[81] *Part VI: Statement of facts relative to the Alabama.

On the 24th June, 1862, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the following note with an inclosure:1

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, June 23, 1862.

Part VI.—The Alabama. My Lord: Some time since it may be recollected by your lordship that I felt it my duty to make a representation touching the equipment from the port of Liverpool of the gun-boat Oreto with the intent to make war upon the United States. Notwithstanding the statements returned from the authorities of that place, with which your lordship favored me in reply, touching a different destination of that vessel, I have the strongest reason for believing that that vessel went directly to Nassau, and that she has been there engaged in completing her armament, provisioning, and crew for the object first indicated by me.

I am now under the painful necessity of apprising your lordship that a new and still more powerful war-steamer is nearly ready for departure from the port of Liverpool on the same errand. This vessel has been built and launched from the dock-yard of persons, one of whom is now sitting as a member of the House of Commons, and is fitting out for the especial and manifest object of carrying on hostilities by sea. It is about to be commanded by one of the insurgent agents, the same who sailed in the Oreto. The parties engaged in the enterprise are persons well known at Liverpool to be agents and officers of the insurgents in the United States, the nature and extent of whose labors are well explained in the copy of an intercepted letter of one of them which I received from my Government some days ago, and which I had the honor to place in your lordship’s hands on Thursday last.

I now ask permission to transmit, for your consideration, a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at Liverpool, in confirmation of the statements here submitted, and to solicit such action as may tend either to stop the projected expedition, or to establish the fact that its purpose is not inimical to the people of the United States.

Renewing, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

The “copy of an intercepted letter” referred to in the above note was a paper purporting to be a copy of a letter or report from a confederate officer of artillery, addressed to some person unknown, and relating to purchases of military supplies for the confederate army, and to vessels employed in blockade-running. The inclosure was as follows:

Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams.

United States Consulate,
Liverpool, June 21, 1862.

Sir: The gun-boat now being built by the Messrs. Laird & Co., at Birkenhead, opposite Liverpool, and which I mentioned to you in a previous dispatch, is intended for the so-called confederate government in the Southern States. The evidence I have is entirely conclusive to my mind. I do not think there is the least room for doubt about it. Beaufort and Caddy, two of the officers from the privateer Sumter, stated that this vessel was being built for the Confederate States. The foreman in Messrs. Lairds’ [Page 309] yard says she is the sister to the gun-boat Oreto, and has been built for the same parties and for the same purpose; when pressed for a further explanation he stated that she was to be a privateer for the “southern government in the United States.” The captain and officers of the steamer Julia Usher, now at Liverpool, and which is loaded to run the blockade, state that this gun-boat is for the confederates, and is to be commanded by Captain Bullock.

The strictest watch is kept over this vessel; no person except those immediately engaged upon her is admitted into the yard. On the occasion of the trial trip made last Thursday week, no one was admitted without a pass, and these passes were issued to but few persons, and those who are known here as active secessionists engaged in sending aid and relief to the rebels.

I understand that her armament is to consist of eleven guns, and that she is to enter at once, as soon as she leaves this port, upon her business as a privateer.

[82] The vessel is very nearly completed: she has had her first trial trip. This trial was successful, and entirely satisfactory to the persons who are superintending her construction. She will be finished *in nine or ten days. A part of her powder-canisters, which are to number 200, and which are of a new patent, made of copper with screw tops, are on board the vessel; the others are to be delivered in a few days. No pains or expense have been spared in her construction. Her engines are on the oscillating principle, and are 350 horse-power. She measures 1,050 tons burden, and will draw 14 feet of water when loaded. Her screw or fan works in a solid brass frame casting, weighing near two tons, and is so constructed as to be lifted from the water by steam-power. The platforms and gun-carriages are now being constructed.

When completed and armed she will be a most formidable and dangerous craft; and, if not prevented from going to sea, will do much mischief to our commerce. The persons engaged in her construction say that no better vessel of her class was ever built.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) THOS. H. DUDLEY.

The attention of Mr. Adams had been called by Mr. Dudley to the vessel mentioned in the foregoing note and inclosure, both before she was launched and immediately afterward. The launching of this vessel took place on the 15th May, 1862, about a month before the date of Mr. Adams’s first representation to Earl Russell. Mr. Dudley’s attention had been directed to the vessel in November, 1861, immediately on Ms arrival at Liverpool.

Immediately on the receipt of Mr. Adams’s note, Mr. Hammond, one of the under-secretaries of state for foreign affairs, wrote, by the direction of Earl Russell, to the secretary to the treasury and to the law-officers of the Crown, as follows:1

Mr. Hammond to the secretary to the treasury.

Foreign Office, June 25, 1862.

Sir: I am directed by Earl Russell to transmit to yon a copy of a letter from the United States minister at this court, calling attention to a steamer reported to be fitted out at Liverpool as a southern privateer, and inclosing a copy of a letter from the United States consul at that port, reporting the result of his investigations into the matter; and I am to request that you will move the lords commissioners of Her Majesty’s treasury to cause immediate inquiries to be made respecting this vessel and to take such steps in the matter as may be right and proper.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) E. HAMMOND.

Mr. Hammond to the law-officers of the Crown.

Foreign Office, June 25, 1862.

Gentlemen: I am directed by Earl Russell to transmit to you a letter from the United States minister at this court, calling attention to a steamer reported to be fitting out at Liverpool as a southern privateer, and inclosing a copy of a letter from the United States consul at that port reporting the result of his investigations into the matter; and I am to request that you will take these papers into your consideration and favor Lord Russell with any observations you may have to make upon this question.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) E. HAMMOND.
[Page 310]

Copies of Mr. Adams’s note and Mr. Dudley’s letter were sent with each of the two preceding letters for the information of the lords commissioners of the treasury and the law-officers, respectively. Earl Russell, on the same day, wrote as follows to Mr. Adams:1

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, June 25, 1862.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23d instant, calling attention to a steam-vessel which you state is now fitting out at Liverpool with the intention of carrying on hostilities against the Government of the United States: and I have to acquaint you that I have lost no time in referring the matter to the proper department of Her Majesty’s government.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) RUSSELL.

The law-officers of the Crown, on the 30th June, 1862, made their report, as follows:2

The law-officers of the Crown to Earl Russell.

Temple, June 30, 1862.

[83] My Lord: We are honored with your lordship’s commands signified in Mr. Hammond’s letter of the 25th June instant, stating that he was directed by your lordship to transmit to us a letter from the United *States minister at this court, calling attention to a steamer reported to be fitted out at Liverpool as a southern privateer, and inclosing a copy of a letter from the United States consul at that port, reporting the result of his investigations into the matter, and to request that we would take these papers into our consideration and favor your lordship with any observations we might have to make upon this question.

In obedience to your lordship’s commands we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report—

That, if the representation made to Her Majesty’s government by Mr. Adams is in accordance with the facts, the building and equipment of the steamer in question is a manifest violation of the foreign-enlistment act, and steps ought to be taken to put that act in force and to prevent the vessel from going to sea.

The report of the United States consul at Liverpool, inclosed by Mr. Adams, besides, suggesting other grounds of reasonable suspicion, contains a direct assertion that the foreman of Messrs. Laird, the builders, has stated that this vessel is intended as a privateer for the service of the government of the Southern States; and, if the character of the vessel and of her equipment be such as the same report describes them to be, it seems evident that she must be intended for some warlike purpose.

Under these circumstances we think that proper steps ought to be taken, under the direction of Her Majesty’s government, by the authorities of the customs at Liverpool, to ascertain the truth, and that, if sufficient evidence can be obtained to justify proceedings under the foreign-enlistment act, such proceedings should be taken as early as possible. In the mean time, Mr. Adams ought, we think, to be informed that Her Majesty’s government are proceeding to investigate the case; but that the course which they may eventually take must necessarily depend upon the nature and sufficiency of any evidence of a breach of the law which they may be enabled to obtain; and that it will be desirable that any evidence in the possession of the United States consul at Liverpool should be at once communicated to the officers of Her Majesty’s customs at that port.

We have, &c.,

(Signed) WM. ATHERTON.
ROUNDELL PALMER.

The commissioners of customs, on the 1st July, 1862, reported to the treasury as follows:3

Report by the commissioners of customs.

To the lords commissioners of Her Majesty’s treasury:

Your lordships having referred to us the annexed letter from Mr. Hammond, the under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, transmitting, by desire of Earl Russell, copy of a letter from the United States minister at this court, calling attention to a [Page 311] steamer reported to be fitting out at Liverpool as a southern privateer, and inclosing copy of a letter from the United States consul at that port, reporting the result of his investigation into the matter, and requesting that immediate inquiries may be made respecting this vessel, and such steps taken in the matter as may be right and proper.

We report that, immediately on receipt of your lordships’ reference, we forwarded the papers to our collector at Liverpool for his special inquiry and report, and we learn from his reply that the fitting out of the vessel has not escaped the notice of the officers of this revenue, but that as yet nothing has transpired concerning her which has appeared to demand a special report.

We are informed that the officers have at all times free access to the building-yards of the Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, where the vessel is lying; and that there has been no attempt on the part of her builders to disguise what is most apparent, that she is intended for a ship of war; and one of the surveyors in the service of this revenue, who had been directed by the collector personally to inspect the vessel, has stated that the description of her in the communication of the United States consul is correct, with the exception that her engines are not constructed on the oscillating principle. Her dimensions are as follows: Length, 211 feet 6 inches; breadth, 31 feet 8 inches; depth, 17 feet 8 inches; and her gross tonnage, by the present rate of admeasurement, is 682.31 tons. The surveyor has further stated that she has several powder-canisters on board, but, as yet, neither guns nor carriages, and that the current report in regard to the vessel is, that she has been built for a foreign government, which is not denied by the Messrs. Laird, with whom the surveyor has conferred; but they do not appear disposed to reply to any questions respecting the destination of the vessel after she leaves Liverpool. “And the officers have no other reliable source of information on that point; and having referred the matter to our solicitor, he has reported his opinion that, at present, there is not sufficient ground to warrant the detention of the vessel, or any interference on the part of this department, in which report we beg to express our concurrence. And, with reference to the statement of the United States consul, that the evidence he has in regard to this vessel being intended for the so-called confederate government in the Southern States is entirely conclusive to his mind, we would observe that, inasmuch as the officers of customs of Liverpool would not be justified in taking any steps against the vessel unless sufficient evidence to warrant her detention should be laid before them, the proper course would be for the consul to submit such evidence as he possesses to the collector at that port, who would thereupon take such measures as the provisions of the foreign-enlistment act would require. Without the production of full and sufficient evidence to justify their proceedings, the seizing officers might entail on themselves and on the government very serious consequences.

[84] *We beg to add that the officers at Liverpool will keep a strict watch on the vessel, and that any further information that may be obtained concerning her will be forthwith reported.

(Signed) THO. F. FREMANTLE.
GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY.

Custom-House, July 1, 1862.

A copy of the report of the commissioners of customs was, on the 4th July, 1862, transmitted by Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, inclosed in the following letter:1

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, July 4, 1862.

Sir: With reference to my letter of the 25th ultimo, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a report from the commissioners of customs, respecting the vessel which yon have been informed is being built at Liverpool for the government of the so-styled Confederate States, and in accordance therewith I would beg leave to suggest that you should instruct the United States consul at Liverpool to submit to the collector of customs at that port such evidence as he may possess tending to show that his suspicions as to the destination of the vessel in question are well founded. I am, &c.,

(Signed) RUSSELL.

Mr. Adams replied as follows:1

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, July 7, 1862.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 4th instant, covering a copy of the report from the commissioners of customs respecting a [Page 312] vessel presumed by me to be in course of preparation at Liverpool to carry on hostile operations against the United States.

In accordance with your lordship’s suggestion, I shall at once instruct the consul of the United States to submit to the collector of customs at that port such evidence as he possesses to show that the suspicions he entertains of the character of that vessel are well founded.

I pray, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Oh the 10th July, 1862, the collector of customs at Liverpool received from Mr. Dudley the following letter:1

The United States consul to the collector of customs, Liverpool.

Liverpool, July 9, 1862.

Sir: In accordance with a suggestion of Earl Russell, in a communication to Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, I beg to lay before you the information and circumstances which have come to my knowledge relative to the gun-boat now being fitted out by Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, for the confederates of the southern United States of America, and intended to be used as a privateer against the United States.

On my arrival, and taking charge of the consulate at Liverpool in November last, my attention was called by the acting consul and by other persons to two gun-boats being or to be fitted out for the so-called confederate government: the Oreto, fitted out by Mr. Miller and Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., and the one now in question. Subsequent, events fully proved the suspicion with regard to the Oreto to be well founded; she cleared from Liverpool in March last for Palermo and Jamaica, but sailed direct for Nassau, where she now is receiving her armament as a privateer for the so-called confederate government; and my attention was called repeatedly to the gunboat building by Mr. Laird, by various persons, who stated that she also was for a confederate privateer, and was being built by the Messrs. Lairds for that express purpose.

In May last two officers of the southern privateer Sumter, named Caddy and Beaufort, passed through Liverpool on their way to Havana and Nassau, and while here stated that there was a gun-boat building by Mr. Laird, at Birkenhead, for the southern confederacy; and not long after that a foreman employed about the vessel in Mr. Laird’s yard stated that she was the sister of the Oreto, and intended for the same service, and, when pressed for an explanation, further stated that she was to be a privateer for the southern government in the United States.

When the vessel was first tried, Mr. Wells man, one of the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., (who are well known as agents for the confederate government,) Andrew and Thomas Byrne, and other persons, well known as having been for months actively engaged in sending munitions of war for said government, were present, and have accompanied her on her various trials, as they had accompanied the Oreto on her trial trip and on her departure.

[85] In April last the southern screw-steamer Annie Childs, which had run the blockade out of Charleston, and the name of which was changed at this port to the Julia Usher, was laden with munitions of war, consisting of a large quantity of powder, rifled cannon, &c., by Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co., for the southern confederacy, and left. Liverpool to run the blockade under the command of a Captain *Hammer, and having on board several of the crew of the privateer Sumter, to which I have before referred.

For some reason unknown this vessel came back and is now here. Since her return a youth named Robinson, who had gone in her as a passenger, has stated that the gunboat building at Lairds’ for the southern confederacy was a subject of frequent conversation among the officers while she (the Julia Usher) was out. That she was all the time spoken of as a confederate vessel; that Captain Bullock was to command her; that the money for her was advanced by Fraser, Trenholm &Co.; that she was not to make any attempt to run the blockade, but would go at once as a privateer; that she was to mount eleven guns; and that if the Julia Usher was not going, the six men from the Sumter, who were on board the Julia Usher, were to join the gunboat. This youth, being a native of New Orleans, was extremely anxious to get taken on board the gun-boat, and wished the persons he made the communication to, to assist him and see Captain Bullock on his behalf. He has, I understand, been removed to a school in London. With reference to his statement, I may observe that Captain Hammer referred to is a South Carolinian, has been for many years in Fraser, Trenholm & Co.’s employ, is greatly trusted by them, and is also intimate with Captain Bullock, so that he would be likely to be well informed on the subject; and as he had no notion [Page 313] at that time of returning to Liverpool, he would have no hesitation in speaking of the matter to his officers and the persons from the Sumter. I may also state that Captain Bullock referred to is in Liverpool; that he is an officer of the confederate navy; that he was sent over here for the express purpose of fitting out privateers and sending over munitions of war; that he transacts his business at the office of Frazer, Trenholm & Co.; that he has been all the time in communication with Fawcett, Preston & Co., who fitted out the Oreto, and with Lairds, who are fitting out this vessel; that he goes almost daily on board the gun-boat, and seems to be recognized as in authority.

A Mr. Blair, of Paradise street, in this town, who furnished the cabins of the Laird un-boat, has also stated that all the fittings and furniture were selected by Captain Bullock, and were subject to his approval, although paid for by Mr. Laird.

The information on which I have formed an undoubting conviction that this vessel is being fitted out for the so-called confederate government, and is intended to cruise against the commerce of the United States, has come to me from a variety of sources, and I have detailed it to you as far as practicable. I have given you the names of persons making the statements; but as the information in most cases is given to me by persons out of friendly feeling to the United States, and in strict confidence, I cannot state the names of my informants; but what I have stated is of such a character that little inquiry will confirm its truth.

Everything about the vessel shows her to be a war-vessel; she has well-constructed magazines; she has a number of canisters, of a peculiar and expensive construction, for containing powder; she has platforms, already screwed to her decks, for the reception of swivel-guns. Indeed, the fact that she is a war-vessel is not denied by Messrs. Laird; but they say she is for the Spanish government. This they stated on the 3d of April last, when General Burgoyne visited their yard, and was shown over it and the various vessels being built there by Messrs. John Laird, jr., and Henry H. Laird, as was fully reported in the papers at the time.

Seeing the statement, and having been already informed from so many respectable sources that she was for the so-called confederate government, I at once wrote to the minister in London to ascertain from the Spanish embassy whether the statement was true. The reply was a positive assurance that she was not for the Spanish government. I am therefore authorized in saying that what was stated on that occasion, as well as statements since made that she is for the Spanish government, are untrue.

I am satisfied beyond a doubt that she is for a confederate war-vessel.

If you desire any personal explanation or information, I shall be happy to attend you whenever you may request it.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) THOMAS H. DUDLEY.

The statement in the above letter that the Florida was receiving armament at Nassau was erroneous. The Florida, as has been already shown, did not receive any armament at Nassau.

To this letter the collector replied as follows:1

The collector of customs, Liverpool, to the United States consul.

Liverpool, July 10, 1862.

Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communications of yesterday’s date, (received this morning,) and to acquaint you that I shall immediately submit the same for the consideration and direction of the hoard of customs, under whom I have the honor to serve. I may observe, however, that I am respectfully of opinion the statement made by you is not such as could be acted upon by the officers of this revenue, unless legally substantiated by evidence.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS.

A copy of Mr. Dudley’s letter of the 9th July was on the 10th July transmitted by the collector to the commissioners of customs, together with the following report from the surveyor of customs:2

[86] *Surveyor’s report.

Surveyor’s Office, July 10, 1862.

Sir: I beg to report that, agreeably with your directions, I have this day inspected the steamer lying at the building-yard of the Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, and find [Page 314] that she is in the same state, as regards her armament, as on the date of my former-report.

She has no guns or carriages on board, nor are her platforms fitted to the deck.

Very respectfully,

(Signed) E. MORGAN.

The papers transmitted by the collector as aforesaid were referred by the commissioners of customs to the solicitor to the customs, who is the official adviser of the department on matters of law; and he, on the 11th July, 1862, reported as follows:1

Report from the solicitor to the customs.

