Ibid, p. 163.

Ibid, pp. 296, 297.

bid, p. 328.

as the port to which they are bound. This person, "who has renounced his allegiance to the United "States, and claims to be President of Nicaragua, "has given notice to the master of the port of Mobile "that 200 or 300 of these emigrants will be prepared "to embark from that port about the middle of " November," &c., &c.

Notwithstanding this Proclamation, the filibusters succeeded in sailing from Mobile on the 7th of December 1858, in the "Susan" without a clearance. A revenue cutter attempted to stop her, but was forcibly resisted. Two other vessels, the "Fashion" and the "Washington," with military stores, afterwards joined the "Susan," but the expedition broke down in consequence of the "Susan' being wrecked. Walker and his followers then proceeded to California by the Isthmus of Panama, whence they intended to make a descent on Punta Arenas.

This attempt was not carried into execution, and Walker returned to Louisiana and organized a further expedition. The United States Government gave directions to stop it, and concerted measures with the British and French Governments to prevent any such expeditions landing on the coasts of Central America. Moreover, 150 of the men concerned in the last attempt were arrested at New Orleans.

Nevertheless Walker eluded the vigilance of the authorities, and again escaped without a clearance in the "Fashion" from Mobile in November 1859, having deceived the Collector of Customs by applying for a clearance, which the collector refused, for another steamer called the "Philadelphia." At the same time a large force of filibusters are stated to have got away from Charleston, Mobile, and other ports, by means of false papers and other similar devices.

In June 1860, Walker, with a party of American filibusters, is reported to have arrived at the Bay Islands in the "John A. Taylor." Walker's career was eventually brought to a close by his being shot at Truxillo, September 1860.

On the 6th of June, 1866, the President published a proclamation warning United States citizens against engaging in an apprehended expedition against Canada (the Fenian raid), and on the 5th of June the Attorney General instructed the district attorneys and marshals to arrest "all prominent, leading, or conspicuous persons called Fenians' whom they had probable cause to believe have been or may be guilty of "violations of the Neutrality Laws." Some prosecutions were subsequently instituted against certain of the Fenian leaders, but abandoned.

66

In 1866 a resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives which resulted in an inquiry by the Committee of Foreign Affairs into the operation of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1818; and in July, General Banks presented the report of the committee with a draft of a bill by which it was proposed to alter the provisions of that Act. The principal alterations proposed were the omission of section 4 pamphlet (the clause forbidding the fitting out of privateers in Neutrality" foreign ports to cruize against American commerce) sections 6 and part of 8 (giving the President power to stop military expeditions) and sections 10 and 11, the bonding clauses.

Mr. Remis'

American

1866.

The intention of this draft bill was to make the American Act correspond with the British Act, or, as was said at the time to "scale down" the one to the proportions of the other. The report of the committee called forth a pamphlet by Mr. Bernis, in which he shows how inexpedient and impolitic the proposed alterations would have been, and compares the amended Act with the British statute.

Copies of this pamphlet have been circulated among the Commissioners.

Congress adjourned shortly after this report was presented and had been referred to the Senate, and in March 1867 the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs were discharged from further consideration" of the bill.

66

In the meanwhile, a case had been brought before the district court at New York, in which the Act of 1818 was enforced against a vessel alleged to be

intended for the Chilian service in the war between Chili and Spain.

This vessel, the " Meteor," had been built as a ship of war for sale to the United States Government, but the civil war having terminated, the sale was not effected. She was acknowledged to have been built to carry 11 or 12 guns, and the negotiations of the agent of the owners for her sale to the Chilian Government were shown by conclusive evidence.

World," New York,

The vessel was libelled in the district court in Feb- "The ruary 1866, but Judge Bett's decision in the case was not formally given until November.

In the elaborate judgment then delivered, the standard decisions of the supreme court are reviewed at length.

The following are some of the more important passages:

"The Crime denounced is Fitting-out or Arming.

