supplying, by violation of law, the insurgents with the means of continuing their resistance, must be the delay in restoring to all honest people the customary faEcilities of trade and intercourse to which they are justly entitled. It has not been without great regret that the Government has been compelled to observe the extent to which her Majesty's flag has been abused to subserve the purposes of the disaffected, and thus to continue the present depressed condition of legitimate trade. A very great proportion of the vessels which attempted to violate the blockade appear to be fitted out directly from Great Britain, or some of her dependencies. The effect of permitting such violations of good faith to go unnoticed by Government is not merely to create an unfortunate degree of irritation in America, implicating many far beyond the sphere of the unworthy parties concerned in producing it, but to = postpone proportionately the prospect of bringing about a better state of things. It is for this reason, as well as from a desire earnestly felt by the President to maintain unbroken all the customary relations of amity with Great Britain, that I have been directed to make the present representation. Any suggestion of the means best adapted to remedy the evils complained of is deemed a matter exclusively within the competency of those in whom the decision to act is vested. On the 27th, Earl Russell replied as follows: The charge that nearly all the assistance now obtained from abroad by persons still in arms against the Government of the United States, and which enables them to continue the struggle, comes from Great Britain and its dependencies, is somewhat vague. I believe the greater part of the arms and ammunition sent from this country to America during the struggle has gone to the United States. I agree with you in the statement that the duty of nations in amity with each other is not to suffer their good faith to be violated by ill-disposed persons within their borders, merely from the inefficiency of their prohibitory policy. But it is, at the same time, a duty not to punish persons on suspicion, without any proof of their evil intent. It is not the custom of this country to deprive any person of liberty or property without evidence of some offenee. If such evidence can be obtained, the laws are sufficient to prevent the accomplishment of their evil designs against friendly nations. You have not yourself hitherto furnished me with evidence that any vessel has received a hostile or warlike equipment in British waters, which has been afterward used against the United States. The care that was taken to prevent the warlike equipment of the Nashville in British waters must be familiar to your recollection. With regard to cooperation with the policy of the United States in respect to the blockade, I must remind you that Great Britain has abstained, as far as possible, from complaints of the irregularity of the blockade which has been instituted. Her Majesty's government have been mindful of the suddenness of the danger with which the United States were threatened; of the inadequacy of the naval force then at the disposal of the Government, and of the great difficulty of blockading a coast of three thousand miles. But beyond forbearance and a liberal interpretation of the law of nations in favor of the United States, her Majesty's Government cannot go. If by cooperation with the policy of the United States is meant either taking part in the civil war still raging, or imposing restraints on the Queen's subjects unknown to international law, I cannot undertake that her Majesty's Government will adopt either of those courses. It would be an unheard-of measure to prohibit merchants from sending ships to sea destined to the Southern ports. Should such ships attempt to violate the blockade, capture and condemnation are the proper penalty of such attempts. No authority can found for any other. On the 4th of April, Mr. Seward again re quests Mr. Adams to bring the subject to the notice of Earl Russell, "in the hope that the time may have at last come when British subjects, deliberately and wickedly engaged as abettors in the existing warfare against the Government, may be subjected to some restraint, or, at least, be made to feel Her Majesty's severe displeasure." In reply to these views presented by Mr. Adams, on the 15th of April, Earl Russell expressed his belief that the parties engaged in these undertakings were not so much interested in the cause of the insurgents as in the profits to be expected by running the blockade. made in similar cases. Such attempts always would be For the rest, these adventurers were compelled to take their own risk. They had the dangers of capture to encounter, and the certainty of being deprived of their rights of reclamation. The Government had no disposition to give them protection. On the 25th of April, Mr. Adams writes to Mr. Seward: "Meantime outfits of vessels with supplies to run the blockade go on with increased vigor. Every account received of a successful voyage stimulates to enlarged contributions." In a letter, on the 30th, to Earl Russell, Mr. Adams refers to the subject again, saying: I deem it my duty to represent to your lordship the fact that the Government of the United States finds itself involved in peculiar embarrassment in regard to its policy toward the vessels of Great Britain, from the ship's attention, of distinguishing between the lawful difficulty, to which I have repeatedly called your lordand the unlawful trade carried on upon the coast of the United States in vessels bearing her Majesty's flag. It comes presented to me in so many forms of evidence, that I cannot avoid the painful conviction that a systematic plan, founded on the intent to annul her Majesty's proclamation by steady efforts to violate the blockade through vessels either actually British, or else sailing under British colors, has been in operation in