There is only one proper way of looking at this question. If the collector of customs were to detain the vessel in question, he would no doubt have to maintain the seizure by legal evidence in a court of law, and to pay damages and costs in case of failure. Upon carefully reading the statement I find the greater part, if not all, is hearsay and inadmissible, and as to a part the witnesses are not forthcoming or even to be named. It is perfectly clear to my mind that there is nothing in it amounting to prima facie proof sufficient to justify a seizure, much less to support it in a court of law, and the consul could not expect the collector to take upon himself such a risk in opposition to rules and principles by which the Crown is governed in matters of this nature.

(Signed) F. J. HAMEL.

July 11, 1862.

The commissioners of customs accordingly wrote to the collector as follows:1

The commissioners of customs to the collector at Liverpool.

Custom-House, London, July 15, 1862.

Sir: Having considered your report of the 10th instant, inclosing a communication which you had received from Mr. T. H. Dudley, American consul at Liverpool, apprising you of certain circumstances relative to a vessel which he states is now being fitted out by Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, as a gun-boat for the so-called confederate government of the Southern States of America, and intended to be used as a privateer against the United States, and having communicated with our solicitor on the subject—

We acquaint you that there does not appear to be prima facie proof sufficient in the statement of the consul to justify the seizure of the vessel, and you are to apprise the consul accordingly.

We transmit, for your information, a copy of the report of our solicitor on the matter, dated the 11th instant.

(Signed) FREDERICK GOULBURN.
R. W. GREY.

Copies of the above papers were, on the 17th July, sent by the commissioners of customs to the treasury for the information of the lords commissioners of the treasury.

Up to this point the information which was in the possession of Her Majesty’s government respecting the vessel consisted chiefly, and almost entirely, of hearsay statements, made by persons who could not be produced, as to alleged admissions by other persons who were represented to be either concerned in her equipment or identified in interest with the Confederate States, and whom, according to the rules of English legal procedure, Her Majesty’s government could not compel to give similar admissions or evidence. It was, however, apparent that she was intended for war; and there was some (though very slight) evidence tending to connect her with persons who were believed or known to be partisans or agents of the government of the Confederate States. Mr. Dudley admitted, at the same time, that he could not give the names of [Page 315] his informants. The Captain Bullock mentioned above was, in fact> (as Her Majesty’s government believes,) an officer and agent of the government of the Confederate States, but Her Majesty’s government had at that time no means of proving him to be such.

On the 22d July, 1862, the commissioners of customs received from the collector at Liverpool the following letter:1

[87] *The collector of customs, Liverpool, to the commissioners of customs.

Liverpool, July 21, 1862.

Honorable Sirs: The United States consul, accompanied by his solicitor, Mr. Squarey, has just been here with the witnesses whose affidavits are inclosed, requesting me to seize the gun-boat alluded to in your honors’ order of the 15th instant, upon the evidence adduced to him that the gun-boat has been fitted out by Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead, for the confederate government of the Southern States.

The only evidence of importance, as appears to me, is that of William Passmore, who had engaged himself as a sailor to serve in the vessel.

I shall be obliged by the board being pleased to instruct me by telegraph how I am to act, as the ship appears to be ready for sea, and may leave any hour she pleases.

Respectfully,

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS.

P. S.—Nothing has been done to her since my first representation, nor has anything besides coals been placed in her.

S. P. E.

Inclosed in this letter were copies of six sworn depositions, which were as follows:

depositions.

1.

I, William Passmore, of Birkenhead, in the county of Chester, mariner, make oath and say as follows:

1.
I am a seaman, and have served as such on board Her Majesty’s ship Terrible during the Crimean war.
2.
Having been informed that hands were wanted for a fighting-vessel built by Messrs. Laird & Co., of Birkenhead, I applied on Saturday, which was, I believe, the 21st day of June last, to Captain Butcher, who, I was informed, was engaging men for the said vessel, for a berth on board her.
3.
Captain Butcher asked me if I knew where the vessel was going, in reply to which I told him I did not rightly understand about it. He then told me the vessel was going out to the government of the Confederate States of America. I asked him if there would be any fighting, to which he replied, yes, they were going to fight for the southern government. I told him I had been used to fighting-vessels, and showed him my papers. I asked him to make me signalman on board the vessel, and, in reply, he said that no articles would be signed until the vessel got outside, but he would make me signalman if they required one when they got outside.
4.
The said Captain Butcher then engaged me as an able seaman on board the said vessel, at the wages of £4 10s. per month, and it was arranged that I should join the ship in Messrs. Laird & Co.’s yard on the following Monday. To enable me to get on board Captain Butcher gave me a password, the number “290.”
5.
On the following Monday, which was, I believe, the 23d of June last, I joined the said vessel in Messrs. Laird & Co.’s yard, at Birkenhead, and I remained by her till Saturday last.
6.
The said vessel is a screw-steamer of about 1, 100 tons burden, as far as I can judge, and is built and fitted up as a fighting-ship in all respects; she has a magazine and shot and canister racks on deck, and is pierced for guns, the sockets for the bolts of which are laid down. The said vessel has a large quantity of stores and provisions on board, and she is now lying at the Victoria wharf in the great float at Birkenhead, where she has taken in about 300 tons of coal.
7.
There are now about thirty hands on board her, who have been engaged to go out in her; most of them are men who have previously served on board fighting-ships, and one of them is a man who served on board the confederate steamer Sumter It is well known by the hands on board that the vessel is going out as a privateer for [Page 316] the confederate government, to act against the United States, under a commission from Mr. Jefferson Davis. Three of the crew are, I believe, engineers; and there are also some firemen on board.
8.
Captain Butcher and another gentleman have been on board the ship almost every day. It is reported on board the ship that Captain Butcher is to be the sailing-master, and that the other gentleman, whose name I believe is Bullock, is to be the fighting captain.
9.
To the best of my information and belief, the above-mentioned vessel, which I have heard is to be called the Florida, is being equipped and fitted out in order that she may be employed in the service of the confederate government in America, to cruise and to commit hostilities against the Government and people of the United States of America.

(Signed) WILLIAM PASSMORE.

Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 21st day of July, 1862.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector.

2.

I, John de Costa, of No. 8 Waterloo Road, Liverpool, shipping-master, make oath and say as follows:

1.
I know, and have for several months known, by sight, Captain Bullock, who is very generally known in Liverpool as an agent or commissioner of the Confederate States in America.
*2.
[88] In the month of March last I saw the screw-steamer Annie Childs, which had run the blockade from Charleston, enter the river Mersey. She came up the Mersey with the confederate flag Hying at her peak; and I saw the Oreto, a new gun-boat which had been recently built by Messrs. W. C. Miller & Sons, and which was then lying at anchor in the river off Egremont, dip her colors three times in acknowledgment of the Annie Childs, which vessel returned the compliment, and a boat was immediately afterward dispatched from the Annie Childs to the Oreto, with several persons on board, besides the men who were at the oars.
3.
On the 22d day of March last I was on the north landing-stage between 7 and 8 o’clock in the morning; I saw the said Captain Bullock go on board a tender, which afterwards took him off to the said gun-boat Oreto, which was then lying in the Sloyne. Just before he got onboard the tender he shook hands with a gentleman who was with him, and said to him, “This day six weeks you will get a letter from me from Charleston,” or words to that effect.
4.
On the same day, between 11 and 12 o’clock, as well as I can remember, I saw the Oreto go to sea. She came well in on the Liverpool side of the river, and from the Princess Pier head, where I was standing, I distinctly saw the said Captain Bullock on board her, with a person who had been previously pointed out to me by a fireman who came to Liverpool in the Annie Childs as a Charleston pilot, who had come over in the Annie Childs with Captain Bullock to take the gun-boat out.

(Signed) JOHN DE COSTA.

Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 21st day of July, 1862.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector.

3.

I, Allen Stanley Clare, of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, articled clerk, make oath and say as follows:

1. On the 21st day of July, now instant, I examined the book at the Birkenhead dockmaster’s office, at Birkenhead, containing a list of all vessels which enter the Birkenhead docks; and I found in such book an entry of a vessel described as No. 290, and from the entries in the said book, in reference to such vessel, it appears that she is a screw-steamer, and that her registered tonnage is 500 tons, and that Matthew J. Butcher is her master.

(Signed) ALLEN S. CLARE.

Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 21st day of July, 1862.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector.

4.

We, Henry Wilding, of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, gentleman, and Matthew Maguire, of Liverpool, aforesaid, agent, make oath and say as follows:

1.
I, the said Matthew Maguire, for myself, say that on the 15th day of July, now instant, I took Richard Brogan, whom I know to be an apprentice working in the shipbuilding yard of Messrs. Laird & Co., at Birkenhead, to the above-named deponent, Henry Wilding, at his residence at New Brighton.
2.
And I, the said Henry Wilding, for myself, say as follows: I am the vice-consul of the United States of North America at Liverpool.
3.
On the 15th day of July, now instant, I saw the said Richard Brogan and examined him in reference to a gun-boat which I had heard was being built by the said Messrs. Laird & Co. for the so-called confederate government, and the said Richard Brogan then informed me that the said vessel was built to carry four guns on each side and four swivel-guns; that Captain Bullock had at one time, when the vessel was in progress, come to the yard almost every day to select the timber to be used for the vessel. That the said Captain Bullock was to be the captain of the said vessel; and that the said Captain Bullock had asked the said Richard Brogan to go as carpenter’s, mate in the said vessel for three years, which the said Richard Brogan had declined to do, because Mr. Laird, who was present at the time, would not guarantee his wages. That the said vessel was to carry 120 men, and that 30 able seamen were already engaged for her. That the petty officers for the said vessel were to be engaged for three years, and the seamen for five months. That the said vessel was then at the end of the new warehouses in the Birkenhead dock, and that it was understood she was to take her guns on board at Messrs. Laird & Co.’s shed, further up the dock; and that it was generally understood by the men in Messrs. Laird & Co.’s yard that the said vessel was being built for the confederate government.
4.
The vessel above mentioned is the same which is now known as No. 290, and I verily believe that the said vessel is, in fact, intended to be used as a privateer or vessel of war, under a commission from the so-called confederate government, against the United States Government.

(Signed) H. WILDING.
MATTHEW MAGUIRE.

Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 21st day of July, 1862.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector.

5.

I, Thomas Haines Dudley, of No. 3 Wellesley Terrace, Prince’s Park, in the borough of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, esq., being one of the people called Quakers, affirm and say as follows:

[89] *I am the consul of the United States of North America for the port of Liverpool and its dependencies.

2. In the month of July, in the year 1861, information was sent by the United States Government to the United States consulate at Liverpool, that a Mr. James D. Bullock, of Savannah, in the State of Georgia, who was formerly the master of an American steamer called the Cahawba, was reported to have left the United States for England, taking with him a credit for a large sum of money, to be employed in fitting out privateers, and also several commissions issued by the Southern Confederate States for such privateers, and in the month of August, in the year 1861, information was sent by the United States Government to the United States consulate at Liverpool that the said Captain Bullock was then residing near Liverpool and acting as the agent of the said Confederate States in Liverpool and London.

3. In accordance with instructions received from the Government of the United States, steps have been taken to obtain information as to the proceedings and movements of the said James D. Bullock, and I have ascertained the following circumstances, all of which I verily believe to be true, viz, that the said James D. Bullock is in constant communication with parties in Liverpool who are known to be connected with and acting for the parties who have assumed the government of the Confederate States. That the said James D. Bullock, after remaining for some time in England, left the country, and after an absence of several weeks, returned to Liverpool in the month of March last, from Charleston, in the State of South Carolina, one of the seceded States, in a screw-steamer then called the Annie Childs, which had broken the blockade of the port of Charleston then and now maintained by the United States Navy, and which vessel, the Annie Childs, carried the flag of the Confederate States as she came up the Mersey. That shortly after the arrival of the said James D. Bullock at Liverpool in the Annie Childs, as above mentioned, he again sailed from Liverpool in a new gunboat called the Oreto, built at Liverpool, by Messrs. W. C. Miller & Sons, ship-builders, and completed in the early part, of the present year, and which gun-boat, the Oreto, though she cleared from Liverpool for Palermo and Jamaica, in reality never Went to those places, but proceeded to Nassau, New Providence, to take on board guns and arms with a view to her being used as a privateer or vessel of war under a commission from the so-called confederate government against the Government of the United States, and which said vessel, the Oreto, is stated to have been lately seized at Nassau by the commander of Her Majesty’s ship Greyhound. That the said James D. Bullock has since returned again to Liverpool, and that before he left Liverpool, and since he returned, he has taken an active part in superintending the building, equipment, and fitting out of another steam gun-boat, known as No. 290, which has lately been launched by [Page 318] Messrs. Laird & Co. of Birkenhead, and which is now lying, as I am informed and believe, ready for sea in the Birkenhead docks, with a large quantity of provisions and stores and thirty men on board. That the said James D. Bullock is going out in the said gun-boat No. 290, which is nominally commanded by one Matthew S. Butcher, who, I am informed, is well acquainted with the navigation of the American coast, having formerly been engaged in the coasting-trade between New York, Charleston, and Nassau.

4. From the circumstances which have come to my knowledge I verily believe that the said gun-boat No. 290 is being equipped and fitted out as a privateer or vessel of war to servo under a commission to be issued by the government of the so-called Confederate States, and that the said vessel will be employed in the service of the said Confederate States to cruise and commit hostilities against the Government and people of the United States of North America.

(Signed) THOMAS H. DUDLEY.

Affirmed and taken before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 21st day of July, 1862.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS,
Collector.

6.

I, Matthew Maguire, of Liverpool, agent, make oath and say as follows:

1.
I know Captain J. D. Bullock, who is commonly reputed to be the agent or commissioner of the Confederate States of America at Liverpool.
2.
I have seen the said J. D. Bullock several times at the yard of Messrs. Laird & Co. at Birkenhead, where a gun-boat known as No. 290 has lately been built, while the building of the said vessel has been going on.
3.
On the 2d day of July now instant, I saw the said J. D. Bullock on board the said vessel in Messrs. Laird & Co.’s yard; he appeared to be giving orders to the workmen who were employed about such vessel.

(Signed) MATTHEW MAGUIRE.

Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 21st day of July, 1862.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS,
Collector.

The above depositions were referred, as soon as they were received, to the assistant solicitor and solicitor of customs, who on the same day reported as follows:1

[90] *Reports of the assistant solicitor and solicitor of customs, referred to in the preceding letter.

In my opinion there is not sufficient evidence in this case to justify the detention of the vessel, under the 59th George III, c. 69. The only affidavit that professes to give anything like positive evidence is that of the seaman Passmore; but, assuming all he states to be true, what occurred between the reputed master (Butcher) and himself would not warrant a detention under section 6, nor support an information for the penalty under that section. Nor do I think, however probable it may seem that the vessel is fitted out for the military operations mentioned, that sufficient evidence has been adduced to entitle the applicants to the interference of the collector of customs at Liverpool. The only justifiable grounds of seizure under section 7 of the act would be the production of such evidence of the fact as would support an indictment for the misdemeanor under that section.

(Signed) J. O’DOWD.

Customs, July 22, 1862.

I entirely concur with Mr. O’Dowd in opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the seizure or detention of the ship by the officers of customs. There appears to be some evidence of enlistment of individuals, and if that were sufficient to satisfy a court, they would be liable to pecuniary penalties, for security of which, if recovered, the customs might detain the ship until those penalties were satisfied, or good bail given; but there is not evidence enough of enlistment to call upon the customs to prosecute. The United States consul or any other person may do so at their own risk, if they see fit.

(Signed) F. J. HAMEL.

July 22, 1862.

[Page 319]

In accordance with these reports the commissioners of customs, on the same 22d July, 1802, wrote to the collector as follows:1

The commissioners of customs to the collector of customs, Liverpool.

London, July 22, 1862.

Sir: Having considered your report of the 21st instant, stating with reference to previous correspondence which has taken place on the subject of a gun-boat which is being fitted out by Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead, that the United States consul, accompanied by his solicitor, has attended at the custom-house with certain witnesses, whose affidavits you have taken and have submitted for our consideration, and has requested that the vessel may be seized, under the provisions of the foreign-enlistment act, upon the ground that the evidence adduced affords proof that she is being fitted out for the government of the Confederate States of America—

We acquaint you that we have communicated with our solicitor on the subject, who has advised us that the evidence submitted is not sufficient to justify any steps being taken against the vessel under either the sixth or seventh section of act 59 George III, cap. 69, and you are to govern yourself accordingly.

The solicitor has, however, stated that if there should be sufficient evidence to satisfy a court of enlistment of individuals, they would be liable to pecuniary penalties, for security of which, if recovered, this department might detain the ship until those penalties are satisfied, or good bail given; but there is not sufficient evidence to require the customs to prosecute; it is, however, competent for the United States consul or any other person to do so at their own risk, if they see fit.

(Signed) T. F. FREMANTLE.
G. C. L. BERKELEY.

On the same day, the papers were transmitted by order of the commissioners of customs to the treasury, with a covering letter, which was as follows:2

Mr. Gardner to Mr. Hamilton.

Custom-House, July 22, 1862.

Sir: With reference to the report of this board of the 1st instant, respecting a vessel fitting out at Liverpool, which it is stated is intended to be used as a privateer by the so-called Confederate States of America—

I am directed to state that the board have this day received a report from their collector at Liverpool, inclosing affidavits which have been made before him with a view to the detention of the vessel; and in transmitting to you, by desire of the board, the accompanying copy of the collector’s report, with the affidavits referred to, I am to state that the board having communicated with their solicitor, are advised that the evidence is not sufficient to justify any steps being taken against the vessel under either the sixth or seventh section of the act 59 George III, cap. 69, and they have apprised the collector at Liverpool accordingly, informing him at the same time that the solicitor has also stated that if there should be sufficient evidence to satisfy a court of the enlistment of individuals, they would be liable to pecuniary penalties, for security of which, if recovered, the customs might detain the ship until those penalties are satisfied, or good bail given; but that there is not evidence enough of enlistment to call upon the customs to prosecute, although the United States consul, or any other person, may do so at their own risk, if they see fit.

[91] *I am, however, to submit, should the lords commissioners of Her Majesty’s treasury have any doubt upon the subject, whether it may not be advisable that the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown should be taken.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) J. G. GARDNER.

The secretary to the treasury, on receiving the papers, sent them immediately to Mr. Layard, one of the under-secretaries of state for the foreign department, with an unofficial letter, which was as follows:2

Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Layard.

Treasury, July 22, 1862.

My Dear Mr. Layard: As the communication may be considered pressing, I send it to you unofficially to save time. Perhaps you will ascertain from Lord Russell whether [Page 320] it is his wish that we should take the opinion of the law-officers as to the case of this-vessel. It is stated that she is nearly ready for sea.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) GEO. A. HAMILTON.

The papers thus sent were received at the foreign office on the 23d July, 1862, and were, on the same day, referred to the law-officers of the Crown, with the following letter:1

Mr. Layard to the law-officers of the Crown.

[Immediate.]

Foreign Office, July 23, 1862.

