their Secretary of the Treasury for fifty thousand dollars, to fit out and equip the C. S. Steamer "Manassas," [Florida,] "now at Nassau," was answered that "the Department had funds in England," and that he could have "a bill of exchange on England for the amount required. Mallory accepted the suggestion, and requested Memminger to" transmit to Nassau, through Messrs. J. Fraser & Co., of Charleston, a bill of exchange in favor of Lieutenant John N. Maffitt, for fifty thousand dollars, ($50,000,) or its equivalent in pounds," which was done. The construction and dispatch of these vessels were by no means all that was planned in Liverpool during that year. On the Contracts for con21st day of August, 1862, Mallory, the insurgent Secretary d of the Navy, wrote Mr. Jefferson Davis: "A contract has been made for the construction abroad and delivery of six iron-clad steam-vessels of war, upon plans and specifications prepared by this department, which, with the outfits to be furnished, together with six complete extra engines and boilers, are estimated to cost about $3,500,000." The estimates an structing 8LX iron nexed to this letter are to the same amount. Thus it appears [247] that, before the 1st of January, 1863, Bullock had dispatched from Great Britain two formidable cruisers, the Alabama and the Florida, to prey upon the commerce of the United States, had sold another cruiser at Gibraltar, and had possibly turned the proceeds into the Treasury of the insurgents, at the office of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., and had, by himself or through another agent, made some sort of a contract for the construction of six iron-clads; and that Fraser, Trenholm & Co. had provided the funds for these vessels, and also for what was necessary in order to complete the fitting out of the Florida at Nassau. Before proceeding further in this history, it is better to pause to take note of two other acts of the Colonial Author- Trinidad, ities, which, so far as known, were not censured by Great Britain. The first of these was the hospitality extended to the Sumter in Trinidad, in August, 1861. She was allowed to remain five days in port, and to "supply herself with coals and other necessary outfits." The second case was the reception of the Florida at Nassau, in 1863. The Florida steamed into Nassau on the morning of the 26th of January, in that year. What took place is thus described by an insurgent writer: "This The Sumter at The Florida at seems to be our principal port of entry, and the Nass. [248] amount of money we throw into the hands of the Nassauites probably influences their sentiments in our favor. We took on board coal and provisions to last us for several months."76 Mr. Adams repre sents the foregoing facts to Earl Russell. This history has now arrived at the time when the United States were in a position to confirm to Great Britain all, and more than all, that Mr. Adams had represented to Earl Russell as to the course of the insurgents in Liverpool, and to place in the hands of Her Majesty's Government the thread for the discovery of all the violations of British sovereignty, and of all the injuries to the United States perpetrated on British soil, which have been set forth in this paper. On the 19th of January, 1863, Mr. Seward transmitted to Mr. Adams "a copy of some treasonable correspondence of the insurgents at Richmond, with their agents abroad, which throws a flood of Mallory to Memminger, 26th May, 1862, Vol. VI, page 84. Mallory to Memminger, 27th May, 1862, Vol. VI, page 85. Vol. VI, page 96. See also, on the same point, Mallory to Mason, 30th October, 1862, Vol. I, page 573. Bernard to Seward, Vol. II, page 485. Journal of Confederate Steamer Florida, Vol. VI, page 335. light upon the naval preparations they are making in Great Britain." On the 9th day of February, 1863, Mr. Adams inclosed this correspond ence to Earl Russell, with a note in which he said-what could be said without the least exaggeration-"These papers go to show a deliberate attempt to establish within the limits of this Kingdom a system of action in direct hostility to the Government of the *United States. [249] This plan embraces not only the building and fitting out of several ships of war under the direction of agents especially commissioned for the purpose, but the preparation of a series of measures under the same auspices for the obtaining from Her Majesty's subjects the pecuniary means essential to the execution of those hostile projects. Taken as a whole, these papers serve most conclusively to show that no respect whatever has been paid in her own realm by these parties to the neutrality declared by Her Majesty at the outset of these hostilities; and that, so far as may be in their power, they are bent on making her Kingdom subservient to their purpose of conducting hostilities against a nation with which she is at peace."2 Lord Russell delayed his answer to this communication exactly one Lord Russell de month. On the 9th day of March, 1863, he made a reply, clings to act. the substance of which was that Her Majesty's Government would not examine into the truth of Mr. Seward's and Mr. Adams's allegations, because, even if they were true, the papers which had been submitted by Mr. Adams went "merely to show that the agents of the socalled Confederate States resident in this country [Great Britain] have received instructions from their own Government to en- [250] deavor to raise money on securities of that Government in England, and to enter into contracts for the purchase of munitions of war, and for the building of iron-clad vessels; but there is no proof in these papers that the agents referred to have as yet brought themselves within the reach of any criminal law of the United Kingdom." 