Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part II, Volume I

[23] *Part III: Statement on International Rights and Duties; on the powers which were possessed by Her Britannic Majesty’s Government of preventing unlawful equipments, and the manner and circumstances in and under which these powers were exercised during the war.

[undated.]

Part III.—Introductory statement. With a view to enable the, tribunal to form a just appreciation of the circumstances under which certain vessels were procured from ports in Great Britain by the government of the Confederate States, it will be proper to state, in the first place, some general propositions, applicable to the subject, which are believed by Her Britannic Majesty’s government to be in accordance with international law and practice; secondly, to explain the means of prevention which were at the command of Her Majesty’s government; and, thirdly, to describe in some detail the manner in which those means of prevention were exercised during the war.

general propositions.

Her Britannic Majesty’s government believes the following propositions to be in accordance with the principles of international law and the practice of nations:

1. A neutral government is bound to exercise due diligence, to the intent that no place within its territory be made use of by either belligerent as a base or point of departure for a military or naval expedition, or for hostilities by land or sea.

2. A neutral government is not, by force of the above-mentioned obligation or otherwise, bound to prevent or restrain the sale within its territory, to a belligerent, of articles contraband of war, or the manufacture within its territory of such articles to the order of a belligerent, or the delivery thereof within its territory to a belligerent purchaser, or the exportation of such articles from its territory for sale to, or for the use of, a belligerent.

3. Nor is a neutral government bound, by force of the above-mentioned obligation or otherwise, to prohibit or prevent vessels of war in the service of a belligerent from entering or remaining in its ports or waters, or from purchasing provisions, coal, or other supplies, or undergoing repairs therein; provided that the same facilities be accorded to both belligerents indifferently; and provided also that such vessels be not permitted to augment their military force, or increase or renew their supplies of arms or munitions of war, or of men, within the neutral territory

4. The unlawful equipment, or augmentation of force, of a belligerent vessel within neutral waters being an offense against the neutral power, it is the right of the neutral power to release prizes taken by means or by the aid of such equipment or augmentation of force, if found within its jurisdiction.

5. It has been the practice of maritime powers, when at war, to treat as contraband of war vessels specially adapted for warlike use and found at sea under a neutral flag in course of transportation to a place possessed or occupied by a belligerent. Such vessels have been held liable to capture and condemnation as contraband, on proof in each case that the destination of the ship was an enemy’s port, and provided there were reasonable grounds for believing that she was intended to be sold or delivered to or for the use of the enemy.

6. [24] Public ships of war in the service of a belligerent, entering the ports or waters of a neutral are, by the practice of nations, exempt from the jurisdiction of a neutral power. To withdraw or refuse to recognize this exemption without previous notice, or without such notice to exert, or attempt to exert, jurisdiction over any such vessel, would *be a violation of a common understanding, which all nations are bound by good faith to respect.

7. A vessel becomes a public ship of war by being armed and commissioned, that is to say, formally invested by order or under the authority of a government with the character of a ship employed in its naval service and forming part of its marine for purposes of war. There are no general rules which prescribe how, where, or in what form the commissioning must be effected, so as to impress on the vessel the character of a public ship of war. What is essential is that the appointment of a designated officer to the charge and command of a ship likewise designated be made by the government, or the proper department of it, or under authority delegated by the government or department, and that the charge and command of the ship be taken by the officer so appointed. Customarily a ship is held to be commissioned when a commissioned officer appointed to her has gone on board of her and hoisted the colors’ appropriated to the military marine. A neutral power may indeed refuse to admit into its own ports or waters as a public ship of war any belligerent vessel not commissioned in a specified form or manner, as it may impose on such admission any other conditions at its pleasure, provided the refusal be applied to both belligerents indifferently: but this should not be done without reasonable notice.

8. The act of commissioning, by which a ship is invested with the character of a public ship of war, is, for that purpose, valid and conclusive, notwithstanding that the ship may have been at the time registered in a foreign country as a ship of that country, or may have been liable to process at the suit of a private claimant, or to arrest or forfeiture under the law of a foreign state. The commissioning power, by commissioning her, incorporates her into its naval force; and by the same act which withdraws her from the operation of ordinary legal process assumes the responsibility for all existing claims which could otherwise have been enforced against her.

9. Due diligence on the part of a sovereign government signifies that measure of care which the government is under an international obligation to use for a given purpose. This measure, where it has not been defined by international usage or agreement, is to be deduced from the nature of the obligation itself, and from those considerations of justice, equity, and general expediency on which the law of nations is founded.

10. The measure of care which a government is bound to use in order to prevent within its jurisdiction certain classes of acts, from which harm might accrue to foreign states or their citizens, must always (unless specifically determined by usage or agreement) be dependent, more or less, on the surrounding circumstances, and cannot be defined with precision in the form of a general rule. It would commonly, however, be unreasonable and impracticable to require that it should exceed that which the governments of civilized states are accustomed to employ in matters concerning their own security or that of their own citizens. That even this measure of obligation has not been recognized in practice might be clearly shown by reference to the laws in force in the principal countries of Europe and America. It would be enough, Indeed to refer to the history of some of these countries during recent periods, for proof that great and enlightened states have not deemed: themselves bound to exert the same vigilance and employ the same means of repression, when enterprises prepared within their own territories endangered the safety of neighboring states, as they would probably have exerted and employed had their own security been similarly Imperiled.

11. In every country where the executive is subject to the laws, foreign states have a right to expect—

(a.) That the laws be such as in the exercise of ordinary foresight’ might reasonably be deemed adequate for the repression of all acts which the government is under an International obligation to repress;

(b.) That, so far as may be necessary for this purpose, the laws be enforced and the legal powers of the government exercised.

