Part 30

There have been wars of _pretext_; but here was an act of legislation, which, whenever enforced, was a _Petty War_, and its origin was a pretext. It was nothing but a pretext, through which the representatives of Slavery sought to enforce a flagitious power. The pretext was worthy of the legislation, and both pretext and legislation were in harmony with the authors, who drew their motives of conduct from Slavery and nothing else. The same spirit which triumphed in this Fugitive Slave Act, on a pretext, has at last broken forth in rebellion, on a pretext also. Each was under pretext of maintaining Slavery, and each proceeded from the same influence.

Speaking, then, in general terms, the authors of the Fugitive Slave Act were the authors of the Rebellion. The one and the other have the same paternity, as unquestionably they have a family likeness.

If, however, we go still further, and seek the individual authors of this odious measure, the forerunner of the Rebellion, it is easy to point them out.

The bill was reported to the Senate by Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, so that in origin it may be traced directly to the hot-house of nullification, treason, and rebellion. But Mr. Mason, of Virginia, subsequently moved a substitute, which, being adopted, became the existing statute, and this enormity stalked into life under the patronage of a Senator from Virginia. Public report, which is entitled to belief, attributes this substitute to the cunning hand of Mr. Faulkner, also of Virginia; but, on moving it in the Senate, Mr. Mason made it his own, and pressed it with untiring pertinacity, as the “Globe” amply attests, until it became the law of the land, so far as such a measure can in any just sense be “law.”

But whether its authors be found in States or individuals, there is in it the same pernicious virus, which, breaking out first in South Carolina, inoculated Virginia, like the Rebellion itself. A Senator from Virginia took from South Carolina the final responsibility, as an aged madman from Virginia asked and obtained permission to point the first gun at Fort Sumter. Nor are the two events unlike in character. The Fugitive Slave Act was levelled at the Union hardly less than the batteries at Charleston, when they opened upon Fort Sumter.

Such are the authors, general and special, of this wickedness. The Senator from South Carolina is dead; but the representatives of Slavery still live, and so also do the two madmen from Virginia. Thus the representatives of Slavery, though now in open rebellion, continue, through unrepealed statute, to insult the loyal States, to degrade the Republic, and to rule the country which they tried to ruin. And thus two audacious Rebels, one the pretended Minister of the Rebellion at London, and the other an officer in the Rebel forces, still exert among us a malignant power, while, with a long arm not yet amputated, they reach even into the streets of Washington, and fasten the chains of the slave.

CONCLUSION.

To all this there is one simple answer, and Congress must make it.

A clause of the Constitution, contrary to all commanding rules of jurisprudence, has been interpreted to sanction the hunting of slaves; and the same clause, thus interpreted, has been declared, contrary to all testimony of history, to have been an original compromise of the Constitution and a corner-stone of the Union. On this clause, thus misinterpreted and thus misrepresented, an Act of Congress is founded, which, even assuming that the clause is strictly applicable to fugitive slaves, is many times unconstitutional, but especially in three several particulars: (1.) as a usurpation by Congress of powers not granted by the Constitution; (2.) as a denial of trial by jury in a case of personal liberty and a suit at Common Law; and (3.) as a concession of the case of personal liberty to the unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate, without any oath of office, constituting no part of the judicial power,--appointed, not by the President with the consent of the Senate, but by the court,--holding office, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of the court,--and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to each individual case. But even if this Act were strictly constitutional in all respects, yet, regarding it in its painful consequences and in its Rebel authors, it is none the less offensive; for from the beginning it was a scourge to the African race and a grievance to the whole country, a scandal abroad and a dead-weight upon the Union at home, while it was the arch contrivance of men who at the time were rebel at heart and are now in open rebellion, devised as an insult to the Free States and as a badge of subjugation. Such a statute, thus utterly unconstitutional in every respect, and utterly mischievous in all its consequences and influences, while peculiarly obnoxious in its well-known authors, ought to be repealed without delay. If possible to parliamentary usage, it ought to be torn from the volumes of the law, so that there should be no record of such an abuse and such a shame.

