[Extracts.]
Mr. Adams to Mr.
Seward.
No. 492.]
Legation of the United States,
London,
September 8, 1863.
Sir: At the last moment on Saturday I sent you
a despatch by the ordinary mail, containing a copy of Lord Russell’s
note to me of the 4th instant, just then put into my hands, signifying
that the decision of the government, announced in his previous note of
the 1st instant, had, under the effect of my notes of the 3d instant,
and former dates, been subjected to a reconsideration. It is proper now
to add, that just before the reception of this I had prepared and
despatched another one in reply to the previous note of the 1st instant,
which I then supposed to be final. A copy of this, which there was no
time to make on Saturday, I now transmit. I need not say, that had I
known of the latter course of the government in season, I should have
held it back. Feeling as I do the heavy responsibility that must devolve
upon me in the conduct of this critical transaction, it is not my
disposition to say or do the least thing that may add to the
difficulties inevitably growing out of it between the countries. * * * *
Considering the grave nature of the issue, I have
[Page 418]
thought it wiser not to give any handle to
the pretence that resort to intimidation had been attempted. At the same
time, I have endeavored to convey, in its full sense, what I believe to
be the feeling excited in both the government and people of the United
States, by the extraordinary and unjustifiable violations of neutrality
continually permitted in this kingdom, of which the latest is the
crowning instance
In regard to the allegations made in the public prints, to which the
crown lawyers seem to have been disposed to attach consequence, of
possible ownership of these vessels either by France or Egypt, I ought,
perhaps, to have mentioned, that on application through Mr. Dayton, in
Paris, and to Mr. Musums, the Turkish ambassador at this court, I had
obtained satisfactory evidence of their falsehood.
Since commencing this despatch I have received a note from Lord Russell,
a copy of which, as also of my reply, is transmitted. I had been
somewhat prepared for the intelligence it conveys by the appearance in
the Post of this morning of an article bearing an
official aspect, to the same effect. Under the peculiar circumstances
attending the case, and the heavy responsibility which the ministry has
assumed in taking this course, I trust I may be pardoned for suggesting
the expediency of as much caution and forbearance as possible in the
treatment of the subject in America.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.
Legation of the United
States, London,
September 5, 1863.
My Lord: At this moment, when one of the
iron-clad vessels is on the point of departure from this kingdom, on
its hostile errand against the United States, I am honored with the
reply of your lordship to my notes of the 11th, 16th and 25th of
July, and of the 14th of August. I trust I need not express how
profound is my regret at the conclusion to which her Majesty’s
government have arrived. I can regard it no otherwise than as
practically opening to the insurgents free liberty in this kingdom
to execute a policy described in one of their late publications in
the following language:
“In the present state of the harbor defences of New York, Boston,
Portland, and smaller northern cities, such a vessel as the Warrior
would have little difficulty in entering any of these ports and
inflicting a vital blow upon the enemy. The destruction of Boston
alone would be worth a hundred victories in the field. It would
bring such a terror to the ‘blue-noses,’ as to cause them to wish
eagerly for peace, despite their overweening love of gain which has
been so freely administered to since the opening of this war.
Vessels of the Warrior class would promptly raise the blockade of
our ports, and would even, in this respect, confer advantages which
would soon repay the cost of their construction.”
It would be superfluous in me to point out to your lordship that this
is war. No matter what may be the theory adopted of neutrality in a
struggle, when this process is carried on in the manner indicated,
from a territory and with the aid of the subjects of a. third party,
that third party to all intents and purposes ceases to be neutral.
Neither is it necessary to show, that any government which suffers
it to be done fails in enforcing the essential conditions of
international amity towards the country against whom the hostility
is directed. In
[Page 419]
my belief
it is impossible that any nation, retaining a proper degree of
self-respect, could tamely submit to a continuance of relations so
utterly deficient in reciprocity. I have no idea that Great Britain
would do so for a moment.
After a careful examination of the full instructions with which I
have been furnished, in preparation for such an emergency, I deem it
inexpedient for me to attempt any recurrence to arguments for
effective interposition in the present case Under these
circumstances, I prefer to desist from communicating to your
lordship even such further portions of my existing instructions as
are suited to the case, lest I should contribute to aggravate
difficulties already far too serious. I therefore content myself
with informing your lordship that I transmit, by the present
steamer, a copy of your note for the consideration of my government,
and shall await the more specific directions that will be contained
in the reply.
I seize this opportunity to pray permission of your lordship to
correct a clerical error inadvertently made in my note of the 3d
instant, in inserting the date of two notes of mine as having
received the express approbation of my government. The intention was
to specify only one, that of the 11th of July. The correction is not
material, excepting as it conforms more strictly to the truth.
I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest
consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most
obedient servant,
Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.
Legation of the United
States, London,
September 9, 1863.
My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge
the reception of your lordship’s note of yesterday, announcing the
determination of her Majesty’s government to prevent the departure
of the war vessels now fitting out at Liverpool. I shall take great
pleasure in transmitting a copy for the information of my
government.
I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant,
The Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.
Foreign Office,
September 8, 1863.
Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honor
to inform him that instructions have been issued which will prevent
the departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool.
[From the Morning Post of September
8.]
El Toussoun and El Monassir.
“The first exploit of these two vessels of war, which have now almost
arrived at completion in Mr. Laird’s building yard, will be to run
the home blockade of legal difficulties before they are allowed to
proceed on their destined career, whatever that may be. Whether they
can successfully navigate the channel
[Page 420]
beset with shoals and rocks through which the
Alexandra was steered remains to be seen. There is now, we believe,
little doubt that, under the terms of the foreign enlistment act,
they are to be detained by government. The allegation against them
is that they are fitted out for the purpose of carrying on
hostilities against the United States. On the other hand, it is
contended that they were built by order of a French house for the
late Pasha of Egypt, who gave the firm a commission for the coinage
of a large sum of money in France, and for the construction of two
steam-rams in England. The money was duly coined and received in
Egypt. The vessels were in course of construction when the Pasha
died, and his successor repudiated that part of the contract. What
the French house intends to do with them is not known. The
accusation is, that they are destined for war with a friendly power.
They will consequently be detained, and a court of law will
determine whether, under the terms of the foreign enlistment act,
the detention is legal, or whether the owners can recover them from
the hands of the government.”