[25] But foreign states have not a right to require, where such laws exist, that the executive should overstep them In a particular case, in order to prevent harm, to foreign states or their citizens; nor that, in order to prevent harm to foreign states or their citizens, the executive should act against the persons or property of Individuals, unless upon evidence which would justify it in so acting if the interests to be protected were its own or those of Its own citizens. Nor are the laws or the mode of judicial or administrative procedure which exist in one country to be applied as constituting a rule or standard of comparison for any other country. Thus, the rules which exist in Great. Britain as to the admission and probative force of various kinds of testimony, the evidence necessary to be produced in certain cases, the questions proper to be tried by a jury, the functions of the executive in regard to the prevention and prosecution of offenses, may differ, as the *organization of the magistrates and the distribution of authority among central and local officers also differ, from those which exist in France, Germany, or Italy. Each of these countries has a right, as well in matters which concern foreign states or their citizens, as in other matters, to administer and enforce Its own laws in its own forum, and according to its own rules and modes of procedure; and foreign states cannot justly complain of this, unless it can be clearly shown that these rules and modes of procedure conflict in any particular with natural justice, or, in other words, with principles commonly acknowledged by civilized nations to be of universal obligation.

In connection with the foregoing propositions are to be taken the three rules stated in Article VI of the treaty, and accepted by Her Britannic Majesty’s government In the manner expressed in that article.

neutrality laws—law of the united states.

The case of a vessel which is dispatched from a neutral port to or for the use of a belligerent, after having been prepared within the neutral territory for warlike use, Is one which may be regarded from different points of view, and may fall within the operation of different principles. The ship herself may be regarded merely as an implement or engine of war, sold or manufactured to order within neutral territory, and afterward transported therefrom, and the whole transaction as falling within the scope of the principles applicable to the sale, manufacture, shipment, and transportation of articles contraband of war; or, on the other hand, the preparation and dispatch of the ship may be viewed as being really and in effect the preparation and commencement of a hostile expedition. The circumstances of each case can alone determine from which of these two points of view it may most fitly be regarded, and to which class the transaction ought to be assigned. But the difficulty of drawing a clear, precise, and intelligible line between these two classes of transactions has always been considerable in theory, and still greater in practice; and it was enhanced to the utmost during the civil war by the ingenuity and audacity of American citizens, who were engaged in carrying on hostilities against the Government of the United States, and were desirous of availing themselves for this purpose of the ship-building and manufacturing resources of Great Britain. This will sufficiently appear from the narrative which follows; and it will be seen also how serious and incessant were the trouble and embarrassment which these enterprises occasioned to Her Majesty’s government. It is by the many difficulties encountered and by the experience acquired during the war that Her Majesty’s government was finally led to the conclusion that it was expedient not only to enlarge the scope of its municipal law in relation to this subject beyond what has hitherto been deemed necessary in any other country, but, further, to accept for itself, and propose to other powers, rules of international obligation somewhat more stringent and comprehensive than are to be found in earlier expositions of the law of nations.

[26] The acts of which the Government of the United States is understood to complain belong to a class which have not commonly been made an object of prohibitory legislation. In few countries, or in none, according to the information received by Her Britannic Majesty’s government, did the law directly prohibit such acts, or make any definite provision for preventing them, at the time when this war began, except in the United States and Great Britain. Laws are not made till the necessity for them has arisen. In the United States the necessity arose at a very early period in the history of that commonwealth, and has again repeatedly presented itself at various times. The first maritime war in which the United States held the position of a neutral power was that which commenced in 1793, when the French Republic declared war against Great Britain and against the United Provinces of the Netherlands. Within three months after the declaration of war several privateers had been procured, equipped, armed, and commissioned in ports of the United States to cruise under the French flag against the commerce of Great Britain, with which the United States were at peace. They were not only fitted out in American ports, but were owned, officered, and manned, in large proportion, by American citizens. The measures adopted by the Executive of the United States to restrain these enterprises proved inadequate; they were renewed from time to time, and the persons who took part in them were not punished; and on the 5th June, 1794, an act of Congress entitled “An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States” was passed for amending the law in this respect. This act was a temporary one, to continue in force for two years, and thenceforth until the end of the then next session of Congress. Its provisions were re-enacted on the 2d March, 1797, and were made perpetual by an act of Congress passed on the 24th April, 1800. It was not completely effectual. From the published reports of cases decided in the American *courts it appears that depredations on British commerce were again and again committed by French privateers, subsequently fitted out and armed for war in ports of the United States.

In March, 1806, an expedition against Spain (with which the United States were at peace) was fitted out in New York by one Miranda, a native of Peru, who had served in the French republican army under Dumouriez. This expedition, which consisted of an armed vessel, carrying 18 guns, and two schooners, sailed for its destination. Orders were issued for arresting it, but they were too late. Persons who participated in it were afterward prosecuted, but were acquitted by the jury before whom they were tried.

In the year 1810 war broke out between Spain and her American colonies, and in 1816 Portugal engaged in the war on the side of Spain. The United States remained neutral. It appears from the correspondence which subsequently passed between the Government of the United States and the governments of Spain and Portugal, as well as from the published reports of cases decided in the courts of the United States, that a considerable number of privateers were, at various times during the war, but chiefly in the earlier part of it, fitted out, manned, and armed in ports of the United States for the purpose of cruising against the commerce of Spain and against that of Portugal, and that large numbers of Spanish and Portuguese ships were captured by these privateers. In the dispatches of the Portuguese minister at Washington hot fewer than twenty-six of such privateers are mentioned as having been fitted out and armed at a single American port; and fifty ships belonging to Portuguese citizens are stated to have been captured between the years 1816 and 1819, inclusive. It was further stated that the privateers were, for the most part, not only fitted out, but owned and commanded, by citizens of the United States. The facts alleged do not appear to have been disputed by the Government of the United States. In answer to the first representation of the Portuguese minister, in which he indicated ten ships which had armed, or were believed to be then arming, at Baltimore, Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State, wrote as follows:

The United States Secretary of State to the Portuguese minister at Washington.

