heard on the 22d and 23d May, 1865, and on the 30th May the court decided that there was no "reasonably sufficient" evidence of illegal intent to support a sentence of forfeiture, and the vessel was accordingly released. The war had by that time terminated, and all armed resistance to the authority of the Government of the United States was at an end. The costs and expenses which the colonial government incurred by the seizure of the vessel amounted to £311 18s. El Tousson and El Monassir, (iron-clad rams.) On the 7th July, 1863, Mr. Dudley made formal application to the collector of customs at Liverpool to seize, under the provisions of the above-mentioned act, a vessel described by him (Mr. Dudley) as “an iron-clad steam-vessel of war," launched three days before and then lying at Birkenhead." He at the same time laid before the collector several depositions on oath, sworn by himself and various other persons, in which it was stated that two iron-clad steamships, similar in all material respects to each other, had for many months been in process of construction in the ship-building yard of Messrs. Laird & Co., shipbuilders of Birkenhead; that they were of very great strength and manifestly designed for vessels of war; that each was furnished with a ram or piercer of wrought-iron projecting under the water-line, and was also prepared to receive two iron turrets for heavy guns, and that two of such turrets were being constructed in the yard. One only of the said vessels had been launched, and to this Mr. Dudley's application related. The said depositions contained also allegations tending to show that the vessels were intended for the naval service of the Confederate States. Copies of these depositions and of Mr. Dudley's application were, on the 11th July, 1863, sent by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell." On the 13th July these depositions were referred to the proper departments of the government, and to the law-officers of the Crown.4 That these two vessels were in course of construction had for a long time been known to Mr. Dudley, and he had sent information respecting them to the Government of the United States, commencing in the month of July, 1862. It was Mr. Dudley's opinion that they would be most formidable ships, possessing more power and speed than any iron-clads previously built, and so heavily plated as to be invulnerable. Further depositions in support of the application were subsequently submitted by Mr. Dudley to the collector of customs, and transmitted by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. The second of the two vessels above mentioned was launched on the 29th August, 1863; and an application, supported by sworn [E] depositions, for the seizure of her was, on the 1st September, 1863, made by Mr. Dudley to the collector of customs at Liverpool. Copies of these further depositions were sent by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. Her Majesty's government had, at the earliest moment, given directions that a strict watch should be kept over the vessels, and that diligent inquiry should be made for the purpose of ascertaining their character and destination. It was at first reported that they were built for the government of France. Subsequently, they were claimed by a M. Bravay, a French merchant and member of a firm carrying on business in Paris, who stated that he had purchased them on account of the Pasha of Egypt. M. Bravay had in fact, in August, 1863, made an application to the French government, stating the alleged purchase, and requesting that the good offices of the French embassy in London might be used in his behalf, in order to enable him to send the vessels to Alexandria; and it further appeared that he had, in February, 1863, made a claim upon the Pasha's government on account of two iron-clad vessels of war which he affirmed that he had been ordered to procure by the then Pasha's predecessor (who died in 1862) and for which he alleged that he had paid a large sum on account. Finally, he produced to the British naval attaché at Paris a number of papers relating to the vessels, and furnished him with a copy of a legal instrument, dated 18th July, 1863, from which it appeared that the iron-clads had, in fact, been built to the order of Bullock, but that Bullock's interest in them had been transferred, or purported to be transferred, to Bravay.3 On the 28th August, 1863, Her Britannic Majesty's consul general in Egypt reported to the government that the Pasha of Egypt refused to ratify the order alleged to have been given by his predecessor, or to purchase the vessels. This report was received by the government on the 5th September.4 On the same 5th September the builders of the vessels, in reply to an inquiry addressed to them by the under secretary of state for foreign affairs, wrote to him as follows:5 Messrs. Laird Brothers to Her Majesty's Foreign Office. BIRKENHEAD, September 5, 1863. SIR: We have received your letter of the 4th instant, stating that Lord Russell has instructed you to request us to inform him, with as little delay as possible, on whose account and with what destination we have built the iron-clad vessel recently launched and now in course of completion at our works. In reply, we beg to say that although it is not usual for ship-builders to declare the names of parties for whom they are building vessels until the vessels are completed and the owners have taken possession, yet in this particular case, in consequence of the many rumors afloat, coupled with the repeated visits of Mr. Morgan, the surveyor of customs, to our works, we thought it right to ask permission of the parties on whose account we are building the vessels to give their names to the English government, in the event of such information being