est au contraire très-mécontente, et ne peut mieux en témoigner son mécontentement qu'en ordonnant, comme elle le fait, de séquestrer lesdits corsaires dans les ports où ils peuvent être relâchés, pour y être retenus jusqu'à ce qu'on puisse avoir des sûretés suffisantes qu'ils retourneront en droiture dans leur patrie, sans infester de nouveau les mers d'Europe.

"Quant aux prises que ces corsaires ou d'autres peuvent avoir amenées, ou pourront amener par la suite dans nos ports, les ordres sont renouvelés nonseulement pour qu'on n'en permette pas la vente; mais encore pour qu'on les fasse partir aussitôt que le vent et les circonstances du temps pourront le permettre, sans se prêter à aucune des exceptions que la cupidité des vendeurs et des acheteurs est ingénieuse à former; et il est enjoint aux officiers préposés à cet effet, d'y tenir sévèrement la main, sauf à en répondre en leur propre et privé nom. Il leur est pareillement recommandé de veiller soigneusement à ce que facilités de commerce dont les Américains jouissent dans les ports de France n'excèdent celles d'un commerce permis.

pas

"Si quelque sujet Anglais se croit fondé à intenter une action personnelle contre quelqu'un des susdits corsaires, la voie des tribunaux leur est ouverte ici comme en Angleterre. La loi décide les affaires contentieuses, et jamais l'autorité.

"Pour ce qui est du Dolphin,' que votre Excellence prétend être un bâtiment Français armé en France avec l'équipage de la même nation, et n'ayant qu'un seul officier Américain, l'examen le plus impartial en sera fait, et si la chose est effectivement telle qu'elle vous a été représentée, il en sera fait justice."

On the 15th of March, 1778, the French Ambassador in London communicated to the English Government the recognition of the independence of the American Colonies, and the Treaties which had been signed between France and the United States, which led to the withdrawal of the English Ambassador from Paris, and to the subsequent hostilities between the two countries without any formal declaration of war.

In 1779 the French Government published an Exposé des Motifs of its conduct relative to Great Britain, to which a reply was published by Great Britain, written by the historian Gibbon, and contained in vol. iv of his miscellaneous works. In reply to the latter Memorial, the French Government published a paper entitled "Observations de la Cour de Versailles sur le Mémoire justificatif de la Cour de Londres."* In this paper the following extracts occur in justification of the asylum granted to the American privateers in the French ports :

"En donnant asile aux Américains, le Roi n'a fait que remplir un des premiers devoirs de l'humanité, en même temps qu'il a exercé un droit inhérent à la souveraineté ; droit qui appartient à toutes les nations indépendantes, qui ne peut être restreint que par des Conventions, et dont l'exercice est plus étendu en Angleterre que dans aucun autre Etat de l'Europe. Le Roi n'a eu aucune raison de renoncer à l'exercice de ce droit au préjudice des Américains, parce que cette nation ne l'a jamais offensé; et c'eût été de sa part une tyrannie, une cruauté inouïe que de les expulser de ses Etats, parce qu'ils étaient injustement opprimés par la Grande Bretagne. Des Américains ont séjourné dans plus d'un pays de l'Europe. En est-il aucun d'où ils n'aient été forcés de sortir; aucun où ils n'avaient joui du droit de l'hospitalité; aucun où ils n'aient été aussi tranquilles et aussi surs que dans les provinces les plus reculées de l'Amérique? A quel titre la Cour de Londres prétend-elle donc faire un crime au Roi de n'avoir chassé les Américains de ses Etats?

"Non-seulement le Roi a donné un asile aux Américains, mais il a aussi admis leurs corsaires et leurs prises; et c'est là un des principaux griefs de la Cour de Londres, sur lequel elle s'est appésantie la plus, et qui a fourni la matière la plus ample à ses déclamations et à ses reproches. Mais quelques mots suffiront pour établir les véritables principes sur cette matière, et pour démontrer que le Ministère Anglais les a méconnus volontairement.

"Le Roi est le maître d'admettre dans ses ports les navires de toutes les nations de l'univers. Ce droit s'étend sur les bâtiments de guerre comme sur les bâtiments marchands; et il n'admet de restriction que celles qui sont établis par des Traités. Celui d'Utrecht en renferme relativement aux bâtiments de guerre: l'Article XV porte en substance, 'que les Parties Contractantes' (la France et l'Angleterre) ne permettront pas à leurs ennemis. respectifs d'armer dans leurs ports, d'y vendre leurs prises, et d'y séjourner au delà du temps requis pour réparer leurs dommages et se pourvoir des choses nécessaires pour être en état de remettre à la mer.' Le Roi a suivi ponctuellement cette conduite par rapport aux corsaires Américains. Sa volonté à cet égard est constatée par les ordres les plus précis, et surtout par leur exécution. Il est vrai que le Ministère Anglais avance que ces ordres étaient illusoires, qu'ils étaient transgressés ouvertement, impunément et même sous l'autorité

*See "Droit des Gens;" Martens, vol. i. Causes Célèbres, 1761-88, p. 462.-(F. O. Lib., Oct. 730.)

du Gouvernement: mais cette accusation est une calomnie d'autant plus révoltante qu'elle est contraire à la notoriété publique, constatée même par les gazettes Ministérielles imprimées en Amérique.