Gentlemen: With reference to your report of the 30th ultimo, I am directed by Earl Russell to transmit to you the accompanying papers, which have been received by the board of treasury from the commissioners of customs, containing further information respecting the vessel alleged to be fitting out at Liverpool for the service of the so-called Confederate States; and I am to request that you will take the same into your consideration, and favor Lord Russell at your earliest convenience with your opinion thereupon.

The former papers on this subject are inclosed for reference if required.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) A. H. LAYARD.

It will have been seen from the above statement that the evidence laid by Mr. Dudley before the collector of customs at Liverpool on the 21st July was on the same day sent to London, on the following day (the 22d) referred to the official advisers of the customs department and reported on by them, and on the 23d referred to the law-officers of the Crown.

Of the six depositions one only (that of Passmore) contained any evidence which was at once material to the question and legally admissible. To rely on evidence of this kind proceeding from a single witness, without more corroboration or without inquiry into his antecedents, would, according to English judicial experience, have been very unsafe in a case of this nature. Of the contents of the five others the greater part was merely hearsay and not admissible as evidence; and they furnish grounds of suspicion, but not sufficient grounds for belief.

Copies of the depositions were also, on the 22d, sent by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, with the following note:1

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, July 22, 1862.

My Lord: I have the honor to transmit copies of six depositions taken at Liverpool, tending to establish the character and destination of the vessel to which I called your lordship’s attention in my note of the 23d of June last.

The originals of these papers have already been submitted to the collector of the customs at that port, in accordance with the suggestions made in your lordship’s note to me of the 4th of July, as the basis of an application to him to act under the powers conferred by the enlistment act. But I feel it to be my duty further to communicate the facts as there alleged to Her Majesty’s government, and to request that such further proceedings maybe had as may carry into full effect the determination which I doubt not it ever entertains to prevent, by all lawful means, the fitting out of hostile expeditions against the government of a country with which it is at peace.

I avail, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[92] On the 23d July two additional depositions were sent by Mr. A. T. Squarey, of *Liverpool, a solicitor employed by Mr. Dudley, to the board of customs, with the following letter:2

[Page 321]

Mr. Squarey to Mr. Gardner.

Tavistock Hotel, Covent Garden,
London, July 23, 1862.

Sir: Referring to an application which I made on behalf of the United States Government, under the instructions of their consul at Liverpool, to the collector of customs at Liverpool, on Monday last, for the detention, under the provisions of the act 59 George III, cap. 69, of a steam gun-boat built by Messrs. Laird & Co., at Birkenhead, and which there is no doubt is intended for the Confederate States, to be used as a vessel of war against the United States Government, I beg now to inclose two affidavits which reached me this morning from Liverpool; one made by Robert John Taylor, and the other by Edward Roberts, and which furnish additional proof of the character of the vessel in question.

I also inclose a case which has been submitted to Mr. Collier, Q. C., with his opinion thereon. I learnt this morning from Mr. O’Dowd that instructions were forwarded yesterday to the collector at Liverpool not to exercise the powers of the act in this instance, it being considered that the facts disclosed in the affidavits made before him were not sufficient to justify the collector in seizing the vessel. On behalf of the Government of the United States I now respectfully request that this matter, which I need not point out to you involves consequences of the gravest possible description, may be considered by the board of customs on the further evidence now adduced. The gunboat now lies in the Birkenhead docks, ready for sea in all respects, with a crew of fifty men on board; she may sail at any time, and I trust that the urgency of the case will excuse the course I have adopted of sending these papers direct to the board instead of transmitting them through the collector at Liverpool, and the request which I now venture to make, that the matter may receive immediate attention.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) A. T. SQUAREY.

The two additional depositions were as follows:

depositions.

1.

I, Edward Roberts, of No. 6 Vere street, Toxteth Park, in the county of Lancaster, ship-carpenter, make oath and say as follows:

1.
I am a ship-carpenter, and have been at sea for about four years in that capacity.
2.
About the beginning of June last I had been out of employ for about two months, and hearing that there was a vessel in Messrs. Laird & Co.’s yard fitting out to run the blockade, I applied to Mr. Barnett, shipping-master, to get me shipped on board the said vessel.
3.
On Thursday, the 19th day of June last, I went to the said Mr. Barnett’s office No. 11 Hanover street, Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, and was engaged for the said vessel as carpenter’s mate. By the direction of the said Mr. Barnett I met Captain Butcher the same day on the George’s landing-stage, and followed him to Messrs. Laird & Co.’s ship-building yard, and on board a vessel lying there. The said Captain Butcher spoke to the boatswain about me, and I received my orders from the said boatswain. At dinner-time the said day, as I left the yard, the gate-man asked me if I was “going to work on that gun-boat;” to which I replied, “Yes.”
4.
The said vessel is now lying in the Birkenhead float, and is known by the name No. 290. The said vessel has coal and stores on board. The said vessel is pierced for guns, I think four on a side, and a, swivel-gun. The said vessel is fitted with shot and canister racks, and has a magazine. There are about fifty men, all told, now on board the said vessel. It is generally understood on board of the said vessel that she is going to Nassau for the southern government.
5.
I know Captain Bullock by sight, and have seen him on board of the said vessel five or six times; I have seen him go round the said vessel with Captain Butcher. I understood, both at Messrs. Laird & Co.’s yard and also on board the said vessel, that the said Captain Bullock was the owner of the said vessel.
6.
I have been working on board the said vessel from the 19th day of June last up to the present time, with wages at the rate of £6 per month, payable weekly. I have signed no articles of agreement. The talk on board is that an agreement will be signed before sailing.

(Signed) EDWARD ROBERTS.

Sworn at Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, this 22d day of July, 1862, before me,

(Signed) WM. BROWN,
Justice of the Peace for Lancashire and Liverpool.
[Page 322]

2.

I, Robert John Taylor, of Mobile, but at present remaining temporarily at Liverpool, mariner, make oath and say as follows:

1.
[93] I am a native of London, and 41 years of age. From fourteen years upward I have followed the sea. During the last fifteen years I have been living in the Confederate States of America, *principally at Savannah and Mobile, and since the secession movement I have been engaged in running the blockade. I have run the blockade six times and been captured once.
2.
The vessels in which I have been engaged in running the blockade have sailed from Mobile, and have gone to Havana and New Orleans. I am well acquainted with the whole of the coast of the Confederate States, as I have been principally engaged since 1847 in trading to and from the Gulf ports.
3.
I came to England after my release from Fort Warren, on the 29th of May last. I came here with the intention of going to the Southern States, as I could not get there from Boston.
4.
Mr. Rickarby, of Liverpool, a brother of the owner, at Mobile, of the vessel in which I was captured when attempting to run the blockade, gave me instructions to go to Captain Butcher, at Laird’s yard, Birkenhead. I had previously called on Mr. Rickarby, and told him that I wanted to go South, as the Northerners had robbed me of my clothes when I was captured, and I wanted to have satisfaction.
5.
I first saw Captain Butcher at one of Mr. Laird’s offices last Thursday fortnight, (namely, the 3d of July last.) I told him that I had been sent by Mr. Rickarby, and asked him if he were the captain of the vessel which was lying in the dock. I told him that I was one of the men that had been captured in one of Mr. Rickarby’s vessels, and that I wanted to get South in order to have retaliation of the Northerners for robbing me of my clothes. He said that if I went with him in his vessel I should very shortly have that opportunity.
6.
Captain Butcher asked me at the interview if I was well acquainted with the Gulf ports, and I told him I was. I asked him what port he was going to, and he replied that he could not tell me then, but that there would be an agreement made before we left for sea. I inquired as to the rate of wages, and I was to get £4 10s. per month, payable weekly.
7.
I then inquired if I might consider myself engaged, and he replied, yes, and that I might go on board the next day, which I accordingly did; and I have been working on board up to last Saturday night.
8.
I was at the siege of Acre in 1840, in Her Majesty’s frigate Pique, Captain Edward Boxer, and served on board for nine months. Captain Butcher’s ship is pierced for eight broadside guns and four swivels or long-toms. Her magazine is complete, and she is fitted up in all respects as a man-of-war, without her ammunition. She is now chock-full of coals, and has, in addition to those in the hold, some thirty tons on deck.
9.
One day, whilst engaged in heaving up some of the machinery, we were singing a song, as seamen generally do, when the boatswain told us to stop that, as the ship was not a merchant-ship but a man-of-war.

(Signed) ROBERT JOHN TAYLOR.

Sworn at Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, this 22d day of July, 1862, before me.

(Signed) W. J. LAMPORT,
Justice of the Peace for Liverpool.

The ease and opinion which, together with the additional depositions, were mentioned and inclosed in Mr. Squarey’s letter, were as follows:1

Case submitted to Mr. Collier, Q. C., and his opinion thereon.

You will receive, herewith, copies of the following affidavits in reference to a gunboat known as No. 290, which was built by Messrs. Laird & Co. at Birkenhead, as it is believed, for the Confederate States of America, and which is now lying ready for sea in all respects in the Birkenhead docks: No. 1. Affirmation of T. H. Dudley; No. 2. Affidavit of J. de Costa; No. 3. Affidavit of Mr. Maguire; No. 4. Affidavit of H. Wilding and M. Maguire; No. 5. Affidavit of A. S. Clare; No. 6. Affidavit of William Passmore; No. 7. Affidavit of Edward Roberts; No. 8. Affidavit of Robert John Taylor. An application has been made, on the affidavits Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive, to the collector of customs at Liverpool, to detain the vessel under the provisions of the act 59 Geo. III, cap. 69; but, under the advice of the solicitors to the customs, the board have declined to sanction the detention of the vessel.

[Page 323]

You are requested to advise the consul for the United States at Liverpool whether the affidavits now submitted to you would disclose facts which would justify the collector of customs in detaining the vessel under the act in question.

July 23, 1832.

Opinion.

I have perused the above affidavits, and I am of opinion that the collector of customs would be justified in detaining the vessel. Indeed, I should think it his duty to detain her; and that if, after the application which has been made to him, supported by the evidence which has been laid before me, he allows the vessel to leave Liverpool, he will incur a heavy responsibility, a responsibility of which the board of customs, under whose directions he appears to be acting, must take their share.

It appears difficult to make out a stronger case of infringement of the foreign-enlistment act, which, if not enforced on this occasion, is little better than a dead letter.

It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, the Federal Government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance.

(Signed) R. P. COLLIER.

Temple, July 23, 1862.

[94] *The case and opinion, together with the additional depositions, were referred to the assistant solicitor of customs, who on the same day reported as follows:1

I have read the additional evidence, and I do not think that it materially strengthens the case of the applicants. As regards the opinion of Mr. Collier, I cannot concur in his views; but, adverting to the high character which he bears in his profession, I submit that the board might act judiciously in recommending the lords of the treasury to take the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown.

(Signed) J. O’DOWD.

July 23, 1862.

Mr. Squarey’s letter, with the additional depositions and the case and opinion, were on the same 23d July sent by the board of customs to the treasury with a suggestion that the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown should be taken on the matter. As soon as received at the treasury they were sent unofficially to Mr. Layard, who was at the time in the House of Commons. Mr. Layard, after communicating with Earl Russell, sent them at once, by his (Earl Russell’s) instructions, to the law-officers of the Crown, with the following letter:1

Mr. Layard to the law-officers of the Crown.

Foreign Office, July 23, 1862.

Gentlemen: With reference to my letter of this morning, sending to you papers respecting the vessel stated to be preparing for sea at Birkenhead for the service of the government of the so-styled Confederate States of North America, I am directed by Earl Russell to transmit to you a further letter from the commissioners of customs, inclosing additional papers respecting this vessel; and I am to request that you will take these papers into your consideration, and favor Lord Russell at your earliest convenience with your opinion as to the steps which ought to be taken by Her Majesty’s government in the matter.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) A. H. LAYARD.

Copies of the papers sent by Mr. Squarey were on the 26th July received by Earl Russell from Mr. Adams, together with the following letter:l

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, July 24, 1862.

My Lord: In order that I may complete the evidence in the case of the vessel now fitting out at Liverpool, I have the honor to submit to your lordship’s consideration the copies of two more depositions taken respecting that subject.

[Page 324]

In the view which I have taken of this extraordinary proceeding as a violation of the enlistment act, I am happy to find myself sustained by the opinion of an eminent lawyer of Great Britain, a copy of which I do myself the honor likewise to transmit.

Renewing, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

On the 25th July a further deposition was received by the board of customs from Mr. Squarey, referred to the assistant solicitor of customs, and transmitted to the treasury; from whence on Saturday, the 26th of July, it was sent to the foreign office, and was on the same day referred to the law-officers of the Crown, with a request that they would take it into consideration, together with the other papers their before them relating to the same subject.

This further deposition was as follows:1

Affidavit of Henry Redden.

I, Henry Redden, of Hook street, Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, seaman, make oath and say as follows:

1.
I am a seaman, and have followed the sea for fifteen years. I have been boatswain on board both steamers and sailing-vessels, and belong to the naval reserve.
2.
About six weeks ago I was engaged by Captain Butcher (with whom I have previously sailed) as boatswain on board a vessel then in Messrs. Laird & Co.’s shipbuilding,’ yard, but now lying in the Birkenhead float, and known by the name No. 290. The said Captain Butcher offered me £10 per month, and said an agreement should be signed when we got outside. He told me that we should have plenty of money when we got home, as we were going to the Southern States on a speculation to try and get some.
*3.
[95] The crew now on board the said vessel consists of about forty men, but I believe that she will take to sea about one hundred men, all told. It is generally understood on board that she will clear for Nassau, but not make that port. The said vessel has all her stores and coals on board ready for sea. She is fitted in all respects as a man-of-war, to carry six broadside-guns and four pivots, but has no guns or ammunition on board as yet. The rules on board are similar to those in use on a man-of-war, and the men are not allowed to sing as they do on a merchantman. The call is used on board. The said vessel is of about 1,100 tons burden.
4.
I know Captain Bullock. He has been superintending the building of the said vessel in Messrs. Laird & Co.’s yard, and is, I believe, to take charge of the vessel when we get outside.

It is generally understood on board the said vessel that she belongs to the confederate government.

(Signed) HENRY REDDEN.

Sworn this 24th day of July, 1862, before me.

(Signed) JOHN STEWART,
A Justice of the Peace for the County of Lancaster.

On this deposition the assistant solicitor of customs had, on the 25th July, reported as follows:1

I submit a reference to my former reports, to the opinions expressed in which I feel still bound to adhere. So far from giving additional force to the application, the affidavit of Henry Redden appears to me to weaken it, as, after the lapse of several days since the date of the former affidavits, the applicants are confessedly unable to make out a better justification for detaining the vessel. It is, no doubt, difficult to procure satisfactory evidence in such a case; but, in the absence of at least a clear prima facie ease, there cannot exist those grounds for detaining the vessel which the foreign-enlistment act contemplates.

(Signed) J. O’DOWD.

Customs, July 25, 1862.

From the above statement it will have been seen that the additional papers sent Mr. Squarey on the 23d were on the same day referred by the board of customs to their official adviser and reported on by him, and were also on the same day transmitted by the board, through the treasury, to the foreign office and thence referred to the law-officers of the Crown.

[Page 325]

It will have been seen, also, that the further deposition received on the 25th was on that day reported on by the official adviser of the board* of customs, and was on the following day referred to the law-officers of the Crown.

On Tuesday, the 29th July, the law-officers of the Crown reported as follows on the papers which had been successively referred to them:1

The law-officers of the Crown to Earl Russell.

Temple, July 29, 1882.

My Lord: We are honored with your lordship’s command’s signified in Mr. Layard’s letter of the 23d July instant, stating that, with reference to our report of the 30th ultimo, he was directed by your lordship to transmit to us the accompanying papers, which had been received by the board of treasury from the commissioners of customs, containing further information respecting the vessel alleged to be fitting out at Liverpool for the service of the so-called Confederate States, and to request that we would take the same into our consideration, and favor your lordship at our earliest convenience with our opinion thereupon.

The former papers on this subject were inclosed for reference if required.

We are also honored with your lordship’s commands signified in Mr. La yard’s letter of the 23d July instant, stating that, with reference to his letter of that date, sending to us papers respecting the vessel stated to be preparing for sea at Birkenhead, for the service of the government of the so-styled Confederate States of North America, he was directed by your lordship to transmit to us a further letter from the commissioners of customs, inclosing additional papers respecting this vessel, and to request that we would take these papers into our consideration, and favor your lordship at our earliest convenience with our opinion as to the steps which ought to be taken by Her Majesty’s government in the matter.

We are further honored with your lordship’s commands signified in Mr. Layard’s letter of the 26th July instant, stating that he was directed by your lordship to transmit to us the accompanying letter from the board of treasury, dated July 26, which your lordship had received that morning, containing further information respecting the vessel stated to be fitting out at Liverpool for the service of the so-styled Confederate States, and to request that we would take the same into our consideration, together with the other papers on the same subject which were then before us.

[96] *In obedience to your lordship’s commands we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report—

That, in our opinion, the evidence of the witnesses who have made depositions, (we allude particularly to William Passmore, Edward Roberts, Robert John Taylor, and Henry Redden,) coupled with the character and structure of the vessel, makes it reasonably clear that such vessel is intended for warlike use, against citizens of the United States, and in the interest of the (so-called) Confederate States. It is not, and cannot be, denied that the vessel is constructed and adapted as a vessel of war, being pierced for guns, the sockets for the bolts for which, Passmore states, are already laid down, and having a magazine, and shot and canister racks on the deck, and a certain number of canisters being actually on board. It is also stated in the report of the commissioners of customs of July 1, that Messrs. Laird, the builders, do not deny that the vessel has been built for some “foreign government,” although they maintain apparently a strict reserve as to her actual destination, and as to the “foreign government,” in particular, for whose service she is intended. We do not overlook the facts that neither guns nor ammunition have as yet been shipped; that the cargo (though of the nature of naval stores in connection with war-steamers) may yet be classed as a mercantile cargo; and that the crew do not appear to have been, in terms and form at least, recruited or enrolled as a military crew. It is to be expected that great stress will be laid upon these circumstances by the owners and others who may oppose the condemnation of the vessel if seized by the officers of the customs; and an argument may be raised as to the proper construction of the words which occur in the 7th section of the foreign-enlistment act, “Equip, furnish, fit out, or arm,” which words, it may be suggested, point only to the rendering a vessel, whatever may be the character of its structure, presently fit to engage in hostilities. We think, however, that such a narrow construction ought not to be adopted, and, if allowed, would fritter away the act, and give impunity to open and flagrant violations of its provisions. We, therefore, recommend that, without loss of time, the vessel be seized by the proper authorities, after which an opportunity will be afforded to those interested, previous to condemnation, to alter the facts, if it may be, and to show an innocent destination of the ship.

[Page 326]

In the absence of any such countervailing case, it appears to us that the vessel, cargo, and stores may be properly condemned.

