board the Trent may be viewed in what I consider its proper light by the British ministry. A neutral nation is the common friend of both belligerents, and has no right to aid the one to the injury of the other. It is, consequently, very clear under the law of nations, that a neutral vessel has no right to carry articles contraband of war to any enemy, to transport his troops or his despatches. These principles are well settled by British authority. And Sir W. Scott, in the case of the Atalanta (Wheaton, 566) informs us that the writers on public law declare "that the belligerent may stop the ambassador of his enemy on his way." And why not? If it be unlawful to carry despatches, with the greater reason it must be unlawful to carry ministers who write despatches, and to whom despatches are addressed, who are the agents of one belligerent government on their way to a neutral country for the express purpose of enlisting its government in the war against the other.

In some respects it would have been better had Captain Wilkes seized the Trent and brought her into port. It would then have become a purely judicial question, to be decided upon precedent and authority by the appropriate court of admiralty, and the two governments would not then have been brought face to face as they are now confronting each other. Under all the circumstances, I do not think that this seizure presents a justifiable cause of quarrel on the part of the British government, and I trust you may take this view of the subject.

In reference to your question in regard to blockade, no administration within the last half century, up to the end of my term, would have consented to a general declaration abolishing privateering. Our most effectual means of annoying a great naval power upon the ocean is by granting letters of marque and reprisal. We could not possibly, therefore, have consented to the Paris declaration which would have left the vessels (for example of Great Britain or France) free to capture our merchant vessels, whilst we should have deprived ourselves of the employment of the force which had proved so powerful in capturing their merchant vessels. Hence the proposition of Mr. Marcy to abolish war upon private property altogether on the ocean, as modern civilization had abolished it on the land. I do not think that a proposition was ever made to abolish blockade. I certainly have no recollection of it.

I am rejoiced to learn that Mr. Bright is well; I was afraid, when I left England, that his health was in an unpromising condition. Please to remember me in the kindest terms to him and Mr. Gibson. Miss Lane is in New York; if she were at home, she would have many kind messages to send you. From your friend, very respectfully,

THE HON. RICHARD COBDEN.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

TO MISS LANE.1

WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER,

19 December, 1861.

MY DEAR HARRIET/

I have received your favor of the 18th Instant & am truly sorry to learn the death of my friend McLanahan. At one period I was very much attached to him & I still continued to entertain for him cordial feelings of kindness. .

You doubtless have seen the New York Herald of Yesterday & observed that I am charged by its correspondent at Washington with having taken away from the White House the pictures of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, & other members of the Royal family, presented to me for the Presidential Mansion by the Prince of Wales. Lord Lyons, by whom I believe they were sent to you, ought to correct this. I remember they came to you in loose sheets without frames & whether they were framed at your expense or mine I know not.

As to the Japanese presents:-After the departure of the Ambassadors, I sent them all, at least I so believe, to the Patent Office. I believe they gave you, Harriet Buchanan, & Miss Macalester some presents about which I know nothing. Miss Hetty says yours are all locked up.

'Buchanan Papers, private collection.

Buchanan, II. 571.

2

Extract printed in Curtis's

A paragraph relating to a personal matter is here omitted.

It is a mean & contemptible charge, arguing in me a mean & contemptible spirit, & therefore the greater necessity for its contradiction. I presume you can have this done in New York through the Judge & Mrs. Roosevelt or some other friend.1 Miss Hetty has found a Bill on file against you, receipted by Francis Lamb & dated on 2 December, 1860, for four gilt frames amounting to $18.00. Were these frames for the pictures? The other two are in Rosewood.

You ask my opinion on the Slidell & Mason affair, & whether there is danger of war with England. I think, as a fair deduction from British authorities, that Captain Wilkes might have seized the Trent & brought her into Port for adjudication. Had he done this, it would have become a judicial question, & the two nations would not have been brought front to front in opposition to each other. That he only seized the Commissioners & let the vessel go was an act intended for kindness on his part. Certainly a war cannot grow out of this question, unless Great Britain desires it, without very bad management on our side. My kindest regards to Judge & Mrs. Roosevelt. Yours affectionately

MISS HARRIET R. LANE.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

1Another example of the malicious or reckless detraction to which Mr. Buchanan was at this period subjected is afforded by the following paper drawn up by him for publication:

"There has recently been published in the New York Tribune a letter dated at Gotha on the 12th August, and purporting to have been written by Bayard Taylor, which contains the following: 'In this place is published the Almanach de Gotha, the most aristocratic calendar in the world, containing the only reliable pedigrees and portraits of the crowned heads. Well, last summer the publisher was surprised by the reception of a portrait of Miss Harriet Lane, forwarded by her uncle, with a request that it be engraved for next year's Almanach, as our Republican rulers had a right to appear in the company of the reigning families.'

We are authorized to say that this statement in regard to Ex-President Buchanan is without the least shadow of foundation. He never forwarded such a portrait to the publisher of the Gotha Almanach; never made such a request and never had any correspondence of any kind, directly or indirectly, with that gentleman. He was, therefore, surprised when this absurd charge was a few days ago brought to his notice by a friend." (Curtis's Buchanan, II. 525.)

MY LORD:

TO LORD LYONS.1

WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER,

19 December, 1861.

You have probably observed a charge made upon me by a correspondent of the New York Herald for having brought to Wheatland certain pictures of members of the royal family which had been presented to me by the Prince of Wales for the Presidential mansion. Your Lordship knows better than any other person on this side of the Atlantic the falsity of this charge. I would, therefore, thank you to address me a note, stating the facts connected with the gift of these pictures to Miss Lane, for publication, should I deem this necessary. Miss Lane is in New York, or she would doubtless address you on the subject. You can deliver your answer to my friend Dr. Blake, the late Commissioner of Public Buildings, who will call for it at any time you may appoint.

With earnest wishes for your health and prosperity, I remain very respectfully

In looking over the New York of yesterday, I observe that his Washington correspondent states that I took away from the White House the pictures of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, and other members of the royal family, presented to me for the

1 Buchanan Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. "Curtis's Buchanan, II. 524.

Presidential mansion by the Prince of Wales. I trust that neither the President nor Mrs. Lincoln had any connection with this statement. Likenesses of the Queen and Prince, with four of the children of the royal family, were sent to Miss Lane in loose sheets, with many kind messages, by the Prince of Wales, immediately before he left for England. I think they were borne by Lord Lyons. Miss Lane had them plainly framed at her own expense, and hung them up in the Red Room until she should return to Wheatland. I am also charged with having taken away from the White House a large number of Chinese and Japanese curiosities intended upon presentation for the mansion. You are aware that after the Japanese embassadors left, I sent everything that had been presented by them to me to the Patent Office. There were at the time two young ladies staying at the White House, and before the embassadors left they presented Miss Lane and each of them some trifling Japanese curiosities. What they received I do not know, but since the receipt of the I have inquired of Miss Hetty, and I certainly would not give twenty dollars for the whole lot. Miss Lane is absent in New York, and I cannot find her keys..

I send you the enclosed as something like what might be published. If you would call on Lord Lyons, to whom I enclose a letter, and say you called at my request, he would tell you all about the pictures of the Queen and Prince Albert, and their children...

Thank God! my health I may say is entirely restored. How glad I should be to see you! Miss Lane has been absent in New York for some time, and I do not expect her home until after New Year.

From your friend,

DR. JOHN B. BLAKE.

JAMES BUCHANAN.