"It was strenuously urged by the counsel for the claimant, on the hearing, that the only crime created by the third section of the Act of 1818, is the crime of fitting-out and arming a vessel with the intent named in the statute; and that, although the attempt to commit that crime, or the procuring that crime to be committed, or the being knowingly concerned in committing that crime, is punishable under the statute, yet the body of the crime is the fitting-out and arming, and nothing short of that is punishable under the statute, either against the wrong doer personally, or against the offending res; and the interpretation sought to be put by the counsel upon these words of the statute, "or shall knowingly be concerned in the "furnishing, fitting-out, or arming of any ship or "vessel, with intent," &c., is that it is not necessary to the criminality of the individual that he should have performed every part of the crime, but it is enough if he was knowingly concerned in any one step in the chain of conduct which completed the criminality, or would have completed it if carried out, but still the crime must be the crime of fitting-out and arming, either completed or attemped. But the Court cannot adopt this interpretation of the statute. The mischief against which the statute intended to guard, was not merely preventing the departure from the United States of an armed vessel, but the departure of any vessel intended to be employed in the service of any foreign power, to cruise or commit hostilities against any other foreign power with whom the United States are at peace. The neutrality of the Government of the United States, in a war between two foreign powers, would be violated quite as much by allowing the departure from its ports of an unarmed vessel with the clear intent to cruize or commit hostilities against one of the belligerents, as it would be by permitting the departure from its ports of an armed vessel with such intent. If the intent to cruize or commit hostilities exists when the vessel departs, and the vessel is one adapted to the purpose, the subsequent arming is a very easy matter. The facility with which this can be done was made manifest in the case of the "Shenandoah" and other vessels which, during the late rebellion, left England unarmed, but with the full intent on the part of those who sent them forth that they should be used to cruize and commit hostilities against the United States, and were subsequently armed in neutral waters. It would be a very forced interpretation of the statute to say that it was not an offence against it to knowingly fit out a vessel with everything necessary to make her an effective cruiser, except her arms, and with the intent that she should become such a cruiser, because it should not be shown that there was any intent that she should be armed within the United States. The evil consequences which would flow from interpreting the statute to mean that the crime must include the arming of the vessel within the United States, become especially apparent in reference to that part of the third section which forbids the issuing or delivering a commission, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, for any ship or vessel, to the intent that she may be em

November 30, 1866.

ployed for the purpose named in the section. Under such an interpretation of the statute it would be no offence to issue or deliver a commission within the United States for any vessel, unless such vessel were actually armed at the time or perhaps were intended to be armed prior to her departure from the United States; and it would be no offence to issue a commission within the United States for a vessel fitted and equipped to cruise or commit hostilities, and intended to cruise and commit hostilities, so long as such vessel was not armed at the time, and was not intended to be armed within the United States, although it could be shown that a clear intent existed on the part of the person issuing or delivering the commission, that the vessel should receive her armament the moment she should be beyond the jurisdiction of the United States."

"The 'Santissima Trinidad' Case. "Much reliance was placed by the counsel for the claim, in his summing up, upon the doctrine supposed by him to have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the "Santissima Trinidad." That doctrine was stated by the counsel in various forms, but the principle contended for was, that freedom of commerce is allowed to a neutral to furnish to a belligerent warlike materials or warlike vessels, as articles of merchandise or traffic; that while the principle of the law of nations is recognized, which prohibits neutral territory from being used by either belligerent as a vantage ground from which he may sally forth to commit hostilities upon the other belligerent, yet the right of citizens of the neutral country to sell all that their industry produces for purposes of war, as fair matter of trade, to any belligerent, cannot be interfered with; that it is no offence and no violation of neutrality to sell a vessel of war, armed or not armed, in our ports, to a belligerent power; and that there is the same right, under the law of nations, to sell in our ports an armed vessel, under such circumstances, that there is to sell guns or ammunition or any other raw material. At another stage of his argument, the counsel maintained the proposition, that unless it appeared affirmatively that the vessel was to sail out from the port of New York as an enlisted hostile ship of one belligerent, there was no criminality, although it should be made to appear by indisputable proof that she had been built, fitted, armed, and equipped, as a ship of war, complete and ready for action.

"The views thus pressed upon the Court have, in its judgment, no foundation in public law, or in any decision that has been made by the highest judicial tribunal of the United States. The case of the "Santissima Trinidad" was decided by the Supreme Court at the February Term, 1822."