We have, &c.,

(Signed) WM. ATHERTON.
ROUNDELL PALMER.

On the same 29th July the board of customs received from Mr. Dudley’s solicitors a communication, dated the 28th, to the effect that they had every reason to believe that the vessel would sail on the 29th.1 And soon afterward the board received from the same firm a telegraphic message stating that she bad come out of dock the night before (the 28th) and had left the port that morning, (the 29th.)

On the 30th July the board of customs received from Mr. Dudley’s solicitors the following letter, which was transmitted, through the treasury, to the foreign office:2

Messrs, Duncan, Squarey and Mackinnon to Mr. Gardner.

10 Water Street, Liverpool, July 29, 1862.

Sir: We telegraphed you this morning that the above-named vessel was leaving Liverpool; she came out of dock last night, and steamed down the river between 10 and 11 a.m.

We have reason to believe that she is gone to Queenstown.

Yours, obediently,

(Signed) DUNCAN, SQUAREY AND MACKINNON.

On the 31st July orders were sent by the commissioners of customs to the collectors of customs at Liverpool and Cork, that the vessel should be seized if she should be within either of those ports. On the morning of the 1st August similar orders were sent to the collectors at Beaumaris and Holyhead.3 Instructions were likewise sent to the governor of the Bahamas, that, if she should put in at Nassau, she should be detained.2

On the 30th July, the day after the departure of the vessel, Mr. Dudley wrote as follows to the collector of customs at Liverpool:4

Mr. Dudley to Mr. Edwards.

United States Consulate,
Liverpool, July 30, 1862.

Sir: Referring to my previous communication to you on the subject of the gun-boat No. 290, fitted out by Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead, I beg to inform you that she left the Birkenhead dock on Monday night; and yesterday morning left the river accompanied by the steam-tug Hercules.

The Hercules returned last evening, and her master states that the gun-boat was cruising off Point Lynas; that she had six guns on board, concealed below, and was taking powder from another vessel.

The Hercules is now alongside the Woodside landing-stage, taking on board men, (forty or fifty,) beams, evidently for gun-carriages, and other things, to convey down to the gun-boat. A quantity of cutlasses were taken on board on Friday last.

[97] *These circumstances all go to confirm the representations heretofore made to you about this vessel, in the face of which I cannot but regret she has been permitted to leave this port; and I report them to you that you may take such steps as you may deem necessary to prevent this flagrant violation of neutrality.

Respectfully,

(Signed) THOMAS H. DUDLEY, Consul.

The surveyor of customs, by direction of the collector, immediately went on board of the Hercules, and reported as follows:3

[Page 327]

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Edwards.

Surveyor’s Office, July 30, 1862.

Sir: Referring to the steamer built by the Messrs. Laird, which is suspected to be a gun-boat intended for some foreign government, I beg to state that, since the date of my last report concerning her, she has been lying in the Birkenhead docks, fitting for sea, and receiving on board coals and provisions for her crew.

She left the dock on the evening of the 28th instant, anchored for the night in the Mersey, abreast the Canning dock, and proceeded out of the river on the following morning, ostensibly on a trial-trip, from which she has not returned.

I visited the tug Hercules this morning as she lay at the landing-stage at Woodside, and strictly examined her holds and other parts of the vessel. She had nothing of a suspicious character on board, no guns, no ammunition, or anything appertaining thereto. A considerable number of persons, male and female, were on deck, some of whom admitted to me that they were a portion of the crew, and were going to join the gun-boat.

I have only to add that your directions to keep a strict watch on the said vessel have been carried out; and I write in the fullest confidence that she left this port without any part of her armament on board. She has not as much as a single gun or musket.

It is said that she cruised off Port Lynas last night, which, as you are aware, is some fifty miles from this port.

Very respectfully,

(Signed) E. MORGAN, Surveyor.

Mr. Dudley’s letter and the surveyor’s report were transmitted to the board of customs. Immediately on the receipt of them the following telegraphic message was sent to the collector:1

July 31, 186211.35 a.m.

Examine master of Hercules, whether he can state that guns are concealed in vessel 290, and that powder has been taken on board.

This order was executed, and the collector replied as follows:2

Mr. Edwards to the commissioners of customs.

Custom-House, Liverpool, August 1. 1862.

Honorable Sirs: The master of the Hercules has attended here this morning, and I beg to inclose his examination taken on oath, whereby it will be seen that the statement in the letter of the American consul, forwarded with ray report of the 30th ultimo, is not borne out. The board will see that the vessel has left the port. Should opportunity, however, offer, she shall be seized in accordance with the directions of the board, as contained in the telegram of yesterday’s date.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS.

The examination of Thomas Miller, taken on oath by the collector.

I am the master of the steam-tug Hercules. I accompanied the new gun-boat built by Mr. Laird (No. 290, I believe she is distinguished by) to sea on Tuesday last. I kept in sight of her, in case the services of the steam-tug should be required, until she lay to, about a mile off the bell buoy, and about 14 miles from the Canning dock. The vessel left her anchorage about 10 a.m., and I left her between 4 and 5 p.m. I saw nothing on board the ship but coals. I returned from the vessel in the evening, and got into the river about 7 p.m.; there were some of Mr. Laird’s workmen and riggers on board; all of these, I believe, I brought back. The next day, Wednesday, I left the landing-stage in the river, and took with me from twenty-five to thirty men, who, I believe, were to be employed on board as part of the crew; they appeared to be all sailors or firemen. I found the vessel about 3 o’clock that afternoon in Beaumaris Bay. I put the men on board, and lay alongside till midnight. We were from three to four miles from the shore; it was a fine day. Besides the men, I put on board an anchor-stock, a piece of wood about 15 feet long, and two pieces of brass belonging to the machinery. I neither carried guns, powder, or ammunition of any kind to her, nor did I see anything of this description on board, *nor yet being put on board. There was no vessel of any description came near the vessel while I was by her. I have never seen the American consul to my knowledge. I never told him or any one else that they were taking powder on board the new vessel. I never was told what she was for, or what was her destination. The piece of wood which I have mentioned was not in any way fit for a gun-carriage. I thought it was intended to rest the ship’s boat upon; it was planed and cut out for some purpose, if not to rest the boat upon.

(Signed) THOMAS MILLER.

Sworn at the custom-house, Liverpool, August 1, 1862.

[Page 328]

The subjoined letters, received by the board of customs from their officers at Beaumaris, Holyhead, and Cork, show what was done by those officers in obedience to the orders of the board:1

Mr. Cunnah to the secretary to the customs, London.

Custom-House, Holyhead, August 1, 1862.

Sir: Your telegram respecting the iron steam-vessel 290 is duly to hand. The vessel is not, at present, within the limits of this creek. I have arranged that constant watch shall be kept, so that immediately upon her entering either of the harbors or the roadstead she will be seized; and I am now leaving (to go along the coast) to Point Lynas and Amlwch to make further inquiries.

I beg also to state that I have forwarded a copy of the message to the collector of customs, Beaumaris, and the principal coast officer at Amlwch.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) E. B. CUNNAH,
Principal Coast Officer.

Mr. Smith to Mr. Gardner.

Custom-House, Beaumaris, August 2, 1862.

Sir: On receipt of your telegram on the 1st instant, directing me to seize the steamship 290, reported to be off Point Lynas, I immediately proceeded to Amlwch and instituted inquiries, but could get but little satisfactory information. I heard that there had been a suspicious screw-bark in Moelfra Roads on Wednesday last; that the shore-boats would not be allowed alongside. I called on Mr. Pierce, chief officer of the coast-guard, and consulted with him; I requested that he should order his boat, with four hands armed, to be at Point Lynas by 5 o’clock the next morning to meet us.; I took a car at Amlwch, accompanied by Mr. Pierce and my principal coast officer, and proceeded to Point Lynas light-house, and made every inquiry of the keeper. I then proceeded to the telegraph station, and on inquiry there found that the suspected vessel had not been seen by either party since Wednesday evening, when she was riding in Moelfra Roads. We then got into the coast-guard boat and proceeded to Moelfra, and found that a large black screw-bark, or three-masted topsail-yard screw-steamer, with black funnel, and no name or port on her, had arrived at Moelfra Roads at 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday evening last, and came to anchor; that a fishing-boat was going alongside, and asked if they wanted any fish; the answer from the steamer was, “No; keep off.” On Wednesday they appeared to be washing the decks and cleaning her, and about 5 p.m. a tug-boat, supposed to belong to the Old Tug Company of Liverpool, went alongside with what was supposed to be an excursion party, the passengers going on board the screw-steamer; there was music on board. The tug-boat remained alongside until about 10 o’clock p.m. the same evening, when she left; the shore people could not say whether she took the party she brought back again, because it was too dark. At 3 o’clock a.m. the following morning, viz, Thursday, the screw-steamer got under weigh and proceeded to sea, and has not since been seen by any parties on the shore along the whole part of that coast.

They held no communication whatever with the shore during her stay in Moelfra Roads.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) W. H. SMITH, Collector.

Mr. Cassell to the secretary to the customs.

Gun-boat 290, the subject of telegram from the secretary of customs, 31st ultimo, and board’s order, 89/1862.

Custom-House, Cork, August 4, 1862.

Sir: Immediately on the receipt of your telegraphic message steps were taken for the detention of the above-mentioned vessel, should she put into this port; but up to the close of this letter, 4 p.m., she has not made her appearance.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) F. CASSELL, Collector.

The vessel in fact sailed from the port of Liverpool on Tuesday, the 29th July, between 10 and 11 a.m. She sailed ostensibly with the intention of making a trial-trip and returning to her moorings; and, [Page 329] in order to give an appearance of truth to this *pretense, a number of persons were taken on board, who, after accompanying her for a short distance, returned to Liverpool in a tug-boat. She had not been registered as a British ship, nor had she been cleared at the custom-house for an outward voyage. She took her departure before the report of the law-officers had been received at the foreign office, and therefore before any orders for her detention had been given. Whither she was bound, or in what direction she was likely to shape her course, was unknown to the officers of the government, as it was to Mr. Adams, Mr. Dudley, and their informants and advisers. From Mr. Dudley’s communications with his own government, it appears that on the 30th July he thought she would probably go to Nassau; afterward he gave some credence to a rumor that she was bound for a Spanish port, and subsequently believed that she would try to reach some port in the Confederate States. Her Majesty’s government was equally without means of knowledge. It will have been seen, however, that orders to detain her were sent by the government, not only to Liverpool, whither it was still possible that she might return, but to other ports, which (or the roadsteads adjacent to which) she might probably enter before proceeding to sea. She did in fact enter a roadstead on the coast of North Wales, which lies at a considerable distance from both Beaumaris and Holyhead, but had quitted it before the officers of customs authorized to detain her could arrive on the spot.

It will have been seen also that when she quitted Liverpool, and up to the time of her final departure from British waters, she was entirely unarmed, and had on board no guns, gun-carriages, or ammunition. As to the persons who composed her crew, and the terms on which they were hired, and as to any other persons who may have gone to sea on board of her, Her Majesty’s government had not, through its officers at Liverpool or otherwise, any means of information. It appears, however, from depositions which have been subsequently communicated to Her Majesty’s government by Mr. Adams, and Her Majesty’s government believes it to be true, that the crew, after the ship bad left Liverpool, signed articles for Nassau or some intermediate port; that persuasion was afterward used, while the ship was at sea, but still under the British flag, to induce them to enlist in the naval service of the Confederate States, and that such of them as were induced to do so signed fresh articles after the arrival of the vessel at the Azores. Mr. Adams had, in the month of June, 1862, requested Captain Craven, commanding the United States war-steamer Tuscarora, to bring his ship from Gibraltar to Southampton, in order to wait for and capture the vessel should she put to sea. The Tuscarora came to Southampton accordingly in the beginning of July, and, on the 17th July, Mr. Adams wrote to Mr. Seward, “I have supplied to Captain Craven all the information I can obtain respecting the objects and destination of this vessel, and have advised him to take such measures as may, in his opinion, be elective to intercept her on her voyage out. He will probably leave Southampton in a day or two.”

The Tuscarora, however, lay at Southampton until the evening of the 29th July, when her commander, after receiving two telegraphic messages from Mr. Adams informing him that the vessel had sailed, and urging him to put to sea immediately, took his departure for Queens-town. An account of the failure of the Tuscarora to intercept the vessel is given in the subjoined dispatch addressed by Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward:1

[Page 330]

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

Legation of the United States,
London, August 7, 1862.

Sir: In my dispatch of the 30th July I brought down the narrative of the proceedings in the case of the gun-boat No. 290 to the morning of the 29th. Later in the day I sent another telegram to Captain Craven, giving further intelligence from Liverpool, urging his departure from Southampton; also, that he should let me know his next movements, and cautioning him about the line of British jurisdiction. To this message the captain immediately replied, announcing his departure at 8 o’clock, and his intention to touch at Queenstown for further information. On the 30th of July I wrote to Captain Craven, by mail to Queenstown, giving fuller details, received at half-past 11 o’clock from Mr. Dudley, touching the movements of the gun-boat off Point Lynas on that day. Early on the morning of the 31st I sent a telegram to Captain Craven, at Queenstown, apprising him that No. 290 was said to be still off Point Lynas. At about 10 o’clock p.m. of that evening I received a telegram from Captain Craven, dated at Queenstown, announcing his reception of my dispatch, and his intention to await further instructions. This was answered by me early the next morning in the following words, by telegram:

“At latest, yesterday, she was off Point Lynas; you must catch her if you can, and if necessary, follow her across the Atlantic.”

On the same day I received by mail a note from Captain Craven, dated the 31st, announcing the receipt of my dispatches, and his decision to go to Point Lynas at noon on the 1st instant.

[100] *Captain Craven seems to have sailed up Saint George’s Channel. This last movement must have been made in forgetfulness of my caution about British jurisdiction, for, even had he found No. 290 in that region, I had in previous conversations with him explained the reasons why I should not consider it good policy to attempt her capture near the coast. In point of fact, this proceeding put an end to every chance of his success.

On the 5th instant I received a letter from him dated the 4th, at Queenstown, inclosing a report of his doings, addressed to the Secretary of the Navy, left open for my inspection, which I forward by this steamer, and at the same time apprising me of his intention to go round to Dublin, and await a letter from me prior to his return to his station at Gibraltar. To this I sent the following reply:

“Legation of the United States,
“London, August 6, 1862.

“I will forward your letter to the Secretary of the Navy. Having in my hands sufficient evidence to justify the step, I was willing to assume the responsibility of advising you to follow the boat No. 290, and take her wherever you could find her. But I cannot do the same with other vessels, of which I have knowledge only from general report. I therefore think it best that you should resume your duties under the general instructions you have from the Department, without further reference to me.”

It may have been of use to the Tuscarora to have obtained repairs at Southampton to put her in sea-worthy condition. But had I imagined that the captain did not intend to try the sea, I should not have taken the responsibility of calling him from his station. I can only say that I shall not attempt anything of the kind again.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Captain Craven’s failure to intercept the vessel appears to have been regarded by Mr. Adams as evincing remissness and dilatoriness on the part of the former, and a want of the promptitude and judgment which ought to have been used under the circumstances of the case. It is probable, indeed, that he would have succeeded in intercepting her if he had used the needful activity and dispatch.

For some weeks after the sailing of the vessel (which, up to the time of her departure, had continued to be known only as “The 290,” from the number which she bore in the builders’ yard) nothing more was heard of her. On the 1st September, 1882, a steamship named the Bahama, which, on the 13th September, had cleared from Liverpool for Nassau, returned to the port and was entered as in ballast from Angra, in the Azores. On the 3d September, 1863, the assistant collector of customs at Liverpool sent to the board of customs, with reference to this ship, the subjoined letter and in closures:1

[Page 331]

Mr. Stuart to the commissioners of customs.

Custom-House, Liverpool, September 3, 1862.

Honorable Sirs: With reference to the collector’s report of the 1st ultimo, I beg to transmit, for the information of the board, the annexed reports from the surveyor and assistant surveyor, detailing some information they have obtained respecting the gun-boat No. 290. I also inclose a specification of the cargo taken out by the Bahama, and which there appears no reason to doubt was transferred to the gun-boat.

Respectfully,

(Signed) W. G. STUART,
Assistant Collector.

[Inclosure 1.]

Mr. Hussey to Mr. Stuart.

Liverpool, Nelson Dock, September 2, 1872.

Sir: I beg to state that a steamship called the Bahama arrived here last evening from Angra, (the capital of the island of Terceira, one of the Azores,) having previously cleared from Liverpool for Nassau.

In consequence of a paragraph which appeared in the newspaper of this morning in reference to the above vessel, I deemed it expedient to send for the master, Tessier, and to inquire the nature of the cargo shipped on board in Liverpool. He states that he received sixteen cases, the contents of which he did not know, but presumed they were arms, &c., and, after proceeding to the above port, transferred the sixteen cases to a Spanish vessel, and returned to Liverpool with a quantity of coals.

The master also states that, when off the Western Islands, he spoke the confederate gun-boat Alabama, (No. 290, built in Mr. Laird’s yard at Birkenhead,) heavily armed, having a 100–pounder pivot-gun mounted at her stern, which he believes is intended to destroy some of the sea-port towns in the Northern States of America.

The above case having excited much interest in the port, I deemed it expedient to report the facts for your information.

Respectfully,

(Signed) J. HUSSEY,
Assistant Surveyor.

[101] [*Inclosure 2.]

Specification of shipment per Bahama, Auaust 11, 1862.

Cwts. qrs. lbs.
[B]
O P 1.—1 case containing 1 cast-iron gun weighing 49 1 14
2.—1 case containing 1 broadside carriage weighing 12 0 14
3.—1 case containing rammers, sponges, handspikes, &c weighing 2 1 14
[B]
OP2 1.—1 case containing 1 cast-iron gun weighing 49 1 14
2.—1 case containing 1 broadside carriage weighing 12 0 14
3.—1 case containing rammers, sponges, handspikes, &c weighing 2 0 10
[B]
OP 1 to 6.—6 cases containing 50 cast shot weighing 13 1 20
sol
[B]
B 1 to 6.—6 cases containing 50 cast shot weighing 17 2 6
sol
[B]
B 1.—1 case containing brass vent-covers weighing 0 0 5
Total weight 158 1 27
Total value, £220.

[Inclosure 3.]

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Stewart.

Surveyor’s Office, September 3, 1862.

Sir: I beg to report, for your information, that the British steamship Bahama, Tessier master, which vessel cleared out for Nassau, and sailed on the 13th ultimo with nineteen cases, contents as per specification annexed, has returned to this port, and entered inwards in ballast from Angra.

[Page 332]

The master of her is not disposed to enter very freely into conversation upon the subject, but from others on board there appears to be no doubt that the cases above referred to were transferred to the gun-boat No. 290.

