EARL RUSSELL'S DESPATCH TO LORD LYONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 112, 26 March 1862, Page 6

EARL RUSSELL'S DESPATCH TO LORD LYONS.

The correspondence relative to tl-e surrender ! by the Federal Government of the Southern Commissioners, is published at length in the London jjorning -journals. It is, however, too lengthy fur,us to re-produce, and we therefore merely give an extract of it with the exception of the despatch from Earl Russell to Lord Lyonswhich we publish in full.

The first despatch on the subject is one from Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, and is dated 30th of November. Mr. Seward, while expressing his satisfaction at the tone adopted by. Lord Palmerston during an interview with Mr. Adams, reported by the latter, suggests also that "the British Government had been inattentive to the currents which seemed to be bringing the two countries into collision." And then adverting to the Trent affair, says :—

Since that conversation was held, Captain Wiikes, in the steamer San Jacinto, has boarded a British colonial steamer, and taken from her deck two insurgents who were proceeding to Europe on an errand of treason against their own country. This is a new incident, unknown to and uuforseeii, at least in its circumstances, by Lord Palmerston. It is to be met and disposed of by the two Governments., if possible, in the spirit which I have adverted.

Lord Lyons has prudently refrained from opening the .subject to me, as 1 presume, waiting instructions from home. We have dune nothing on the subject to anticipate the discussion, and we have nut furnished you with any explanations. We adhere to tlnft cour.ic now, because we think it more prudent that the. ground taken by the British Govbriuiicnt bhouM be first made known to us here, and that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be had here.

It i» piojicr, however, that you should know one fact in the case, without indicating that we attach importance to it—namely, that in the capture of Messrs. Afason and Slide!! on boaid a British ves-sel,-Captain Wiikes having anted without any instructions from the Government, the subject is therefore free from the embarrassment which might have resulted if the act had been specially directed by us.

I trust that the British Government will consider the subject in a friendly temper, and it may expect the best dispositions ou the part of this Government.

Although this is a confidential note, I shall not object to your, reading it to Earl Russell and Lord Palmerston, if you deem it expedient.

Earl Russell's despatch, containing the demand of the British Government, is as follows:—

" Foreign Office, 30th November, ISGI. "My Lord,- —Intelligence of a very grave nature has reached Her Majesty's Government.

This intelligence was conveyed officially to the knowledge of the Admiralty by Commander Williams, agent for mails on board the contract steamer Trent.

It appears from the letter of Commander Williams, dated." Royal Mail contract packet Trent, at. sea, 9th November," that the Trent left Havannah on the 7tli inst., with her Majesty's mails for England, having on board numerous passengers. Commander Williams staUs that shortly afternoon on the Bth, a steamer having the appearance of a man-of-war, but not showing colors, was observed ahead.' On nearing her, at a quarter past one p.m., she fired a round shot from her pivot gun across the Trent and showed American, colors. While the Trent was approaching her Slowly the American vessel discharged n shell across the bows of the Trent, exploding half a cable's length ahead of her. The Trent then stopped, and an officer with a large armed guard of marines boarded her. The officer demanded a list of the passengers', and, compliance with this demand being refused, the officer said he had orders to arrest Messrs Mason, Slidell, M'Farland, and Eustis, and that he had sure information of th'ir being passengers in the Trent. While some parley was going on upon this matter, Mr Slidcll stepped forward and told the American officer that the four persons he had named were then standing before him. The commander of the Trent and Commander Williams protested against the act of taking by force out of the Trent these four passengers, their under the protection of theßritish flag. But the San Jacinto w^s at that time only 200 yards from the Trent, her ship's company at quarters, her ports open, and tompions out. Resistance ■was therefore out of the question, and the four gentlemen before-named were forcibly taken out of the ship. A further demand was made that the commander of the Trent should proceed on board the San Jacinto, but he said he would not go unle3S forcibly compelled likewise, and this uemand was not insisted iipon.

It thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral power, while such vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage—and acts of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law.

Her Majesty's Government, havilig in mind the friendly relations which have long subsisted between Great Britain and tho United States, are willing to believe that the United States naval officer who committed this aggression, was not acting in, compliance with any authority from the Government, or that, if he conceived himself to be so authorised, he greatly misunderstood the instructions which he had received.

For the Government of the United States must be fully aware that the British Government could not allow such an aftront to the national honor to pass without full reparation, and Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to believe that it could be the deliberate intention of the Government of the United States unnecessarily to force into discussion between the two Governments a question of so grave a character, and with regard to which the ivhole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, tru st that when the matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the Government of the United States, Jhat Government will, of its own accord, offer to the British Government such redress;as alone could satisfy the British nation— namely, f ;s ■ The liberation of the four gentlemen and their delivery to your Lordship, in order that they may again be placed under British protection, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has beencommittcd." '

Should these terms not he offered by Mr Seward, you] will propose them to him.