Unhappily, the statute must always remain in the pages of our history. But every day of delay in its repeal is hurtful to the national cause and to the national name. Would you put down the Rebellion? Would you uphold our fame abroad? Would you save the Constitution from outrage? Would you extinguish Slavery? Above all, would you follow the Constitution and establish justice? Then repeal the statute at once.

FOOTNOTES

[1] This Introduction is copied from the pamphlet edition published in New York by the Young Men’s Republican Union.

[2] Speech on the King’s Message relative to the Affairs of Portugal, December 12, 1826: Speeches, Vol. VI. p. 79.

[3] Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, 1861, p. 84: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 1.

[4] Debate on the Queen’s Proclamation, May 16, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 2084.

[5] The cynical frankness of Earl Russell reveals the prominence of this consideration. In autobiographical comments, at a later day, he says: “During the discussion of the questions relating to the Alabama and the Shenandoah, it was the great object of the British Government to preserve for the subject the security of Trial by Jury, _and for the nation the legitimate and lucrative trade of ship-building_.”--_Selections from Speeches of Earl Russell, 1817 to 1841, and from Despatches, 1859 to 1865_, with Introductions by Earl Russell, Vol. II. p. 266.

[6] “Apud Agathiam legimus, hostem esse qui faciat quod hosti placet.”--GROTIUS, _De Jure Belli ac Pacis_, Lib. III. cap. xvii. § 3, 2.

[7] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 8, pp. 2, 3.

[8] Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward, October 14, 1861: Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, 1861, p. 169: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 1.

[9] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. C. col. 714.

[10] Spectator, January 4, 1862, p. 17.

[11] Sir Walter Scott, in correspondence with his friend Ellis, undertook to explain how a whole edition of Godwin’s Life of Chaucer had vanished, by conjecturing, that, “as the heaviest materials to be come at, they have been sent on the secret expedition, planned by Mr. Phillips and adopted by our sapient Government, for blocking up the mouth of our enemy’s harbors.”--_Letter to George Ellis, Esq., March 19, 1804_: Lockhart’s Life of Scott, Vol. I. p. 414.

[12] Letter to Lord Mulgrave, April 3, 1809: Autobiography of a Seaman, Vol. I. pp. 363, 364.

[13] Earl of Malmesbury, Speech in the House of Lords, February 5, 1863: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLIX. col. 53.

[14] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. X. col. 695.

[15] Letter of January 17, 1863: Correspondence relating to the Civil War in the United States, pp. 51, 52: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII.

[16] Earl Russell to Mr. Stuart, October 10, 1862: Correspondence respecting Instructions given to Naval Officers of the United States in regard to Neutral Vessels and Mails, p. 5: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII.

[17] See, _post_, Appendix, p. 490.

[18] Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, April 24, 1863: Correspondence respecting Trade with Matamoras, p. 1: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII.

[19] Wicquefort, L’Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions, Liv. II. sec. 11.

[20] “La neutralité n’existe plus dès qu’elle n’est pas parfaite.”--_Réponse du Comte de Bernstorff à M. Hailes, Envoyé Britannique à Copenhague, le 28 Juillet, 1793_: Cussy, Phases et Causes Célèbres du Droit Maritime des Nations, Tom. II. p. 177.

[21] Speech on the Repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Bill, April 16, 1823: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 2d Ser., Vol. VIII. col. 1036.

[22] The Ways and Means whereby an Equal and Lasting Commonwealth may be suddenly introduced and perfectly founded, with the free Consent and actual Confirmation of the Whole People of England. Feb. 6, 1659. First printed at London 1660. Harrington, Oceana and other Works, (London, 1747,) pp. 539, 540, xlv.

[23] De Rerum Natura, Lib. II. 6.

