As nothing in the way of negligence could have been so unfriendly, and nothing could have been more derogatory to honest neutrality than the action of the British authorities and government in this case, it is little wonder that an English writer of standing has asserted that every cabinet minister rejoiced at the escape of the Alabama,2 and that before the end of 1862 the gossip about London ran that Earl Russell himself had given warning to the Alabama to go before the order to stop her could be sent. Again, it has been stated frequently by American writers that the English government meaning the ministry-connived at the escape of the Confederate privateer. All these statements are untrue. It is certain that at least four cabinet ministers - the Duke of Argyll, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Milner Gibson, and Earl Russell-regretted deeply the escape of the Alabama. Touching the first three, no evidence need be adduced, and no charge further than negligence and indecision at an im - - 1 "The Government of Great Britain neglected to use due diligence for the fulfilment of its duties as a neutral." Baron d'Itajubá, part i. p. 41. "The example of the Oreto made it the duty of the British authorities to be on their guard against acts of this kind. They, nevertheless, did not in any way take the initiative, on the representations of Dudley and Adams, with the view of inquiring into the true state of affairs, although they had given an assurance that the authorities should take the matter up. After sufficient evidence had been furnished, the examination of it was so much procrastinated, and the measures taken to arrest the vessel were so defective, that she was enabled to escape just before the order for her seizure was given." — M. Staempfli, part i. p. 48. "The neutrality of Great Britain was gravely compromised by the vessel named the Alabama.” — Count Sclopis, p. 55. Most of my facts have been drawn from the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Cockburn. Since writing this, vol. ii. of the Memorials, Family and Personal, of the Earl of Selborne (who at the time was Solicitor-General) has appeared. I have read carefully his statement and argument. I see no reason to modify any expression I have used. I have added to my account that Selborne (then Roundell Palmer) and the Attorney-General gave Russell an opinion Ante, p. 86. June 30. 2 "There was not one of her Majesty's ministers who was not ready to jump out of his skin for joy when he heard of the escape of the Alabama.” - Mozley's Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 141. "Mozley, then, I believe, a regular writer for the Times." - Selborne Memorials, vol. ii. p. 428. 3 Russell's statement to Adams, Diary, entry Nov. 15. portant juncture can be brought against Earl Russell. Cobden wrote Sumner: "Earl Russell was bona fide in his desire to prevent the Alabama from leaving, but he was tricked and was angry at the escape of the vessel."1 The most intelligent and decisive appreciation of the Foreign Secretary's attitude was expressed by Charles Francis Adams before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, in words honorable to both men, who had contended as ardently in conversation and letter as the courtesy of diplomatic usage would permit. "I am far from drawing any inferences," he said, "to the effect that he [Earl Russell] was actuated in any way by motives of ill-will to the United States, or, indeed, by unworthy motives of any kind. If I were permitted to judge from a calm comparison of the relative weight of his various opinions with his action in different contingencies, I should be led rather to infer a balance of good-will than of hostility to the United States."2 That ship-builders and ship-owners of Liverpool and other ports exulted in the escape of the Alabama, is doubtless true; that the prospect that she would destroy the shipping of England's greatest rival on the sea at the outbreak of the war occurred to them and gave them joy, is more than prob able; that there were members of the House of Commons who shared these feelings, cannot be gainsaid; and that the same ideas may have entered the minds of some members of the cabinet, it would be impossible to deny: but I should be loath to believe, since indeed there is no evidence of it, that they affected the official action of any minister. Lord Palmerston's hand is not apparent in any part of the proceedings, although as First Lord of the Treasury he probably ought to have been acquainted with the progress of the case. His spirit seems to have run through every department of the 1 May 2, 1863, Morley's Cobden, p. 584. Spencer Walpole, on the authority of a letter from the Duke of Argyll of Dec. 5, 1872, makes the statement that Russell in cabinet meeting proposed that the Alabama be detained in the event that she entered any British port, and actually drafted a despatch directing this. He was supported in this by no one but the Duke of Argyll, and the design was abandoned. — Life of Russell, vol. ii. p. 355. 2 Part i. p. 24. government, but affected the department of Foreign Affairs less perhaps than any other, since Earl Russell was a rival leader of the Liberal party and had been talked of for Prime Minister at the time the Queen sent for Palmerston. Many other things go to show that Russell considered himself supreme as Foreign Secretary. Perhaps the main duty of an English Prime Minister, next to upholding the honor of his country, is to retain his majority in the House of Commons. Palmerston had alienated the radicals, chief of whom were Cobden and Bright, and as a set-off had won golden opinions from the conservatives, who displayed little anxiety to turn him out of office. The radicals were on the side of the North through thick and thin, while many of the conservatives sympathized with the South. Lending countenance to the Southern cause was therefore the better method of keeping his majority,2 and to do this Palmerston would, in John Bright's opinion, stick at nothing, not even war. He deemed the feeling of the North towards England unreasonable,1 and such was his real or affected indignation at General Butler's notorious woman order that he wrote Adams a private and 1 Life of Palmerston, Ashley, vol. ii. p. 205. 