Washington, December 27, 1816.

Sir: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 20th instant, complaining of certain equipments of armed vessels from Baltimore, and of instructions given to the commander of one of those vessels to attack conditionally the vessels of your sovereign, the King of Portugal and Brazil. You are aware that these vessels are equipped without any authority from this Government, and on pretexts very different from those which you assign. You are also aware that the existing laws do not authorize the President to interfere in such cases, and it is your object to obtain such amendment of them as may be sufficient for the purpose.

I have communicated your letter to the President, and have now the honor to transmit to you a copy of a message which he has addressed to Congress on the subject, with a view to obtain such an extension by law of the executive power as will be necessary to preserve the strict neutrality of the United States in the existing war between Spain and the Spanish colonies, and effectually to guard against the danger in regard to the vessels of your sovereign which you have anticipated.

As soon as a law may be passed on this subject, I shall have the honor of communicating it to you, and I avail myself of this opportunity of assuring you of the great interest which the President takes in cultivating the most kindly relations with your sovereign, his subjects, and dominions.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

JAMES MONROE.

Chevalier J. Correa de Serra.

On the 26th December, 1816, President Madison communicated to Congress the following message:

Washington, December 26, 1816.

It is found that the existing laws have not the efficacy necessary to prevent violations of the obligations of the United States as a nation at peace toward belligerent parties, and other unlawful acts on the high seas by armed vessels equipped within the waters of the United States.

With a view to maintain more effectually the respect due to the laws, to the character, and the neutral and pacific relations of the United States, I recommend to the consideration of Congress the expediency of such further legislative provisions as may be requisite for detaining vessels actually equipped, or in course of equipment, with a warlike force within the jurisdiction of the United States, or, as the case may be, for obtaining from the owners or commanders of such vessels adequate securities against the abuse of their armaments, with the exceptions in such provisions of the cases of merchant vessels furnished with the defensive armaments used on distant and dangerous expeditions, and of a private commerce in military stores permitted by our laws, and which the law of nations does not require the United States to prohibit.

(Signed)

JAMES MADISON.

[27] Papers relating to the same subject were at the same time laid by the Committee on *Foreign Affairs before the House of Representatives. Among these was one by Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State, in which he reported as follows:

The provisions necessary to make the laws effectual against fitting out armed vessels in our ports, for the purpose of hostile cruising, seem to be—

1st. That they should be laid under bond not to violate the treaties of the United States, or the obligations of the United States under the law of nations, in all cases where there is reason to suspect such a purpose on foot, including the cases of vessels taking on board arms and munitions of war, applicable to the equipment and armament of such vessels subsequent to their departure.

2d. To invest the collectors, or other revenue officers where there are no collectors, with power to seize and detain vessels under circumstances indicating strong presumption of an intended breach of the law; the detention to take place until the order of the Executive on a full representation of the facts had thereupon can be obtained. The statute-book contains analogous powers to this above suggestion. (See particularly the eleventh section of the act of Congress of April 25, 1803.)

The existing laws do not go to this extent. They do not authorize the demand of security in any shape, or any interposition on the part of the magistracy as a preventive where there is reason to suspect an intention to commit the offense. They rest upon the general footing of punishing the offense where, if there be full evidence of the actual perpetration of the crime, the party is bonded over after the trial to the penalty denounced.

On the 3d March, 1817, a short act was passed, by the first section of which provision was made (by the introduction of the words “colony, district, or people,”) for the case of a belligerent community or body of persons not recognized as a sovereign state.

The second and third sections were as follows:

• Sec. 10. And be it farther enacted, That the owners or consignees of every armed ship or vessel sailing out of the ports of the United States, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof, shall enter into bond to the United States, with sufficient sureties, prior to clearing out the same, in double the amount of the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, that the said ship or vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace.
• Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the collectors of the customs be, and they are hereby, respectively authorized and required to detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart the United States, of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of war, when the number of men shipped on board, or other circumstances, shall render it probable that such vessel is intended to be employed by the owner or owners to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, until the decision of the President be had thereon, or until the owner or owners shall give such bond and security as is required of the owners of armed ships by the preceding section of this act.

It is to be remarked that these provisions were enacted on a representation by the Secretary of State that it had become necessary, in order to make the laws against fitting out armed vessels effectual, to invest the collectors or other revenue officers with a preventive power to seize and detain on a reasonable suspicion, or at any rate on a “strong presumption,” of an intended breach of the law. The only cases in which Congress was willing to confer this power were those defined in these sections, neither of which could by any latitude of construction be so extended as to include a vessel which at the time of its departure was neither armed nor laden with a cargo consisting principally of arms and munitions of war. Nor would the second section embrace any vessel not owned wholly or in part by citizens of the United States; and the security which the collectors were authorized to take was a security only against a hostile employment of the ship by the “owner or owners” thereof, and (in cases within the second section) by “such” owners; that is to say, by owners being American citizens.

On the 20th April, 1818, a further act of Congress was passed, entitled “An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to repeal the acts therein mentioned.” By this act the acts of 1794, 1797, and 1817, were repealed, and their provisions were revised and consolidated, but without being made more stringent in any material respect. It has never since been repealed, altered, or amended, and continues at the present day a part of the law of the United States.