[24] “Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.”

TERENCE, _Heaut._, Act I. Sc. i. 25.

[25] The recent British Foreign Enlistment Act, passed August 9, 1870, entitled “An Act to regulate the conduct of her Majesty’s subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign states with which her Majesty is at peace,” makes it illegal, if any person within her Majesty’s dominions “builds, or agrees to build, or causes to be built, any ship, _with intent, or knowledge, or having reasonable cause to believe_ that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any friendly state.” (Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, transmitted to Congress December 5, 1870, p. 159.) Lord Westbury, an ex-Chancellor, said in the House of Lords, March 27, 1868, “It was not a question whether armed ships had actually left our shores, but it was a question whether ships _with a view to war_ had been built in our ports by one of two belligerents.”--Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CXCI. col. 346.

[26] United States _v._ Quincy, 6 Peters, S. C. R., 465, 466.

[27] The Gran Para, 7 Wheaton, R., 471; also four other cases in same volume.

[28] Speech on Repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Bill, April 16, 1823: Speeches, Vol. V. p. 51.

[29] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 22.

[30] Mr. Jefferson to M. Ternant, May 15, 1793: Ibid., p. 148.

[31] Wharton’s State Trials, p. 50.

[32] Acts 3d Cong. Ch. 37, June 5, 1794: Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 381.

[33] Acts 15th Cong. 1st Sess. Ch. 88, April 20, 1818: Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. 447.

[34] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XL. col. 369, 907, May 13, June 3, 1819.

[35] Ibid., 2d Ser. Vol. VIII. col. 1056, April 16, 1823.

[36] Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox, January 5, 1838: Executive Documents, 25th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 74, p. 28. President’s Message, January 5, 1838: Ibid., No. 64. Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. XL. col. 716, February 2, 1838. Acts 25th Cong. 2d Sess. Ch. 31, March 10, 1838: United States Statutes at Large, Vol. V. p. 212.

[37] Mr. Crampton to Mr. Marcy, April 21, 1854; Count de Sartiges to Mr. Marcy, April 28, 1854: Executive Documents, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R., No. 103, pp. 2, 4.

[38] Treaty of 1794, Art. 21: United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 127.

[39] Speech on the Consolidated Fund Bill, July 23, 1863: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXII. col. 1270.

[40] Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, April 16, 1863: Correspondence respecting Enlistment of British Subjects in the Federal Army, p. 2: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII.

[41] Treaty of 1794, Art. 7.

[42] Twee Gebroeders, 3 Robinson, R., 165.

[43] Burlamaqui, Principles of Natural and Politic Law, tr. Nugent (London, 1763): Politic Law, Part IV. ch. 3, §§ 21, 22, pp. 255, 256.

[44] Commentaries upon International Law (London, 1854), Vol. I. p. 231.

[45] Lord Lyons to Earl Russell, January 13, 1863: Correspondence relating to the Civil War in the United States, p. 53: Parliamentary Papers, 1863, Vol. LXXII.

[46] M. Prévost-Paradol, the eminent writer, and afterwards Minister of France at Washington, justifies this statement. “If the civil war,” says he, “had not broken out, or if the French Government had foreseen the final victory of the North and the reconstruction of the American power, never would the idea of founding a throne in Mexico by European arms have entered into its head.… The fall of the American Republic was, from the beginning of this great trouble, among the aspirations of the French Government, and its most accredited organs made no mystery of it.” Attributing to England the same desire and the same judgment on the probable issue of the war, the distinguished writer says the English Government simply waited events, “in a malevolent neutrality towards the North.”--KÉRATRY, _L’Elévation et la Chute de l’Empereur Maximilien_: Préface de Prévost-Paradol.

[47] See, _ante_, p. 309.

[48] Barbé-Marbois, Histoire de la Louisiane, p. 335.