2 Adams wrote Seward August 8: "Lord Palmerston has been steadily laboring to counterbalance the loss experienced on the liberal side by corresponding gains from the opposition. . . . That the American difficulties have materially contributed to this result, cannot be doubted. The fact that many of the leading liberals are the declared friends of the United States is a decided disadvantage in the contest now going on. The predominating passion here is the desire for the ultimate subdivision of America into many separate States which will neutralize each other. This is most visible among the conservative class of the aristocracy, who dread the growth of liberal opinions and who habitually regard America as the nursery of them. The practical effect upon our interests is rather disadvantageous, as it renders our enemies frank and bold, whilst it makes our friends conscious of the labor of working against the stream and therefore hesitating and timid in our defence. The indications of this are constantly visible in Parliament."-State Dept. Archives, MS. 3 Adams's Diary, entry July 4. Letter to Gladstone, April 29, Ashley's Palmerston, vol. ii. p. 224. When New Orleans was taken Butler was made commanding general. The women of the city continually insulted the Union officers and soldiers. confidential note which the minister considered offensive and insolent in tone and an insult to his country. It must be remembered that while Adams was trying to stop the Alabama the English public and officials were pondering the news of the Union reverses before Richmond. The reports, which were indeed gloomy enough, were exaggerated, until one day in July there was exultation in London and Liverpool over a telegram which said that McClellan's army had surrendered, or at all events was on the point of capitulation.2 Confidence in the Confederates' ultimate success was general, and undoubtedly contributed to the laxity of the English officials in their performance of the duties imposed on them by neutrality. We may be sure that if McClellan had taken For example: one woman deliberately spat in the face of an officer in full uniform as he was on his way to church; a woman emptied from a balcony a vessel of dirty water on Admiral Farragut and Colonel Deming in full uniform as they were walking along one of the principal streets. Butler gives other instances: these were the most pronounced insults. He thereupon issued an order, May 15, that if any female should insult in any manner a Union officer or soldier, "she should be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation." This order caused a cry of rage in the English press and House of Commons. The strongest expression that I have found is from the Saturday Review of June 14, "Unless the author of this infamous proclamation is promptly recalled, let us hear no more of 'the ties which bind us to our transatlantic kinsmen.' No Englishmen ought to own as kinsmen men who attempt to protect themselves from a handful of women by official and authoritative threats of rape. The bloodiest savages could do nothing crueler - the most loathsome Yahoo of fiction could do nothing filthier." The English did not understand American soldiers. All evidence which I have found sustains Butler's statement that there was no case of abuse of the order by a Northern soldier. The insults ceased. See Butler's Book, p. 414 et seq. It is probable that this order was the main cause of Butler's removal from the command of New Orleans. It grievously incensed the ladies of this city, many of whom were of French extraction. Their bitterness made itself felt in the remonstrances of Mercier, the French Minister at Washington. The removal of Butler emanated from Seward. A partial support for this statement will be found in Butler's Book, p. 533; Life of Seward, vol. iii. p. 139. 1 Adams's Diary, entry June 10; see letter from Louis Blanc, London, June 19, Letters on England, vol. ii. p. 68. 2 Times and Daily News, July 19; letter from Louis Blanc, London, July 21, Letters on England, vol. ii. p. 100. Richmond in June, the Alabama would not have escaped in July. The Alabama left Liverpool without guns or munitions of war of any kind; these as well as coal were brought to her at the Azores by two British vessels which sailed from England about the middle of August.1 However unfriendly the action of England was in the case of the Alabama, it must be borne in mind that the fault was one of omission. The British government, unlike the Emperor of the French, was during the whole war innocent of any overt acts of unkindness. The Queen's speech at the prorogation of Parliament, August 7, declared that her Majesty had still determined to take no part in the contest on the American continent.? Again, though the dominant sentiment of England toward the North is to be deplored and the want of due diligence in the performance of her duties as a neutral is unquestioned, her atonement has been ample. English books, magazines, and newspapers are full of sincere admissions that the public opinion of the country took a wrong direction. In the treaty of Washington 3 the regret which Great Britain expresses at the escape of the Confederate cruisers is all that can be asked in the way of moral reparation from a high-spirited people conscious of their strength. As far as pecuniary damages 1 Part i. p. 38; part ii. p. 191. 2 Hansard, 1209; see the correspondence between James M. Mason, the Confederate envoy, and Earl Russell from July 17 to August 2, Life of J. Davis by his wife, vol. ii. p. 332 et seq. Lord Ranelagh, who had had a talk with the Emperor Louis Napoleon, thus wrote the Earl of Malmesbury, August 30 : “I was very much struck by a conversation about America, for in the most open manner after dinner he said he was quite ready to recognize the South, but Palmerston would not do so, and he could not unless Palmerston did. The result of this (pretended ?) frankness is that Slidell in Paris tells every one that England is the cause of the South not being recognized. He abuses England, and says we are their enemy; in fact, we are in the happy position of being hated by both North and South." Memoirs of an ex-Minister, vol. ii. p. 277. 8 Made in 1871 and provided for the Arbitration of Geneva. 4 The award of the Geneva Tribunal of Arbitration for damages done by the Florida, Alabama, their tenders, and the Shenandoah was a gross sum |