Captain Semmes, formerly of the confederate steamer Sumter, took passage in the Bahama, together with some fifty other persons, and they are described as being the permanent crew of the 290, now known as the Alabama.

Respectfully,

(Signed) E. MORGAN,
Surveyor.

The Bahama had cleared for Nassau in the ordinary way, with a cargo of munitions of war, which it was probable were intended for the Confederate States. Her clearance and departure presented, so far as Her Majesty’s government is aware, no circumstances distinguishing her from ordinary blockade-runners. No information was ever given or representation made to Her Majesty’s government as to this ship, or her cargo, before she left British waters. But even had a suspicion existed that the cargo was exported with the intention that it should be used, either in the Confederate States or elsewhere out of Her Majesty’s dominions, in arming a vessel which had been unlawfully fitted in England for warlike employment, this would not have made it the duty of the officers of customs to detain her, or empowered them to do so. Such a transaction is not a breach of English law, nor is it one which Her Majesty’s government was under any international obligation to prevent.

On the 5th of September, 1862, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams a note inclosing a letter from Mr. Dudley, and also a deposition purporting to be made by one Redden, a seaman, who had sailed in the Alabama on her outward voyage, and had returned in the Bahama to Liverpool; The note and its in closures were as follows:1

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, September 4, 1882.

[102] My Lord: I have the honor to transmit the copy of a letter received from the consul of the United States at Liverpool, together with a deposition in addition to the others already submitted with my notes of the 22d and 24th of July, going to show the further prosecution of the illegal and hostile measures against the United States in connection with the outfit of the gun-boat No. 290 from the port of *Liverpool. It now appears that supplies are in process of transmission from here to a vessel fitted out from England, and now sailing on the high seas, with the piratical intent to burn and destroy the property of the people of the country with which Her Majesty is in alliance and friendship. I pray your lordship’s pardon if I call your attention to the fact that I have not yet received any reply in writing to the several notes and representations I have had the honor to submit to Her Majesty’s government touching this flagrant case.

Renewing, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[Inclosure 1.]

Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams.

United States Consulate,
Liverpool, September 3, 1862.

Sir: I have just obtained the affidavit of the boatswain’s mate who shipped in and went out in the No. 290, now called the Alabama. I inclose it to you, with bill for his services, signed by Captain Butcher. He returned on the Bahama. He states that the Alabama is to cruise on the line of packets from Liverpool to New York; that Semmes told them so. This may have been said for the purpose of misleading us. The bark that took out the guns and coal is to carry out another cargo of coal to her. It is to take it on either at Cardiff or Troon, near Greenock, in Scotland; the bark to meet [Page 333] the Alabama near the same island where the armament was put on board, or at least in that neighborhood. There will be no difficulty to get other testimony if it is required.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) THOS. H. DUDLEY.

P. S.—There were two American vessels in sight when they parted with the Alabama, which Captain Semmes said he would take. They no doubt were taken and destroyed, the first-fruits from this vessel.

T. H. D.

[Inclosure 2.]

Deposition of H. Redden.

Henry Redden says: I reside at 16 Hook street, Vauxhill road, and am a seaman.

In April last I shipped as boatswain’s mate of a vessel lying in Laird’s dock at Birkenhead, known as 290, and worked on board until she sailed.

We sailed from Liverpool about 28th July; Captain Butcher was master: Mr. Law, a southerner, was mate; Mr. Lawrence Young was purser. A Captain Bullock went out with us, but left with the pilot at Giant’s Gove, near Londonderry. There were five ladies and a number of gentlemen went with us as far as the Bell buoy. We went first to Moelfra Bay, near Point Lynas, when we anchored and remained about thirty hours. The Hercules tug brought down about forty men to us there; nothing else was then taken on board. Her crew then numbered ninety men, of whom thirty-six were sailors. She had no guns on board then, nor powder nor ammunition. We left Moelfra Bay on the Thursday night at 12 o’clock, and steered for the North Channel. We discharged Captain Bullock and the pilot on Saturday afternoon. We first steered down the South Channel as far as Bardsea, when we bout ship and steered north. From Derry we cruised about until we arrived at Angra, eleven days after leaving Holyhead. About four days after we arrived, an English bark, ____, Captain Quinn, arrived from London with six guns, two of them 98-pounder (one rifled and the other smooth-bore) pivot guns, and four 38-pounder breech-guns, smooth-bore broadside guns, 200 or 300 barrels of powder, several cases of shot, a quantity of slops, 200 tons of coal. She came alongside and made fast. We were anchored in Angra Bay about a mile and a half or two miles from shore. After being there about a week, and while we were taking the guns and ammunition on board, the authorities ordered us away. We went outside and returned at night. The bark was kept lashed alongside, and we took the remainder of the guns, &c., on board as we could. While we were discharging the bark, the steamer Bahama, Captain Tessier, arrived from Liverpool. Captain Bullock, Captain Semmes, and forty men came in her. She also brought two 38-pounder guns smooth-bore, and two safes full of money in gold. She had a safe on board before, taken on board at Birkenhead. The Bahama was flying the British flag. The Bahama towed the bark to another place in the island, and we followed. The next morning we were ordered away from there, and went out to sea until night, when we returned to Angra Bay. The Bahama, after towing the bark away the evening of her arrival, came back to the Alabama, or 290, in Angra Bay, made fast alongside of her, and discharged the guns on board of her and tile money.

[103] The men struck for wages, and would not then go on board. There were four engineers, a boatswain, and captain’s clerk named Smith, also came in the Bahama, and they were taken on board the same evening. All three vessels continued to fly the British flag the whole time. The guns were mounted as soon as they were taken on board. They were busy at work getting them and the Alabama or 290 ready for fighting while the Bahama and the bark were alongside. On the Sunday afternoon following (last Sunday week) Captain Semmes called all hands aft, and the confederate flag was hoisted, the band playing “Dixie’s Land.” Captain Semmes addressed the men, and said he was deranged in his mind to see his country going to ruin, and had to steal out of Liverpool like a thief. That instead of them watching him he was now going after them. He wanted all of us to join him; that he was going to sink, burn, and destroy all his enemies’ property, and that any that went with him was entitled to two-twentieths prize-money; it did not matter whether the prize was sunk, or burned, or sold, the prize-money was to be paid. That there were only four or five northern ships that he was afraid of. *He said he did not want any to go that were not willing to fight, and there was a steamer alongside to take them back if they were not willing.

The vessel was all this time steaming to sea, with the Bahama at a short distance. Forty-eight men, most of them firemen, refused to go, and an hour afterward were put on board the Bahama. I refused to go, and came back with the rest in the Bahama. Captain Butcher, Captain Bullock, and all the English engineers came with us, and landed here on Monday morning. When we left the Alabama she was all ready for fighting, and steering to sea. I heard Captain Semmes say he was going to cruise in the track of the ships going from New York to Liverpool; and Liverpool to [Page 334] New York. The Alabama never steamed while I was in her more than eleven knots, and cannot make any more. We signed articles while in Moelfra Bay for Nassan or an intermediate port. Captain Butcher got us to* sign. The provisions were put on board at Laird’s yard before sailing; they were for six months. When we left her she had about ninety men, and eight guns mounted, three on each side and two pivots.

(Signed) HENRY REDDEN.

Declared and subscribed at Liverpool aforesaid, the 3d day of September, 1862, before me.

(Signed) WILLIAM G. BATESON,
Notary Public, and a Commissioner to Administer Oaths in Chancery.

Account.

August 31.—Henrv Redden, at £6 per month:

£ s. d.
One month and five days, at 4s 7 0 0
Advance, £6; tobacco, 1s. 8d 6 1 8
Amount due 0 18 4
(Signed) MATTHEW JAMES BUTCHER,
Master of Steamship 290.

Earl Russell, on the 22d September, 1862, replied as follows:1

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, September 22, 1862.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant inclosing a copy of a letter from the United States consul at Liverpool, together with the deposition of Henry Redden, respecting the supply of cannon and munitions of war to the gun-boat No. 290. You also call attention to the fact that you have not yet received any reply to the representations you have addressed to Her Majesty’s government upon the subject.

I had the honor, in acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 23d of June, to state to you that the matter had been referred to the proper department of Her Majesty’s government for investigation. Your subsequent letters were also at once forwarded to that department, but, as you were informed in my letter of the 28th of July, it was requisite, before any active steps could be taken in the matter, to consult the law-officers of the Crown. This could not be done until sufficient evidence had been collected, and from the nature of the case some time was necessarily spent in procuring it. The report of the law-officers was not received until the 29th of July, and on the same day a telegraphic message was fowarded to Her Majesty’s government stating that the vessel had sailed that morning. Instructions were then dispatched to Ireland to detain the vessel should she put into Queenstown, and similar instructions have been sent to the governor of the Bahamas in case of her visiting Nassau. It appears, however, that the vessel did not go to Queenstown, as had been expected, and nothing has been since heard of her movements.

The officers of customs will now be directed to report upon the further evidence forwarded by you, and I shall not fail to inform you of the result of the inquiry.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) RUSSELL.

Mr. Adams’s note, with its inclosures, having been referred to the commissioners of customs, they, on the 25th September, 1862, reported as follows:2

The commissioners of customs to the lords commissioners of the treasury.

Custom-House, September 25, 1862.

[104] Your lordships having, by Mr. Arbuthnot’s letter of the 16th instant, transmitted to us, with reference to Mr. Hamilton’s letter of the 2d ultimo, the inclosed communication from the Foreign Office, with copies of a further letter, and its inclosures, from the United States minister at this court respecting the supply of cannon and munitions of war to the gun-boat No. 290, recently built at *Liverpool, and now in the service of the so-called Confederate States of America, and your lordships having desired that we would take such steps as might seem to be required in view of the facts therein represented, and report the result to your lordships—

[Page 335]

We have now to report:

That, assuming the statements set forth in the affidavit of Redden (who sailed from Liverpool in the vessel) which accompanied Mr. Adam’s letter to Earl Russell to be correct, the furnishing of arms, &c., to the gun-boat does not appear to have taken place in any part of the United Kingdom, or of Her Majesty’s dominions, but in or near to Angra Bay, in the Azores, part of the Portuguese dominions. No offense, therefore, cognizable by the laws of this country appears to have been committed by the parties engaged in the transactions alluded to in the affidavit.

With respect to the allegation of Redden that the arms, &c., were shipped on board the 290 in Angra Bay, partly from a bark (name not given) which arrived there from London, commanded by Captain Quinn, and partly from the steamer Bahama, from Liverpool, we beg to state that no vessel having a master named Quinn can be traced as having sailed from this port for foreign parts during the last six months. The Knight Errant, Captain Quine, a vessel of 1,342 tons burden, cleared for Calcutta on the 12th April last with a general cargo, such as usually exported to the East Indies, but, so far as can be ascertained from the entries, she had neither gunpowder nor cannon on board.

The Bahama steamer cleared from Liverpool on the 12th ultimo for Nassau. We find that Messrs Fawcett, Preston and Co., engineers and iron-founders, of Liverpool, shipped on board that vessel nineteen cases containing guns, gun-carriages, shot, rammers, &c., weighing in all 158 cw. 1 qr. 27 lbs. There was no other cargo on board, excepting 552 tons of coals for the use of the ship; and the above-mentioned goods having been regularly cleared for Nassau in compliance with the customs laws, our officers could have no power to interfere with their shipment.

With reference to the further statement in the letter of Mr. Dudley, the consul of the United States at Liverpool, that the bark that took out the guns and coal is to carry out another cargo of coal to the gun-boat 290, either from Cardiff or Troon, near Greenock, we have only to remark that there would be great difficulty in ascertaining the intention of any parties making such a shipment, and we do not apprehend that our Officers would have any power of interfering with it were the coals cleared outward for some foreign port in compliance with the law.

(Signed) F. GOULBURN.
W. R. GREY.

A copy of this report was sent to Mr. Adams by Earl Russell.

As to the vessel stated in Redden’s deposition to have been commanded by a Captain Quinn, she may perhaps have been the Agrippina, McQueen, master, which appears, by the register of clearances kept in the port of London, to have cleared from that port for Demerara in August, 1862.

Her Britannic Majesty’s government has reason to believe that Butcher, while the vessel afterward called the Alabama was in the waters of the Azores, falsely stated both to the Portuguese officials and to the British vice-consul that she was the steamship Barcelona, from London to Nassau, and that he desired only to coal the vessel in smooth water, having no occasion to communicate with the town. These false statements were made in order to escape interference on the part of the authorities of Terceira.

Depositions purporting to be made by other persons who had taken service in the Alabama, and had afterward left that ship during her cruise, were afterward furnished to Her Majesty’s government by Mr. Adams. Among these was a deposition purporting to be made by one John Latham, part of which was as follows:1

Deposition of John Latham.

[Extract.]

I, John Latham, of 36 Jasper street, Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, engineer, make oath and say as follows:

1.
About the 8th or 10th of August, 1862, I signed articles at the Sailors’ Home, Liverpool, to ship in the steamship Bahama, Captain Tessier, for a voyage to Nassau and back. The Bahama went out of the Bramley Moore dock the same night about 12 [Page 336] o’clock, and went into the river and lay to. Captain Semmes, Captain James D. Bullock, and some other officers came on board, and about half past 7 o’clock a.m. a tugboat came alongside with some seamen on board; the tug-boat accompanied us out about ten miles. The tug then left us, and a tall gentleman, with a reddish face and pock-marked, who came” from Cunard, Wilson & Co.’s office, left us and went into the tug; as he left us he said, “I hope you will make a good thing of it, and that you will stop where you are going to.” We then proceeded on our voyage, and stood out some days, when we found we were going to the Western Isles.
2.
[105] About the 17th or 18th of August we arrived at Terceira, and we there found the Alabama and the bark Agrippina. Captain Butcher, who was on board the Alabama, hailed us and told us to go round the island, and he would be after us, but it would take them three-quarters of an hour to get his steam up. We went on, and he followed us, and the Alabama went under the lee of the island, and a shot was fired across the Bahama’s bows from a battery on shore, so we stopped out until the morning. In the morning we went alongside the Alabama, and some small cases and a safe containing money was passed into the Alabama from our ship, and we then parted and anchored a little distance from her, and the bark Agrippina went and discharged the remainder of her cargo into the Alabama. During this time Captain Semmes and Captain Bullock were going backward and forward to the Alabama, but would not let any of the officers go. On Sunday, the 24th of August, Captain Sammes came on board the Bahama, and called us under the bridge, he himself and the officers standing on the bridge; he addressed us and said, “Now, my lads, there is the ship,” (pointing to the Alabama;) “she is as fine a vessel as ever floated”; there is a chance which seldom offers itself to a British seaman, that is, to make a little money. I am not going to put you alongside of a frigate at first; but after I have got you drilled a little, I will give you a nice little fight.” He said, “There are only six ships that I am afraid of in the United States Navy.” He said, “We are going to burn, sink, and destroy the commerce of the United States; your prize-money will be divided proportionately according to each man’s rank, something similar to the English navy.” Some of the men objected, being naval reserve men. Captain Semmes said, “Never mind that, I will make that all right; I will put you in English ports where you can get your book signed every three months.” He then said, “There is Mr. Kell on the deck, and all those who are desirous of going with me let them go aft and give Mr. Kell their names.” A great many went aft, but some refused. A boat came from the Alabama, and those who had agreed to go went on board. Captain Semmes and the officers went on board. Mr. Low, the fourth lieutenant, then appeared in uniform, and he came on board the Bahama, endeavoring to induce the men to come forward and join, and he succeeded in getting the best part of us. I was one who went at the last minute. When I got on board the Alabama, I found a great number of men that had gone on board of her from Liverpool. Captain Semmes then addressed us on board the Alabama, and Captain Butcher was there also, who had taken the vessel out. Captain Semmes said he hoped “we should all content ourselves and be comfortable, one among another; but any of you that thinks he cannot stand to his gun I don’t want.” Ha then called the purser, and such as agreed to serve signed articles on the companion-hatch, and on signing the men received either two months’ pay in advance, or one month’s wages and a half-pay note. I took a month’s wages and a half-pay note for £3 10s. a month in favor of my wife, Martha Latham, 19 Wellington street, Swansea; the note was drawn on Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, but it was paid at Mr. Kiingender’s, in Liverpool; the note was signed by Captain Semmes, Yonge, who was the paymaster, and Smith, the captain’s clerk. I sent £5 and this half-pay note ashore by Captain Bui-lock, and he forwarded it with a letter to my wife.
3.
Captain Bullock, on the passage out, and after we arrived at Terceira, used arguments to induce us to join the Alabama. On several occasions he advised us, and urged the men to join.
4.
As soon as the men who had consented to go had all signed articles, the English ensign which the Alabama had been flying was pulled down, and the confederate flag hoisted, and a gun was fired. The men who declined joining left the ship with Captains Bullock and Butcher for the Bahama, and we proceeded under the command of Captain Semmes.

Her Majesty’s government neither affirms nor denies the truth of the statements of these persons, some of which statements, however, it has reason to believe to be incorrect. But Her Majesty’s government believes it to be true that the vessel known at first as the 290, and afterwards as the Alabama, having left Her Majesty’s dominions unarmed, was armed for war after arriving at the Azores, either wholly in Portuguese waters, or partly in Portuguese waters and partly on the high seas; that her crew were, after her arrival in the Azores, hired and [Page 337] signed articles for service in the confederate navy, either in Portuguese waters or on the high seas; that Captain Semmes took command of her after she arrived at the Azores; and that, after she had been armed as aforesaid, she was commissioned (being then out of the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty) as a ship of war of the Confederate States. Her captain and officers were, as Her Majesty’s government believes, all American citizens, and were at the time commissioned officers in the confederate service, except the assistant surgeon, who was a British subject. John Low, one of the lieutenants, who has been stated to have been an Englishman, was, as Her Majesty’s government believes, a citizen of the State of Georgia. Of the common seamen and petty officers Her Majesty’s government believes that a considerable number were British subjects, who were induced by Captain Semmes (himself an American citizen) to take service under him; but the ship’s company was afterward largely increased by the addition of many American seamen, drawn from the crews of United States vessels captured by the Alabama during her cruise. In this way her crew, which is stated to have numbered about 84 men when the ship left the Azores, had increased to nearly 150 when she arrived at Martinique.

[106] In the above-mentioned deposition of John Latham, which was received by Her Majesty’s government from Mr. Adams on the 13th January, 1864, it was stated that a considerable number of the seamen who had been induced to take service in the ship belonged to the royal naval reserve; and a list or schedule was given, purporting to be a list of the crew, and to specify the names of nineteen such seamen. Inquiries were thereupon made at the admiralty with reference to the matter, and the subjoined letters, addressed by the secretary of that department to one of the under secretaries of state for foreign affairs, show both what steps had been previously taken by the lords *commissioners of the admiralty, and what was afterward done in consequence of such inquiries:1

The secretary to the admiralty to Mr. Hammond.