Ces

"Si l'on prétend que le Roi aurait dû refuser toute retraite aux corsaires Américains, parce qu'il aurait dû les regarder comme pirates, on demande de quel droit le Roi aurait pu les juger tels? Les Américains ne sont point ses sujets: il n'est ni le juge ni l'arbitre des querelles domestiques de l'Angleterre. Il avait adopté la neutralité, et il l'aurait enfreinte de la manière la plus odieuse en prononçant sur l'état des Américains. principes sont certains, et c'est une véritable dérision que de les méconnaître, comme ce serait une adulation, une faiblesse inexcusable que de les violer. La Cour de Londres seule a eu des pirates en mer; ce sont ses bâtiments marchands qui, en pleine paix, ont enlevé des bâtiments Français; et cette Cour ne soutiendra pas sans doute, que ce procédé était contraire à ses ordres ou à ses intentions, puisque les coupables, quoique dénoncés, sont demeurés impunis, et que les navires pris n'ont pas été restitués."

It results from the foregoing statements that no such contrast between the conduct of France on the occasion of the revolt of the British Provinces in 1774, and that of Great Britain on the occasion of the recent insurrection in the United States, as that which Mr. Adams has sought to draw, can really be drawn. Great Britain by no act of hers conferred upon her revolted colonies any belligerent character, or sought to enforce against neutrals belligerent rights; on the contrary, for a long period she dealt with her colonies as revolted provinces by acts of ordinary legislation, and by restrictions on their trade. On the other hand, the United States within a few months after the commencement of the insurrection, conferred upon the Southern States belligerent rights by the Proclamation issued by the President of the United States on the 19th of April, 1861, establishing the blockade of the Southern States, "in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the Laws of Nations in such cases provided."

Foreign Office, October 30, 1865.

Inclosure 2 in No. 11.

E

Memorandum respecting Representations made by Mr. Adams of Breaches of Neutrality

during the Civil War.

August 15, 1861.

1. "BERMUDA."

Letter acknowledged and referred to Treasury, August 15.

Steamer said to be fitting out for Confederates at Hartlepool. Not a case for North America, interference. Proved to be a blockade runner.

September 30, 1861.

2. "SUMTER."

No. 1, 1861, pp. 69, 70.

Complaint of the "Sumter" having been acknowledged as a ship of war at Trinidad North America, by the Governor and the captain of Her Majesty's ship "Cadmus."

No. 1, 1861,

The circumstances had been already reported, and the opinion of the Law Officers Pp. 82-84, taken (September 16), who decided that no irregularity had been committed. Mr. Adams was informed accordingly.

The "Sumter" had run the blockade of the Mississippi, whence she went to Puerto Cabello, and then to Trinidad. She was afterwards laid up at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the United States' steamer "Tuscarora." While at Gibraltar the captain was assassinated by the lieutenant. The ship was dismantled and sold to a British firm in December 1862, and came to Liverpool. Her proceedings there occasioned a subsequent correspondence.

3. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONFEDERATE DEPOT AT NASSAU.

October 1, 1861.

Letter acknowledged and referred to Colonial Office, October 8.

The allegations in Mr. Adams' letter were denied by Mr. H. Adderley, the person North America, who was stated to have the shipment of the supplies, and Mr. Adams expressed his No. 1, pp. 117, satisfaction at the denial. (Mr. Adams, January 10, 1862.)

November 22, 1861.

4. "NASHVILLE."

Acknowledged and referred to Law Officers, November 23.

118.

North America,
No. 6;

"Tuscarora" and
"Nashville."

Mr. Adams,
March 25, 1862.

This was a complaint of the Confederate steamer "Nashville" having been permitted
to enter Southampton after destroying the American barque "Harvey Birch."

The "Nashville," which had escaped from Charleston, proved to be regularly
commissioned as a ship of war, and was, under the advice of the Law Officers, acknow-
ledged accordingly.

For correspondence as to the proceedings of the "Nashville" and United States'
steamer “Tuscarora" at Southampton, see Parliamentary Papers presented 1862.

February 18, 1862.

5. "ORETO," OR "FLORIDA."

Acknowledged and referred to Treasury, February 18.

Alleged to be fitting at Liverpool for the Confederate Service.