this island for many months, and becomes more rather than less extensive with the progress of time. To this letter Earl Russell emphatically replied on the 6th of May, in these words: With regard to the "systematic plan" which you say has been pursued by her Majesty's subjects "to violate the blockade by steady efforts," there are some reflections which I am surprised have not occurred to you. The United States Government, on the allegation of a rebellion pervading from nine to eleven States of the Union, have now for more than twelve months endeavored to maintain a blockade of three thousand miles of coast. This blockade, kept up irregularly, but when enforced, enforced severely, has seriously injured the trade and manufactures of the United Kingdom. Thousands of persons are now obliged to resort to the poor rate for subsistence, owing to this blockade. Yet her Majesty's Government have never sought to take advantage of the obvious imperfections of this blockade, in order to declare it ineffective. They have, to the loss and detriment of the British nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain toward a friendly state. But when her Majesty's Government are asked to go beyond this, and to overstep the existing powers given them by municipal and international law for the purpose of imposing arbitrary restrictions on the trade of her Majesty's subjects, it is impossible to listen to such suggestions. The ingenuity of persons engaged in commerce will always, in some degree, defeat attempts to starve or debar from commer cial intercourse an extensive coast inhabited by a large and industrious population. If, therefore, the Government of the United States consider it for their interest to inflict this great injury on other nations, the utmost they can expect is that European powers shall respect those acts of the United States which are within the limits of the law. The United States Government cannot expect that Great Britain should frame new statutes to aid the Federal blockade, and to carry into effect the restrictions on commerce which the United States, for their own purposes, have thought fit to institute, and the application of which it is their duty to confine within the legiti mate limits of international law. reply to her Majesty's Government were the relative position of the two countries to be reversed. Permit me, in conclusion,, to assure your lordship that the grounds upon which the representations I have had the honor to make [were founded] have not been has tily considered. So far from it, the extent of the evil complained of has been under rather than overstated. I have now before me a list of eleven steamers and tea sailing vessels that have been equipped and despatched within thirty days, or are now preparing, freighted with supplies of all kinds for the insurgents from one port of Great Britain alone. These supplies, I have reason to believe, are to be conveyed to Nassau, which place is used as an entrepot for the convenience of vessels under British colors, employed for the sole pur Two days later Mr. Adams responded as fol- pose of breaking the blockade. I have reasons for lows: In declaring that blockade the Government of the United States are believed to have done nothing which has not been repeatedly done heretofore, and the right to do which at any time hereafter, whenever the necessity shall appear to call for it, is not distinctly affirmed by the Government of Great Britain. Neither does the fact that this proceeding pressed with the greatest severity upon the interests of neutral nations appear formerly to have been regarded in any other light than as an incidental damage, which, however much regretted in itself, unavoidably follows from the gravity of the emergency which created it. For it can scarcely be supposed that so onerous a task as a veritable blockade will be undertaken by any nation for causes not deemed of paramount necessity, or will be persevered in one moment longer than those causes continue to operate. I am very sure that it is the desire of the Government of the United States to accelerate the period when the blockade now in operation may be safely raised. To that end it is bending all its efforts. And in this it claims to be mindful, not simply of the interests of its own citizens, but likewise of those of all friendly nations. Hence it is that it views with deep regret the strenuous efforts of evil disposed persons in foreign countries, by undertakings carried on in defiance of all recognized law, to impair, so far as they can, the efficacy of its measures, and in a corresponding degree to protract the severity of the struggle. Hence it is, likewise, that it has been profoundly concerned at the inefficacy of the laws of Great Britain, in which a large proportion of the undertakings originate, to apply any adequate policy of prevention. For I doubt not your lordship will see at a glance the embarrassment in which a country is necessarily involved by complaints raised of the continued severity of a blockade by a friendly nation, which at the same time confesses its inability to restrain its subjects from stimulating the resistance that necessitates a continuance of the very state of things of which they make complaint. That a sense of the difficulties consequent upon the action of such persons prompted the enactment of the statute of his Majesty George the Third, of the 3d July, 1819, is made plain by the language of its preamble. It is therein stated that it was passed because the laws then in force were not sufficiently effectual to prevent the evil complained of. It now appears from the substance of the representations which I have heretofore had the honor to make to your lordship, that the provisions of that law are as little effectual in curing the evil as those of any of its predecessors. But I am pained to be obliged to gather from the concluding words of your lordship's note that the expression of an