Admiralty, June 24, 1864.

Sir: With reference to your letter of the 21st instant, relative to the statement that many of the crew of the late confederate ship Alabama were naval-reserve men, I am commanded by my lords commissioners of the admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of Earl Russell, that the only men who were suspected of having joined confederate vessels, and who were ascertained to be improperly absent, were discharged from the naval-reserve force on the 25th January last.

My lords, however, concur with his lordship that it will be desirable to ascertain whether any of the men on hoard the Alabama did belong to the naval reserve, and they will take the necessary steps as requested.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) C. PAGET.

The secretary to the admiralty to Mr. Hammond.2

Admiralty, January 29, 1864.

Sir: In reply to your letter of the 22d instant, respecting the naval-reserve men who are said to form part of the crew of the confederate steamship Alabama, I am commanded by my lords commissioners of the admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of Earl Russell, that only three of the nineteen men described in the printed list as naval reserve men can be identified, viz: David Roach, Peter Hughes, and Michael Mars; and, of those three, the last (Mars) has been already discharged, in consequence of having joined the Alabama, as will be seen by the inclosed copy of a report from the registrar-general of seamen, who has been directed to make inquiries on the subject.

I return the printed list of the crew, which accompanied your letter, with the registrar-general’s notations against the names.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) C. PAGET.
[Page 338]

Mr. Mayo to the commodore comptroller-general of the coast-guard!

General Register and Record Office of Seamen,
January 27, 1864.

Sir: In accordance with the request contained in your letter of the 25th instant, I beg to acquaint you, for the information of the lords commissioners of the admiralty, that the register-hooks of the royal naval reserve have been searched, with a view of ascertaining whether the nineteen men described in the annexed list as forming part of the crew of the Alabama belong to the royal naval reserve, and the following is the result of the investigation:

A seaman of the name of David Roach (R. N. R. No. 11919) is reported to have been at Liverpool on the 2d of October, 1862, and a seaman of the name of Peter Hughes (R. N. R. No. 10849) is reported to have been discharged from the Great Eastern, at Liverpool, on the 16th June, 1862. As no subsequent account has been received of either of these naval-reserve men, it is possible that they may be the same men as David Roach and Peter Hughes described in the accompanying list of the crew of the Alabama; but of this I have no proof.

A seaman of the name of Michael Mars formerly belonged to the royal naval reserve, but he was discharged from the force, in consequence of having joined the Alabama. With regard to the remaining sixteen men, who are said to be members of the royal naval reserve, I have to state that I have not been able to trace them in our books by the names given. No persons of the names of William Brinton, Brent Johnson, Samuel Henry, John Duggan, Joseph Connor, William Purdy, Malcolm Macfarlane,. John Emory, William Nevins, and William Hearn, have been enrolled in the reserve, and I am unable to indentify as members of the royal naval reserve the seamen serving on board the Alabama in the following names, for the reasons given: William Crawford, native and resident of Aberdeen, and not of Liverpool; James Smith, thirty-two enrolled of this-name; John Neil, sailed in Goldfinder, 11th April, 1862—no account since; Thomas Williams, seventeen enrolled of this name; Robert Williams, six enrolled of this name.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) F. MAYO, Registrar-General.

The secretary to the admiralty to Mr. Hammond.1

Admiralty, July 27, 1864.

Sir: I am commanded by my lords commissioners of the admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of Earl Russell, that the board of trade have succeeded in identifying three of the late confederate ship Alabama’s men as naval-reserve men, viz, Thomas McMillan, Peter Hughes, Charles Seymour, and; that their lordships have ordered them to be dismissed from the force.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) W. G. ROMAINE.

[107] *With respect to the greater number of the names entered in the aforesaid schedule, it was found that no persons bearing those names had in fact been enrolled in the naval reserve.

The subsequent history of the Alabama, so far as it is known to Her Britannic Majesty’s government, from the reports of its colonial officers and from other sources, is as follows:

On or about the 18th of November, 1862, the Alabama arrived at Martinique, and anchored in the harbor of Fort de France, where she received permission from the governor to remain for such time as she needed, and to land her prisoners. Her Britannic Majesty’s consul at Saint Pierre, in a report made at the time, stated that shortly before her arrival, suspecting that preparations were being made for her to coal there, he had communicated the grounds of his belief to the governor. The following is an extract from the report:

I next deem it proper to acquaint the governor with what I had just learned. He did not seem much surprised, and observed that, if the Alabama came into port, he would act exactly as he had done on a former occasion in the case of the Sumter, when the French government had altogether approved of the measures he had taken in regard to that vessel.

The Alabama remained at Fort de France till the evening of the 19th, [Page 339] when she put to sea, eluding the pursuit of the United States war-steamer San Jacinto, which was keeping watch for her within view of the shore, but outside of the territorial waters of the island.

On the 20th of January, 1863, the Alabama came into the harbor of Port Royal, Jamaica, and her commander applied for leave to land the prisoners he had made in his recent engagement with the United States war-steamer Hatteras. This application was granted by the lieutenant-governor, in the following letter to Commodore Dunlop, the senior naval officer at the port:1

Lieutenant-Governor Eyre to Commodore Dunlop.

King’s House, January 21, 1863.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st instant, and beg to acquaint you, in reply, that, having consulted with the attorney-general, I do not see any grounds for objecting to the landing of the prisoners taken by the Alabama.

Common humanity would dictate such a permission being granted, or otherwise fever or pestilence might arise from an overcrowded ship.

Probably the best course would be to reply to Captain Semmes’s application, that this government will not interfere with his landing any persons he may think proper.

Of course, once landed, no persons could be re-embarked against their will from British soil.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) E. EYRE.

The following letters, addressed by Commodore Dunlop to the vice-admiral in command on the West Indian station, contain an account of what occurred in relation to the Alabama while she remained at Port Royal:

Commodere Dunlop to Vice-Admiral Sir A. Milne:2

Aboukir, at Jamaica, January 23, 1863.

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that on the evening of the 20th a screw-steamer, apparently a man-of-war, was seen off this port about sunset, under French colors. After dark the vessel entered the harbor, and upon being boarded proved to be the screw gun-vessel Alabama, under the so-called Confederate States flag.

2. On the morning of the 21st her commander, Captain Semmes, called on me and asked for permission to land 17 officers and 101 men, the crew of the late United States gun-vessel Hatteras, which had engaged the Alabama twenty-five miles southeast of Galveston, Texas, during the night of the 11th of January, and was sunk. The action, according to Captain Semmes’s account, lasted from 13 to 15 minutes, when the Hatteras, being in a sinking state, ceased firing, and the crew were removed on board the Alabama, which there was just time to effect before the Hatteras went down.

3. In answer to Captain Semmes’s application to land his prisoners, I replied that I had no authority to give such permission, but would immediately inform his excellency the lieutenant-governor of his request, and let him know the answer I received as soon as possible.

4. [108] I have the honor to annex copies of my correspondence with his excellency and his reply, relative to landing the prisoners, also copy of his excellency’s letter to me, to notify to the captain of *the Alabama the instructions contained in the 3d paragraph of Earl Russell’s dispatch to the Duke of Newcastle, and my reply thereto, as well as a copy of my letter to Captain Semmes, inclosing a copy of the 3d and 4th paragraphs of the dispatch referred to above.

5. Captain Semmes then stated that he had six large shot-holes at the water-line, which it was absolutely necessary should be repaired before he could proceed to sea with safety, and asked permission to receive coal and necessary supplies. The necessity of the repairs was obvious, and I informed Captain Semmes that no time must be lost in completing them, taking in his supplies, and proceeding to sea in exact conformity with the spirit of Earl Russell’s dispatch. Captain Semmes gave me his word of honor that no unnecessary delay should take place, adding, “My interest is entirely in accordance with your wishes on this point, for if I remain here an hour more than [Page 340] can be avoided I shall run the risk of finding a squadron of my enemies outside, for no doubt they will be in pursuit of me immediately.”

Owing to the delay in receiving the lieutenant-governor’s answer to my letter relative to landing the prisoners from Spanish Town, it was not until the evening of the 21st that permission to do so reached Captain Semmes, and too late for them to be landed that night. The crowded state of the vessel previous to the landing of the prisoners on the morning of the 22d made it difficult to proceed with the necessary repairs, and no doubt caused some unavoidable delay. As soon as these repairs are completed the Alabama will proceed to sea.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) HUGH DONLOP.

Commodore Dunlop to Vice-Admiral Sir A. Milne.1

Aboukir, at Jamaica, February 7, 1863.

Sir: In order to anticipate any exaggeration or false reports that may be circulated in the American newspapers, or otherwise, relative to the visit of the confederate gun-vessel Alabama at this port, and so to save unnecessary correspondence, I have the honor to state herein for your information the whole of the *circumstances attending the visit of that vessel from her arrival to the time of her departure from Jamaica.

2.
As reported in my letter of the 23d January, the Alabama anchored in this port after dark on the evening of the 20th. She commenced repairing the damages received in action with the Federal gun-vessel Hatteras the next morning, at the same time receiving a supply of provisions and coal.
3.
The lieutenant-governor’s permission for the prisoners to land not having reached me until the evening of the 21st, they did not leave the Alabama until the morning of the 22d, when they proceeded to Kingston in shore-boats, which were provided by the United States consul.
4.
The commander of the late United States gun-vessel Hatteras did not call on me, or send me any communication whatever, during his stay in this island.
5.
At 9.30 on the morning of the 21st, the captain of the Jason waited on me to ask if I had any objections to officers of the ships in harbor going on board the Alabama; to which I answered that as it might be hurtful to the feeling of the officers and men, prisoners on board the Alabama, on no account was any one from any of Her Majesty’s ships to visit that vessel until after all the prisoners were landed.
6.
It having subsequently been reported to me that some officers had been on board the Alabama prior to the landing of the prisoners, I called on the captains and commanders of the different ships to report to me in writing whether any officer under their command had acted contrary to my order. I found from the reports that four officers of the Challenger, four officers of the Cygnet, and one of the Greyhound had gone on board the confederate gun-vessel before my order was made known.
7.
I regret that the captains and commanders of these ships should have given permission to their officers previous to communicating with me on the subject, though it was done entirely from thoughtlessness, forgetting that there could be any objection to it. The commander of the Cygnet was in hospital, and therefore is not responsible for the officers of that ship going on board the Alabama.
8.
I annex a copy of a report from Commander Hickley relative to the tune of “Dixie’s Land” having been played on board the Greyhound shortly after the Alabama anchored, and copy of a correspondence between him and Lieutenant-Commander Blake, of the United States Navy, relative to the same. After the explanation that took place Lieutenant-Commander Blake expressed himself to Commander Hickley as perfectly satisfied that no British officer or gentleman would have been guilty of insulting gallant men suffering from a misfortune to which the chances of war render all liable. I severely reprimanded the lieutenant of the Greyhound who ordered the confederate air to be played, and he expressed his regret for having done so.
9.
The fractures made by six large shot or shell near the water-line of the Alabama required extensive repairs, which could not be completed by the unskillful workmen hired here before late in the afternoon of the 25th, and the Alabama sailed at 8.30 of the same evening.
10.
In conclusion I have only to state that the confederate vessel was treated strictly in accordance with the instructions contained in Earl Russell’s letter of the 31st January, 1862, and exactly as I shall act toward any United States man-of-war that may hereafter call here.
11.
Two United States ships of war, the Richmond and Powhatan, arrived here in 1861, coaled and provisioned, and remained in port, the Richmond four days, and the Powhatan three days; the San Jacinto was also here and remained four hours.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) HUGH DUNLOP.

[Page 341]

[109] *On the 11th day of May, 1863, the Alabama arrived at Bahia, having previously touched at the Brazilian island of Fernando de Noronha. About the same time the Florida and Georgia, confederate war steamers, were likewise in Brazilian ports, where they were permitted to purchase coal and provisions and to rent.

The United States minister at Bio de Janeiro hereupon wrote in very warm terms to the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs, arguing that all the three vessels were piratical, and should be treated as such 5 affirming further that the Alabama, while at Fernando de Noronha, had violated the neutrality of Brazil by making prize of United States vessels within the territorial waters of the empire; insisting that it was the duty of the Emperor’s government to capture her; and threatening that if this were not done the Brazilian government should be held resposible by the Government of the United States. In a dispatch dated the 21st May, 1863, he wrote as follows:1

The Georgia lands prisoners avowedly taken from a captured American ship, and asks permission of the governor of Bahia to coal and buy provisions, and the permission is cordially granted.

The Florida lands her prisoners, officers, crews, and passengers of American vessels captured and burned, and not only asks and receives permission to coal and purchase provisions, but further asks to be allowed whatever time is necessary to repair her engine and refit for her work of destruction; and in defiance of the solemn and most earnest protest of the consul of the United States, this privilege is accorded to her by the governor of Pernambuco, from a desire not to diminish his means of defense and security!

The Alabama goes into Bahia, and does not even ask permission to remain. She arrived on the 11th and was still there when the Guienne sailed on the 14th. The consul of the United States protested against her presence, and demanded that she should be seized and held subject to the orders of the Brazilian government for having destroyed American property in Brazilian waters, for which the Government of the United States will hold Brazil responsible, if, now that the opportunity presents, the authorities do not vindicate the sovereignty of Brazil and capture the pirate. The governor of Bahia sends to the United States consul the communication of the governor of Pernambuco to the captain of the pirate, complaining of his piracies, charging him with a violation of Brazilian sovereignty, and ordering him, in consequence of such disgraceful conduct, to leave the waters of Brazil within twenty-four hours. The governor of Bahia thus demonstrates that he knows the piratical character of this vessel, and is familiar with her violation of the sovereignty of Brazil by destroying American vessels within the waters of that empire. He knows, too, that the imperial government, by its acts, had proclaimed this pirate guilty of violations of its sovereignty, and ordered him to leave their port of Fernando Noronha; and yet he deliberately permits him to enter the port of Bahia, refuses to regard the protest of our consul, and, at the last accounts, had harbored him four days without pretending that his presence was not acceptable!

Thus, at this moment, the ports of Brazil are made harbors of refuge and places of resort and departure for three piratical vessels, avowedly designed to prey upon the commerce of the United States. The waters of Brazil are violated with impunity in this piratical work, and after the imperial government had admitted and declared its indignation at such violation of sovereignty, the guilty party is received with hospitality and friendship by the governor of Bahia, and instead of being captured and imprisoned, and his vessel detained, he is feted, and supplied with the necessary provisions and coal to enable him to continue his depredations upon American commerce. The wharves and streets of Bahia and Pernambuco have been for weeks past swarmed with American sailors and passengers from merchantmen trading with Brazil, which have been captured, and the persons on board robbed by the pirates of the Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, and they have been compelled, in the ports of a friendly nation, to witness their clothing and jewelry, and even family relics, sold on the wharves and in the streets of Bahia and Pernambuco, by their piratical captors, at a tenth of their value; while the piratical vessels and all on board were received and treated as friends, and supplied with the necessary materials to continue their nefarious practices. The scenes which history informs us were rife in the seventeenth century, in the islands of the West Indies, are now being enacted in this the nineteenth century, in the ports of Brazil, and that through no fault of the imperial government—which has already done its whole duty as rapidly as circumstances have permitted—but because the governors of Pernambuco and Bahia, in their sympathy with piracy and pirates, hive neglected their duty to Brazil, and brought discredit upon the civilization of the age.

[Page 342]

Your excellency is aware that the facts in connection with the presence of these piratical vessels in the ports of Brazil are even stronger than in this hasty communication they are presented; and, therefore, the undersigned will not for a moment doubt but the imperial government will promptly visit upon the offending governors the punishment they have so richly merited. But it appears to the undersigned that the government of Brazil has still another duty to perform, itself, to the Government of the United States, to humanity, and to the civilization of the age, and that is the capture of the Alabama whenever she enters a Brazilian harbor. That piratical vessel has violated the sovereignty of Brazil by destroying the vessels of a friendly nation within the waters of the empire. The government of Brazil, by its acts, has proclaimed this fact; and, most assuredly, if, when it has the power to do so, it does not capture and detain the offender, it makes itself a party to his acts, and compels the Government of the United States not only to look to Brazil for compensation for injuries done to its commerce within its waters, but also to hold Brazil responsible for permitting this pirate to proceed in his depredations upon American commerce.

[110] *The undersigned does not visit upon the imperial government the conduct of its governors toward the Florida and Georgia, well knowing that it will, as heretofore, do its duty in the premises. But the case of the Alabama is a very different one. She has violated the neutrality and outraged the sovereignty of Brazil, by capturing and burning American vessels in Brazilian waters; and if, when Brazil possess the ability, and the opportunity offers, she does not take possession of her, assuredly the government of Brazil assumes the responsibility of her acts, and the United States will be compelled to look for redress to Brazil, as she did to Portugal in the case of the General Armstrong.

The course taken by the United States minister was approved by his Government.

The minister of foreign affairs for the empire of Brazil replied as follows to the complaints of the minister of the United States:1

The Marquis d’Abrantes to Mr. Webb.

[Translation.]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rio de Janeiro, May 23, 1863.

I hasten to acknowledge the reception of the note which, under date of the 21st instant, Mr. James Watson Webb, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at this court, has done me the honor to address to me, with a view of calling my attention to a serious violation of neutrality which has been perpetrated, and is now being perpetrated, by two representatives of the imperial government in the ports of Pernambuco and Bahia.

Mr. Webb, in referring to the proceedings of the presidents of said provinces toward the steamers of the Confederate States which come into their ports, accuses said presidents, and complains of their having, afforded hospitality to those steamers, and of having permitted them to make repairs, to receive provisions, and to land merchandise of vessels which they had captured.

Mr. Webb bases his complaints on a series of acts which he enumerates, and which he characterizes as violative of the neutrality which the government of His Majesty the Emperor imposes on itself in the deplorable contest of the American Union.

The affair in question is undoubtedly grave and important, and the imperial government gives to the authorized language of Mr. Webb all the consideration which is due to it.

But for this very reason, and Mr. Webb will certainly acknowledge it, the imperial cabinet is under the unavoidable necessity of proceeding in such a delicate matter with the greatest discretion and prudence, in order to observe religiously the position which it has assumed since the manifestation of the first events which tended to the result of a division of the United States.

The position to which I allude Mr. Webb perfectly understands, as he also understands the principles on which it rests, since they were laid down in a circular which was issued by the imperial government to its delegates in the provinces, under date of the 1st of August, 1861.

Conforming to the rules generally admitted among civilized nations, the imperial government in that circular prescribes the practical mode of rendering effective the neutrality which it imposes on itself.