[49] From a despatch of Mr. Benjamin, the Rebel Secretary of State, it seems that the French Emperor embraced Texas in his Mexican plot. (Lawrence, Commentaire sur les Éléments du Droit International, Tom. II. p. 360, Part. II. ch. 1.) In European diplomatic circles it was reported that he had tried to seduce a prince of Portugal by tender of the throne of Mexico with the promise of Texas.

[50] Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, Tom. VII. p 125.

[51] The Mexican crown was voted to the Archduke Maximilian by the Assembly of Notables, 10th July, 1863, and formally tendered to him at Miramar, 3d October, twenty-three days after this speech, but he did not enter the City of Mexico till 12th June, 1864. The new Empire was acknowledged by all the European powers. The United States refused to acknowledge it. The suppression of our Rebellion was followed by the withdrawal of the French troops, and the execution of Maximilian, who was condemned to death and shot by the Mexicans, 19th June, 1867.

[52] Wicquefort, L’Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions, Liv. II. sec. 11.

[53] Speech on the Treaty of Peace with America, April 11, 1815: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXX. col. 525.

[54] L’Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions, Liv. II. sec. 4.

[55] Vol. I. pp. 51-55.

[56] Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell (London, 1854), Vol. II. p. 210.

[57] Martens, Causes Célèbres (2me édit.), Tom. II. pp. 40-51.

[58] History of the Rebellion (Oxford, 1826), Book X. Vol. V. p. 409.

[59] Parliamentary History of England, Vol. XV. p. 51 (London, 1763). Journals of the House of Commons, Vol. IV. pp. 622, 623, 624, July 22, 1646.

[60] Burnet, History of his Own Time, Vol. I. p. 81.

[61] Letters of State,--The Protector to Charles Gustavus, and to the Consuls and Senators of Breme, October 26, 1654: Milton’s Prose Works (ed. Symmons), Vol. IV. pp. 375-377.

[62] Secretary Thurloe to Mr. Pell, May 11, 1655: Vaughan’s Protectorate, Vol. I. p. 176.

[63] Letters of State,--The Protector to the Duke of Savoy, May, 1655: Milton’s Prose Works (ed. Symmons), Vol. IV. p. 379.

[64] The Protector to Charles Gustavus: Ibid., p. 383.

[65] Morland, History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont (London, 1658), p. 575. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell (London, 1854), Vol. II. p. 219.

[66] Merlin, Répertoire Universel et Raisonné de Jurisprudence, art. MINISTRE PUBLIC, Sect. II. xii.

[67] Martens, Causes Célèbres (2me édit.), Tom. III. p. 196.

[68] Hints for a Memorial to be delivered to Monsieur de M. M.: Works (London, 1801), Vol. VII. pp. 3-5.

[69] Speech of General Fitzpatrick in the House of Commons, March 17, 1794: Hansard, Parliamentary History, Vol. XXXI. col. 37, 38. See also Vol. XXXII. col. 1348 seqq.

[70] Garden, Histoire des Traités de Paix, Tom. VIII. pp. 21-23.

[71] Phillimore’s International Law, Vol. III. pp. 757, 760, 763.

[72] Speech on Intervention in Portugal, June 11, 1847: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. XCIII. col. 466.

[73] Viscount Palmerston to Sir Hamilton Seymour, February 16, 1847: Correspondence relating to the Affairs of Portugal, p. 192: Parliamentary Papers, 1847, Vol. LXVIII.

[74] Phillimore, International Law, Vol. II. p. 676.

[75] Ibid., p. 448.

[76] Ibid., p. 676.

[77] Annual Register for 1856, pp. 236], 237].

[78] Ibid., p. 219].

[79] Montgomery, The West Indies, Part I. 1-4.

[80] Osler’s Life of Exmouth, pp. 298, 333, 432.

[81] Wheaton, History of the Law of Nations, p. 605.

[82] Speech on the Treaty with Spain, February 9, 1818: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXXVII. col. 248.