[28] Notwithstanding the legislation of 1817 and 1818, the Spanish and Portuguese ministers continued from time to time to complain to the Government of the United States of depredations on Spanish and Portuguese commerce by vessels fitted out and armed in ports of the United States. By the Spanish minister, writing on the 2d November, 1817, it was affirmed that “the act of Congress of the 3d March, 1817, has in nowise lessened the abuses by winch the laws are evaded, and which render entirely illusory the laudable *purposes for which they were enacted.” “From the greater part,” he continued, “of the ports of these States there frequently sail a considerable number of vessels, with the premeditated intention of attacking the Spanish commerce, which carry their armament concealed in the hold. It rarely happens that they can be arrested, inasmuch as the collectors of customs say that they have not at their disposition the naval force necessary to effect it. On the other hand, armed vessels, under the flag of the insurgents, enter into the ports of the Union, and not only supply themselves with all necessaries, but also considerably increase the means they already have of destroying the trade of Spain, as has recently been the case at New York, whereby the (so-called) privateers of His Majesty’s revolted provinces, which are in reality nothing more than pirates, manned by the scum of 511 countries, enjoy greater privileges than the vessels of independent powers.”

These remonstrances were repeatedly renewed during the year 1818. On the 7th May, 1818, he wrote—

I would have considered myself dispensed from the necessity of again pressing this subject on your attention if it had appeared possible for me to restrain these armaments by the employment of judicial means; but, unfortunately, the act of Congress of the 20th of April last, for preserving neutrality with foreign nations, and others already in force, although highly judicious, are easily eluded; and although these practices are public and notorious throughout the whole Union, His Majesty’s consuls advise me that through a deficiency of evidence they cannot be restrained by a regular application of the law.

And on the 9th June, 1818, he represented that there were then at Baltimore four privateers, three of which were notoriously fitted out there, whilst the fourth was a schooner captured from Spanish owners. All these vessels, he affirmed, were commanded by citizens of the United States, and manned, with scarcely an exception, by American crews; but he added that, though these facts were well known, it was in vain to seek evidence to prove them, “as, a great portion of the commercial people of Baltimore being interested in the cases which produce my present reclamations, no one is willing to come forward and offer testimony against what is termed the general interest.”

It is needless here to refer particularly to more recent instances of vessels fitted out in ports of the United States for expeditions against countries with which the United States were at peace. These Instances are well known.

In referring to the facts mentioned above, it is by no means the Intention of Her Majesty’s government to cast any reproach upon the Government or people of the United States. Prohibitory laws directed against offenses of this kind are liable to be evaded or infringed without fault on the part of the Government; and they have accordingly been infringed in the United States by acts much more flagrant than any of those now charged against Great Britain. The enforcement of such laws is indeed beset by special difficulties. It is usually difficult to ascertain the existence of an unlawful intention. The class of acts which they prohibit are easy to conceal or disguise; the occasions which call them into operation occur but seldom; and when these occasions arise it becomes needful either to create a special machinery for the purpose, or to rely upon the officers intrusted with the execution of the ordinary laws of trade and navigation—laws which are framed on the principle of avoiding as much as possible all minute scrutiny and unnecessary interference.

Many eases of alleged violations of the acts hereinbefore mentioned have been brought before courts of the United States, and various parts of them have received from those courts a judicial interpretation. These interpretations have been, and still are, regarded as authoritative expositions of the law of the United States bearing on this subject.

It results from the foregoing statement—

1. That the law of the United States regarding this matter arose out of the prevalence within the United States of the acts which it was designed to prevent, and that it has been altered and amended in order to prevent more effectually the recurrence of those acts.

2. That it has existed in its present form for more than fifty years; that in the course of that time recourse has frequently been had to it; and that it has always been held, and is now held by the legislative authority in the United States, to be adequate for its purpose.

3. That, notwithstanding this law, vessels have from time to time been fitted out and armed within the United States, to cruise and commit hostilities against nations with which the United States were at peace, and that severe losses and injuries have been inflicted on those nations by the depredations of such vessels.

[29] Further, it has been constantly held and maintained by the United States (and particularly during the discussions with Spain and Portugal above referred to) that the powers possessed by the Government of the United States to prevent the fitting out of vessels within the territory of the Republic were such only as could be shown to be Actually vested in the Government by the laws and Constitution of the United States in force for the time being; and that, provided those powers had been bona fide exercised, the United States were not responsible for any losses, however severe, inflicted by any vessel or vessels, however numerous, fitted and armed within their territories.

It has been the practice of the executive authorities of the United States, in enforcing the law, to act upon information laid before them by consuls of foreign powers, or other persons interested officially or otherwise in preventing the acts prohibited by the law, and to require the persons furnishing such information to produce evidence in support of it; and the importance of such information, to enable the neutral power to intervene in proper cases, was expressly pointed out in the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, of the 5th September, 1793, annexed to the treaty of the 19th November, 1794, between the United States and Great Britain.

law of great britain.

The law of Great Britain on this subject was, at the time of the happening of the events out of which the questions submitted to the arbitrators arose, embodied in an act of Parliament passed in the year 1819, and entitled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of His Majesty’s subjects to serve in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in His Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes without His Majesty’s license.” This act is commonly referred to as the “foreign enlistment act.” At the time when it was proposed to Parliament, it was reported and believed that expeditions were being prepared in England for the assistance of the Spanish-American colonies, which were then at war with their mother country. The circumstances, therefore, which gave rise to the passing of the British law, were similar to those which gave rise to the passing of the corresponding laws in the United States, with the difference that in the United States armed vessels had actually been fitted out, and had actually committed hostilities and depredations against the commerce of a friendly power, whereas in Great Britain it was only apprehended that some vessels were about to be fitted out and dispatched with a like purpose.

