diplomatic reproofs. Perhaps some even thought that Europe would tire of the long contest, and the harassing interruption of trade with the Southern States, and would intervene, either by force or persuasion, to stop the war and restore the normal conditions of commerce. But among all the various hopes or surmises which may have been discussed at Richmond, or which stirred the minds of the Southern people, no one ever dreamed that Great Britain would be selected as the chief object of Mr. Seward's malice, and that she-ever more yielding to the United States than any other Power with which there was a controversy, and always more restrictive than France, especially in the treatment of Confederate cruisers-would have been selected to pay the penalty of recognising the Confederate States as belligerents, and to recoup to the United States a portion of the losses inflicted by the war. No country whose ports were visited by Confederate cruisers was so restrictive and exacting as Great Britain, and no Government was more cautious and reserved in granting privileges or permitting official courtesies to Confederate commanding officers or diplomatic agents which could be construed into an admission of anything beyond the merest belligerent rights.

Perhaps it would be well to give a few examples of the action of some other Powers and the privileges granted to Confederate cruisers in their ports.

Holland. The Sumter was the first Confederate vessel that got to sea. She was down among the windward West India Islands in July-August, 1861, and visited during those months two ports of the Dutch possessions, namely, St. Anne's, Curaçoa, and Paramaribo. She was permitted to remain at the first port eight days, and at the second eleven days. At both

places she was allowed to obtain coal and other supplies, and she was received and treated by the authorities in every respect as a national ship-of-war. Mr. Seward remonstrated, and in one of his despatches in February, 1862, he directed the United States Minister at the Hague to call attention to the 'subject of the intrusion of piratical American vessels seeking shelter in the ports of the Netherlands and their colonies;' but the Dutch Government was never induced to withdraw the recognition of belligerent rights conceded to the South, or to treat Confederate ships-of-war otherwise than those of the United States.

Mr. Pike, the Minister of the United States at the Hague, insisted that the vessels of the Confederate States were 'piratical craft,' or, at best, he said, they could only be looked upon as 'privateers,' and therefore should be excluded from ports of the Netherlands. In reply, Baron van Zuylen, the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated the views of his Government, as follows:'The vessel armed for war by private persons is called a

66

privateer." The character of such vessel is settled precisely, and, like her English name (privateer) indicates sufficiently under this circumstance that she is a private armed vessel-name which Mr. Wheaton gives them ("Elements of International Law," ii., p. 19). Privateering is the maritime warfare which privateers are authorized to make for their own account, against merchant-vessels of the enemy by virtue of letters of marque, which are issued to them by the State. The Sumter is not a private vessel; is not the property of unconnected individuals-of private ship-owners. She therefore cannot be a privateer; she can only be a shipof-war, or ship of the State, armed for cruising. . . . It cannot be held, as you propose in your despatch of the

9th of this month, that all vessels carrying the Confederate flag are, without distinction, to be considered as privateers, because the principles of the law of nations, as well as the examples of history, require that the rights of war be accorded to those States."*

Brazil.-The Sumter went from Paramaribo to Maranham in the Empire of Brazil. She was allowed to remain ten days, and to take in as much coal as she wanted. The United States Consul made a protest to the President of the province, but the reply was that the Sumter was a belligerent vessel, and, as such, must be allowed to receive all necessary supplies. The United States Minister at Rio de Janeiro carried on a long correspondence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the subject, and denounced the conduct of the President of Maranham as an unfriendly act towards the United States, and a gross breach of neutrality;' but the Imperial Government approved the conduct of their officer in recognising the Sumter as a national ship-of-war.† At a later period of the war the Florida, Georgia, and Alabama were admitted to Brazilian ports on precisely the same footing as vessels of the United States. It was alleged that the Alabama had violated the neutrality of Brazil by making captures within the territorial waters of the Empire off the island of Fernando de Noronha. The President of the province of Pernambuco, within whose jurisdiction the alleged offence was said to have been committed, sent instructions to the Governor of the island to order the Alabama away, but meanwhile she

* See 'British Case,' Appendix, vol. vi., pp. 70, 76, 77, and Sir A. Cockburn, pp. 83, 84, for correspondence between Mr. Pike and Baron van Zuylen.

+ See British Counter-Case,' p. 120, and Appendix to 'British Case,' vol. vi., pp. 17, 42.

had left the neighbourhood, and on May 11th, 1863, she entered the harbour of Bahia, and was permitted to remain there fourteen days.

The United States Minister remonstrated, and even went so far as to maintain that the Alabama should have been seized and detained at Bahia; but the Brazilian Government replied that the President of Bahia had done right in receiving the Alabama, and that he would not have been justified in refusing her the hospitalities of the port without positive evidence of her having infringed the neutrality of the Empire. Subsequently, instructions were issued to exclude the Alabama from Brazilian ports on the ground that she had burned captured vessels within the territorial limits of the Empire, but there never arose an occasion to enforce the order, as the ship proceeded from Bahia to the East Indies, and did not again appear on the South American coast. Captain Semmes wrote me a categorical denial of the report upon which the above-mentioned instructions were issued, and he would have been able to prove its falsehood if it had been necessary or convenient for him to bring the Alabama again into a Brazilian port.

Spain. In January, 1862, the Sumter entered the port of Cadiz, and was not only permitted to obtain supplies, but she was allowed the use of a Government dock to make her repairs. In February, 1865, the Stonewall was compelled to put into Ferrol in consequence of a serious leak in her rudder-casing, and she was allowed to remain more than a month refitting. In reply to the protest of the United States Minister, the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs said :-'The Government of her Majesty could not disregard the voice of humanity, in perfect harmony with the laws of neutrality, and does not think they are violated by allowing a

vessel only the repairs strictly necessary to navigate without endangering the lives of the crew.'* Subsequently, in May, 1865, the Stonewall entered the Spanish Colonial port of Havana. The Captain-General not only recognised her as a vessel-of-war, although the Confederate Government had to all appearance ceased to exist, but he advanced to her commander the amount necessary to pay off the crew.

Portugal. From Ferrol the Stonewall proceeded to Lisbon, where she was permitted to remain the full time to which the stay of vessels belonging to both belligerents was restricted, and was also permitted to take in a supply of coal. The Minister of the United States made the usual protest, but in reply to his representations the Portuguese Foreign Minister wrote thus:- Regarding the supply of coal, against which you insist, allow me to observe that the vessel being a steamer, his Majesty's Government could not avoid with good foundation that she should be provided with that article, with the same reason that it could not deny to any sailing-vessel in a dismantled state to provide itself with sails.'†

France. The Sumter, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Rappahannock, were on every occasion of visiting French ports received with marked consideration, and were allowed to take supplies of coal and to repair damages with a degree of freedom and latitude in excess of the privileges granted them by any other Power.

The Sumter called at Martinique in November, 1861. She was permitted to remain fourteen days, and to take in a full supply of coal, enough, in fact, to carry her across the Atlantic. The Alabama touched at Martinique in November, 1862, to meet her tender, the Agrippina. * Quoted in 'British Counter-Case,' p. 123.

+ Ibid.