opinion that the United States, in the execution of a measure conceded to be correct, as well as justified by every precedent of international law as construed by the highest British authorities, cannot expect that Great Britain should frame new statutes to remedy the deficiency of its own laws to prevent what it acknowledges on the face of that statute to be evils created by its own refractory subjects. I must be permitted to say, in reply, that, in my belief, the Government of the United States would scarcely be disposed to make a similar supposing that the business is reduced to a system, emanating from a central authority situated at Lon don; and, further, that large sums of money have been contributed by British subjects to aid in carrying it on. If the United States have, in any of their relations with with her Majesty's Government, committed some act not within the legitimate limits of international law which justifies the declaration of a disposition not to provide against such obvious violations of the ne trality proclaimed at the outset of this deplorable struggle, I trust I may be so clearly presented to their consideration by your lordship as to supply the meats either of explanation or of remedy. On the 10th of May, Mr. Adams, writing rel after mentioned, argued the duty of the Gor ative to the case of the Emily St. Pierre, hereernment to suppress these attempts to send supplies to the Confederate States, from the intention of the queen's proclamation. (See As NUAL CYCLOPEDIA, 1861; PUBLIC DOCUMENTS) Earl Russell immediately replied as follows: FOREIGN OFFICE, May 10, 1562 SIR: In the letter I had the honor to receive from you yesterday you appear to have confounded two things totally distinct: The foreign enlistment act is intended to prevent the subjects of the crown from going to war when the sor ereign is not at war. Thus private persons are prohibited from fitting out a ship-of-war in our ports or from enlisting in the service of a foreign state at war with another state, or in the service of insurgents against a foreign sovereign or state. In these cases the persons so acting would carry on war, and thus might engage the name of their sovereign and of their nation in belligerent operations. But owners and masters of mer chant ships carrying warlike stores do nothing of the kind. If captured for breaking a blockade or carrying contraband of war to the enemy of the captor, they submit to capture, are tried, and condemned to lose their cargo. This is the penalty which the law of nations has affixed to such an offence, and in calling upon her Majesty's Government to prohibit such adventures you in effect call upon her Majesty's Government to do that which it belongs to the cruisers and the courts of the United States to do for themselves. There can be only one plea for asking Great Britain thus to interpose. That plea is, that the blockade is in reality ineffective, and that merchant ships can enter with impunity the blockaded ports. But this is a plea which I presume you will not urge. Her Ma jesty's Government have considered the blockade as an effective blockade, and have submitted to all its incon veniences as such, They can only hope that, if resistance should prove to be hopeless, the Confederate States will not continue the struggle; but if, on the other hand, the restoration of the Union should appear to be impossible, the work of devastation now going on will cease. Her Majesty's Government can only desire the pros perity of the inhabitants of the United States, whatever may be the event of the present civil war. Mr. Adams's answer was dated on the 12th, shall be done, it does not presume to prescribe. That as follows: MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your note of the 10th instant. From the purport of it I am led to fear that I may have been unfortunate heretofore in my attempts to express my own meaning. If I have appeared to your lordship to confound two things so very dissimilar as the penalties of the enlistment act and the liabilities which follow from the attempt to break a blockade, I can only say that the fault must be laid to my want of ability to use words properly to express my thoughts. The position which I did mean to take was this: that the intent of the enlistment act, as explained by the words of this preamble, was to prevent the unauthorized action of subjects of Great Britain, disposed to embark in the contests of foreign nations, from involving the country in the risk of a war with these countries. This view of the law does not seem to be materially varied by your lordship; when speaking of the same thing you say that the law applies to cases where "private persons so acting would carry on, and thus might engage the name of their Sovereign and of their nation in belligerent operations.' It is further shown by that preamble that that act was an additional act of prevention, made necessary by experience of the inefficiency of former acts passed to effect the same object, But it is now made plain that whatever may have been the skill with which this latest act was drawn, it does not completely fulfil its intent, because it is very certain that many British subjects are now engaged in undertakings of a hostile character to a foreign state which, though not technically within the strict letter of the enlistment act, are as much contrary to its spirit as if they levied war directly. The measures embrace all of the operations preliminary to openly carrying on war-the supply of men, and ships, and arms, and money to one party in order that they may be the better enabled to overcome the other, which other is in this case a nation with which Great Britain is now under treaty obligations of the most solemn nature to maintain a lasting peace and friendship. The Government of the United States having, in the course of its hostile operations, had occasion to experience the injurious effects of this virtual levying