Without at present confirming or denying the acts as set forth by Mr. Webb, and without entering into an appreciation of the observations with which he accompanies the narration of them, what I can at once most positively declare to him is, that the [Page 343] government of His Majesty the Emperor is firmly resolved to maintain, and to cause to be respected, the neutrality, in the terms in which it has declared it assumed it, and what is important to declare/that it is not disposed to allow this neutrality to be violated in any way by those interested in the contest, and still less by the delegates of the government itself.

Of the sincerity of this declaration Mr. Webb has an indisputable proof in my note of the 7th instant relative to the steamer Alabama, of the Confederate States, as in it I voluntarily hastened to bring to the knowledge of Mr. Webb not only the official communications which the imperial government has received in regard to the acts committed at Pernambuco by that steamer, but also the resolutions adopted by the government to approve entirely of the proceedings on that occasion of the president referred to, and to resort to the necessary measures to repress the abuses of the captain of the Alabama, and cause the neutrality of the empire to be religiously observed.

Therefore Mr. Webb, certain as lie must be of the intentions of the imperial government, and of all the respect which this government pays to his word, will assuredly not be surprised that, before coming to a final decision on the important acts which form the subject of the note with which I am now occupied, the imperial government should hear what their delegates in the provinces have to relate, and should strive scrupulously to verify their exactness.

By the French packet which leaves this port on the 25th instant, the imperial government sends the most positive and conclusive orders to the presidents of Bahia and Pernambuco that, without loss of time, they will circumstantially report in regard to each of the acts alleged in the note of Mr. Webb, of which he gives to them full information.

And, as soon as the reports referred to shall arrive, Mr. Webb may rely that the imperial government will not hesitate to put forth its hand to the means necessary to Tender effective the neutrality which it imposes on itself, provided it has been violated, and to leave beyond all doubt the fairness of its proceeding.

Flattering myself that this brief answer will trauquilize Mr. Webb, I profit by the occasion, &c.,

(Signed) MARQUIS D’ABRANTES.

[111] *The government of Brazil in this note adhered to the position which it had assumed at the commencement of the war by its circular of 1st August, 1861. The circular contained the following passage:1

The Confederate States have no recognized existence; but, having constituted a distinct government de facto, the imperial government cannot consider their naval armaments as acts of piracy, nor refuse them, with the necessary restrictions, the character of belligerents which they have assumed.

It being alleged, however, and (as it appears) proved, that the Alabama had made prizes within the territorial waters of the island of Fernando de Noronha, and that the governor of that island had taken no steps to prevent this or protest against it, he was deprived of his office by the president of the province; and this act was approved by the Brazilian government. The Alabama remained in the port of Bahia for eight or nine days.

Some further correspondence passed between Mr. Webb and the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs, in the course of which the latter vindicated the conduct of the presidents of the provinces of Pernambuco and Bahia, and declared that, since Brazil had orignally recognized the Confederate States as belligerents, and had not withdrawn that recognition, and the Florida, Georgia, and Alabama bore the flag and commission of those States, these vessels had been rightly treated as belligerent vessels of war. He informed Mr. Webb, however, that since the Alabama appeared to have violated the neutrality of Brazil by using Rata Island as a base of hostile operations, she would not in future be admitted into any Brazilian port.2

On or about the 29th July, 1863, the Alabama arrived at Saldanha Bay, on the southwest coast of Africa, and in the vicinity of Cape Town.

The consul of the United States at Cape Town, on the 4th August, [Page 344] 1863, addressed the following letter to Sir Philip Wodehouse, governor of the Cape Colony:1

United States Consulate,
Cape Town, August 4, 1863.

Sir: From reliable information received by me, and which yon are also doubtless in possession of, a war-steamer called the Alabama is now in Saldanha Bay being painted, discharging prisoners of war, &c.

The vessel in question was built in England, to prey upon the commerce of the United States of America, and escaped therefrom while on her trial trip, forfeiting bonds of £20,000, which the British government exacted under the foreign-enlistment act.

Now, as your government has a treaty of amity and commerce with the United States, and has not recognized the persons in revolt against the United States as a government at all, the vessel alluded to should be at once seized and sent to England, from whence she clandestinely escaped. Assuming that the British government was sincere in exacting the bonds, you have doubtless been instructed to send her home to England, where she belongs. But if, from some oversight, you have not received such instructions, and you decline the responsibility of making the seizure, I would most respectfully protest against the vessel remaining in any port of the colony another day. She has been at Saldanha Bay four [six] days already, and a week previously on the coast, and has forfeited all right to remain an hour longer by this breach of neutrality. Painting a ship does not come under the head of “necessary repairs,” and is no proof that she is unseaworthy; and to allow her to visit other ports after she has set the Queen’s proclamation of neutrality at defiance, would not be regarded as in accordance with the spirit and purpose of that document.

Yours, &c.,

(Signed) WALTER GRAHAM,
United States Consul.

His Excellency Sir Philip E. Wodehouse.

The statement in this letter that bonds had been exacted and forfeited was entirely erroneous. No such bonds had been given or forfeited, nor could they have been required by British law. The consul’s letter was answered as follows:2

Colonial Office, August 5, 1863.

Sir: I am directed by the governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter or yesterday’s date, relative to the Alabama.

His excellency has no instructions, neither has he any authority to seize or detain that vessel; and he desires me to acquaint you that he has received a letter from the commander, dated the 1st instant, stating that repairs were in progress, and as soon as they were completed he intended to go to sea. He further announces his intention of respecting strictly the neutrality of the British government.

The course which Captain Semmes here proposes to take is, in the governors opinion, in conformity with the instructions he has himself received relative to ships of war and privateers belonging to the *United States and the States calling themselves the Confederate States of America visiting British ports. The reports received from Saldanha Bay induce the governor to believe that the vessel will leave that harbor as soon as her repairs are completed; but he will, immediately on receiving intelligence to the contrary, take the necessary steps for enforcing the observance of the rules laid down by Her Majesty’s government.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) L. ADAMSON,
For the Colonial Secretary.

The facts which occurred, and the questions which arose, while the Alabama remained within the limits of the Cape Colony, are stated in the following dispatch, addressed by the governor to Her Majesty secretary of state for the colonies:3

Governor Sir P. Wodehouse to the Duke of Newcastle:

[Extract.]

Government House,
Cape Town, August 19, 1863.

I beg to take this opportunity of making your grace acquainted with what has occurred here in connection with the visit of the Confederate States steamer Alabama.

[Page 345]

On Tuesday the 14th instant I received a letter from the commander of that vessel, dated the 1st August, at Saldanha Bay, announcing his having entered that bay with a view to effecting certain repairs, and stating that he would put to sea as soon as they were completed, and would strictly respect our neutrality.

When this intelligence was received the United States consul called on me to seize her, or at any rate to send her away instantly; but as the vessel which brought the news reported that the Alabama was coming immediately to Table Bay, I replied that I could not seize her, but would take care to enforce the observance of the neutral regulations.

On the next day, about noon, it was reported from the signal station that the Alabama was steering for Table Bay from the north, and that a Federal bark was coming in from the westward; and soon after, that the latter had been captured and put about. A little after 2 p.m. the United States consul called to state that he had seen the capture effected within British waters; when I told him he must make his statement in writing, and an investigation should be made. I also, by telegram, immediately requested the naval commander-in-chief to send a ship of war from Simon’s Bay. The Alabama, leaving her prize outside, anchored in the bay at 3.30 p.m., when Captain Semmes wrote to me that he wanted supplies and repairs, as well as permission to land thirty-three prisoners. After communicating with the United States consul, I authorized the latter, and called upon him to state the nature and extent of his wants, that I might be enabled to judge of the time he ought to remain in port. The same afternoon he promised to send, the next morning a list of the stores needed, and announced his intention of proceeding with all dispatch to Simon’s Bay to effect his repairs there. The next morning (6th August) the paymaster called on me with the merchant who was to furnish the supplies, and I granted him leave to stay till noon of the 7th.

On the night of the 5th Her Majesty’s ship Valorous had come round from Simon’s Bay. During the night of the 6th the weather became unfavorable; a vessel was wrecked in the bay, and a heavy sea prevented the Alabama from receiving her supplies by the time arranged. On the morning of the 8th, Captain Forsyth, of the Valorous, and the port-captain, by my desire, pressed on Captain Semmes the necessity for his leaving the port without any unnecessary delay; when he pleaded the continued heavy sea and the absence of his cooking apparatus, which had been sent on shore for repairs and had not been returned by the tradesman at the time appointed, and intimated his own anxiety to get away. Between 6 and 7 a.m. on Sunday the 9th he sailed, and on his way round to Simon’s Bay captured another vessel, but, on finding that she was in neutral waters, immediately released her.

In the mean time the United States consul had, on the 5th August, addressed to me a written statement, that the Federal bark Sea Bride had been taken about four miles from the nearest land,” and “already in British waters;” on which I promised immediate inquiry. The next day the consul repeated his protest, supporting it by an affidavit of the master of the prize, which he held to show that she had been taken about two miles and a half from the land; and the agent for the United States underwriters, on the same day, made a similar protest. On the 7th the consul represented that the prize had, on the previous day, been brought within one mile and a half of the lighthouse, which he considered as much a violation of the neutrality as if she had been there captured, and asked me to have the prize-crew taken out, and replaced by one from the Valorous, which I declined.

I had, during this period, been seeking for authentic information as to the real circumstances of the capture, more particularly with reference to the actual distance from the shore, and obtained, through the acting attorney-general, statements from the keeper of the Green Point light-house, (this was supported by the collector of customs,) from the signalman at the station on the Lion’s Rump, and from an experienced boatman who was passing between the shore and the vessels at the time. Captain Forsyth, of the Valorous, also made inquiries of the captain of the Alabama, and of the port-captain, and made known the result to me; and from all these statements I came to the conclusion that the vessels were not less than four miles distant from land; and on the 8th I communicated to the United States consul that the capture could not, in my opinion, be held to be illegal by reason of the place at which it was effected.

[113] *In his reply of the 10th, the consul endeavored to show how indefensible my decision must be, if, in these days of improved artillery, I rested it on the fact of the vessels having been only three miles from land. This passage is, I think, of considerable importance, as involving an indirect admission that they were not within three miles at the time of capture; and I hope your grace will concur in my view that it was not my duty to go beyond what I found to be the distance clearly established by past decisions under international law.

An important question has arisen in connection with the Alabama, on which it is very desirable that I should, as soon as practicable, be made acquainted with the views of Her Majesty’s government. Captain Semmes had mentioned, after his arrival in port, that he had left outside one of his prizes previously taken, the Tuscaloosa, which he had equipped and fitted as a tender, and had ordered to meet him in Simon’s [Page 346] Bay, as she also stood in need of supplies. When this became known to the naval commander-in-chief, he requested me to furnish him with a legal opinion; and whether this vessel could be held to be a ship of war before she had been formally condemned in a prize-court; or whether she must not be held to be still a prize, and as such prohibited from entering our ports. The acting attorney-general, founding his opinion on Earl Russell’s dispatch to your grace of the 31st January, 1882, and on Wheaton’s “International Law,” stated in substance that it was open to Captain Semmes to convert this vessel into a ship of war, and that she ought to be admitted into our ports on that footing.

On the 8th August the vessel entered Simon’s Bay, and the admiral wrote that she had two small rifled guns with a crew of ten men, and that her cargo of wool was still on board. He was still doubtful of the propriety of admitting her.

On the 10th August, after further consultation with, the acting attorney-general, I informed Sir Baldwin Walker that, if the guns had been put on board by the Alabama, or if she had a commission of war, or if she were commanded by an officer of the confederate navy, there must be held to be a sufficient setting forth as a vessel of war to justify her admission into port in that character.

The admiral replied in the affirmative on the first and last points, and she was admitted.

The Tuscaloosa sailed from Simon’s Bay on the morning of the 14th instant, but was becalmed in the vicinity until the following day, when she sailed about noon. The Alabama left before noon on the 15th instant. Neither of these vessels was allowed to remain in port longer than, was really necessary for the completion of their repairs.

On the 16th, at noon, the Georgia, another confederate war-steamer, arrived at Simon’s Bay in need of repairs, and is still there.

Before closing this dispatch, I wish particularly to request instructions on a point touched on in the letter from the United States consul of the 17th instant, viz, the steps which should be taken here in the event of the cargo of any vessel captured by one of the belligerents being taken out of the prize at sea, and brought into one of our ports in a British or other neutral vessel.

Both belligerents are strictly interdicted from bringing their prizes into British ports by Earl Russell’s letter to the lords of the admiralty of the 1st June, 1861, and I conceive that a colonial government would be justified in enforcing compliance with that order by any means at its command, and by the exercise of force if it should be required.

But that letter refers only to “prizes,” that is, I conceive, to the ships themselves, and makes no mention of the cargoes they may contain. Practically, the prohibition has been taken to extend to the cargoes; and I gathered, from a conversation with Captain Semmes on the subject of our neutrality regulations, that he considered himself debarred from disposing of them, and was thus driven to the destruction of all that he took. But I confess that I am unable to discover by what legal means I could prevent the introduction into our ports of captured property purchased at sea, and tendered for entry at the custom-house, in the usual form, from a neutral ship. I have consulted the acting attorney-general on the subject, and he is not prepared to state that the customs authorities would be justified in making a seizure under such circumstances; and therefore, as there is great probability of clandestine attempts being made to introduce cargoes of this description, I shall be glad to be favored with the earliest practicable intimation of the views of Her Majesty’s government on the subject.

The allegation that the capture of the Sea Bride had taken place within the territorial waters of the colony was ascertained by clear proof to be erroneous.

The questions stated in the dispatch of Sir P. Wodehouse were referred to the law-officers of the Crown, who reported on them as follows:1

Opinion.

Lincoln’s Inn, October 19, 1863.

My Lord: We are honored with your lordship’s commands, signified in Mr. Hammond’s letter of the 30th September ultimo, stating that he was directed by your lordship to transmit to us the accompanying letters and their inclosures from the admiralty and colonial office, dated respectively the 26th and 29th September ultimo, relative to the proceedings at the Cape of Good Hope of the confederate vessels of war Georgia, Alabama, and her reputed tender Tuscaloosa; and to request that we would take the various questions raised in these papers, and especially the opinion [Page 347] given by the acting attorney-general of that colony with regard to the latter vessel, into our consideration, and favor your lordship with such observations as we might have to make thereupon.

[114] We are also honored with your lordship’s commands signified in Mr. Hammond’s letter of the 2d October instant, stating that, with reference to his letter of the 30th ultimo, he was directed by *your lordship to transmit to us the accompanying letter, dated the 29th September ultimo, from Mr. Adams, relative to the proceedings of the Alabama off the Cape of Good Hope, and to request that we would take the same into our consideration, together with papers on this subject then before us, and favor your lordship with our opinion thereupon.

In obedience to your lordship’s commands we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report—

That, so far as relates to the capture of the Sea Bride made by the Alabama, it appears, as we understand the evidence, to have been effected beyond the distance of three miles from the shore; and, as we have already had the honor to report to your lordship, that distance must be accepted as the 1 tin it of territorial jurisdiction, according to the present rule of international law upon that subject. It appears, however, that this prize, very soon after her capture, was brought within the distance of two miles from the shore; and as this was contrary to Her Majesty’s orders, it might have afforded just grounds (if the apology of Captain Semmes for this improper act, which he ascribed to inadvertence, had not been accepted by Sir Philip Wodehouse) for the interference of the authorities of the Cape Colony upon the principles which we are about to explain.

Secondly, with respect to the Alabama herself, we are clearly of opinion that neither the governor nor any other authority at the Cape could exercise any jurisdiction over her; and that, whatever was her previous history, they were bound to treat her as a ship of war belonging to a belligerent power.

Upon the third point raised with regard to the vessel called the Tuscaloosa, we are not able to agree with the opinion expressed by the attorney-general of the Capo Colony, that she had ceased to have the character of a prize captured by the Alabama merely because she was, at the time of her being brought within British waters, armed with two small guns, in charge of an officer, and manned with a crew of ten men from the Alabama, and used as a tender to that vessel, under the authority of Captain Semmes.

It would appear that the Tuscaloosa is a bark of 500 tons, captured by the Alabama off the coast of Brazil on the 21st of June last, and brought into Simon’s Bay on or before the 7th of August, with her original cargo of wool (itself, as well as the vessel, prize) still on board, and with nothing to give her a warlike character (so far as appears from the papers before us) except the circumstances already noticed.

We therefore do not feel called upon, in the circumstances of this case, to enter into the question whether, in the case of a vessel duly commissioned as a ship of war, after being made prize by a belligerent government, without being first brought infra præsidia or condemned by a court of prize, the character of prize, within the meaning of Her Majesty’s orders, would or would not be merged in that of a national ship of war. It is enough to say that the citation from Mr. Wheaton’s book by the colonial attorney-general does not appear to us to have any direct bearing upon this question.

Connected with this subject is the question as to the cargoes of captured vessels, which is noticed at the end of Sir Philip Wodehouse’s dispatch of the 19th August last. We think that, according to the true interpretation of Her Majesty’s orders, they apply as much to prize cargoes of every kind which may be brought by any armed ships or privateers of either belligerent into British waters as to the captured vessels themselves; they do not, however, apply to any articles which may have formed part of any such cargoes, if brought within British jurisdiction, not by armed ships or privateers of either belligerent, but by other persons who may have acquired or may claim property in them by reason of any dealings with the captors.

We think it right to observe that the third reason alleged by the colonial attorney-general for his opinion assumes (though the fact had not been made the subject of any inquiry) that “no means existed for determining whether the ship had or had not been judicially condemned in a court of competent jurisdiction;” and the proposition that, “admitting her to have been captured by a ship of war of the Confederate States, she was entitled to refer Her Majesty’s government, in case of dispute, to the court of her States, in order to satisfy it as to her real character,” appears to us to be at variance with Her Majesty’s undoubted right to determine, within her own territory, whether her orders, made in vindication of her own neutrality, have been violated or not.

The question remains, what course ought to have been taken by the authorities at the Cape, first, in order to ascertain whether this vessel was, as alleged by the United States consul, an uncondemned prize, brought within British waters in violation of Her Majesty’s neutrality; and secondly, what ought to have been done if such had appeared to be really the fact? We think that the allegations of the United States consul ought to have been brought to the knowledge of Captain Semmes while the [Page 348] Tuscaloosa was still within British waters; and that he should have been requested to state whether he did or did not admit the facts to he as alleged. He should also have been called upon (unless the facts were admitted) to produce the Tuscaloosa’s papers. If the result of these inquiries had been to prove that the vessel was really an uncondemned prize, brought into British waters in violation of Her Majesty’s orders, made for the purpose of maintaining her neutrality, it would, we think, deserve very serious consideration whether the mode of proceeding in such circumstances, most consistent with Her Majesty’s dignity and most proper for the vindication of her territorial rights, would not have been to prohibit the exercise of any further control over the Tuscaloosa by the captors, and to retain that vessel under Her Majesty’s control and jurisdiction until properly reclaimed by her original owners.