The Customs officers reported that she was intended for a merchant-vessel and
was stated to be going to Italy. No proof was forthcoming of her equipment, and she
sailed, March 22, without any armament on board. On arriving at Nassau she was
seized by Her Majesty's ship "Greyhound" for violation of Foreign Enlistment Act. The
case was tried in the Vice-Admiralty Court, and the ship released, August 2, 1862.
She then ran the blockade of Mobile, and having armed there, escaped again as the
"Florida" ship of war, under the command of Captain Maffit.

Her career continued until her seizure in the harbour of Bahia by the United
States' ship "Wachusetts," in October 1864.

Reference to Foreign Enlistment Act.

In the second representation made by Mr. Adams, March 25, 1862, the following
passage occurs, which, as being the first reference to the operation of the Foreign Enlistment
Act, may be worthy of remark :-
:-

"It is with the deepest regret that the President directs me to submit to Her
Majesty's Government a representation of the unfortunate effect produced upon the minds
of the people of the United States from the conviction that nearly all of the assistance that
is now obtained from abroad by the persons still in arms against their Government, and
which enables them to continue the struggle, comes from the Kingdom of Great Britain
and its dependencies. Neither is this impression relieved by the information that the
existing municipal laws are found to be insufficient, and do not furnish means of preven-
tion adequate to the emergency."

6. BLOCKADE-RUNNERS LADEN IN ENGLAND.
March 10, 1862.

Letter acknowledged March 13. Referred to Law Officers March 12, who decided
(March 22) that Her Majesty's Government could not interfere.

April 24, 1862.

7. "EMILY ST. PIERRE."

North America,

No. 11, 1862.

North America,
No. 3, 1863.
Custom-house
Correspondence,

presented 1863.
North America,
No. 1, 1864.

Ditto, No. 3, 1864.
Ditto, No. 3, 1865.

Acknowledged and referred to Law Officers, April 24.

A blockade-runner which, after capture, was rescued by her master and two men
from the prize crew and brought to Liverpool.

Under advice of Law Officers Her Majesty's Government refused to interfere.

June 23, 1862.

8. " ALABAMA."

Acknowledged, referred to Treasury and Law Officers, June 25.

A vessel known as the "No. 290," building by Messrs. Laird at Liverpool. Law
Officers reported (June 30) that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed on, but that
the vessel should be watched. The reports received from the Customs were sent to
Mr. Adams (July 4), with a suggestion that the United States' Consul at Liverpool should
procure further proofs of equipment, &c. Mr. Adams acknowledged, and promised to act
on, this suggestion (July 7). He sent further depositions accordingly (July 22 and 24),
and accompanied the latter letter by an opinion of Mr. Collier in favour of seizure. The
Law Officers reported (July 29) that she should be seized; but on the morning of the
29th she had sailed from the Mersey, under pretext of a trial trip. A copy of the Law
Officers' opinion was sent to the Bahamas in case of the "Alabama" going there. She,
however, proceeded to Angra Bay, Azores, where she met the "Bahama" and
'Agrippina," with her armament, her Commander, Captain Semmes, and forty-two
seamen. She then hoisted the Confederate flag, and sailed for Port Royal, Martinique,

66

next to Blanco Island (belonging to Venezuela), where she coaled, then to Arcas Keys,
then destroyed the United States' ship "Hatteras," off Galveston, and afterwards to
Jamaica, where she was received and recognized as a regularly commissioned ship of war.

She continued her depredations at the Cape of Good Hope and elsewhere, until
she was finally sunk by the United States' ship "Kearsarge," off Cherbourg, June
19, 1864.

Naval Reserve men dismissed for engaging on board "Alabama."

It having been found that four Naval Reserve men had sailed in the " Alabama,"
on her first start, their names were erased from the Naval Reserve List. (Admiralty,
February 27, 1863.)

November 17, 1862.

9. "HECTOR."

Referred to Admiralty, November 18.

This was an inquiry whether the "Hector" was building for Her Majes y's Govern-
ment; and, after reference to the Admiralty, was answered in the affirmative.

January 16, 1863.

10. THE "GEORGIANA."

Acknowledged and referred to Treasury and Home Office, January 17.

Said to be fitting at Liverpool for Confederates, though Mr. Adams could not divulge
the authority on which the statement was made.

The reports from the Customs sent to Mr. Adams on the 18th, 19th, and 27th January
went to show that the vessel was not for war purposes.

She sailed on the 21st January for Nassau, and was wrecked in attempting to enter
Charleston, March 19, 1863.

11. CONFEDERATE AGENCY IN ENGLAND.

February 9, 1863.

Acknowledged February 12; referred to Law Officers, Treasury, and Home Office,
February 23.

This was the case of the intercepted correspondence.

Answered March 9; no cause to interfere.

12. "SUMTER," OR "GIBRALTAR," AT LIVERPOOL.