[83] Congrès de Vérone (2me édit.), Tom. I. p. 78.

[84] Martens et Cussy, Recueil de Traités, Conventions, etc., Tom. V. p. 440.

[85] Cussy, Phases et Causes Célèbres, Tom. I. p. 157; Tom. II. pp. 362, 363.

[86] Report from Select Committee of the House of Lords on the African Slave-Trade, July 23, 1849: Parliamentary Papers, 1850, Vol. IX. pp. 370-373.

[87] Parliamentary Papers, 1841, Vol. XXX.: Correspondence relating to the Slave-Trade, Class B, Nos. 41, 178, 201; Class C, No. 45; Class D, No. 25.

[88] Parliamentary Papers, 1841, Vol. XXX.: Correspondence relating to the Slave-Trade, Class A, No. 143.

[89] Ibid.: Correspondence, Class B, No. 116.

[90] Ibid.: Correspondence, Class A, No. 143.

[91] Parliamentary Papers, 1842, Vol. XLIII.: Correspondence relating to the Slave-Trade, Class B, Nos. 525, 526.

[92] Ibid.: Correspondence, Class B, No. 120.

[93] Parliamentary Papers, 1842, Vol. XLIII.: Correspondence relating to the Slave-Trade, Class B, No. 47; Vol. XLIV., Class C, Nos. 17-27.

[94] Ibid., Vol. XLIV.: Correspondence, Class D, No. 90.

[95] Parliamentary Papers, 1841, Vol. XXX.: Correspondence relating to the Slave-Trade, Class D, No. 30; 1842, Vol. XLIV., Class D, No. 94.

[96] Ibid., 1841, Vol. XXX.: Correspondence, Class D, No. 27.

[97] Speech in the House of Commons, on the Sugar Duties, May 18, 1841: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. LVIII. col. 654, 655.

[98] Life and Times of Charles James Fox, Vol. I. p. 365.

[99] Speech on the Sugar Duties, February 26, 1845: Speeches (London, 1854), p. 351.

[100] To the United States of North America.

[101] Speech on the Address in Reply to the King’s Speech, February 3, 1825: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 2d Ser., Vol. XII. col. 77, 78.

[102] Art. VI. VII.: United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 16.

[103] Martens, Causes Célèbres, Tom. III. pp. 171, 172.

[104] Speech in the House of Lords, March 15, 1824: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 2d Ser., Vol. X. col. 999.

[105] Speech in the House of Commons, June 15, 1824: Miscellaneous Works (London, 1846), Vol. III. pp. 462, 463.

[106] Art. I. sec. 9.

[107] Art. IV. sec. 3.

[108] Speech at Savannah, March 21, 1861: Rebellion Record, Vol. I., Diary, p. 19, Doc. 48. See, also, A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, by Alexander H. Stephens, Vol. II. pp. 85, 521, 522.

[109] Message of Governor Bonham: Rebellion Record, Vol. VI. Doc. 157.

[110] “Juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus.”--_De Republica_, Lib. I. c. 25.

[111] De Republica, cited by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Lib. II. cap. xxi. § 2. See also De Republica, Lib. III. c. 31.

[112] De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. I. Cap. I. § xiv. 1.

[113] Ibid., Lib. III. Cap. III. § ii. 1, 3.

[114] International Law, Vol. I. p. 79.

[115] Amedie, 1 Acton, R., 250.

[116] La Jeune Eugénie, 2 Mason, R., 451.

[117] Life and Letters of Joseph Story, Vol. I. pp. 357, 359.

[118] “Lex est ratio summa, insita in natura, quæ jubet ea quæ facienda sunt, prohibetque contraria.”--_De Legibus_, Lib. I. c. 6.

[119] System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, B. I. c. 2, § 11.

[120] De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. II. Cap. XV. § ix. 10.

[121] Ibid., § xi. 3.

