Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward
Sir. I have just come from an interview with Lord Russell. He was unwell, and received me at his own house. I had asked it for two purposes. One of these was to communicate to him the substance of your despatch No. 1258, and especially to point out to him that portion of it relating to the intimation given by the rebel commissioners of some device to unite the sentiment of both sides on an object not defined, yet not difficult to be conceived. The morning’s newspapers, however, contain, among the other intelligence from America, the whole of that despatch as furnished to Congress by the President. I therefore contented myself with a reference to the Times, which his lordship had not yet read, and particularly to the passage alluded to, as exemplifying the intriguing nature of the rebel operation. They endeavor to sow distrust between us and foreign powers by proposing on the one side, as a measure of conciliation, the adoption of a policy which may be iuferred to be hostile to them in America, whilst on the other they seek aid and co-operation from them by offering to place themselves in the breach against that same policy which they boldly impute exclusively to us.
The other object of my interview related to the contents of your No. 1256. I gave him the substance of it, remarking at the same time that its importance, had been much diminished by the later action of her Majesty’s government, not yet known to the United States. I then alluded to the reference in Mr. Slidell’s letter to some project that had been offered by M. Drouyn de Lhuys through Lord Cowley, in a manner to invite explanations if his lordship felt so disposed. He readily responded. The project, he said, had been little or nothing more than an. abstract of that part of the minute of instructions which proposed to save neutral property from destruction, if permission were given to admit it into the neutral ports. It had been considered by himself as inadmissible from the first, but it had been referred, as usual, to the Crown lawyers, who at once pronounced [Page 184] the whole scheme of adjudication on the quarter-deck as involving a departure from the established law of nations, which could not be thought of for a moment. He had in consequence written a letter to Lord Cowley directing him to communicate to M. Drouyn de Lhuys their rejection of it. His lordship did not know what the French government thought of it, but he presumed it could scarcely have held a different opinion.
I said I had inferred that it must have been so. All that I had been instructed to say was, in case of her Majesty entertaining such a proposal, that we should be inclined to enjoy the benefit of this new interpretation of law by claiming just the same rights on the ocean over neutral property. The matter was not worth pursuing any further. I should, therefore, content myself with simply leaving in his hands two intercepted letters of Mr. Slidell that came with the despatch, particularly as one of them appeared to contain some remarks upon himself which might be interesting to him.
I seized the opportunity to mention to him the complaint contained in your No. 1257, of the 1st instant. I remarked that as the Linda Florida was probably a merchant ship, I presumed it would be difficult to do anything with the captain for such a frivolous ebullition of temper. But the consul at Port Mahon had felt it as an insult, and had resented it. His lordship took a note of the name of the ship and captain. He said he would write on the subject to the official agent at that place. He did not think there was any consul there.,
Having completed what I had to say, I was about to take my leave, when his lordship remarked that when I came he had expected I was about to discuss a different matter. He had presumed that I was to give notice of the termination of the reciprocity treaty. I replied that the papers had been received by me, with instructions to give the notice at some time after the 17th of March, the earliest period at which it was possible to dò so by the terms of the treaty. His lordship said that the subject had been under consideration in the cabinet yesterday, at which he had not been able to attend. He had, however, been apprised that it had been thought advisable, in regard to the notice already given as to terminating the arrangement of 1817, to begin to think of something to substitute in its place. He was not himself disposed to question the reasonableness of our disposition, under the late course of events, to increase our armament, but this would necessarily involve on their part a duty of making some similar provision. He thought that an understanding would be advisable, so that each party could prepare itself accordingly. The same remark might be made of the reciprocity treaty. The interval before its termination might be profitably employed in maturing such amendments to it as would remove present objections. He could not but think that, in substance, both of these compacts had been beneficial to the interests of both countries. I replied that in my own opinion they had been highly useful, and now that the Canadian authorities had taken such vigorous measures to put an end to the operations of the marauders on the border, I inclined to indulge the hope that we should hear no more of them. It was only necessary that her Majesty’s government should lift its little finger in earnest, and the whole rebel programme in Canada would be scattered to the winds. The delivery of the men found guilty of these atrocities on the border would act as a preventive against all projects of that kind in future. I was, therefore, in great hopes that the apprehension, justly enough excited at, the moment, would soon die away, so that there would be no occasion for re-sorting to extraordinary permanent measures of precaution. Armaments were expensive and useless. They only served in troubled times to breed mutual suspicions. To judge from the tone in the House of Lords the other day, one would suppose that we were about to pounce upon Canada with our whole force. Yet we had been living for half a century almost uninterruptedly in full reliance on the good faith of each other, and I saw no reason why we might not do so again hereafter.
[Page 185]With respect to the reciprocity treaty, I still believed that the good sense of the country would appreciate the value of many of its provisions too strongly to be willing to sacrifice it entirely. On the Atlantic side it had greatly improved our commercial relations with the eastern provinces. Even at the west, where the greatest dissatisfaction was supposed to exist, I had perceived that the Chamber of Commerce of Detroit had issued an able report, explaining the advantages which had accrued to both sides from that compact; at the same time I was not prepared to say that some beneficial modifications might not bemade to it. I should communicate to my government the views which had been presented by his lordship, and I hoped that as soon as the passions tem porarily excited by late events had subsided, they would be favorably enter tained by the people at home. Of the friendly disposition of the government itself I had no doubt.
I forgot to mention in its proper place that I read to Lord Russell that passage of your despatch which proposes as a mode of meeting the questions growing out of the minute of instructions the exclusion from the rights of belligerents of vessels fitted out from British ports. His lordship replied that the measure had been fully considered, but that the lord chancellor thought there were insurmountable difficulties attending it.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William. H. Seward. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.