[Footnote 412:  Lyons Papers.  Lyons to Milne, Dec. 1, 1861.]

[Footnote 413:  Ibid., Russell to Lyons, Nov. 16, 1861.]

[Footnote 414:  Gladstone Papers.  Argyll to Gladstone, Nov. 29, 1861.]

[Footnote 415:  C.F.  Adams, The Trent Affair. (Proceedings, Mass.  Hist.  Soc., XLV, p. 58.)]

[Footnote 416:  Moore, Int.  Law Digest, VII, p. 772.  The much argued international law points in the case of the Trent are given in extenso by Moore.]

[Footnote 417:  Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords, Vol.  XXV.  “Correspondence respecting the Trent.”  No. 2.]

[Footnote 418:  Ibid., No. 4.]

[Footnote 419:  Ibid., No. 29.  Inclosure.]

[Footnote 420:  Troops were in fact shipped for Canada.  This resulted, after the Trent affair had blown over, in a circumstance which permitted Seward, with keen delight, to extend a courtesy to Great Britain.  Bancroft (II, 245) states that these troops “finding the St. Lawrence river full of ice, had entered Portland harbour.  When permission was asked for them to cross Maine, Seward promptly ordered that all facilities should be granted for ’landing and transporting to Canada or elsewhere troops, stores, and munitions of war of every kind without exception or reservation.’” It is true that the American press made much of this, and in tones of derision.  The facts, as reported by Lyons, were that the request was merely “a superfluous application from a private firm at Montreal for permission to land some Officers’ Baggage at Portland.” (Russell Papers, Lyons to Russell, Jan. 20, 1862.) Lyons was much vexed with this “trick” of Seward’s.  He wrote to the Governor-General of Canada and the Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, protesting against an acceptance of Seward’s permission, and finally informed Russell that no English troops were marched across the State of Maine. (Russell Papers.  Lyons to Russell, Feb. 14, 1862.  Also Lyons Papers.  Lyons to Monck, Feb. 1, 1862.)]

[Footnote 421:  Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, V, pp. 418-26.]

[Footnote 422:  Still another letter from Russell to Lyons on November 30, but not intended for Seward, outlined the points of complaint and argument, (1) The San Jacinto did not happen to fall in with the Trent, but laid in wait for her. (2) “Unnecessary and dangerous Acts of violence” were used. (3) The Trent, when stopped was not “searched” in the “ordinary way,” but “certain Passengers” were demanded and taken by force. (4) No charge was made that the Trent was violating neutrality, and no authority for his act was offered by Captain Wilkes. (5) No force ought to be used against an “unresisting Neutral Ship” except just so much as is necessary to bring her before a prize court. (6) In the present case the British vessel had done nothing, and intended nothing, warranting