66 6

6

Judge Betts then gives an account of the facts of the case (vide ante), and continues: "In the course of "his opinion, Mr. Justice Story discusses the point "taken that the Independencia' was originally armed "and fitted out in the United States contrary to law, "and says, 'It is apparent that though equipped as a vessel of war, she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure,'" &c., &c. These views of Mr. Justice Story were, as is apparent from the statement which has been made of the case, obiter dicta, and not necessary to the decision of the cause, restitution of the property being decreed upon the ground of the illegal augmentation of the force of the capturing vessel in our ports prior to the capture. The facts in regard to the commercial adventure of the Independencia,' referred to by Mr. Justice Story, as they appear in the report of the case, were that that vessel, having been a privateer during the war between the United States and Great Britain, was, after the peace, sold by her original owners, and loaded by her new ones, at Baltimore, in January 1816, with a cargo of munitions of war; that she sailed from Baltimore with them, and armed with 12 guns, part of her original armament to Buenos Ayres, under written instructions from her owners to her supercargo, authorizing him to sell the vessel to the

Government of Buenos Ayres, if he could obtain a suitable price; and that she was sold at Buenos Ayres to parties who again sold her, so that she became a public commissioned vessel of the Government of Buenos Ayres. It was on these facts that Judge Story remarked that the vessel, though equipped as a vessel of war, was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure in no shape violating our laws or our national neutrality, and that there is nothing in our laws or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels to foreign ports for sale. If the Messrs. Forbes, or any of the owners of the "Meteor," or Mr. Cary their agent, or any of the parties concerned in the transactions in regard to the "Meteor," had testified before the court on this trial, that the "Meteor" was going out to Panama on a purely commercial adventure, to be sold there if a suitable price could be obtained, and if it appeared that there was no intent on the part of the owners or any other person, that the vessel should be used to violate the neutrality of the United States, there might be some pretence that this case was within the principle thus laid down by Mr. Justice Story. But the whole testimony points in a different direction. The transactions with the agents of Chili at New York, in regard to the "Meteor," was, it is true, a commercial adventure, in so far that the vessel was sold, and that such sale was a matter of trade or commerce at New York, between her owners and the agents of the Government of Chili. But in the sense in which Mr. Justice Story speaks of the sending of the "Independencia" to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, there was no commercial adventure in the case of the "Meteor."

"The Doctrines laid down in this Case are the Result of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Action of the United States.

The importance of this case, not merely in view of the pecuniary value of the vessel proceeded against, but also in respect to the principles of public law involved in it, have led the court to a more extended discussion of those principles than would otherwise have been necessary. The court, however, entertains no doubt as to the correctness of the doctrines of public law which it has applied to the present case. Those doctrines are the result of the legislative, executive, and judicial action of the public authorities and courts of the United States in a great variety of cases, and the court has nowhere found a more excellent summary of them than in Wheaton's International Law, (8th Edition, with notes by Dana, pages 562, 563, note 215): "As to the preparing of vessels within our jurisdiction for subsequent hostile operations, "the test we have applied has not been the extent "and character of the preparations, but the intent "with which the particular acts are done. If any

66

person does any act, or attempts to do any act "towards such preparation, with the intent that the " vessel shall be employed in hostile operations, he "is guilty, without reference to the completion of the preparations, or the extent to which they may have gone, and although his attempt may have resulted in no definite progress towards the completion of the "preparations. The procuring of materials to be used knowingly and with the intent, &c., is an offence.

66

66

Accordingly, it is not necessary to show that the "vessel was armed, or was in any way or at any time "before or after the act charged, in a condition to "commit acts of hostility." "Our rules do not inter"fere with bona fide commercial dealings in contra"band of war. An American merchant may build "and fully arm a vessel, and provide her with stores, "and offer her for sale in our own market. "does any acts as an agent or servant of a belligerent "or in pursuance of an arrangement or understanding "with a belligerent, that she shall be employed in "hostilities when sold, he is guilty. He may, "without violating our law, send out such a vessel,

66

If he

so equipped, under the flag and papers of his own "country, with no more force of crew than is suitable "for navigation, with no right to resist search or "seizure, and to take the chances of capture as con

"British and

Foreign
State

XXV. page

Correspondence with

Mr. Fox, Her

traband merchandise, of blockade, and of a market "in a belligerent port. In such case, the extent and "character of the equipments is as immaterial as in "the other class of cases. The intent is all. The "act is open to great suspicions and abuse, and the "line may often be scarcely traceable; yet the principle

is clear enough. Is the intent one to prepare an "article of contraband merchandise, to be sent to the "market of a belligerent, subject to the chances of "capture and of the market? Or, on the other hand, " is it to fit out a vessel which shall have our port to "cruise, immediately or ultimately, against the com66 merce of a friendly nation? The latter we are "bound to prevent; the former the belligerent must "prevent."