of war against itself from the ports of a friendly power, and seeing the obstacle in the way of the removal of them to be alleged to be the inefficiency of a statute intended to effect that object, does not regard it as asking anything unreasonable, or more than it would in like case be willing itself to grant if it solicits some action to render effective the spirit as well of the law as of her Majesty's enunciation of the national will. I perceive that your lordship appears to be of opinion that, in this proceeding, the Government of the United States is asking more than is reasonable. It is, in your view, sufficient to declare that owners and masters of merchant ships, fitted out with intent to break a blockade or carry contraband of war to one of two parties engaged in war, are subject to capture, trial, and condemnation, if caught by the offended party. And hence, in this case, that the Government of the United States, in calling upon her Majesty's Government to prohibit such adventures, is in effect calling upon it to do that which it ought to do for itself. The only valid plea, your lordship remarks, for asking interposition, is, that the blockade is in reality ineffective; and this, you very justly presume, I shall not be disposed to urge. But I pray your lordship's pardon if I submit that You appear to have entirely overlooked another plea, which I am confident enough to imagine of no inconsiderable weight. That plea is that the kingdom of Great Britain endeavor in spirit as well as in letter to preserve the principle of neutrality, if not of friendship, toward a foreign power in amity with it to which it has pledged itself. The precise mode in which that VÖL IL-25 the toleration of such conduct in subjects of Great Britain, as I have had the pain heretofore to expose, is surely in violation of that neutrality, is justly to be inferred from the very language of her Majesty's proclamation. For it is therein declared that precisely such acts of theirs as I have been compelled to complain of are done "in derogation of their duty to her as a neutral sovereign, and incur her high displeasure." If such, then, be the true character of the proceedings to which I have heretofore called your lordship's atten tion, they surely merit something more of notice from her Majesty's ministers than an intimation that they will be suffered to pass unreproved unless the punishment shall be inflicted by the nation whom they are designed to injure. The object of the Government of the United States has not been to relieve itself of the duty of vigilance to capture offenders against the law. It has rather been to avoid the necessity of applying additional stringent measures for their own security against British subjects found to be engaged in such illicit enterprises, made imperative by the conviction that no preventive cooperation whatever can be expected from her Majesty's Government. It has rather been to avoid the risk of confounding the innocent with the guilty, because all happen to be involved in a general suspicion. And, lastly, it has rather been to remove, at as early a day as may be, consistently with its own safety, the restrictions on the trade with foreign countries, which these evil-doers are laboring with so much industry to force it to protract. Your lordship's language leaves me little hope of any cooperation of her Majesty's Government to these ends. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to indulge the belief that the time is not now far distant when the difficulties thus interposed in the way of its progress will have been so far removed by its own unassisted action as to relieve both countries from the painful necessity of further continuing the discussion. The correspondence on this subject was closed by the following note from Earl Russell to Mr. Adams: FOREIGN OFFICE, May 17, 1862. SIR: I do not wish to prolong this correspondence, and shall only make one remark in answer to your last letter. If the British Government, by virtue of the prerogative of the crown or by authority of parliament, had prohibited and could have prevented the conveyance in British ships of arms and ammunition to the Confederate States, and had allowed the transport of such contraband of war to New York and to other Federal ports, her Majesty's Government would have departed from the neutral position they have assumed and maintained. war. If, on the other hand, her Majesty's Government had prohibited and could have prevented the transport of arms and ammunition to both the contending parties, they would have deprived the United States of a great part of the means by which they have carried on the The arms and ammunition received from Great Britain, as well as from other neutral countries, have enabled the United States to fit out the formidable armies now engaged in carrying on the war against the Southern States, while by means of the blockade established by the Federal Government, the Southern States have been deprived of similar advantages. The impartial observance of neutral obligations by her Majesty's Government has thus been exceedingly advantageous to the cause of the more powerful of the two contending parties. I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient, RUSSELL. humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. The action of her Majesty's Government in according to the Confederate States belligerent rights, was a subject of constant correspondence. It was pressed by Mr. Seward as the most im portant of all the questions arising between the two Governments. Nevertheless, her Majesty's Government remained inflexible in the position which it had taken. At one time, on August 22d, Mr. Adams writes to Mr. Seward that he had been told, but not by authority such as to place the matter altogether beyond a doubt, that his (Mr. Seward's) despatch in connection with preceding ones likewise communicated, and other considerations, had had so much