Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams
Sir: I have already acknowledged the receipt of your two despatches of the 7th of September, 1865, No. 1042, and the 8th of the same month, No. 1043, the former of which was accompanied by Earl Russell’s elaborate answer of August 30, 1865, to your note addressed to him on the 20th of May. Both of your despatches relate exclusively to that answer.
What I have now to remark, on the subject brought up before the President by the papers to which I have thus alluded, is written under his direction.
[Page 565]First, I sympathize with you in the satisfaction you express with an improvement in the respect of conciliation which is manifested by her Majesty’s principal secretary for foreign affairs in the recent note by which he has returned to your suspended correspondence. The friendly spirit in which the instructions of this department have hitherto been given has undergone no change. It is eminently to be desired that the kind feelings and good wishes thus mutually expressed shall have their due influence upon the further discussion of the questions which the exciting events of the last four years have left unadjusted.
Second, it is observed that you have proposed to yourself to submit a reply to Earl Russell upon the subjects discussed in the correspondence of which his answer is a part, with a view to correct some singular misconceptions which are found in his narration of historical events. It is further observed that in executing this purpose, it was your intention to leave entirely free for the consideration of this department the proposal for a joint convention which is now made by Earl Russell.
Your purposes thus expressed are approved. This department, in the despatches to which you refer in your No. 917, issued the more special instructions under which you formally opened the discussion. The country was then engaged in a civil war in which the insurgents were receiving from subjects of Great Britain sympathies and aids of immense value, and from its government the benefits of a recognition as a lawful belligerent on land and sea. What was sought in the correspondence thus instituted was a relinquishment by British subjects of proceedings and practices directly aggressive upon the United States, together with redress for injuries of the same character which had then already been committed and had become intolerable.
At the time the correspondence began it seems to have been believed and expected, not only by the British government and by the British nation, but even by all of the recognized statesmen of Europe, that our civil war must ultimately end in the dismemberment of the American Union. Earl Russell, as he says with frankness, purposely postponed a formal answer to your note until the 30th of August last, at which time the American Union had been rescued from all its dangers, and was found exercising its proper authority over all its national territories, no longer opposed by an enemy in any quarter of the world.
It is not said, nor is it supposed, that Earl Russell’s views were unfriendly in delaying his answer until this happy change of affairs had occurred. Nevertheless, his government has had the advantage, whatever it was, of the delay which he thus made. On the other hand, this government may reasonably be expected to avail itself of the advantages, if any, which have resulted from the same change of circumstances.
In a note of yours to Earl Russell, written so long ago as the 23d of October, 1863, in regard to the difficulties in our relations then developed, you remarked as follows: “I am directed to say there is no fair and equitable form of conventional arbitrament or reference to which they,” the United States, “will not be willing, to submit.”
Earl Russell at this late day recalls the friendly remark thus incidentally made by you, and, manifestly treating it in the character of a formal proposition for arbitration still existing, if not newly tendered, states reasons why such a mode of adjustment would not be acceptable to her Britannic Majesty’s government. You are authorized, therefore, to say, that whatever may have heretofore been or might now have been thought by us of umpirage between the two powers, no such proposition for arbitration of the existing differences will henceforward be insisted upon or submitted to by this government.
In disallowing our assumed proposition for arbitration, Earl Russell distinctly declares that her Majesty’s government must decline to make reparation or compensation for the captures which were made by the Alabama.
Nevertheless, Earl Russell announces that her Majesty’s government are [Page 566] ready to consent to the appointment of a commission, to which should be referred all claims which have arisen during our civil war, and which the two powers should agree to refer to the commission.
Earl Russell is understood by us, in submitting this proposition, as implying, that among those claims which her Britannic Majesty’s government would not agree to refer to such a joint commission are the claims heretofore presented in behalf of American citizens or others for redress and reparation in cases of captures and spoliations made by the Alabama, and other vessels of her class, including even the Shenandoah, now still engaged in the same work of depredation, which piratical vessels, as is alleged by the United States, were fitted out, manned, equipped, and despatched by British subjects in British ports.
You are requested to inquire whether this construction of the earl’s note is correct, and to ask his. lordship to specify what class of claims her Majesty’s government would consent to refer to such a commission as he proposes. Perhaps his lordship will specify what classes of claims her Majesty’s government are willing to refer, and what classes they are not willing to refer.
Further instructions upon this subject will be reserved until we shall have received a copy of your reply to Earl Russell, together with the explanations, the request for which is now to be submitted by you in conformity with this instruction.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.