The judgment was given against the vessel, but she was eventually restored to her owners under bond, and what became of her afterwards does not appear.

It must be remembered that this opinion of Judge Betts was not reviewed by the Supreme Court, and is therefore of inferior authority.

It has been much criticised both in this country and in the United States.

This brings the history of the American Foreign Enlistment Act down to the present time.

In 1838, on the outbreak of the rebellion in Canada, the United States Government issued a Proclamation cautioning United States citizens from assisting in it.

A strong military force was also sent to the frontier, and the President delivered a Message to ConPapers," vol. gress recommending the enactment of some special measure to meet the occasion. In the meanwhile, an expedition was openly organized at Detroit. This expedition seized the arsenal and the steam-boats, and ships lying off the Detroit wharves, and succeeded in getting off to Canada without hindrance. A military force was then ordered to the frontier, and sent to Platsburg, where another expedition was said to be ary 29, 1833. fitting out. A Bill for the prevention of such expeditions was introduced into Congress, but not passed until the 10th of March, by which time the February 5, rebellion was nearly subdued.

Majesty's Minister at Washington.

Mr. Fox,
No. 5, Janu-

Mr. Fox, No. 7,

1838.

United States Statutes at Large," vol. V. page 212.

"British and

Foreign State Papers, vol.

i. page 292.

This Act, which was limited to two years, provided for the seizure and detention of any vessel, vehicle, or arms or munitions of war "provided or prepared "for any military expedition or enterprise against "the territory or dominions of any foreign Prince or "State, or of any Colony, district, or, people, con"terminous with the United States."

THE BRITISH FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT. The United States Foreign Enlistment Act, as will have been seen, arose from the construction put on the terms of the Treaty with France of 1778; the British Foreign Enlistment Act may also be said to have arisen from the provision of a Treaty, that with Spain of the 28th of August 1814.

This Treaty, or, as it is called, "Additional Articles to the Treaty of July 5, 1814," contains the following Article:

"Article III. His Britannic Majesty being anxious that the troubles and disturbances which unfortunately prevail in the dominions of His Catholic Majesty in America should entirely cease, and the subjects of those provinces should return to their obedience to their. lawful Sovereign, engages to take the most effectual measures for preventing his subjects from furnishing arms, ammunition, or any other article to the revolted in America."

In 1818 the reactionary policy of King Ferdinand, the prohibitory duties imposed by him on British commerce, and the ingratitude with which he treated British officers and others who had served his cause in Spain, had provoked a great deal of irritation in England; and there was a considerable party in the House of Commons, headed by Sir James Macintosh, who were prepared to support the claims of the SpanishAmerican Colonies to independence.

Expeditions were said to be in preparation for rendering active assistance both to the malcontents in Spain and to the rebels in America, in spite of a Pro

clamation forbidding such expeditions, which had been published in 1817; and the Government consequently found that it was necessary, in order to keep good faith with Spain, and to prevent infractions of British neutrality, to bring in an Act of Parliament to provide for the case which now for the first time arose in modern history, of Great Britain being neutral at the time of a great maritime war.

"International Law,

vol. iii., ed. 212.

1857, page

The history of the British Neutrality Law at that period is thus stated by Sir R. Phillimore :"The Statute of the third of James I., chapter four, Phillimore's made it felony for any person whatever to go out of the realm, to serve any foreign Prince, without having first taken the oath of allegiance before his departure. It was felony also for any gentleman, or person of higher degree, or for one who had borne any office in the army, to go out of the realm to serve such foreign Prince or State, without previously entering into a bond with two sureties, not to be reconciled to the See of Rome, or enter into any conspiracy against his natural Sovereign. And further it was enacted by Statute 9 Geo. II., c. 30, enforced by Statute 29 Geo. II., c. 17, if any subject of Great Britain shall enlist himself, or if any person shall procure him to be enlisted in any foreign service, or detain or embark him for that purpose, without licence under the King's signmanual, he shall be guilty of felony without benefit of clergy; but if the person, so enlisted or enticed, shall discover his seducer within fifteen days, so as he may be apprehended and convicted of the same, he shall be indemnified. It was moreover, by Statute 29 Geo. II., c. 17, enacted that to serve under the French King, as a military officer, shall be felony without benefit of clergy; and to enter into the Scotch brigade, in the Dutch service, without previously taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, shall be a forfeiture of 5001."