effect on the Ministry as to incline them to leave open a way to the revisal of their former policy depending on the issue of the movement upon Richmond. Had that been successful, the recognition of belligerent rights was to have been withdrawn. Representations were also made to her Majesty's Government, relative to the proceedings at Nassau, by parties engaged in running the blockade, but they were not successful in obtaining any interference of the Government. Representations were also made by British subjects at Liverpool, relative to a kind of blockade of the island by American cruisers. (See BLOCKADE.) But the Government made no concessions to the petitioners. The case of the ship Emily St. Pierre was one of considerable interest. On the 24th of April, Mr. Adams wrote to Earl Russell that this ship, being under a British register, and belonging to British subjects residing in Liverpool, was found on the 18th of March previous, attempting to run into the port of Charleston, in South Carolina, in violation of the blockade, there legitimately established. She was seized, and the crew, with the exception of the commander, the steward, and cook, taken out, and a prize crew of three officers and twelve men put on board, with directions to proceed to Philadelphia. The captain being left at liberty on board, concerted a scheme by which he surprised and took possession of the vessel, and compelled the seamen to navigate the ship to the port of Liverpool, where he sent them ashore, and took shelter for himself under the authority of the British Government. Mr. Adams asked for the restoration of the vessel, on the ground that it had been decided that such an act would work a total confiscation of vessel and cargo, and that the unlawful intent of the voyage was too strongly indicated to justify the extension to it of any protection by the Government. Earl Russell replied, on the 7th of May, that her Majesty's Government were unable to comply with the request for the restoration of the ship, inasmuch as they had no jurisdiction or legal power whatever to take or to acquire possession of her, or interfere with her owners in relation to their property in her. Further, her Majesty's Government could not raise in an English court the question of the validity of the capture of this ship, or of the subsequent rescue and recapture, for such recapture is not an offence against the municipal law of Eng land. On the 9th of May, Mr. Seward writes to Mr. Adams:-"Your proceeding, in asking from the British Government the restoration of the prize ship Emily St. Pierre, is approved, equally for its promptness and the grounds upon which it was adopted." Mr. Adams replied to Earl Russell on the 10th of May, by quoting the opinion of Lord Stowell, as the highest judicial authority of Great Britain, as follows:-"If a neutral master attempts a rescue, he violates a duty which is imposed upon him by the law of nations to submit to come in for inquiry as to the property of the ship or cargo; and if he vio lates that obligation by a recurrence to force, the consequence will undoubtedly reach the property of his owner; and it would, I think extend also to the confiscation of the whole cargo intrusted to his care, and thus fraudulently attempted to be withdrawn from the rights of war.' Mr. Adams then refers to the Queen's proda mation as warning her subjects, and all persons entitled to her protection, that if they shall presume, in contempt thereof, to do any act in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign, or in violation, or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf, they will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences, by statute or by the law of na tions imposed. From the words of this proc lamation he inferred a jurisdiction existing in Great Britain, capable of taking cognizance of cases arising under the law of nations, and be yond the range of the municipal law. On the 12th of June Earl Russell replied by stating the principles involved in the case, and closed the correspondence on the subject as follows: You speak of the rescue of the Emily St. Pierre a being a fraud by the law of nations. But whether the partaking of both characters, the act was done only act of rescue be viewed as one of fraud or of force, or as against the rights accruing to a belligerent under the law of nations relating to war, and in violation of the law of war; which, whilst it permits the belligerent to exercise and enforce such rights against neutrals by the peculiar and exceptional right of capture, at the confers upon him the power of vindicating such rights same time leaves to the belligerent alone the duty and and of enforcing such law. The same law not only does not require, but does not even permit, neutral nations to carry out belligerent rights. You allude to the conduct of the United States Gov ernment in the case of the Trent; but the flagrant wrong done in that case was done by a naval officer in the service of the United States; the prisoners whose release was demanded were in the direct custody and keeping of the executive Government, and the Govern ment of the United States had actually the power to deliver them up, and did deliver them up, to the British Government. But the Emily St. Pierre is not in the power of the Executive Government of this country; and the law of England, as well as the law of nations, forbids the Executive Government from taking away that ship from its legal owners. I do not think it necessary to dwell, or even to remark, on the observations which you repeat in your present letter as to the terms of her Majesty's proMajesty's Government should adopt for giving effect famation, and as to the course which you suggest her to them. I can only again assure you that her Majesty's Gov. ernment have been most careful in observing strictly that impartial course which neutrality enjoins. Mr. Adams, writing to Secretary Seward on the 18th