February 16, 1863.

Referred to Law Officers, February 17.

North America,
No. 8, 1863.

After her sale at Gibraltar (see No. 2), the "Sumter's" name was changed to Customs
the "Gibraltar." Mr. Adams complained of her being refitted for Confederate service. Correspondence,
The Law Officers reported March 3, and Mr. Adams was informed, March 9, that there presented 1863,
was no case for interference.

It appeared that guns were shipped on board the "Gibraltar," but they proved to
be siege guns. She was wrecked in attempting to enter Charleston in July.

13. PAYMENT OF MEN, LATE OF "ALABAMA,'
ALABAMA," IN ENGLAND.
MESSRS. KLINGENDER'S AGENCY.

March 4, 1863.

Acknowledged and referred to Law Officers, March 12, 1863, who decided that
no offence had been committed.

March 26, 1863.

14. "PHANTOM" AND "SOUTHERNER."

Acknowledged and referred to Treasury and Home Office March 27, Law Officers

June 2.

"Phantom" fitting at Liverpool, "Southerner" at Stockton-on-Tees.
informed that there was no ground for interference, July 3.

Both vessels proved to be intended for blockade-runners.

March 30, 1863.

15. "ALEXANDRA."

Mr. Adams

Acknowledged and referred to Law Officers, Treasury, and Home Office, March 31,

1864.

North America,
No. 5, 1864.

Reports were received from the Treasury on the 31st, and Home Office April 1. On the 4th of April the Law Officers advised seizure.

The trial ended in the discharge of the vessel, and the costs and damages having been compromised for 3,700l., she was delivered to the owners. She was then sent to Nassau, where she was again tried on a similar charge of violation of " Foreign Enlistment Act," and again acquitted. She has remained there ever since, and is now

know as the "Mary."

April 8, 1863.

16. THE "VIRGINIA" OR "JAPAN."

Acknowledged and referred to Home Office and Treasury, April 8.

66

When Mr. Adams complained, this vessel had already sailed from Greenock on the 2nd of April for Alderney. Instructions were sent to the Governor of Guernsey to have her watched. She did not, however, go to the Channel Islands, but went to the coast of France, where she met a small steamer, the " Alar" of Newhaven, off Morlaix, and took from her her crew and equipment. She then apparently went into Cherbourg. An explanation was furnished to Mr. Adams, April 21, and on the 30th of April the Law Officers reported that no offence under the "Foreign Enlistment Act" had been committed by the "Alar." The "Virginia" was subsequently known as the "Georgia," and her arrival at Liverpool in 1864 occasioned a further correspondence. 17. IRON-CLADS AT LIVERPOOL.

July 11, 1863.

Acknowledged, and referred to Treasury, Home Office, and Law Officers, July 13. These vessels, known as the "El Mounassir" and "El Toussoon," and said to have been ordered of Messrs. Laird of Birkenhead by M. Bravay for the Egyptian Government, were seized and eventually purchased for Her Majesty's service.

October 17, 1863.

18. "CANTON" OR "PAMPERO."

Acknowledged, and referred to Treasury, Home Office, and Admiralty, October 19. This vessel, which was being constructed in the Clyde, nominally as a merchant-ship for the China Trade, was, after inquiry, and under the advice of the Lord Advocate, seized and tried. The Crown took Judgment by default, the case being undefended, and the vessel remained under seizure until the close of the war. (Lord Advocate, October 19, 1865.)

19. ALLEGED CONFEDERATE DEPOT AT BERMUDA.

November 3, 1863.

Acknowledged, and referred to Law Officers November 5, who reported (November 12) that there was no case for interference. Mr. Adams informed accordingly, November 27.

November 28, 1863.

20. "RAPPAHANNOCK."

Acknowledged November 30; referred to Home Office, Admiralty, Treasury, and Law Officers, November 29.

This vessel, formerly Her Majesty's ship "Victor," had been sold by the Admiralty to Messrs. Coleman in October, but without masts or sails. (From Admiralty, October 24; to Admiralty, October 24.)

She sailed from Sheerness on the morning of the 25th of November in a very incomplete state, the riggers being still on board, and arrived at Calais on the 26th. These circumstances had already been reported when Mr. Adams' representation was received.

Prosecution of Mr. Rumball.

Mr. Rumball, the head of the outfitting or rigging department at Sheerness Dockyard, was prosecuted for his share in the transaction, but was acquitted on trial at the Queen's Bench on the 4th of February, 1865. He was, however, placed on half-pay. (To Mr. Adams, March 8, 1865.)

Intended Prosecution of Messrs. Anson and Brown.

It was also intended to prosecute two other persons, seamen, for engaging men to serve in the" Rappahannock," under the name of the "Scylla," but the prosecution was not carried out, the men having, it is believed, absconded.