as our own, that in consideration of the great rights she CHAP. II. would overlook the little wrong; nor could he then persuade himself that, were all the circumstances known to the English Government as to ours, the surrender of the rebel commissioners would be insisted upon. The Secretary asserted that the technical right was undoubtedly with England. . . Were the circumstances reversed, our Government would, Mr. Chase thought, accept the explanation, and let England keep her rebels; and he could not divest himself of the belief that, were the case fairly understood, the British Government would do likewise. "But," continued Secretary Chase, "we cannot afford delays. While the matter hangs in uncertainty the public mind will remain disquieted, our commerce will suffer serious harm, our action against the rebels must be greatly hindered, and the restoration of our prosperity-largely identified with that of all nations - must be delayed. Better, then, to make now the sacrifice of feeling involved in the surrender of these rebels, than even avoid it by the delays which explanations must occasion. I give my adhesion, therefore, to the conclusion at which the Secretary of State has arrived. It is gall and wormwood to me. Rather than consent to the liberation of these men, I would sacrifice everything I possess. But I am consoled by the reflection that, while nothing but severest retribution is due to them, the surrender under existing circumstances is but simply doing right-simply proving faithful to our own ideas and traditions under strong temptations to violate them—simply giving to England and the world the most signal proof that the American nation will not under any circumstances, for the sake of inflicting just punishment on rebels, commit even a technical wrong against neutrals."

In these two recorded opinions are reflected the substantial tone and temper of the Cabinet discussion, which ended, as both Mr. Bates and Mr. Seward have stated, in a unanimous concurrence in the letter of reply as drawn up by the Secretary of State. That long and remarkably able docu

R. B. War

den, "Life pp. 393, 394.

of Chase,"

CHAP. II. ment must be read in full, both to understand the wide range of the subject which he treated and the clearness and force of his language and argument. It constitutes one of his chief literary triumphs. There is room here only to indicate the conclusions arrived at in his examination. First, he held that the four persons seized and their dispatches were contraband of war; second, that Captain Wilkes had a right by the law of nations to detain and search the Trent; third, that he exercised the right in a lawful and proper manner; fourth, that he had a right to capture the contraband found. The real issue of the case centered in the fifth question: "Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right of capturing the contraband in conformity with the law of nations?" Reciting the deficiency of recognized rules on this point, Mr. Seward held that only by taking the vessel before a prize court could the existence of contraband be lawfully established; and that Captain Wilkes having released the vessel from capture, the necessary judicial examination was prevented, and the capture left unfinished or abandoned.

Mr. Seward's dispatch continued:

I trust that I have shown to the satisfaction of the British Government, by a very simple and natural statement of the facts and analysis of the law applicable to them, that this Government has neither meditated, nor practised, nor approved any deliberate wrong in the transaction to which they have called its attention, and, on the contrary, that what has happened has been simply an inadvertency, consisting in a departure by the naval officer, free from any wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and probably by the several parties concerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. For this error the British Government has a right to expect the same reparation that we, as an inde

pendent State, should expect from Great Britain or from any other friendly nation in a similar case. . If I decide this case in favor of my own Government I must disavow its most cherished principles, and reverse and forever abandon its essential policy. The country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain those principles and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the case itself. The four persons in question are now held in military custody at Fort Warren, in the State of Massachusetts. They will be cheerfully liberated.

With the formal delivery of Mason and Slidell and their secretaries to the custody of the British minister, the diplomatic incident was completed on the part of the United States. Lord Russell, on his part, while announcing that her Majesty's Government differed from Mr. Seward in some of the conclusions at which he had arrived,' nevertheless

1 In a dispatch to Lord Lyons of Jan. 23, 1862, in which he discussed the questions at some length, Lord Russell held: first, that Mason and Slidell and their supposed dispatches, under the circumstances of their seizure, were not contraband; secondly, that the bringing of the Trent before a prize court, though it would alter the character, would not diminish the offense against the law of nations. It is somewhat interesting to read in this connection the following passage in the recently published "Life of Lord John Russell," by Spencer Walpole, which states that the advice given by the law officers of the British Crown was in almost exact conformity with the positions taken by Mr. Seward:

"The Confederate States appointed two gentlemen, Messrs. Mason and Slidell, to proceed to Europe, accredited to the English

and French Governments respec-
tively. These gentlemen em-
barked at Charleston on the
Nashville, succeeded in running
the blockade, and landed in Cuba.
It was correctly assumed that
they would embark at Havana
on the Trent, a West Indian mail
steamer, and travel in her to
Europe; it was believed that the
Government of the United States
had issued orders for intercepting
the Trent and for capturing the
envoys; and it was noticed that
a Federal man-of-war had arrived
at Falmouth, and after coaling
had proceeded to Southampton.
Lord Russell laid these facts be-
fore the law officers; and was
advised that a United States
man-of-war, falling in with a
British mail steamer, would have
the right to board her, open her
mail bags, examine their contents,
and, if the steamer should prove
liable to confiscation for carrying

Russell to Lyons,

CHAP. II. acknowledged that the action of the American Government constituted "the reparation which her Majesty and the British nation had a right to Jan. 10,1862. expect." It is not too much to say that not merely the rulers and Cabinets of both nations, but also those of all the great European powers, were relieved from an oppressive apprehension by this termination of the affair.

If from one point of view the United States suffered a certain diplomatic defeat and humiliation, it became, in another light, a real international victory. The turn of affairs placed not only England, but France and other nations, distinctly on their good behavior. In the face of this American example of moderation they could no longer so openly brave the liberal sentiment of their own people by the countenance they had hitherto given the rebellion. So far from improving or enhancing the hostile mission of Mason and Slidell, the adventure they had undergone served to diminish their importance and circumscribe their influence. The very act of their liberation compelled the British authorities sharply to define the hollow pretense under which they were sent. In his instructions to the British Government vessel which received them at Provincetown and conveyed them to England, Lord Lyons wrote: "It is hardly necessary

dispatches from the enemy, put a prize crew on board and carry her to a port of the United States for adjudication. In that case the law officers thought she might, Spencer and in their opinion she ought Walpole, "Life of to, disembark the passengers on Lord John the mail steamer at some conRussell." venient port. But they added, Vol. II., pp. 'she would have no right to re

344, 345.

move Messrs. Mason and Slidell, and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the ship to pursue her voyage.' A few days before the law officers gave this opinion the San Jacinto, an American war steamer, intercepted the Trent and did the very thing which the law officers had advised she had no right to do."

TRENT

Lyons to Commander Hewett,

that I should remind you that these gentlemen CHAP. II. have no official character. It will be right for you to receive them with all courtesy and respect, as private gentlemen of distinction; but it would be Dec. 30,1861. very improper to pay to them any of those honors which are paid to official persons."

The same result in a larger degree awaited their advent in Europe. Under the intense publicity of which they had been the subject, officials of all degrees were in a measure compelled to avoid them as political "suspects." Mason was received in England with cold and studied neglect; while Slidell, in France, though privately encouraged by the Emperor Napoleon III., finally found himself a victim, instead of a beneficiary, of his selfish schemes.

British "Blue Book."