(Signed) ROUNDELL PALMER.
R. P. COLLIER.
ROBERT PHILLIMORE.

Instructions in accordance with this opinion were accordingly sent to Sir P. Wodehouse.1

[115] *In connection with the above correspondence it may be convenient to state here the subsequent history of the Tuscaloosa.

The question which arose as to this ship was not whether there had been a violation of the law of nations or of Her Majesty’s neutrality, but whether the orders issued by Her Majesty’s government, that no prizes should be suffered to be brought into ports within Her Majesty’s dominions, had or had not been infringed. This again depended on the question whether the Tuscaloosa had or had not been divested of the character of a prize. The governor of the Cape Colony was advised that she had, and he accordingly permitted her to depart. Her Majesty’s government was advised that she had not. She returned to Simon’s Bay on the 26th December, 1863, and was then seized by the rear-admiral commanding on the station, with the concurrence of the governor.2 Directions were subsequently sent by Her Majesty’s government that she should be restored to her commander, Lieutenant Low, on the special ground that, having been once allowed to enter and leave the port, he was fairly entitled to assume that he might do so a second time.3 She was not, however, actually given up; Lieutenant Low having left the Cape at the time, and there being no one to receive her. At the conclusion of the war she was handed over to the consul of the United States as the representative of her original owners.4

A further question afterward arose respecting certain goods which had been imported by a French ship into the Mauritius, and had been claimed by the United States consul there, on the ground that they had formed part of the cargo captured by the Alabama in the Sea Bride. This question having been referred to the law-officers of the Crown, they reported on it as follows:5

The law-officers of the Crown to Earl Russell.

Lincoln’s Inn, May 11, 1864.

My Lord: We are honored with your lordship’s commands signified in Mr. Murray’s letter of the 5th instant, stating that he was directed by your lordship to transmit to us the papers as marked in the margin, respecting some goods which had been brought to the Mauritius in the French bark Sirène, and for the detention of which application was made by the United States consul to the governor of the colony, on the ground that they had formed part of the cargo of the confederate prize Sea Bride; and Mr. Murray stated that we should observe from the letter from the colonial office of the 5th instant, that Mr. Secretary Cardwell is of opinion that, as the question of the general instructions to be issued to the governors of Her Majesty’s colonies was brought under our consideration in Mr. Layard’s letter of the 16th ultimo, it is desirable that we should also have before us the papers now sent to us, relative to the disposal [Page 349] of the cargoes of prize vessels brought into a colonial port in British or other neutral vessels; and Mr. Murray was accordingly to request that we would take these papers into consideration, together with those lately before us, and embody in the proposed instructions to the colonial governors such directions as we may consider advisable on this particular head.

In obedience to your lordship’s commands we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report that, after considering these papers, it does not appear to us to be necessary to make any change in, or addition to, the draught instructions prepared by us, pursuant to the request conveyed in Mr. Layard’s letter of the 16th ultimo.

Questions such as that lately raised at the Mauritius by the United States consul with respect to the cargo of the Sea Bride, must be left, in our opinion, to the civil tribunals. The executive government has no authority to disregard or call in question the prima facie title, evidenced by possession, of a private non-belligerent person who brings property of this description into a neutral port, whether he be a foreigner or a British subject. And there is no foundation in law for the idea that a valid title cannot be made to property taken in war, by enemy from enemy, without a prior sentence of condemnation.

The absence of such a sentence may be material when the question is whether captured goods, brought by a belligerent ship of war, exempt from civil jurisdiction, into a neutral port from which prizes are excluded, ought to be regarded by the neutral government as still having the character of prize; but this is altogether different from a mere question of property in the goods themselves.

We have, &c.,

(Signed) ROUNDELL PALMER.
R. P. COLLIER.
ROBERT PHILLIMORE.

[116] It has been previously stated that the Alabama sailed from Simon’s Bay on the 15th August. On the 16th September she returned thither,1 and soon afterward sailed for the Indian Seas. The United States war-steamer Vanderbilt had, in the interval, visited both Cape Town and Simon’s Bay, coaled, and departed for the Mauritius. She had previously coaled at St. Helena, and at the Mauritius she obtained a renewed supply. The *Alabama touched and coaled at Singapore on or about the 21st of December, 1863; returned a second time to the Cape of Good Hope on the 20th of March, 1864;2 and thence proceeded to Europe, anchoring, on the 11th June, 1863, in the port of Cherbourg. The United States minister at Paris, Mr. Dayton, protested in writing against her being received into a French port.3 She was, however, admitted, and suffered to coal and to make such repairs as might be necessary, but did not obtain permission to enter the government docks.

On the 19th June, 1864, she engaged the United States war-steamer Kearsarge, off the coast of France, and was sunk, after an action lasting about an hour. Some of her officers and crew were picked up and saved by an English yacht which happened to be near at hand, and some by a French pilot-boat.

With reference to this incident some correspondence passed between Mr. Adams and the government of Her Britannic Majesty, Mr. Adams erroneously contending that it was the duty of the owner of the yacht to surrender the persons whom he had picked up to the captain of the Kearsarge. To the representations made on this subject Earl Russell replied:4

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, June 27, 1864.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 25th instant, complaining of the interference of a British vessel, the Deerhound, with a view to aid in effecting the escape of a number of persons belonging to the Alabama, who you [Page 350] state had already surrendered themselves prisoners of war, and calling my attention to the remarkable proportion of officers and American insurgents, as compared with the whole number of persons rescued from the waves. You state further that you can scarcely entertain a doubt that this selection was made by British subjects with a view to connive at the escape of these particular individuals from captivity.

I have the honor to state to you, in reply, that it appears to me that the owner of the Deerhound, of the royal yacht squadron, performed only a common duty of humanity in saving from the waves the captain and several of the crew of the Alabama. They would otherwise, in all probability, have been drowned, and thus would never have been in the situation of prisoners of war.

It does not appear to me to be any part of the duty of a neutral to assist in making prisoners of war for one of the belligerents.

I shall, however, transmit to the owner of the Deerhound a copy of your letter and its inclosures, together with a copy of this letter.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) RUSSELL.

The following correspondence also passed between the captain of the Kearsarge and M. Bonfils, who is stated to have been an agent, in France, of the government of the Confederate States:1

Captain Winslow, United States Navy, to H. Bonfils.

United States Steamship Kearsarge, le 21 juin, 1871.

Monsieur: Certains canots de pilots, auxquels j’avais permis, par humanité, de sauver plusieurs prisonniers lorsque 1’Alabama eût sombré les out amenés à Cherbourg. Ces officiers et hommes d’équipage n’en sont pas nioins soumis aux obligations que la loi de la guerre impose; ils sont mes prisonniers, et je demande qu’ils se rendent à, bord du Kearsarge pour s’y constituer prisonniers. Dans le cas qu’ils chercheraient a se duller de cette obligation à la favour des moyens qui out été employés, dans des cas semblables qui pourraient se présenter ils ne doivent plus attendre aucune clémence.

(Signé) JNO. A. WINSLOW.

M. Bonfils to Captain Winslow, United States Navy.

Monsieur: J’ai reçu votre lettre du 21 juin. L’objet de votre réclamation est un de ceux sur lesquels je n’exerce aucun contrôle, et je vous ferai rernarquer que votre demande aurait du etre addressée au gouvernement français, chez lequel ces malheureux, out trouvé refuge.

Je ne connais aucune loi de la guerre qui empêche un soldat de s’échapper d’un champ de bataille après un revers, lors même qu’il aurait été déjà fait prisounier, et je ne vois pas pourquoi un marin n’en pourrait pas faixe autant à la nage. Je dois refuser d’agir comme votre intermédiaire auprès de certaines personues que vous no nommez même pas, et que néanmoins vous reclamez comme étant vos prisonniers.

Je ne puis non plus comprendre comment les autorités des États-Unis peuvent prétendre retenir des prisonniers dans les limites de 1’empire français.

Je suis, &c.,

(Signé) BONFILS.

[117] * After the original departure of the Alabama from Liverpool, many communications were from time to time addressed by Mr. Adams to Her Majesty’s government, in which he dwelt on the circumstances that the vessel was built in England, and subsequently received her armament from England; that coal and supplies had also been procured for her from England; that many of her crew were British subjects, and that their wages were paid to their wives and families in England, through merchants resident at Liverpool. These circumstances were repeatedly referred to by Mr. Adams; and, in a letter inclosed by him to Earl Russell, dated the 11th January, 1864,2 and written by Mr. Dudley, they were enumerated as proving that the Alabama ought to be deemed a British ship, and her acts piratical. The law-officers of the Crown were requested to advise the government whether any proceedings could be taken with reference to the supposed breaches of neutrality alleged by Mr. Adams and Mr. Dudley, and they reported as follows:3

[Page 351]

Opinion of law-officers.

We are of opinion that no proceedings can at present be taken with reference to any of the matters alleged as breaches of neutrality in the accompanying printed papers.

If the persons alleged to be Englishmen or Irishmen who have been serving on board the Alabama are natural-born British subjects, they are undoubtedly offenders against the foreign-enlistment act. But, not being (so far as it appears) within British-jurisdiction, no proceedings can now be taken against them; and it is, under these circumstances, unnecessary to enter into the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency, in other respects, of the evidence against them contained in John Latham’s affidavit of the 8th January last. Whether any acts were done within the United Kingdom to induce all or any of these persons to enlist in the confederate service, or to go abroad for that purpose, which would be punishable under the foreign-enlistment act, is a question on which these papers throw little or no light; certainly they furnish no evidence of any such acts against any persons or person now within British jurisdiction, on which any proceedings could possibly be taken under that statute.

So far as relates to the supply of coals or other provisions or stores to the Alabama, and the payments made to relatives of seamen or others serving on board that ship by persons resident in the country, we are not aware of any law by which such acts are prohibited, and therefore no proceedings can be taken against any person on that account.

So far as relates to Mr. Dudley’s argument (not now for the first time advanced) that the Alabama is an English piratical craft, it might have been enough to say that Mr. Dudley, while he enumerates almost everything which is immaterial, omits everything that is material, to constitute that character. The character of an English pirate cannot possibly belong to a vessel armed and commissioned as a public ship of war by the Confederate States, and commanded by an officer belonging to the navy of those States, under their authority. Such the Alabama undoubtedly is, and has been, ever since she first hoisted the confederate flag, and received her armament at Terceira. Even by the schedule of John Latham’s affidavit, in which he describes the greater part of her petty-officers and seamen (on what evidence we know not) as Englishmen or Irishmen, it appears that twenty out of the twenty-five superior officers (as well as the captain) are not so described; and of these twenty officers one is stated to be the brother-in-law of the President of the Confederate States. It is to be regretted that, in any of the discussions on this subject, so manifest an abuse of language as the application of the term “English piratical craft” to the Alabama should still be permitted; to continue.

(Signed) ROUNDELL PALMER.
R. P. COLLIER.

summary.

[118] The Alabama was built at Birkenhead by a ship-building firm which had for a long time carried on a very extensive business. The building of ships of war required for the use of foreign governments, and ordered by such governments directly or through agents, had formed a part of the ordinary business of the firm. It has been alleged that one of the members of the firm was a member of the House of Commons. This allegation, if it were true, would be immaterial; but Her Majesty’s government has been informed and believes that it was not true, and that Mr. John Laird, who was member of Parliament for Birkenhead, and had formerly been a partner in the business, had ceased to be so before the building of the Alabama. The vessel appears to have been completed by the builders for delivery in the port of Liverpool, and to, have been delivered accordingly; and Her Majesty’s government sees no reason to doubt that the building and delivery of the vessel were, so far as the builders were concerned, transactions in the ordinary course *of their business, though they probably knew, and did not disclose, the employment for which she was intended by the person or persons to whose order she had been built.

The general construction of the vessel was such as to make it apparent that she was intended for war and not for commerce.

[Page 352]

The attention of Mr. Dudley had been called to this vessel in November, 1861, by his predecessor in office. The attention of Her Britannic Majesty’s government was for the first time directed to her by Mr. Adams, in a note received on the 24th of June, 1862.

Mr. Adams’s communication was referred immediately to the law-officers of the Crown. Inquiries were directed to be forthwith instituted at Liverpool, and such inquiries were instituted and prosecuted accordingly. Mr. Adams was at the same time requested to instruct the United States consul at Liverpool to submit such evidence as he might possess, tending to show that his suspicions as to the destination of the vessel were well founded, to the collector of customs at that port.

In order to enable Her Majesty’s government to justify and support a seizure of the vessel, it was necessary that the government should have reasonable evidence, not only that she had been or was being equipped, armed, or fitted out for war, but also that she was so equipped, armed, or fitted out with the intention that she should be used to cruise or commit hostilities against the United States.

Admissible and material evidence, tending to prove the existence of such an unlawful intention, was for the first time obtained by the customs officers at Liverpool on the 21st July, 1862, and came into the possession of Her Majesty’s government on the following day. This evidence, however, though admissible and material, was very scanty, consisting in reality of the testimony of one witness, who stated facts within his own knowledge, that of the other deponents being wholly or chiefly hearsay. Further testimony was obtained on the 23d July, and additional evidence on the 25th July.

It was the right and duty of Her Majesty’s government to inform its judgment as to the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence obtained as aforesaid, by consulting its official legal advisers. Nor can any reasonable time taken by the advisers of the government for deliberation, especially when additional materials were being daily received and sent to them, be a ground for imputing want of due diligence to Her Majesty’s government. One of Her Majesty’s ordinary legal advisers, the Queen’s advocate, now deceased, was at that time seriously ill of a malady from which he never recovered, and this was mentioned at the time (on the 31st July, 1862) by Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, as a circumstance which had occasionnd some delay.1

All the evidence obtained as aforesaid was in fact referred by the government as soon as obtained, with the utmost expedition, to its legal advisers.

The advisers of the government, on the 29th July, reported their opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify a seizure of the vessel.

On the day on which this opinion was given, and before it could be reported to the government, the Alabama put to sea. She had not been registered, and the application for a clearance, which is usual in the case of ships leaving port, had not been made, and the intention to carry her to sea was concealed by means of an artifice.

The destination of the vessel, and the course which she would take after putting to sea, were entirely unknown, except to the persons immediately concerned in dispatching her. Orders for arresting her were, however, sent by the government to various places at which she might probably touch after leaving Liverpool, and to Nassau.

The Alabama sailed from England wholly unarmed, and with a crew hired to work the ship and not enlisted for the confederate service. She [Page 353] received her armament at a distance of more than a thousand miles from England, and was armed for war, not within the dominions of Her Majesty, but either in Portuguese waters or on the high seas.

The guns and ammunition which were put on board the Alabama off Terceira had been procured and exported from England in an ordinary merchant-steamer, which tended them as cargo and sailed with a regular clearance for Nassau.

The Alabama was commissioned by the government of the Confederate States, and commanded and officered by American citizens. Of the crew a considerable number were British subjects, who were induced by persuasion and promises of reward to take service in her while she was off Terceira. Others were American citizens, and the proportion which these bore to the rest increased during her cruise.

After having been armed and commissioned as a ship of war of the Confederate States, the Alabama was admitted in that character into ports of all the countries visited by her, among which were several of the colonies of Great Britain. In these she was received on the same footing as elsewhere, without favor or partiality.

[119] No serious endeavor to capture the Alabama appears to have been made on the part *of the Government of the United States. The Tuscarora, which had been summoned by Mr. Adams to an English port in order to intercept her on her departure, failed to do so, apparently through the remissness of the Tusearora’s commander. During the whole cruise, which lasted nearly two years, and until she sailed from the port of Cherbourg to engage the Kearsarge, she was only encountered twice by United States ships; once in the Gulf of Mexico, when she voluntarily provoked an action and sunk her opponent, and a second time when she eluded the pursuit of the San Jacinto, at Martinique.

Her Britannic Majesty’s government cannot admit that, in respect of the Alabama, it is justly chargeable with any failure of international duty, for which reparation is due from Great Britain to the United States.

  1. Appendix, vol. i, p. 177.
  2. Appendix, vol. i, pp. 180, 181.
  3. Appendix, vol. i, p. 180.
  4. Ibid., p. 181.
  5. Ibid., p. 182.
  6. Appendix, vol. i, p. 185.
  7. Appendix, vol. i, p. 185.
  8. Appendix, vol. i, p. 185.
  9. Appendix, vol. i, p. 185
  10. Ibid., p. 185.
  11. Appendix, vol. i, p. 187.
  12. Appendix, vol. i, p. 187.
  13. Appendix, vol. i, p. 188.
  14. Appendix, vol. i, p. 192.
  15. Appendix, vol. i, p. 192.
  16. Ibid, p. 188.
  17. Ibid, p. 188.
  18. Appendix; vol. i, p. 193.
  19. Appendix; vol. i, p. 193.
  20. Ibid., p. 194.
  21. Appendix, vol. i, p. 196.
  22. Appendix, vol. i, p. 197.
  23. Appendix, vol. i, p. 197.
  24. Appendix, vol. i, p. 197.
  25. Appendix, vol. i, p. 198.
  26. Appendix, vol. i, p. 198.
  27. Appendix, vol. i, p. 200.
  28. Appendix, vol. i, p. 200.
  29. Ibid., p. 203.
  30. Ibid., p. 205.
  31. Ibid., p. 203.
  32. Ibid., p. 204.
  33. Ibid., p. 205.
  34. Appendix, vol. i, p. 205.
  35. Ibid., p. 206.
  36. Appendix, vol. i, pp. 207, 208.
  37. Appendix, vol. i, p. 251.
  38. Appendix vol. i, p. 208.
  39. Appendix, vol. i, p. 209.
  40. Appendix, vol. i, p. 211.
  41. Ibid, p. 213.
  42. Appendix, vol. i, p. 226.
  43. Appendix, vol. i, p. 237.
  44. Ibid., p. 233.
  45. Appendix, vol. i, p. 237.
  46. Appendix, vol. i, p. 265.
  47. Ibid., p. 264.
  48. Appendix, vol. i, p. 268.
  49. Appendix, vol. i, p. 280.
  50. Appendix, vol. i, p. 283.
  51. Appendix, vol. i, p. 284.
  52. Ibid., pp. 288–300.
  53. Appendix, vol. i, p. 300.
  54. Ibid., p. 301.
  55. Ibid., p. 312.
  56. Appendix, vol. i, p. 322.
  57. Appendix, vol. i, p. 327.
  58. Ibid., pp. 330–342.
  59. Ibid., pp. 342–344.
  60. Ibid., p. 363.
  61. Ibid., p. 356.
  62. Appendix, vol. i, p. 325.
  63. Ibid., p. 372.
  64. Ibid., p. 376.
  65. Ibid., p. 380.
  66. Appendix, vol. i, p. 390.
  67. Ibid., p. 226.
  68. Ibid., p. 235.
  69. Appendix, vol. 1, p. 249.