asked for officially in writing. They at once granted us the permission we sought for. We therefore beg to inform you that the firm on whose account we are building the vessels is A. Bravay & Co., and that their address is No. 6 Rue de Londres, Paris, and that our engagement is to deliver the vessels to them in the port of Liverpool when they are completed according to our contract. The time in which we expect to have the first vessel so completed is not less than one month from this date, and the second not less than six or seven weeks from this date. We are, &c., A. H. LAYARD, Esq., M. P. LAIRD BROTHERS. The inquiries directed by Her Majesty's government were actively prosecuted, and, although they led to no conclusive result, nevertheless convinced the government that there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining sufficient evidence as to the destination of the vessels. On the 9th September, 1863, both vessels being then in an unfinished state, the following notice was sent to the builders by the secretary of the treasury: Her Majesty's Treasury to Messrs. Laird Brothers. TREASURY CHAMBERS, September 9, 1863. GENTLEMEN: I am desired by my lords commissioners of Her Majesty's treasury to acquaint you that their lordships have felt it their duty to issue orders to the commissioners of customs that the two iron-clad steamers now in the course of completion in your dock at Birkenhead are not to be permitted to leave the Mersey until satisfactory evidence can be given of their destination, or at least until the inquiries which are now being prosecuted with a view to obtain such evidence shall have been brought to a conclusion. In reply, we beg to inform you that we have forwarded a copy of your letter to Messrs. A. Bravay & Co., at No. 6 Rue de Londres, Paris, on whose account we are building the vessels, and to whom we beg to refer you for further information; inasmuch as our engagement with them is to deliver the vessels at the port of Liverpool when they are completed according to our contract. The builders having informed the collector of customs that they wished to take the vessel which was nearest completion (named El Tousson) for a trial trip, in order to test the machinery, but with an assurance that she should be brought back again, they were told that circumstances had come to the knowledge of the government which gave rise to an apprehension that an attempt might be made, without the privity and against the intention of the builders themselves, to carry away the vessel by force while on such trial-trip. The government, therefore, could not permit the trip to take place, unless on the condition that a force of seamen and marines, from Her Majesty's channel fleet, (which was then in the Mersey), sufficient to defeat any such attempt, should be placed on board of the vessel. On the 7th October, 1863, the builders were told that in consequence of further information received by the government, it was deemed necessary to place an officer of the customs on board the vessel named El Tousson, with authority to seize her on behalf of the Crown in the event of any atrempt being made to remove her from her actual position, and that he was instructed to obtain from the commanding officer of Her Majesty's ship of war Majestic any protection which might be necessary to support him in the execution of his duty.3 On the 9th October, 1863, orders were issued to seize both the vessels, and they were seized accordingly. The vessel remained under seizure from that time until the month of May, 1864, when they were, by agreement, sold and transferred to Her Majesty's government for the aggregate sum of £220,000.5 The evidence which the government had up to that time been able to obtain was so imperfect as to make the event of a trial doubtful; and in agreeing to the purchase, Her Majesty's government was mainly actuated by a desire to prevent by any means within its power (however costly) vessels of so formidable a character, constructed in a British port, from passing directly or indirectly into the hands of a belligerent. THE CANTON OR PAMPERO. On the 18th October, 1863, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the following note, (with an inclosure:)" Appendix. vol. ii., p. 358. Ibid., p. 367. 3 Ibid., p. 387. 6 Ibid., p. 467. MY LORD: It is with great regret that I find it my duty once more to call your lordship's attention to the efforts making in this kingdom to aid the insurgents in America in carrying on their resistance to the Government of the United States. I have strong reason for believing that, in addition to a very formidable steam ram now in process of construction at the port of Glasgow, but not yet so far advanced as fully to develop her character, there is another steamer ready to be launched, called the Canton, having all the characteristics of a war-vessel, which is about to be fitted up and dispatched with the same intent from the same place. I beg leave to submit to your lordship's consideration some extracts from a letter addressed to me by W. L. Underwood, esq., the consul of the United States, giving some information in regard to this case. Mr. Underwood himself entertains no doubt of the destination of this vessel, although from the secrecy used in the process of construction and preparation, itself a cause of suspiciou, he has been slow in gaining evidence on which to base a representation. Not doubting that Her Majesty's government will take all suitable measures to ascertain the correctness of these allegations, I pray, &c. (Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. The extracts inclosed in the above note contained a description of the Canton. The information thus furnished by Mr. Adams was immediately communicated to the proper departments of the