Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part I

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 595.]

Legation of the United States, London, February 11, 1864.

Sir: The publication of the diplomatic papers annexed to the President’s message has elicited much comment in Parliament and in the newspapers, upon your instructions to me, in your No. 651, of the 11th of July last, and particularly that portion of them which declared the intention of the government, under certain contingencies, to enter English ports and seize obnoxious vessels. In my No. 593, of last week, I pointed out to your attention the observations of Lord Derby on that subject, on the opening night in the House of Lords. Remarks of a similar kind have since been made in the Commons. I now transmit a copy of the Times of yesterday, containing a report of the replies made by the ministry in both houses to these questions.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that, when you decided on publishing these instructions, you did not at the same time insert, at least, so much of my No. 465, of the 31st of July, as would have explained the reason why they were not acted upon at the time by me. For want of that light, it has been generally assumed here that I took the responsibility of suppressing them altogether. The inference is that I assumed to judge them unsuitable, or else was afraid to present them. In point of fact, you may remember that on the very same day of their date I had anticipated them, for the most part, by presenting to Lord Russell a note embracing much of the arguments contained in your despatch. This you did me the honor to notice, in flattering terms, in your later despatch, No. 667, of the 29th of July. The only question then left open was upon the expediency of addressing a new note to Lord Russell for the single purpose of introducing the particular notification which has given rise to the present discussion. For the reasons given in my despatch No. 465, already referred to, I thought it inexpedient at that late moment to reopen the subject. My intention then was to postpone it until the final answer should be made to the remonstrances against the departure of the iron-clads. But when that moment arrived, which was on the reception of Lord Russell’s note of the 1st of September, I felt so fearful that the declaration of that intention would close all further possibility of preserving the peace between the two countries, that I preferred to take the other course indicated in my reply of the 5th, which was, while intimating the strong character of my instructions, to propose to await new ones adapted to the precise emergency rather than to declare them. As matters actually turned, this proceeding seems to have been fortunate; for whilst the general statement in my note left on this government the impression that war might be the alternative in contemplation, the language took no such specific shape as to compel it to resent it as a threat. Even as it was, however, you may recollect that I have expressed to you my regret at the circumstance that my note had passed out of my hands so immediately before I received Lord Russell’s note of the 4th, which was then on its way from the foreign office, and which prefigured a more auspicious termination of the dispute.

I have gone into this, perhaps needless, exposition of the circumstances attending this affair, not because I feel that it does me any particular injury here. On the contrary, the effect is to raise my action in the British estimation rather more than it deserves, or I altogether relish. Nothing is more unsafe to a diplomatic, agent than an approach to a false position between two governments. Had this risk been brought upon me by any proceedings on this side, I should feel anxious to do something at once to restore matters to a proper footing. As it is, the accident has happened by reason of the authorized publication of the facts in America. I trust that there, at least, no unworthy inferences from the language held here may gain currency from the absence of explanations on this side of the water.

One incidental good effect of this outburst in Parliament is, that the ministers, having been attacked upon a point upon which they are able to make a clear and conclusive reply, are, to a great extent, relieved from the necessity of defending themselves on other matters. In comparison these appear trifling. The growing complications in Germany divert attention from them more and more. It is now left scarcely doubtful that the disintegration of Denmark is the cardinal point of the policy of the great powers. Even if successful, it is impossible that this can be gained without a severe shock to the future relations of the governments of Europe. Hence it is that new views may be taken here of the proper conduct towards America.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Hon. William H. Seward Secretary of State.

[From the Times of February 10, 1864.]

[Untitled]

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 9, 1864

Our relations with the federal government,

The Earl of Derby. There is another question which I should like to put to the noble earl, but, as I have given him no notice, I will either take his answer now, or repeat my question on Thursday. The noble earl has laid various papers on the table of the house, and, among others, the correspondence with the government of the federal States of America on the subject of the Alabama. I have seen elsewhere that a considerable arhount of correspondence has taken place upon another subject—namely, the remonstrances made as to injuries apprehended or sustained by American commerce from vessels sailing from British ports. I wish to know whether the government are prepared to lay upon the table that correspondence as well as the despatches relating to the Alabama; and, further, whether they are prepared to produce any correspondence containing representations on the part of the government of the apparent violation of the law by American cruisers in enforcing their rights, and also with respect to some very curious decisions which have been come to in the prize courts of the United States.

Earl Russell. I can answer that question better on Thursday; but if the noble earl refers to any discussions with the American government about the iron-clads at Birkenhead, I can only say that, as that matter is about to be brought before a court of law, I shall object to produce that correspondence. As the noble earl has raised that question, I may say that on the first night of the session he referred to a despatch of the Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, and expressed a hope that I had answered that despatch in becoming terms. Now, at the moment I did not remember having seen any such despatch, and I find since that it was a despatch written by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, but Mr. Adams never thought proper to lay that despatch before me, [hear, hear, and laughter;] and therefore I was spared the difficulty and the pain of giving an appropriate answer to it. [Hear, hear, and laughter.]

The Earl of Derby. I presume that it has now been laid before the noble earl, because I see that a reference is made by Mr. Adams to the noble earl as having received, towards the latter end of August, an answer to several despatches, among which he includes the despatch of July 11, to which I referred. He could hardly have received such an answer if the despatch had not been presented.

Earl Russell. I certainly do not find among the papers the despatch of July 11, and Mr. Adams informed me expressly that he did not hand it to me. That being so, I should not do so useless a thing as endeavor to get up a wrangle with Mr. Adams on a despatch which was never presented. [Hear, hear, and laughter.]

The Earl of Derby. The whole correspondence appears to have been laid before Congress.

[From the Times of February 10, 1864.]

[Untitled]

COMMONS, FEBRUARY 9, 1864.

The Alexandra and Alabama.

Mr. Peacocke asked the under secretary of state for foreign affairs whether the government would lay upon the table of the house copies of their correspondence with the government of the United States, and more especially that portion of it relating to the case of the Alexandria, and the claim by the United States government for compensation for the losses inflicted by the Alabama and other confederate cruisers.

Mr. Layard said that it would not be regular to present papers referring to a case which was still under the consideration of our courts. The papers relating to the Alabama had already been produced. If any others had been received since, he was not aware that there would be any objection to lay them upon the table.

Mr. Peacocke asked the honorable gentleman whether he would lay on the table the answer of her Majesty’s government to the despatch of Mr. Seward, relating to the seizure of the Alexandria, which had already.appeared in the newspapers.

Mr. Layard said that he was advised that it would not be right to produce any papers relating to a case which was still under judicial inquiry. [Oh, oh!]