66

"Parlia

mentary

vol. xl. page 1103.

The Act for the amendment of the Neutrality Laws was introduced by Mr. Canning on the 10th of June 1819, in an eloquent speech, in the course of which he said, "It surely could not be forgotten that in "1793 this country complained of various breaches Cobbett's "of neutrality (though much inferior in degree to "those now under consideration) committed on the Debates," "part of subjects of the United States of America. "What was the conduct of that nation in consequence? "Did it resent the complaint as an infringement of "its independence? Did it refuse to take such steps as would insure the immediate observance of neu"trality? Neither. In 1794, immediately after the "application from the British Government, the Legis"lature of the United States passed an Act prohibiting, "under heavy penalties, the engagement of American "citizens in the armies of any belligerent Power. "Was that the only instance of the kind? It was but "last year that the United States passed an Act by "which the Act of 1794 was confirmed in every re"spect, again prohibiting the engagement of their "citizens in the service of any foreign Power; and "pointing distinctly to the service of Spain or the "South American Provinces."

On the other hand, Sir James Macintosh inveighed against the Act as a left-handed neutrality, and as aimed at the struggling independence of South America. Sir W. Scott spoke in favour of the bill on the third reading on the 21st of June, and it was passed by a majority of sixty-one.

66

Many amendments had, however, been introduced into it, and amongst others the insertion of the words as a transport or store ship" in the seventh clause. This was intended to prevent British ships being hired to take troops from Spain to America; but the result has been to create the greatest confusion of meaning in the Act.

"Parlia

New Series,

The passing of this Act seems to have put a stop, Cobbett's for the time at least, to the despatch of expeditions mentary against Spain; and in April 1823, Lord Althorp Debates," moved for the repeal of the Act. Mr. Canning in reply vol. viii. entered into the question of the neutrality of England, page 1019. and pointed out that, far from being aimed exclusively at South America, this Act was in reality in favour of the Colonies, as it extended to Spain the prohibition

F

Phillimore,

229.

to export arms, &c., which had been already provided for against them by the Treaty of 1814. Referring to the United States law, he said: "If I wished for a› "guide in a system of neutrality, I should take that "laid down by America in the days of the Presidency "in Washington, and the secretaryship of Jefferson. "In 1793, complaints were made to the American

Government that French ships were allowed to fit out and arm in American ports, for the purpose of "attacking British vessels, in direct opposition to the "laws of neutrality. Immediately upon this repre"sentation, the American Government held that such "a fitting out was contrary to the laws of neutrality; "and orders were issued, prohibiting the arming of any "French vessel in American ports. At New York,

a French vessel fitting out was seized and delivered over to the tribunals and condemned. Upon that "occasion the American Government held that such "fitting out of French ships in American ports for "the purpose of cruizing against English vessels was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United "States, and tended to interrupt the peace and good "understanding which subsisted between that country

and Great Britain. Here, I contend, is the prin"ciple of neutrality upon which we ought to act. It was upon this principle that the bill in question was

66

"enacted."

The motion was rejected by a majority of 106. The Neutrality Law of the United States having formed the foundation of the Neutrality Law of this country, and the decisions of the judges of that country having been, as it were, incorporated in the law of nations, the application of the United States Foreign Enlistment Act has been treated of at some length, but as it would be useless to attempt within the compass of a memorandum to go into the intricate questions of "intent," "equipping, fitting out or arming," &c., &c., which have at various times been raised under the British Act, it is only proposed to mention some of the leading instances in which it has been put into operation or suspended.

In 1827 an expedition of four vessels, under the vol. iii. page command of Count Saldanha, sailed from Plymouth, ostensibly for Brazil, but in reality, as was supposed, to operate against the party of Don Miguel in Terceira. Her Majesty's ship "Walpole," with some gun-boats, was sent to Terceira to intercept this expedition. This was done off Port Praya, and the "Walpole" escorted the expedition back to the Channel. It eventually went to Brest. The "Walpole " subsequently stopped another expedition off Port Praya which had sailed from London.