government, and the officers of customs and local authorities were instructed to make immediate inquiry, and to take such legal measures as might prevent any attempt to infringe the law. The inquiries thus directed were pursued for a considerable time with very little result. The vessel was carefully examined, both by the surveyor of the customs and by the commanding officer of Her Majesty's ship Hogue, stationed in the Clyde; and the *specifications on [45] which she was constructed, as well as the contract for building her, were produced and exhibited by the agents through whom the contract had been made. It appeared that, though she was being fitted up as a passenger ship, there were some peculiarities in her construction such as to render her capable of being converted, not indeed into a regular ship of war, but into a vessel serviceable for war purposes. She had been contracted for by a person resident in London, through the agency of a Glasgow firm; and this firm, as well as her builders, stated that they believed her to be intended for the merchant service, and were not aware of any intention to dispose of her to the Confederate States. The vessel was launched on the 29th October, 1863 (her name having been previously changed to the "Pampero;") and the United States consul at Glasgow soon afterward made a formal application that she might be seized, supporting it by several depositions on oath, to which others were afterward added from time to time. No evidence whatever of her being intended for the confederate service, beyond vague rumor and hearsay, was furnished by the United States consul in these depositions or otherwise, nor by Mr. Adams. 1 By the end of November, however, the inquiries directed by the government had led to the production of some evidence, and it was eventually ascertained that the real owners of the vessels were several persons resident respectively in London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Dumbarton, and that they were under a contract to sell her to one Sinclair, calling himself a citizen of the Confederate States; but that Sinclair had lately been, and then was, desirous of canceling the conA letter from Sinclair, asking that the contract might be can tract. 1 Appendix, vol. ii, p. 478. 2 Ibid., p. 486. celed, was placed in the hands of the law officers of the Crown for Scotland, and was as follows: LONDON, September 24, 1863. MY DEAR SIR: When I made a contract with you in November last for the building of a steamship, I was under the impression, having taken legal advice, that there was nothing in the law of England that would prevent a British subject from building such a vessel for any foreign subject as a commercial transaction. Although the recent decision of the Court of Exchequer in the case of the Alexandra would seem to sustain the opinion, yet the evident determination of your government to yield to the pressure of the United States minister, and prevent the sailing of any vessel that may be suspected of being the property of a citizen of the Confederate States, is made so manifest that I have concluded it will be better for me to endeavor to close that contract referred to, and go where I can have more liberal action. In these circumstances I desire to put an end to our transaction, by your returning to me the cotton certificates which I delivered to account of price, and my canceling the contract. The increased value of shipping since the date of our transaction will, I have no doubt, enable you at once to meet my wishes in this respect. I shall feel much obliged by an early reply. (Signed) EDWARD PEMBROKE, Esq. G. SINCLAIR. On the 10th December the Pampero was, by direction of Her Majesty's government, seized by the collector of customs at Glasgow, and legal proceedings were instituted to obtain a declaration of forfeiture.2 The case was appointed to be tried in April, 1864, when, no defense being made, a verdict was entered for the Crown, and the vessel was declared forfeited. She remained under seizure until October, 1865, and was then given up to her owners, ail reasons for detaining her being at an end. 3 THE AMPHION, THE HAWK, THE VIRGINIA, THE LOUISA ANN FANNY, THE HERCULES. In the year 1864 representations were made by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell respecting two vessels named the Amphion and Hawk; and, in the year 1865, respecting three others, the Virginia, the Louisa Ann Fanny, and the Hercules, all of which he alleged to be fitting out in ports of the United Kingdom under suspicious circumstances, and to be probably destined for the naval service of the Confederate States. In each of these cases the information furnished was immediately transmitted to the proper departments of the government, and careful inquiry was made. In none of them were any reasonable grounds of suspicion found on examination to exist, which would have justified the executive in interfering, and none of the suspected vessels were ever in fact armed or used for purposes of war. The dates at which Mr. Adams's representations in these several cases were respectively first received, and were referred for inquiry, were as follows: The Amphion.-Received March 18, 1864; referred on the same day to the home department.1 [46] The Hawk-Received April 16, 1864; referred to the treasury, the home department, and the lord advocate, (the law officer of the Crown for Scotland,) April 18, 1864.5 The Virginia and Louisa Ann Fanny.-Received January 30, 1865; referred to the treasury, February 1, 1865. The Hercules. Received February 7, 1865; referred to the treasury and to the home department, February 8 and 9, 1865.7 Appendix, vol. ii, p. 511. * Ibid., p. 520. 3Ibid., 533. *Ibid., pp. 566, 567. H. Ex. 282 -5 5 Ibid., pp. 543, 544. 6 Ibid., pp. 595, 596. |