3 In order fully to comprehend the force of this answer, it is necessary to ask the Tribunal to pause, for the purpose of inquiring Foreign Enlistment into what had taken place between the two Governments as to alleged defects in the Foreign Enlistment Act, and as to the necessity of amending it so as to give the Government greater Inefficiency of the Act. powers. It was found when the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 came to be put into operation, under the direction of a Government inspired by unfriendly feelings toward the United States, that there were practical and multiplying difficulties in the way of using it so as to prevent the departure of the cruisers. Earl Russell, as early as March, 1862, in reply to an earnest representation1 made by Mr. Adams under instructions, said that "the duty of nations in amity with each other is not to suffer their good faith to be violated by evil-disposed persons within their borders, merely from the inefficiency of their prohibitory policy,”5 *Within a few months after this the Alabama escaped from the [251] port of Liverpool, and never returned. The openness and the audacity with which this was done seemed at one time to induce the British Cabinet to entertain the idea of amending the Foreign Enlistment Act. On the 19th day of December, 1862, Lord Russell, in reply to what 1 Seward to Adams, Vol I, page 546. 4 Adams to Russell, Vol. I, page 30. the Foreiga Enlistment Act. he called Mr. Adams's "demand for a more effective prevention for the future of the fitting out of such vessels from British Propositions to a ports, informed him that Her Majesty's Government were mend of opinion that certain amendments might be introduced into the Foreign Enlistment Act, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, would have the effect of giving greater power to the Execu tive to prevent the construction in British ports of ships destined for the use of belligerents." He also said that he was ready at any time to confer with Mr. Adams, and to listen to any suggestions which he might have to make by which the British Foreign Enlistment Act and the corresponding Statute of the United States might be made more efficient for their purpose. Mr. Adams communicated with his Government, and, having obtained instructions, informed Lord Russell that his "sugestions of Propositions de. possible amendments to the enlistment laws in order to ened by Great Brit[252] make them more effective had been favorably re ceived. Although the law of the United States was considered as of very sufficient vigor, the Government were not unwilling to consider propositions to improve upon it." Lord Russell replied that, since his note was written, the subject had been considered in Cabinet, and the Lord Chancellor had expressed the opinion that the British law was sufficiently effective, and that under these circumstances he did not see that he could have any change to propose.1 The United States are unable to state what amendments to the Foreign Ealistment Acts of the two countries the British Government might have proposed had they not changed their minds between December, 1862, and March 1863. It is to be presumed, from the use of the word "construction" in Lord Russell's note, that it was in contemplation to make some proposition to remedy a supposed defect in the British statute as to the construction of a vessel intended to carry on war, as distinguished from the "equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming” such a vessel. It was understood to be the opinion of the British lawyers that the construction of such a vessel was not an offense under the act of 1819. It is also possible that Her Majesty's Government may [253] have *desired to give the Executive in Great Britain some power similar to that possessed by the Executive of the United States for the arrest of vessels so constructed. As the proposal for negotiations on the subject was withdrawn, it is impossible to do more than conject ure what was contemplated. From the hour when Lord Russell informed Mr. Adams that the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the British laws were sufficiently effective, the British Government resisted every attempt to change the laws and give them more vigor. re. Mr. Adams again, on the 26th of March, 1863, sought an interview with Lord Russell on the subject of the rebel hostile opera- Propositions tions in British territory. What took place there is de- newed and declined. scribed by Lord Russell in a letter written on the following day to Lord Lyons: "With respect to the law itself, Mr. Adams said either it was sufficient for the purposes of neutrality, and then let the British Government enforce it; or it was insufficient, and then let the British Government apply to Parliament to amend it. I said that the cabinet were of Adams to Seward, Vol. I, page 668. *Vol. I, page 585. See also Mr. Hammond's letter to Messrs. Lamport and Holt and others, Vol. I, page 602; also Lord Palmerston's speech already cited, Vol. IV, pago opinion that the law was sufficient, but that legal evidence could not always be procured; that the British Government had done everything in its power to execute the law, but I admitted that the cases of *the Alabama and Oreto were a scandal, and, in some degree, a re- [254] proach to our laws.” The Tribunal of Arbitration will thus see that about three weeks be fore Earl Russell made his extraordinary official reply to the representations of Mr. Adams, he had informed Mr. Adams "that the Lord Chan cellor had expressed the opinion that the British neutrality] law was sufficiently effective, and that, under these circumstances, he did not see that he could have any change to propose" in it. It will also now be observed that when that declaration was made, Mr. Adams's note of February 9, 1863, with the proof of the complicity of the insurgent agents in England, had been in Earl Russell's portfolio four days. It will also be observed that that proof established, or afforded to Earl Russell the clue by which he could, and, as the United States say, should have satisfied himself-1. "That contracts were already made for the construction of iron-clad 'fighting-ships' in England."2 2. That Fraser, Trenholm & Co. were the "depositaries" of the insurgents in Liverpool, and that the money in their hands was "to be applied to the contracts." 3. That they (F., T. & Co.) were to pay purchases made by Mr. *Huse and other agents. 