In 1835 an Order in Council was passed exempting British subjects engaging in the service of Isabella of Spain from the penalties of the Foreign Enlistment Philimore, Act. This enabled the Spanish Legion, under Sir vol. iii. pages 218 and 219. De Lacy Evans, to be formed. A debate took place on the question in June 1835, but the competency of the Crown to make such a relaxation was not disputed. In 1846 certain British merchants complained that an expedition was being prepared to sail under General Florez against Equador. Their representation was supported by several of the South American ministers. It appeared that three vessels, the Glenelg," Monarch," and "Neptune," were ready to set sail with a large number of emigrants, or, as it was said, vember 1846. troops on board, and that men had been openly enlisted for General Florez's service. The vessels were seized and condemned.*

Correspondence with Home Office and Treasury, October and No

Correspondence with

Baron Moncorvo, April and May 1347.

66

In 1847 the Portuguese Minister complained that the "Black Cat was being fitted out to proceed with volunteers for the Portuguese rebel service. The vessel was seized, but released.

Shortly afterwards he made another complaint of a number of British subjects having taken service at Oporto under the revolutionary leaders. He was told in reply, that the English law did not extend to such acts committed in a foreign country.

A Mr. Hislop, however, who had returned from

* There is no record of the trial in the Foreign Office.

Portugal after serving in the rebel army, was denounced by the Portuguese Minister, and would have een proceeded against had the Law Officers considered the evidence sufficient.

On the 30th of August 1862 an Order in Council was issued, suspending the Foreign Enlistment Act, so far as to enable Captain Osborn and Mr. Lay to enter the service of the Emperor of China "to fit out, equip, "purchase, and acquire ships or vessels of war for the use of the said Emperor, and to engage and enlist "British subjects to enter the military and naval "service of the said Emperor." This permission to remain in force until the 1st of September 1864.

The license granted by this Order in Council was extended to "all military officers in Her Majesty's service," by the Order in Council of the 9th of January 1863, with a similar limitation to the 1st of September 1864. (Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, vol. xi., pp. 665-683.)

It will be observed that in all, or nearly all, the cases up to the time of the American civil war the Foreign Enlistment Act had been invoked to prevent the enlistment and despatch of recruits and soldiers rather than the equipment of vessels.

The American civil war introduced a new series of cases, in which the Foreign Enlistment Act was called into operation. These are so well known that it will be sufficient merely to name them in the order as they occurred.

Creto," tried at Nassau; released August 1862. "Alexandra," tried in England.

This was the celebrated cause in which all the issues as to the meaning of the equipment clauses of the Foreign Enlistment Act were raised. The vessel was acquitted, the four Judges in the Exchequer Court being equally divided in opinion; the junior withdrew. The costs and damages were compromised by the Government for 3,7007., and the vessel sailed for Nassau. Here she was again seized and remained under seizure until the end of the war.

The ironclads "El Toussoon" and "Mounassir" at Liverpool, said to have been ordered for the Egyptian Government. The ships were seized, but eventually purchased by Government, and are now Her Majesty's ships "Wivern" and "Scorpion."

The "Canton " 66 or Pampero." This vessel was seized in the Clyde, and the builder allowed judgment to be taken against him. She remained under seizure until the close of the war, and has now become notorious under the name of the "Tornado."

There were five prosecutions for enlisting men to serve in Confederate vessels:

Mr. Rumball, the officer of Sheerness Dockyard, who took part in the equipment of the "Rappahannock." He was acquitted, February 4 1865, although the case against him was a very strong one.

Messrs. Jones and Highat for enlisting men for the Confederate service. They were convicted and sentenced, November 23 1864, to pay a fine of 501. each.

Campbell, enlisting for Georgia, pleaded guilty, and released on recognizances of 150l. to appear when called upon.

Seymour, Cunningham, and Buchanan, convicted of enlisting for "Rappahannock," and discharged on recognizances.

Captain Corbett, who commanded the vessel that took out the armament and crew to the "Shenandoah " at the Desertas off Funchal. A very strong case, but the evidence for the prosecution as to the actual enlistment of men broke down and Captain Corbett was acquitted.

