Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you an extract from a letter addressed by Mr. Dillet, an attorney of Nassau, to her Majesty’s secretary of state for the colonial department, which will explain to you the circumstances under which the note which you did me the honor to address to me on the 8th of May last, respecting the case of the British schooner Telegraph, has remained so long without a reply.

I am now instructed to represent to you that her Majesty’s government have considered the further statement of facts contained in Mr. Dillet’s letter, and that that statement appears to them to establish, beyond contradiction, that the seizure and detention of the Telegraph were unjust and vexatious acts.

The Telegraph was clearly a neutral ship; she had no contraband on board; there was nothing on which to found a suspicion of an intention to run the blockade; she had received, as is admitted, distinct permission from the collector of customs at Key West to touch at Vaccus for wood, and her clearance was, according to the same collector’s admission, perfectly proper and regular.

The neutral ship ought not to suffer from any mistake of the belligerent commander, and, moreover, it is clear that an order of the American flag-officer, dated [Page 520] on the 19th of December, 1861, could not affect or justify the conduct of Commander Sprott in the November preceding.

The seizure of the Telegraph was, in these circumstances, in itself an act, of violence.

But it is further to be observed that the manner in which the belligerent right of visit and search was exercised was, as regards both the ship and the crew, unjustifiable. As to the ship, because Commander Sprott ought to have carried into effect his right of search on board the vessel itself, and had no right, except in a case of necessity, which this was not, to order the papers to be brought on board his own ship. And as to the crew, because the treatment of William Fisher was an unjustifiable act of violence and cruelty.

The excuse offered by the United States commander for forcibly taking a British sailor out of a British ship, and for putting him in irons for three days and three nights on board of an American ship-of-war is, that at one time the sailor, under the provocation of a seizure which always was, and which is now, proved to have been unjust, swore loudly on board his own ship.

But it cannot be seriously maintained that this was a valid excuse for illegally taking a neutral subject out of a neutral ship, and for treating him for a length of time like a felon, or that any neutral state would accept such an excuse as satisfactory.

Her Majesty’s government have accordingly instructed me to make the foregoing representation to you, and to claim reasonable compensation from the United States government: first, for the illegal detention of the ship, and secondly, for the gross ill treatment of the sailor William Fisher.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

LYONS.

Hon. Wm. H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.

Extract of a despatch from W. S. Dillet to the Duke of Newcastle.

It was only yesterday that your grace’s despatch of the 12th of June last (No. 260) was communicated to me, the inadvertence having been caused by the indisposition of Governor Bayley. * * * * *

Taking the explanation of the United States authorities as it stands upon paper, and as transmitted, your grace will not require any very urgent reasoning to be satisfied that a very great injustice has been done to the parties, and that great wrongs were done to Mr. Fisher, who was put in irons.

Collector Howe states that the Telegraph cleared from Key West for Abaco on the 28th November, with passengers, (who in the protest, transmitted to Earl Russell, were alleged to be Abaconians returning home,) and baggage and a barrel of rum; that he warned the master from going anywhere near the mainland, and had acquiesced in his wish to stop at one of the keys to procure firewood for his vessel, in which he saw no impropriety.

In the protest referred to the appearers allege and say they stopped at Vaccus, one of the Florida cays, to obtain a supply of wood and water, as no wood could be bought at Key West, and water only at a high price, the said master having obtained permission from Mr. Howe, now or late collector of customs at Key West, to procure both thereat, he being the owner of the cay.

Your grace will perceive that it is not even pretended that the master of the Telegraph disregarded the warning of Collector Howe; and while that officer admits he acquiesced in his procuring firewood for his vessel’s use, he does not deny the allegation set forth in the protest as to the permission granted, and his being the owner of Vaccus cay, or land thereat. Thus far, then, there was no wrong committed by Captain Fisher, who, being ignorant of Flag-Officer Merwin’s [Page 521] letter of the 14th of June, 1861, had, nevertheless, according to Mr. Howe’s statement, a proper and regular clearance.

The order of Flag-Officer McKean, of 19th December, 1861, addressed to Lieutenant Sprotts, not to regard any verbal permission granted at the custom house for vessels to touch at any of the keys, of which he was to inform the collector, was, therefore, so far as the Telegraph was concerned, an ex post facto order, and could have no reference to that vessel.

Now, with respect to Lieutenant Sprott’s report of the 21st April, 1861, to the Hon. Gideon Welles, he says he told the master of the Telegraph that his touching at Vaccus key, having cleared for Abaco, was in direct violation of his orders. It does not appear from the correspondence that there was any such order until that of the 19th December, referred to above.

Lieutenant Sprotts says on his arrival at Key West he communicated with Collector Howe, whose reply, marked C, and which I take to be the letter of the 14th December, prompted him to release the Telegraph. This statement seems to be wholly at variance with the line of conduct pointed out by Mr. Howe; for, says he, “if he,” meaning the master of the Telegraph, “acted otherwise than in good faith, and violated any law of the revenue or navy, he has laid himself liable to penalties;” and finally suggests “the propriety of Lieutenant Sprotts turning the case over to the United States district attorney for investigation.” I dare say it will appear to your grace, as it does to me, very strange that such a letter as this should have influenced Lieutenant Sprotts, or prompted him to release the vessel. One would rather suppose it would have induced him, if he supposed a wrong had been done, to follow the course pointed out by the collector.

The complainants are residing at Abaco, and I shall not be able to communicate with them for some time respecting the truth of the allegations made by Lieutenant Sprotts, that William Jones Fisher was drunk and used the language imputed to him.

But, even admitting that he was drunk and abused the officers of the Wanderer, what maritime or other right had Lieutenant Sprotts to order him from on board his own vessel to the Wanderer, and to place him in irons or handcuffs for three days and three nights? What right had he to order the master of the Telegraph to bring his papers on board the Wanderer, instead of going himself, or sending an officer, to exercise the belligerent right of search? Is it because Lieutenant Sprotts considered it necessary to place a British subject under such restraint that her Majesty’s government will indorse his acts, and hold him and his government harmless?

The circumstances of this case, even as set out by Lieutenant Sprotts, cannot, I feel satisfied, justify his conduct in the premises, and as detailed in the protest, as at the time he had no order to seize and carry the Telegraph back to Key West because she touched at Vaccus key, either for investigation or otherwise; but if he thought he had, it turned out that he was wrong, because the collector himself had given the master permission to do so, and saw no impropriety in it. And he being a government official, an innocent party ought not to suffer with impunity the wrongs to which the complainants have been subjected.

I trust your grace will give the case your serious attention; and that her Majesty’s government may view it as one entitling the owner, master, officers and crew of the vessel to pecuniary compensation for what appears to be a very unjust and unlawful seizure of the vessel, and illegal imprisonment of J. W. Fisher.