deciding against
ma He believed that war did actually exist at the
time OF our proclamation OF neutrality, and II we re-
oured proof OF the soundness OF our position 1t was
| 10 be found in Mr. Stewards dispatches and In the
decisions Of the American law courts in the n"""
4 r-.S- ,.Is.s.s fp
rons Eases Of vessels captured while breaking the
blockade or seized upon the high seas as being the
nroperty OF citizens Of the Confederate States in
which cases the Supreme Court held that the proca-
| nation Of blockade was proclamation Of war, and
that the North were only exercising belligerent
rights. But however certain we might be az to the
I iustice of our conduct the American people
| looked at the matter In different light,
and under these circumstances 1t would have tended
to remove cause Of irritation between the two
countries, and we consented to the question of re-
coaniton being referred to arbitration. hs TO the
| auestion of dignity, the American government did
not desire THAT the proclamation OF ncutrali should
be made question before the arbitrator, hut merely
that II be Introduced as topic for discussion, and
| he could not understand how the dignity OF this
| country could be compromised by this qeuston,
i .a...a III the nnra INN nnrta mt