I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most
obedient, humble servant,
Hon. W. H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Gray to
Earl Russell.
Hartlepool,
August 28,
1861.
My Lord: I take the liberty of
directing your lordship’s attention, in your official capacity
as secretary of state for foreign affairs, to the following
facts connected with the seizure and detention by a United
States steamship of the ship “Perthshire,” of the port of
Hartlepool, whilst engaged in lawful commerce upon the high
seas, and to request that your lordship will, through the
British ambassador at Washington, bring the case before the
government of the United States, and demand compensation for the
loss I have sustained by the detention of my ship, and which
loss I estimate at the sum of two hundred pounds sterling,
besides rendering void all insurances effected upon the ship,
her cargo and freight, (of the gross Value of forty thousand
pounds sterling,) by compelling the ship to deviate from her
voyage.
The “Perthshire,” a ship of 810 tons register, was chartered by a
merchant in Liverpool, in March last, to proceed in ballast from
Grimsby to Pensacola, and there load a cargo of timber for the
United Kingdom; the charterer, however, having the option,
through his agent at Pensacola, of ordering the ship to Mobile
to load cotton for Liverpool at a lump sum of £2,300.
The ship sailed from Grimsby in March last, and on the 13th of
May was making for the harbor of Pensacola, when she was ordered
to heave to by the commander of the United States steamship
“Niagara.” She was boarded by Lieutenant Brown, boarding
officer, who informed Captain Oates, of the “Perthshire,” that
Pensacola was blockaded, and indorsed the vessel’s register as
follows:
“Boarded by the United States squadron May 13, 1861, and
warned not to enter the harbor of Pensacola.
“GEORGE BROWN,
“Lieut.
United States Navy, Boarding Officer.”
[Page 178]
In reply to the inquiry of Captain Oates, the lieutenant informed
him that Mobile was not blockaded. The ship then proceeded to
Mobile, where she arrived on the 14th May. Mobile was not
blockaded until May 26. At Mobile the “Perthshire” loaded a
cargo of cotton for Liverpool, and proceeded to sea on May 31;
outside the port she was again boarded by the boarding officer
of the United States steamship “Niagara,” who examined his [her]
clearances, expressed himself satisfied with them, and said the
ship might proceed on her voyage. She proceeded with light and
variable winds until the 9th of June, when she was boarded by
the boarding officer of the United States ship “Massachusetts,”
who, after communicating with his ship, sent a prize crew of 29
men and 2 officers on board the “Perthshire,” who took
possession of the ship and all the captain’s papers, hauled down
the British flag and hoisted the United States flag. They
altered the course of the ship, and took her back towards
Pensacola, off which place, on the 12th of June, after sailing
about 200 miles back, they fell in with the United States
squadron, the commander of which ordered the “Perthshire’s”
release, without, however, making any compensation for the
detention to which she had been subjected, nor for the ship’s
stores, consisting of tea, coffee, and sugar, used by the prize
crew whilst on board the “Perthshire.”
On the ship being released, the captain’s papers were returned to
him, and his clearance indorsed as follows:
“Boarded June 9, 1861, by the United States steamship
‘Massachusetts, detained under note 159, page 339, Vattel’s
Law of Nations; liberated by commanding officer of the Gulf
squadron June 12, 1861.”
This indorsement was without any signature.
A paper was given to the captain of the “Perthshire,” on which
was written, also without signature, as follows:
“Vattel’s Law of Nations. Sir Walter Scott’s Opinion. Note
159, page 339, article 3. Things to be proved:
- “1. The existence of a blockade.
- “2. The knowledge of the party supposed to have
offended.
- “3. Some act of violation.”
Such, my lord, is a plain, unvarnished statement of the facts
connected with this extraordinary seizure and detention. The
ship having reached her destination safely prevents a discussion
as to liability in the event of loss after the deviation in the
voyage, but which the Liverpool underwriters say they would have
been exempted from had such taken place.
The ground upon which I base my claim for £200 is as follows: The
ship had been nine days at sea when she was seized. She was
taken back almost to the place from which she first started, and
three days after that (or twelve, days from leaving Mobile) she
was as far from Liverpool as on the 31st of May, when she sailed
from Mobile. Her freight was about £550 per month, and twelve
days at that rate is about the sum I claim.
The case of the “Perthshire,” my lord, has been commented upon by
ail the leading journals in Great Britain, and without exception
they pronounce it a case in which our government ought to make a
demand for damages. I venture to hope, therefore, that your
lordship will take such steps with regard to this matter as will
prevent a repetition of improper interference with British
ships, and at the same time obtain for me the reasonable and
fair compensation I claim.
I have, &c.
WILLIAM GRAY,
Owner
of the ship “Perthshire.”
The Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