[122] Sallust, Fragm., Lib. IV.: _Rex Mithridates Regi Arsaci_.

[123] 2 Chron., xix. 2.

[124] Molloy, De Jure Maritimo et Navali (6th edit.), Book I. ch. 4, § 4. Phillimore, International Law, Vol. I. p. 80.

[125] Wicquefort, L’Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions, Liv. I. sec. 3.

[126] Thoughts on French Affairs, 1791: Works (London, 1801), Vol. VII. pp. 11, 12.

[127] Speech on the Address of Thanks, December 14, 1792: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXX. col. 72.

[128] Works, Vol. VI. p. 86.

[129] Miscellaneous Works (London, 1846), Vol. III. pp. 476, 477.

[130] Note Verbale en Réponse au Memorandum sur les Colonies Espagnoles en Amérique du 24 Novembre, 1822: Congrès de Vérone (2me édit.), Tom. I. p. 93.

[131] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. II. ch. 5, § 70.

[132] Ibid.

[133] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. II. ch. 4, § 56.

[134] Ibid.

[135] Ibid., ch. 12, § 162.

[136] Forbes _v._ Cochrane et al., 2 Barnwall and Creswell, R., 448, 471.

[137] Wilkie, The Epigoniad, Book I. 403, 404.

[138] Odyssey, tr. Pope, Book IX. 329-332.

[139] Odyssey, tr. Pope, Book X. 133.

Other verses, by Richard Owen Cambridge, the satirist, and contemporary of Dr. Johnson, picture this Slavemonger Government:--

“Polypheme was a cannibal, And most voracious glutton; Poor shipwrecked tars he smoused for fish, And munched marines for mutton.”

[140] Regicide Peace, Second Letter: Works (London, 1801), Vol. VIII. p. 161.

[141] Deuteronomy, xxviii. 65-67. See, _ante_, Vol. V. pp. 304, 305, where the fate of the Flying Dutchman is predicted for our Disunionists. The remarkable story of Peter Rugg, always on the road, driving furiously, but unable to find his way to Boston, illustrates the same blasted condition. Chaucer foreshadows a similar doom:--

“And breakers of the law, soth to saine, … after that they been dede, Shall whirle about the world, alway in paine, Till many a world be passed out of drede.”

_The Assembly of Foules_, 78-81.

[142] Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol: Works (London, 1801), Vol. III. p. 144.

[143] Bas _v._ Tingy, Dallas, R., Vol. IV. pp. 43-45, Chase, J., and Paterson, J.

[144] Despatch, October 12, 1825,--quoted in Speech of Lord John Russell, on the Blockade of Southern Ports, May 6, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 1566.

[145] Statutes at Large, ed. Pickering, Vol. III. p. 20.

[146] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 494.

[147] Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres, Tom. III. pp. 299, 323, 352.

[148] Le Droit Maritime International, Tom. I. pp. 65, 66.

[149] Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, ed. Lawrence, p. 1024.

[150] Speech in the House of Commons, May 6, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. CLXII. col. 1566. At a later day, in a communication to Mr. Adams, on the seizure of the steamer Georgia by a United States steamer, Earl Russell said, that “her Majesty’s Government of course expects that a vessel seized under the British flag and claimed by British owners will be brought, with as little delay as possible, _for adjudication into the proper Prize Court_, in which the claim of one of her Majesty’s subjects will be tried according to those recognized principles of International Law which govern the relations of the belligerent toward the neutral.”--_Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, September 6, 1864_: Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, Part II. p. 298: Executive Documents, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 1.

[151] The Winter’s Tale, Act III. Scene 3: “_A Desert Country near the Sea_.”

“Our ship hath touched upon The deserts of Bohemia?”

[152] Phillimore, International Law, Vol. I. pp. 400, 401.

[153] Speech in the House of Lords, May 16, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 2084.

[154] Hargrave’s State Trials, Vol. V. col. 314, 315.