of June, says: It is not a little strange that this very question appears to have occupied the attention of the two Governments so far back as in the year 1800. My attention has been called to this fact by my under secretary, Mr. Moran, who happened to find the correspondence on the subject in the third volume of the collection of American State papers relating to foreign affairs. It was the British Government which then made the claim on almost the identical grounds taken by me, and the American declined acceding to it, substantially for the same reasons given by Lord Russell. One of the most important subjects of negotiation during the year was a treaty for the suppression of the slave trade. (See PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.) It admits, within certain limits, the search and seizure by British cruisers of vessels under the American flag supposed to be engaged in that traffic. Mr. Seward states, in his despatch to Mr. Perry at Madrid on August 2d: "It was freely offered by this Government to Great Britain, not bought, or solicited by that Government. It is in harmony with the sentiments of the American people. It was ratified by the Senate, unanimously, and afterward distinctly approved with not less unanimity by both Houses of Congress. Not a voice has been raised against it in the country." This treaty granted to Great Britain a privilege which had been inflexibly refused by the American Government since it was organized. Its exercise without permission had heretofore caused more irritated feelings in the United States against Great Britain than any other subject. The correspondence between the two Governments during the year, amid all the embarrassing circumstances which existed, appears to have been conducted in a most friendly spirit. Her Majesty's Government seem by these papers to be actuated by no other purpose then to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality according to the law of nations between the two contending parties, and although the position assumed, to regard each as belligerents, has been considered by the Federal Government "as unnecessary and tending injuriously to prolong the war," yet her Majesty's Government have justly claimed the right to determine their own position, and have inflexibly maintained it. Apart from this point, each government has been prompt to listen to every complaint from the other, and treated it with the highest respect. Nothing appears in this correspondence to indicate that the Government of Great Britain entertains any other than the most friendly feelings toward the Government and people of the United States, and indulges the sincere desire that the bitter conflict, which is exhausting alike the North and the South, may be speedily so closed as to promote the welfare of the whole country. Still it might be asked, how the building of war steamers, and the shipment of the munitions and supplies from Liverpool to Nassau, and thence to the Confederate States, could be consistent with the existence of such friendly feeling? Such munitions and supplies have been shipped with equal freedom to the United States. These acts are not inconsistent with a position of neutrality, and the freedom of commerce of which the construction of the ship Great Admiral for Russia, and the Hudson and others for Greece, by the United States, are examples. France. The correspondence with France represents that country as determined not to interfere with the blockade of the Confederate ports, but as exceedingly anxious for the cessation of the domestic strife. Mr. Dayton writes on the 12th of February: The Emperor, last night, in a brief conversation held with him while at a private ball at the Tuileries, again expressed his earnest wish that our domestic strife was brought to a close. When I told him that I had sanguine hopes of success at no distant day, he asked me specially about the condition of the roads, and the possibility of turning aside from them into the open country. He referred to the great difficulty essential to a great army over a single road, especially of moving wagons, cannon, and the immense materiel in a wooded country, illustrating it forcibly, as he did, by his own troubles and perplexities in his Italian campaign. On the 18th of March, Mr. Dayton reports a conference with M. Thouvenel, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. "He asked again most anxiously when they should have cotton? I referred him to your despatch, and assured him of our earnest desire to afford the earliest facilities to foreign governments for the procurement of it. He said that petitions and memorials were being daily addressed to the Emperor on this subject: that the suffering and destitution in certain portions of France for want of it were constantly on the increase. Do not delay action, I beg of you, a day beyond the time that you can act on this subject with propriety." On the 25th of March, Mr. Dayton had an interview with the Emperor. He writes, "I was most kindly received, and he said at once that he wished to have a talk with me about cotton, and the prospect of opening our ports. He spoke of the great inconvenience connected with the existing condition of things, and feared it would not speedily come to an end; that the war might yet be a long one." After explanations on these points, Mr. Dayton referred as usual on every occasion to the granting of belligerent rights to the Confederate States, saying: "I told him we honestly believed that if a proclamation by France and England, withdrawing belligerent rights from the insurrectionists, should be made, the insurrection would collapse at once." During the conversation, the Emperor declared he must frankly say when the insurrection broke out, and this concession of belligerent rights was made, he did not suppose the North would succeed; that it was the general belief of statesmen in Europe that the two sections would never come |