[Extract.]
Mr. Adams to Mr.
Seward.
No. 593.]
Legation of the United
States, London,
February 5, 1864.
Sir: * * * I attended the session of the House
of Lords for the purpose of hearing the speeches of Lord Derby and Lord
Russell. As a result, I could not perceive that more was meant than the
customary game or fence between the treasury benches and the opposition.
Although on the Danish question the foreign secretary evidently spoke
under a heavy sense of the gravity of the situation, he manifested no
intention to act at the moment up to the duty which he admitted to be
incumbent on the government of declaring an absolute policy.
The speech contains no allusion whatever to the United States; but many
references to the subject were made in the course of the debates,
principally by members of the opposition. You will particularly note
that of Lord Derby, because it touches one portion of your instructions
to me of the 11th of July, (despatch No. 651,) lately published in
America, upon which, for reasons given at the time to you, I thought it
best to desist from acting. The actual temper towards us does not appear
to be materially changed. It is only subdued by the sense of a more
immediate and dangerous complication.
On the whole, the spectacle here exhibited is one of weakness and
irresolution. The government has no confidence in its ability just yet,
to carry through a positive policy, and the opposition is just as little
capable of forcing it to accept one or to retire.
In the mean while, the chances are that the German powers will take
possession of the disputed territories, and dictate their own terms as
to the tenure of them afterward.
I have just received from the consul at Liverpool advice of a movement
making by the rebels and their friends at that place to get up a
petition to
[Page 124]
Parliament for
recognition. What they expect to gain by such an attempt, at this
inopportune moment, it is difficult to conjecture.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Extract from speech of Earl Derby.
* * * * * * * * *
Again, it would appear that, notwithstanding the concessions which
the noble earl has made to the federal States of America, in
carrying out what he calls neutrality, but what I am afraid I must
call one-sided neutrality, he has received from these States not
thanks, because I believe that papers which have been laid before
the Senate of the United States show that we were met by demands and
menaces, which I should be much astonished if any one calling
himself a British minister must not have felt a difficulty in
receiving, when the despatches containing them were placed in his
hands. Since then we are not only told that the American government
will hold us responsible for any damage which their commerce may
have sustained by the acts of the Alabama, but, if I have not
misread the papers laid before Congress, they state that if we do
not put a stop to the sale of vessels of this kind in this country,
the result must be that the federal government will take the law
into their own hands; that their cruisers will follow these vessels
into British ports, and will, in British waters, maintain their own
interests. My lords, I hope the noble earl will be able to show that
he has answered that despatch in a manner which will put an end to
such monstrous demands for the future. [Hear, hear.] But if I am not
mistaken, the last despatch from Washington was written about
August, and was received here towards the latter end of August, and
early in September the noble earl took the strong step of seizing
the so-called confederate rams in the Mersey upon that very
suspicion as to which a year before, the attorney general informed
Parliament that the government would not be warranted in
interfering. [Hear, hear.] Well, then, my lords, if you have not
satisfied the federals, neither have you satisfied the Confederate
States. [Hear.] * * *
Extract from Earl Russell’s
speech.
* * * * * * * * *
Well, but what then was the noble earl’s reason for dwelling on that
topic? If to differ from France be an offence, how could we help
differing from her on that question? [Hear.] My opinion on these
matters is very different from that of the noble earl. I think that,
though on some questions which arise the Emperor of the French may
pursue a different policy from that which we follow, he gives full
weight to the consideration that the policy which may suit the
French nation may not be the policy which the British nation
prefers. I believe that the Emperor is too just to attribute such a
difference of opinion to anything but a regard for the policy which
we think right, and which we think the interests of this country
call upon us to pursue. [Hear, hear.]