The cases of the "Alabama," "Shenandoah," and "Georgia," are fully explained in the Parliamentary Papers, of which copies have been furnished to the Commissioners.

For an epitome of the representations addressed to Her Majesty's Government, by Mr. Adams, during the civil war, see the Memorandum annexed to Lord Russell's letter to Mr. Adams of November 3, 1865, (Parl. Paper,North America, No. 1, 1866, p.139.) CHAS. S. A. ABBOTT.

(Received from Her Majesty's Embassy at Vienna.) NOTE from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Her Majesty's Ambassador.

MR. BONAR, H.B.M.'s Chargé d'Affaires was pleased to make inquiry of the Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs as to what laws, regulations, or measures are laid down by the Government of H.I.M. in order to prevent transactions in their territory of which belligerent powers might complain as being an infringement of the Neutrality Laws.

After con

sulting the competent authorities, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has now the honour to communicate to Lord Bloomfield, &c., &c., &c. with reference to the above question, as follows:

The Declaration signed in Paris by the Representatives of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Italy, and Turkey, on the 18th of April 1856, concerning the Rights of Neutrals in Naval Warfare has been published in legal course in Austria, and constitutes, therefore, a law generally in force.

Apart from the principles which lie at the foundation of this declaration, there exists, however, no law in Austria, nor any other order generally binding, which could be made to apply to violations of Neutrality by Austrian subjects.

The Imperial Government have endeavoured to supply this want in cases of war between other states, by promulgating in legal forms special regulations for the preservation of Neutrality applicable only to the war in question. Thus, in the year 1854, in consequence of the war then existing, the Ministerial Ordonnance of May 25, 1854, was promulgated, of which copy is enclosed herewith.

In such special declarations the generally acknowledged principles of international law, as well as the known views of the belligerent powers on certain points, have been taken into consideration, in order, as much as possible, to obviate any complaints of infringement of neutrality.

There does not exist, however, a law of this kind applicable to all future occasions, and more particularly there are no general laws in Austria prohibiting the construction, equipment, or manning of ships (in Austrian harbours) which are destined for belligerent powers, or are suspected of being so.

The undersigned, &c., &c. (Signed)

Vienna, May 16, 1867.

MEYSENBUG.

Published on the 28th May 1854. Decree of the Ministries of the Interior, of the Exterior, of Justice and of Trade, as well as of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, of the 25th

May 1854, by which are published the principles to be observed during the war which has broken out between England, France, and the Ottoman Empire on the one side, and Russia on the other side, by the Imperial authorities and subjects with reference to frade and navigation.

In consequence of the war which has broken out between England, France, and the Ottoman Empire on the one side, and Russia on the other side, the following regulations are published with the consent of His Imperial Apostolic Majesty, given on the 23rd May 1854, according to which all Imperial, Civil and Military Authorities, as well as all Austrian subjects will have to regulate their conduct.

1. The acceptation or employment of lettres de marque under whatever form or flag, as well as every kind, share in the command, manning of or fitting out of privateers is prohibited to Austrian subjects. Whoever acts otherwise, has not only to expect no protection on the part of the Imperial Government, if he is subjected to punishment in other states, but he shall also be treated according to the existing laws for robbery, as the acceptance of lettres de marque is to be considered as an attempt at robbery.

2. Should foreign privateers provided with lettres de marque from one of the belligerent powers present themselves, the entrance into our harbours is to be refused, except in case of imminent danger from storms, and then their earliest possible departure must be insisted on.

3. It is forbidden to ships under Austrian colours to carry troops of the belligerent states, or to import into those countries commodities which according to the law of nations, or other universally known regulations, are considered as contraband of war.

Of such commodities, an Austrian ship in intercourse with these states many only carry so much as is strictly necessary for its own use or defence.

Whoever infringes on this prohibition has no protection to expect from the Austrian Government in case of legitimate seizure and confiscation on the part of the belligerent states, but will be punished besides.

4. Austrian ships are forbidden to enter into such places and harbours as are besieged by one of the belligerent powers, or blockaded by a sufficient force, as otherwise they would neither have to expect to enjoy the freedom of a neutral flag, nor assistance or interference on the part of the Imperial Government. 5. Except in this case, Austrian merchant ships are not hindered, in spite of the existing war, in carrying on their trade and intercourse with the