The legislature of Great Britain, in framing the law of 1819, appears to have adopted as its model the law which had been passed by the Congress of the United States in the preceding year. The British act is, however, as regards the matters now in question, more stringent, rigorous, and comprehensive than that of the United States.

In regard to the fitting out of vessels for belligerent purposes, the section of the act of the United States which defines the offense is as follows:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the limits of the United States, fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, or shall issue or deliver a commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, for any ship or vessel, to the intent that she may be employed as aforesaid, every person so offending shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be lined not more than $10,000, and imprisoned not more than three years; and every such ship or vessel, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited; one-half to the use of the informer, and the other half to the use of the United States.

The section of the British act which defines the offense is as follows:

[30] VII. And be it further enacted, That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom, or in any part of His Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the leave and license of His Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavor to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any foreign state, colony, province, or part of any province or people, as a transport or store-ship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostilities against any prince, state, or potentate, or against the subjects or citizens of any prince, state, or potentate, or against the persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in any colony, province, or part of any province or country, or against the inhabitants of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or country, with whom His Majesty shall not then be at war; or shall, within the United Kingdom or any of His Majesty’s dominions, or in any settlement, colony, territory, island, or place belonging or subject to His Majesty, issue or deliver any commission for any ship or *vessel, to the intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed as aforesaid; every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, upon any information or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court in which such offender shall be convicted; and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may belong to or be on board of any such ship or vessel, shall be forfeited; and it shall be lawful for any officer of His Majesty’s customs or excise, or any officer of His Majesty’s navy, who is by law empowered to make seizures for any forfeiture incurred under any of the laws of customs or excise or the laws of trade and navigation, to seize such ships and vessels as aforesaid, and in such places and in such manner in which the officers of His Majesty’s customs or excise and the officers of His Majesty’s navy are empowered respectively to make seizures under the laws of customs and excise or under the laws of trade and navigation; and that every such ship and vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may belong to or be on board of such ship or vessel, may be prosecuted and condemned in the like manner and in such courts as ships or vessels may be prosecuted and condemned for any breach of the laws made for the protection of the revenues of customs and excise, or of the laws of trade and navigation.

The tenth and eleventh sections of the American act (which are commonly referred to as the “bonding clauses”) were not introduced into the British act; but, inasmuch as neither of these clauses could have been applied with effect to any of the vessels which sailed from British ports during the war, and the acts of which have given rise to the claims now in question, they may be dismissed from consideration in comparing the two acts for the purposes of this discussion.

During the forty-two years which elapsed between the passing of the act of 1819 and the year 1862, only one case founded on an alleged violation of that act appears to have been brought to trial before a court. This was a criminal prosecution on a charge of having fitted out in England in the year 1849, during the civil war in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, a ship intended for the naval service of persons in arms against the government of that kingdom.

It results from the foregoing statements that the law of Great Britain, as it existed at the time of the civil war in the United States, was such as in the exercise of due foresight might reasonably be deemed adequate for enabling the British government to perform its obligations as a neutral government. It was modeled upon the law of the United States, which had long existed and had frequently been brought under consideration in the courts of that country; it equaled that law, and even surpassed it in stringency; and offenses against it (if any there were) had been so rare as to have left hardly any trace in the judicial records of Great Britain.

The functionaries to whom the power of seizing vessels for contraventions of the foreign enlistment act was committed by law, were the officers of the customs stationed at the several ports of the United Kingdom. These officers are under the direction of the commissioners of customs resident in London, who are themselves under the general superintendence and control of the lords commissioners of the treasury or finance department of Her Majesty’s government.

The police or peace-officers charged with the prevention and detection of crimes and offenses in general within the United Kingdom, are under the control of the local authorities in the several counties and boroughs under the general supervision of the secretary of state for the home department.

The official advisers of the government on questions of law are the attorney-general, the solicitor-general, and the Queen’s advocate. To these functionaries (whom it is usual to designate collectively as the “law-officers of the Crown”) the government refers for advice on such questions of law as may arise in the administration of public affairs, and it guides itself by their advice in dealing with such questions.

To the foregoing statement respecting the law of Great Britain so far as it specifically relates to the matters now in question, it is proper to add that, according to the general principles of the constitutional law of the kingdom—

1. The Executive cannot deprive any person, even temporarily, of the possession or enjoyment of property, nor subject him to bodily restraint, unless by virtue and in exercise of a power created and conferred on the Executive by law.

2. No person can be visited with a forfeiture of property, nor subjected to any penalty, unless for breach of a law, nor unless such breach can be proved to the satisfaction of a competent legal tribunal, by testimony given on oath in open court, subject to the rules of procedure established here for the due administration of justice. Every witness is liable to be cross-examined by the accused party or his advocate.

3. No person can be compelled to answer a question put to him in a court of law if the question is such that, by answering it, he would incur the risk of a penalty or of a prosecution before a criminal tribunal.

Statements on hearsay are not admissible as evidence.

[31] *These general principles apply equally, whether the object sought to be attained be the prevention or punishment of an injury to the state, or to any citizen of the state, or to any other person or persons whomsoever.

It may be further observed that, during the whole period to which the questions submitted to the arbitrators relate, every case of alleged infringement of the British foreign enlistment act brought to trial within the United Kingdom was required to be proved to the satisfaction of a jury.

effect of the blockade.

After these observations on the nature, extent, and limitations of the powers of prevention which by the laws and constitution of Great Britain were vested in Her Majesty’s government, it will be convenient to state the circumstances in the midst of which the government was called upon to exercise those powers during the war.

