Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honor
to forward to him herewith, confidentially, for his information, a
copy of a letter which Lord Russell caused to be addressed to Mr.
Horsfall in reply to
[Page 171]
a
memorial forwarded by him from certain British merchants and
ship-owners in Liverpool respecting the proceedings of the United
States cruisers off the Bahamas.
Mr. Layard to Mr. Horsfall.
Foreign
Office,
July 5,
1862.
Sir: I am directed by Earl Russell to
acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2d instant,
enclosing a memorial from certain British merchants and
ship-owners at Liverpool, in which they state that they view
with considerable anxiety and apprehension the hostile attitude
assumed by federal cruisers in the Bahama waters, and the
memorialists pray that steps may be taken by her Majesty’s
government to protect British shipping in those waters, and to
put a check on the seizures so repeatedly made by the federal
cruisers.
I am to state to you, in reply, that it is alleged on the other
hand by Mr. Seward and Mr. Adams that ships have been sent from
this country to America with a fixed purpose to run the
blockade; that high premiums of insurance have been paid with
this view, and that arms and ammunition have been thus conveyed
to the southern States to enable them to carry on the war. Lord
Russell was unable either to deny the truth of those allegations
or to prosecute to conviction the parties engaged in those
transactions. But he cannot be surprised that the cruisers of
the United States should watch with vigilance a port which is
said to be the great entrepot of this commerce.
Her Majesty’s government have no reason to doubt the equity and
adherence to legal requirements of the United States prize
courts. But he is aware that many vessels are subject to harsh
treatment, and that, if captured, the loss to the merchant is
far from being compensated even by a favorable decision in a
prize court.
The true remedy would be that the merchants and ship-owners of
Liverpool should refrain from this species of trade. It exposes
innocent commerce to vexatious detention and search by American
cruisers; it produces irritation and ill-will on the part of the
population of the northern States of America; it is contrary to
the spirit of her Majesty’s proclamation; and it exposes the
British name to suspicions of bad faith, to which neither her
Majesty’s government nor the great body of the nation are justly
obnoxious.
It is true, indeed, that supplies of arms and ammunition have
been sent to the federals equally in contravention of that
neutrality which her Majesty has proclaimed. It is true, also,
that the federals obtain more freely and more easily that of
which they stand in need. But if the confederates had the
command of the sea they would no doubt watch as vigilantly and
capture as readily British vessels going to New York as the
federals now watch Charleston and capture vessels seeking to
break the blockade.
There can be no doubt that the watchfulness exercised by federal
cruisers to prevent supplies reaching the confederates by sea
will occasionally lead to vexatious visits of merchant ships not
engaged in any pursuit to which the federals can properly
object. This, however, is an evil to which war on the ocean is
liable to expose neutral commerce, and her Majesty’s government
have done all they can fairly do, that is to say, they have
urged the federal government to enjoin upon their naval officers
greater caution in the exercise of their belligerent rights.
Her Majesty’s government having represented to the United States
government every case in which they were justified in
interfering, have only further
[Page 172]
to observe, that it is the duty of her
Majesty’s subjects to conform to her Majesty’s proclamation, and
to abstain from furnishing to either of the belligerent parties
any of the means of war, which are prohibited to be furnished by
that proclamation.
I am, sir, &c.,
T. B. Horsfall, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
