PREFACE. THE writer hopes that his use of the terms "Precedents of Neutrality," upon his title-page, will not deter any, who might otherwise be interested in his pamphlet, from looking further into it, through fear of encountering only something purely technical and legal. He does not use "Precedents" as if he were going to treat of "Pleading" or "Practice," but, in the broadest sense of the term, as Historic Instances, "teaching by example." In this sense he hopes that his compilation or summary of American Precedents will address itself favorably to Englishmen, for whom it is mainly intended, as appealing to that well-known English element of action which rejoices in taking what is good in the past for a rule of conduct for the future. Would that the instances which he collects of American neutral conduct belonged to English history, and made part of the British national code! Then, certainly, if there were any of its old sense of honor and magnanimity left in the nation, we should see no such paltering course of action as has marked the Alabama and Alexandra cases, and, more recently, has displayed itself in this Georgia decision, to which the writer more immediately addresses, himself. In treating of these American precedents, as thus defined, the writer desires it to be understood that he does not in tend to cover the ground of citing all the American precedents, but only such part of them as belongs to this review of the Attorney-General's late speech; and, even in this limited undertaking, he for the most part omits all that have ever been before adduced or generally commented on. Thus he intends his short summary to be in addition to such historical memorials as have appeared, on the other side of the water, in the letters and criticisms of "Historicus" (Mr. William Vernon Harcourt), and the compend of American Neutral History by Mr. Frederick Waymouth Gibbs; and, on this side of the water, in the pamphlets of Mr. Grosvenor P. Lowrey, Mr. Charles G. Loring, and others. So far as the writer is to find readers among his own countrymen, he cannot but commend to their notice the attempts made by certain candid and high-minded Englishmen to bring the force of American Neutral History to bear upon current English conduct. Leaving out of view English parliamentary and official utterances, and confining the suggestion for the present to strictly historical and legal publications, the writer would especially commend to American attention the efforts of the two Englishmen just named -Messrs. Harcourt and Gibbs to impress upon their countrymen the just importance of our early neutral statesmanship and jurisprudence. He ventures to call their productions in this line though widely differing from each other admirable, and such as would do credit to the besteducated American. That these writings have not been reproduced and extensively read in this country, for American information, is to him almost a matter of complete surprise. He can only explain it upon the idea that the absorbing nature of our domestic struggle, and the preconceived prejudice against England at an early day for her apparent lukewarmness or even hostility towards our national well-being, have rendered us comparatively indifferent to whatever bears the name of English.. And yet, in characterizing the writings of Historicus and Mr. Gibbs in these terms, the writer begs that it may not be supposed that he has overlooked the fact that one of them the former is thoroughly and bitterly English in his prejudices, apparently believing that no good can come out of a republican form of government, and that the highest art in American demagoguism consists in getting up a war against England; and that the latter (Mr. Gibbs) sees no other end to our civil struggle but failure on the part of the North. Of course, in instancing English notice of American neutral history, the discussion which it underwent in the judicial hearing of the Alexandra case cannot be overlooked. Though that trial, as his American readers are well aware, ended in a ridiculous abortion, the writer cannot but regret that the masterly review and analysis of American neutral decisions at the bar of the Court of Exchequer-to say nothing about the able, acute, and highly interesting, though sometimes wrong-headed, comments upon them on the part of the bench have not, as yet, been reproduced and read in this country. As a matter of historic interest, he doubts if the annals of the English law afford such another exhibition of the highest order of cultivated legal ability as this same Alexandra law-hearing displays on the part of the respective counsel engaged, particularly in the leaders, Sir Roundell Palmer on the one side, and Sir Hugh Cairns on the other. Oh that such a discussion could have ended in a judgment pronounced by a Kent, a Story, or a Marshall! Then England would have established for herself another precedent worthy of the world's imitation, and serviceable for her |