It has been mentioned above that one of the first acts of the Government of the United States, after the outbreak of the war, was to set on foot a general blockade of the ports, harbors, and sea-coasts of the Confederate States. These States being hemmed in to the landward on every side, except on the remote southern frontier of Texas, by States which remained faithful to the Union, it was designed by this blockade to cut them off entirely from all traffic and intercourse with neutral countries, especially those from which the people of the South had been accustomed to draw their supplies of manufactured goods, and to which they had been wont to export vast quantities Of raw produce. It was not only a commercial blockade on a prodigious scale; it was much more; it was a blockade which, so far as it was successful, shut up and isolated a population of many millions, inhabiting a vast territory and accustomed to export and import largely, from all external commerce whatsoever. At the same time the blockade itself was for a long time very imperfectly maintained, the Navy of the United States being quite inadequate for the purpose, and needing to be supplemented by vessels of all kinds hastily procured, and the fleet thus composed being distributed along an immense coast-line. These facts are notorious.

It is evident that a blockade of this character offered extraordinary inducements, not only to the people of the Confederate States themselves, but to traders in Europe, to use every effort in order to elude it wherever an opening could be discovered. Accordingly, in the year 1862, an active traffic began to be carried on with some of the blockaded ports; and for the purposes of this traffic it was found profitable to procure or construct vessels of a peculiar class, specially adapted for speed and for protection against the lire of blockading squadrons, and differing in various ways, externally and internally, from ships employed in ordinary trade. Recourse was had, for this purpose, to the ports and building-yards of Great Britain, which are accustomed to supply shipping to purchasers of all countries, and are the principal seat of this kind of industry.

Her Majesty’s government, though aware that the blockade was for a considerable time not completely effective, and though frequently urged to disregard it, both by the Confederate States and by persons desirous of trading with them, refused to do so, and recognized it from first to last. British subjects who attempted to trade with the blockaded ports were warned by Her Majesty’s proclamation (issued at the commencement of the war) that they would incur the risk of the capture and confiscation of their property, and that against that risk their government would not protect them. On the other hand, the government neither did nor could—forcibly or by process of law—prohibit its subjects, or persons within its dominions, from engaging in such trade, or from selling or constructing or purchasing vessels adapted for that purpose. Such a course, indeed, would have been not only a departure from the ordinary practice and usage of neutral nations, but in conflict with those considerations of general expediency on which the rules of international law are founded. The right of blockade is a belligerent right, and the enforcement of it belongs to the belligerent, and not to neutral powers. That blockades, to be binding, must be made effective by the blockading power, is a settled and salutary rule; and this is indeed the sole protection of neutrals against an undue and extravagant extension of the right of blockade. It follows, of necessity, that to the exertions of the blockading power, and to those alone, the task of making them effective must be left.

representations of mr. adams.

[32] At all the principal seaports of Great Britain the United States; maintained consuls or consular officers. It was the duty of these officials, in their respective localities, to *keep a watchful eye on whatever might tend to endanger the security or interests of the United States; to use the utmost diligence in informing themselves of any actual or contemplated violations of law which might prove injurious to those interests; to communicate their information to Mr. Adams, the minister of the United States in London, and to act on such instructions as they might receive from him in matters within the range of their functions. And it was the duty of Mr. Adams, in all cases which, in his judgment, demanded action or inquiry on the part of the government of Great Britain, to lay before that government facts sufficient to call for and justify such action or inquiry. In the course of the years 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865, many representations were addressed by Mr. Adams to Her Majesty’s government respecting vessels which he believed to be either actually employed in carrying on trade with blockaded ports in articles contraband of war or other things, or to be preparing for such employment; and also with respect to other vessels, which he believed to be intended to be used as privateers or commissioned ships of the Confederate States in cruising and carrying on war against the United States. To complaints of traffic carried on with blockaded ports, or in articles contraband of war, it was answered, on the part of Her Majesty’s government, that these were enterprises which Her Majesty’s government could not undertake to prevent, and the repression of which belonged to the United States as a belligerent power. Allegations, on the other hand, that vessels were being prepared for cruising or carrying on war were immediately referred to the proper officers of the government at the several localities for careful investigation and inquiry. If, on such investigation, it appeared by sufficient prima facie evidence that any illegal act was being or had been committed, the vessels were forthwith seized, and proceedings instituted according to law; if not, the result was at once communicated to Mr. Adams, and directions were given to the local authorities to watch closely the vessels as to which his suspicions had been aroused.

the bermuda.

The first of these cases was that of the steamship Bermuda. On the 15th August, 1861, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the following note:¹

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, August 15, 1861.

My Lord: From information furnished from sources which appear to me entitled to credit, I feel it my duty to apprise Her Majesty’s government that a violation of the act prohibiting the fitting out of vessels for warlike purposes is on the point of being committed in one of the ports of Great Britain, whereby au armed steamer is believed to be about to be dispatched with the view of making war against the people of the United States.

It is stated to me that a new screw-steamer, called the Bermuda, ostensibly owned by the commercial house of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, well known to consist in part of Americans in sympathy with the insurgents in the United States, is now lying at West Hartlepool, ready for sea. She is stated to carry English colors, but to be commanded by a Frenchman. She is two-masted, brig-rigged, lower part of funnel black and upper part red, black hull, with a narrow red stripe round the molding, level with the deck, no poop, wheel-house painted white, six white boats, slung in iron davits. She has neither figure-head nor bowsprit. Her bottom is painted pink up to the water-line.

This steamer is armed with four guns, and she has been for some time taking in crates, cases, and barrels believed to contain arms and ammunition of all kinds ordinarily used in carrying on war.

This cargo is nominally entered as destined to Havana, in the island of Cuba, but her armament and cargo are of such a nature as to render it morally certain that the merchants who claim to be the owners can have no intention of dispatching her on any errand of mercy or of peace.