4. That other contracts for the con- [255] struction of vessels besides those for the six iron-clads had been taken by parties in Great Britain.5 5. That parties in England were arranging for an insurgent cotton loan, the proceeds of which were to be deposited with Fraser, Trenholm & Co. for the purpose of carrying out all these contracts. When the United States found that the proof of such aggravated wrong was not deemed worthy of investigation by Her Majesty's Government, because it contained no statements which could be used as evidence to convict a criminal before an English jury, they were most reluctantly forced from that time forward, throughout the struggle, to believe that no complaints would be listened to by Her Majesty's Government which were not accompanied by proof that the persons complained of had brought themselves "within reach of the criminal law of the United Kingdom;" that the penal *provisions of the [256] Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 were to be taken by Great Britain as the measure of its duty as a neutral; and that no amendment er change in that act was to be made with the assent of the existing Government. These proceedings They earnestly and confidently insist before this tribunal, that this decision of Her Majesty's Government was in violation of its were an abando obligations toward the United States; that it was an abandonment, in advance, not only of that " due diligence" which ment, in advance, of "due diligence." 1 Vol. I, page 668. 2 Mallory to Mason, Vol. I, page 573. 3 Memminger to Spence, Vol. I, page 574. 66 + Memminger to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Vol. I, page 574; and same to same, Vol. I, page 575. Memorandum No. 11, in Vol. I, page 572. 6 Benjamin to Mason, Vol. I, page 564. Memminger to Mason, Vol. I, page 565. Memminger to Spence, Vol. I, page 574. Memminger to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Vol page 574. I, 7 It is supposed to be a principle of English law that a person accused of crime has the right to have the witnesses against him subjected to a personal cross-examination. The absurdity of Earl Russell's position is shown by the fact that every witness whose correspondence was inclosed in Mr. Adams's note of February 9, 1863, was then in Richmond, behind the bayonets of General Lee's army. is defined in the Treaty of Washington as one of the duties of a neutral, but of any measure of diligence, to restrain the insurgents from using its territory for purposes hostile to the United States. Encouraged by the immunity afforded by these several decisions of Her Majesty's Government, the insurgent agents in Great Britain began to extend their operations. The Georgia Early in April, 1863, a steamer, called the Japan, which was afterward known as the Georgia, left the Clyde, "with intent to depredate on the commerce of the United States."1 This vessel had been publicly launched on the 10th of the previous January as an insurgent steamer, at which time a Miss North, daughter of a Captain North, of one of the Confederate States, officiated [257] as priestess, and christened the craft *"Virginia." "Some seventy or eighty men, twice the number that would be required for any legitimate voyage, were shipped at Liverpool for this vessel, and sent to Greenock." A small steamer called the " Alar," belonging to a British subject, was loaded with a large supply of guns, shell, shot, powder, &c.," and dispatched to meet her. The two vessels met off the French coast; the "Alar" was made fast alongside the "Japan," and in twentyfour hours the whole of the guns and ammunition were transferred. The "Japan" then dropped her Oriental name, hoisted the flag of the insurgents, and steamed away; one day's work after leaving the Clyde having converted her into an armed cruiser. It was not, however, until the 23d of the following June that her British register was canceled and the transfer made to foreign owners. Early in March, 1863, Miller & Son, the builders of the Florida, launched, at their yard in Liverpool, a new gun-boat, to be The Alexandra. called the Alexandra." The evidence of the hostile uses for which this vessel was intended was so overwhelming that proceed[258] ings were instituted against her for a violation of the Foreign En listment Act. In the trial of this case it was clearly proved that the Alexandra was a man-of-war, and that she was constructed for the purpose of carrying on hostilities against the United States." But the judge instructed the jury that a neutral might "make a vessel and arm it, and then offer it for sale "10 to a belligerent; and that, a fortiori, "if any man may build a vessel for the purpose of offering it to either of the belligerent Powers who is minded to have it, may he not execute an 'Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Vol. II, page 666. 7 Underwood to Seward, 16th July, 1863, Vol. VI, page 503. 3 Dudley to Mr. Seward, Vol. II, page 665. Vol. II, page 666. Mahon's affidavit, Vol. II, page 673. "Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, 7th July, 1863, Vol. II, page 677. Dudley to Seward, 11th March, 1863, Vol. II, page 258. See Vol. V, pages 1 to 470. "The evidence as to the building and fittings of the ship proved that she was strongly built, principally of teak-wood; her beams and hatches, in strength and distance apart, was greater than those in merchant vessels; the length and breadth of her hatches were less than the length and breadth of hatches in merchant vessels; her bulwarks were strong and low, and her upper works were of pitch-pine. At the time of her seizure workmen were employed in fitting her with stanchions for hammock nettings; iron stanchions were fitted in the hold; her three masts were up, and had lightning conductors on each of them; she was provided with a cooking apparatus for 150 or 200 people; she had complete accommodation for men and officers; she had only stowage room sufficient for her crew, supposing them to be 32 men; and she was apparently built for a gun-boat, with low bulwarks, over which pivot-guns could play. The commander of Her Majesty's ship Majestic, stationed at Liverpool, said that she was not intended for mercantile purposes." (Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War, by Mountague Bernard, M. A., page 353, note 1.) 1 Vol. V, page 128. . |