You are at liberty to read this despatch to the Secretary of State, and if he shall desire it, you will give him a copy of it.—l am, &c., Russell, i To the Lord Lyons, X.C.8., &c. ' To this despatch was received the reply of Mr. Seward, dated 26th December, complying with the demand of the British Government, and releasing the Commissioners. It is a very lengthy document in which Mr. Seward goes at great length into the question whether or not Captain Wilkes's proceeding was in accordance with, international law, which, he says, involved the following enquiries : — Ist. Were tho persons and their despatches contraband of war ? ■ -

2nd. Might Cttptain Wilkes lawfully stop and search the Trent .for these contraband persons and despatches %'.."'.. 3rd. Did he'ekercise that right in a lawful and proper manner? ~ -'4th. Having found the contraband persons on board and in presumed possession of the contraband despatches, had he a right to capture the persons ? ...,'., sth. Did he exercise the right of capture in the mannerallowed and recognised by the law_,of nations ? - '.'..'"

,He thencnte'rsinto a lengthened legal argument for the purpose of proving these propositions :— That the government of the "United States has a right to claim international law, to justify the seizure of its own rebels on neutral vessels ; that the sailing of anentral from neutral port to neutral port makes no difference in its liability ; and that it is "the right of the United States to act without law or against law if its safety should so require: The single and only point which rendered Captain Wilkes's act illegal, ivas his " indiscretion " in not taking the Trent to port to obtain the judgment of a Prize Court. Mr. Soward's despatch concludes with the following paragraphs : — It would tell little for our claims to the character of a just and magnanimous people, if we should so far consent to be guided by the law of retaliation as to lift up buried injuries from their graves to oppose against what, national consistency and the national.conscience compel us to regard as a claim intrinsically.right. Putting behind me all suggestions of this land, I prefer to express my satisfaction that by the ad-

justmpiit of the present case upon principles confessedly American, and yet, as I trust, mutually satisfactory to both the nations concerned, a question is finally and rightly settled between them which heretofore, exhausting not only ail forms of peaceful discussion, but also the arbitrament of war itself, for more than luilf a century alienated the two countries fVoni each other, and perplexed with fears and apprehensions all other nations.

The four prisoners in question are now held in military custody at Fort Warren, in the State of Massachusetts. They will be cheerfully liberated. Your lordship wili please indicate a time and place for receiving them. ; ,

Karl Russell's reply to this is dated the 11th of January, and contains the following passage :—

Proceeding at once to the main points in discussion between us, Her Majesty's Government have carefully examined how fax Mr. Seward's note, and the conduct it announces, complies substantially with the two proposals I have recited.

With regard to the iirst, namely, the liberation of the prisoners with a view to their being again placed under British protect ion. i find that the note concludes by stating that the prisoners will be cheerfully liberated, and by calling on your lordship to indicate a time and place for receiving them.

No condition of any kind is coupled with the liberation of the prisoners.

With regard to the suitable apology which the British Government had a right to expect, I find Hint the Government of the Un ted States distinctly and unequivocally declares that no directions had been given to Captain Wiikes, or to any other naval officer, to arrest the four persons named, or any of them, on. the Trent, or any other British vessel, or on any other neutral vessel, at the place where it occurred or elsewhere, I find further that the Secretary of State expressly forbears to justify the particular act of which Her Majesty's Government complained. If the United States Government had alleged that although Captain Wiikes had no previous instruction for that purpose, he was right in capturing the persons of the four prisoners, and 4n removing them from the Trent on board his own vessel, to be afterwards carried into a port of the United States, the Government which had thus sanctioned the proceeding of Captain Wiikes would have become responsible for the original violence and insult of the act. But Mr. Seward ©intents himself with stating that what has hapdened has been simply an inadvertency, consisting in a departure by a naval officer, free from j any wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and probably by the several parties concerned, either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. The Secretary of State goes on to affirm that for this error the British Government has a right to expect the same reparation which the United States, as an independent State, should, expect from Great Britain, or from any other friendly nation in a similar case.

Her Majesty's Government having carefully taken info consideration the liberation of the prisoners, the delivery of them into your hands, and the explanations to which I have just referred, have arrived at the conclusion that they constitute the reparation which Pier Majesty and the British.nation had a right to expect.

It gives Her M'ljesty's Government great satisfaction to be enables! to arrive at a conclusion favourable to the maintenance ol the most friendly relations between the two nations. I need not discuss the modifications in my statement of facts which JUr. Seward says lie has derived from the reports of officers of his Government.

In conclusion, Earl Mussel! adverts to the conclusions drawn by Mr. Seward as to what Capt. Wilkcs might have done without violating the law of nations :—

It is not necessary that I should, here discuss in detail the five questions ably argued by the Secretary of State ; but it is necessary that I should say that Her Majesty's Government difier from Mr. Sewsird in some of the conclusions at which he has arrived. Audit may lead to a better understanding between the two nations on several points of international law, which may, during the present contest or at some future time, be brought into question, that I should state to you, for communication to the Secretary of State, wherein those differences consist; I hope to do so in a few days.

In the meantime, it will be desirable that the commanders of the Union States cruisers should be instructed not to repeat acts for whi-:h the British Government will have to ask for redress, and which the United. States Government cannot undertake to justify.