I am informed that this vessel will sail in a day or two. I therefore feel under the highest obligation to submit the information I have obtained as the ground for an application for a prompt and effective investigation of the truth of the allegations while there is time. Not doubting the earnest disposition of Her Majesty’s government faithfully to adhere to the principles of neutrality to which it has pledged itself, I ask, on the part of the United States, for no more than a simple enforcement of the law, in case it shall appear that evil-minded persons are seeking to set it at naught.

I pray, &c.,

(Signed)

CHAELES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[33] On the same 15th August Earl Russell informed Mr. Adams (as the fact was) that he had lost no time in communicating on the subject with the proper department of the government. Inquiries were immediately directed to be made on the spot, and it was found, as the result of such inquiries, that there was no reason to believe that the vessel *was intended for warlike use. Earl Russell, on the 22d August, 1861, wrote to Mr. Adams as follows:

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.¹

Foreign Office, August 22, 1861.

Sir: I acquainted you in my letter of the 15th instant that I had lost no time in communicating with the proper department of Her Majesty’s government respecting the steam-vessel fitting out at Hartlepool, which you believed was about to be dispatched with a view of making war against the people of the United States.

I have now the honor to state to you that the result of the inquiries into this case having been submitted to the proper law-officer of the Crown, Her Majesty’s government have been advised that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant any interference with the clearance or the sailing of the vessel.

The seventh section of the foreign-enlistment act, 59 Geo. III, cap. 69, applies to the equipment of a vessel for the purpose of being employed in the service of a foreign state as a transport or cruiser, but’ has no reference to the mere nature of the cargo on board, and there is at present no proved intention that the vessel itself is to be employed for a warlike purpose.

The persons engaged in the venture must take the consequences which, according to the law of nations, may happen to ensue during transit, owing to a portion of the cargo loaded by them being contraband of war.

I am, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

The Bermuda was doubtless intended for blockade-running, for which purpose alone she was employed. She sailed from Liverpool with cargo for Savannah, and succeeded in entering that port and returning thence to Liverpool. On her second voyage she was captured by a United States ship, and was condemned as prize.

The vessels to which Mr. Adams next called the attention of Her Majesty’s government were the Oreto, or Florida, and the Alabama, originally known as “No. 290.” The facts which are within the knowledge of Her Britannic Majesty’s government, relating to the preparation, departure, and subsequent history of these two vessels, are fully stated in Parts V and VI of this case.

the hector.

In November, 1862, Mr. Adams made inquiry of Earl Russell respecting a vessel then in course of construction at Glasgow, which subsequently became Her Majesty’s ship Hector. He was informed in answer (as the fact was) that the vessel was being built for Her Majesty’s government.¹

the georgiana.

The next case was that of the Georgiana.

On the 17th of January, 1863, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the subjoined note and inclosure:

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.²

Legation of the United States,
London, January 16, 1863.

My Lord: It has become my painful duty to call your lordship’s attention to one more of the cases in which the neutral territory of Great Britain is abused by evil-disposed persons for the worst of purposes in the present war. I have the honor to transmit a copy of a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at London, giving the particulars based upon credible information received by him, the authority for which it is not in his power at present to disclose. As the vessel is known to be on the eve of departure from the port of Liverpool, I fear I have not the time necessary to procure corroborative evidence from that place. Under these circumstances I feel myself impelled to make this representation without further delay. I have reason to believe that the vessel in question is intended to pursue a similar course with that formerly called No. 290, to wit, the destruction of the commerce of the United States. I therefore solicit the interposition of Her Majesty’s government, at least so far as to enable me to procure further evidence to establish the proof of the allegations here made, in season for the prevention of this nefarious enterprise.

Praying, &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[34] *[Inclosure.]

Mr. Morse to Mr. Adams.

Consulate of the United States,
London, January 16, 1863.

Sir: I have information, on evidence which secures my belief, that the iron screw-steamer Georgiana, Captain Davidson, now in Sandon graving dock, Liverpool, is intended for a confederate privateer, and is now fitting for the business of privateering. She was built in the yard of Mr. Laurie, at Glasgow. Mr. George Wigg, of New Orleans, contracted to have her built. She is now, I presume, but temporarily (for security until she gets off) registered in the name of Niel Mathieson, secretary of the Confederate Aid Association at Glasgow. She is so constructed that armor-plating could be put on to her at any time after leaving the port where she was constructed.

She is a well-built, fast vessel, rigged for fore-and-aft sails, and is over 400 tons, net measurement. She left Glasgow for Liverpool on the 3d of the present month, and is now at the last-named port, preparing for sea. She has port-holes cut for four rifled cannon, and bolts, &c., arranged for them, since she left Glasgow; and also a portion of her armor-plating put on, and small-arms enough for a crew of privateersmen. She will take some forty or fifty men, all told, from Liverpool, and make up a full crew after leaving. Among those now engaged is a gunner, once a sergeant in the royal artillery. She is advertised for Nassau, and will pretend to go out as a regular trader.

I regret that I am unable to sustain the above statement by the affidavits of my informants; but I am bound in honor not to use their names. My information concerning this steamer, for the last five or six weeks, confirms the accuracy of the statement, and I have full confidence in its truth.

The Georgiana will call at Queenstown for coal.

Your obedient servant,

(Signed)

F. H. MORSE, Consul.

Immediately on receiving the said note and inclosure, Earl Russell sent copies of them to the proper departments of the executive government, with a request that instant inquiry might be made; and on the same 17th January, 1863, he wrote to Mr. Adams as follows:³

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, January 17, 1863.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt this day of your letter of the 16th instant, inclosing a letter from the United States consul in London, giving the particulars based upon credible information received by him, the authority for which it is not in his power at present to disclose, respecting an iron screw-steamer, named the Georgiana, Captain Davidson, now lying in the Sandon graving-dock, at Liverpool, which he believes to be intended for a confederate privateer, and to be now fitting out for the business of privateering.

I have communicated copies of your letter and of its inclosure to the board of treasury, and to the secretary of state for the home department, without delay; and I have requested that orders might be sent by telegraph to the proper authorities at Liverpool enjoining them to take such steps in the matter as may legally be taken.

I think it right, however, to observe that Her Majesty’s government cannot be answerable for any difficulty which may be experienced in carrying out those orders, in consequence of the evidence on which the statement of the United States consul is made being withheld from them.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

A telegraphic dispatch, directing *an immediate investigation, was, on the same day, sent to Mr. Price Edwards, the collector of customs at Liverpool.

The vessel and her papers were examined accordingly, and on the following day (Sunday) the collector reported by telegraph the results of such examination as follows:¹

Georgiana, British, 407 tons register; brig rig; cargo, merchandise, provisions, and drugs; no guns on deck; no fitting for guns on board; one cwt. powder; iron bulwarks; no port-holes for guns; no fittings for guns on board; a fast vessel; forty, crew; not fitted as a privateer; better adapted for running the blockade; cleared out for Nassau; now in the Mersey, and is intended to leave to-day, say 4 p.m.

Sunday, January 18.

Detailed reports of the examination were subsequently made by the officers employed for the purpose, and were as follows:²

Report of the surveyor of customs, Liverpool, to the collector of customs, Liverpool,

Sunday, January 18, 1863.

Sir: Last night, about 10 o’clock, I received the telegram sent to you relative to the Georgiana, but being too late, I had no alternative but to wait till this morning early, when I went in search of the vessel, and found that she had hauled into the river on Saturday.

[35] *I gave directions to the acting assistant surveyor, Mr. Webb, to accompany me to her, but, as we were going, I met the master of her, (Davidson,) who informed me that all the ship’s papers were ashore.

I then accompanied the master, while Webb went to the vessel. On my inspecting the papers, I found, nothing to induce the suspicion that she was intended for privateering. She had a great many bills of lading, in which the goods (cargo) were consigned to parties at Nassau.

Among other things, there were a great many packages of drugs, which convinced me that they were intended to run through the blockade.

I also saw the ship’s articles, upon which the names of all the crew stood. The amounts set against their respective names, forty in number, were not higher rates of wages than usual; and his charter-party was in the usual style, and destined him to Nassau, Havana, or New Orleans.

On the return of the officer from the ship, he stated that she had no port-holes, no guns, and no fittings for guns on deck, and nothing to denote that she was intended for a privateer.

Under these circumstances, I am respectfully of opinion that she is in no way subject to detention.

Very respectfully, &c.,

(Signed)

C. MORGAN, Surveyor.

The Collector.

Declaration of the acting assistant surveyor of customs, Liverpool.¹

I have been in the service of the customs nearly twenty-seven years. I entered the service as a tide-waiter. Yesterday morning (Sunday) the surveyor, Mr. Morgan, called at my house (for it was my turn off duty) about 7.30, and asked me if I knew where the Georgiana was lying. I told him she had gone into the river on Saturday, and was then lying in the Mersey, opposite the watch-house. I then accompanied him toward the boarding station at the Prince’s Dock Pier-head. As we were going down we met the captain, Davidson. He said he was going to the ship. Mr. Morgan then desired me to go to the ship in the river, while he turned back with the captain to see his papers. I went on board the Georgiana at about 9.30 a.m. She was about half a mile off the great landing-stage. I went on board and had the hatches removed in order to examine the cargo. She was not above half full. She appeared to have a quantity of tea and bale goods on board; also, oil, tallow, and provisions, which I saw. There was no objection made to my going into any part of the vessel. I have seen the vessel several times before, both while she lay in the Sandon docks and in the graving-dock. She is an ordinary screw-steamer, i. e., not built stronger than the ordinary merchant-vessel. She is brig-rigged, and not fore and aft. She has no port-holes, and no places fitted for mounting guns. It is impossible that she could have port-holes without a total change in the bulwarks, there being no support to sustain the recoil of the guns. There were eighteen or nineteen iron plates en board, lying on the top of the cargo; they were of the same thickness as the hull of the vessel—that is, the ordinary thickness for merchant-vessels.

I am satisfied, from the construction, general fitting, and adaptations of the ship, that she is in no way fitted for a privateer. I specially noticed the vessel after she came to the port, and on her arrival made several inquiries about her, and so satisfied was I then, and still am, that she was not intended for warlike purposes, that I did not consider myself called upon to make any report concerning her.

(Signed)

J. WEBB.

Signed and declared before me, at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 19th day of January, 1863.

(Signed)

S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector.

A letter was also sent by the secretary of state for the home department to the mayor of Liverpool, requesting that inquiry should be made by the police respecting the vessel. Inquiry thus made confirmed the reports of the officers of customs, that she was not fitted or intended for war. She was a vessel constructed with a view to speed, for the purpose of running the blockade, slightly and hastily built. Two port-holes had been pierced in her on each side; these, it was stated, might be used to enable her to carry guns for her own protection, as many merchant-vessels do, but were intended (as the ship-builder’s foreman, who superintended the piercing of them believed) chiefly for the escape of water, of which, from her great speed, she would ship large quantities in a heavy sea.²

All the information thus obtained was transmitted at once to Mr. Adams.

The Georgiana sailed from Liverpool on the 21st January, 1863, with a general cargo for Nassau, and thence for Charleston, as a blockade-runner. In attempting to enter Charleston harbor she was chased and fired upon by the blockading vessels, and was run aground and wrecked.³

the phantom.

On the 27th March, 1863, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the subjoined note and inclosure.⁴

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States, London, March 26, 1863.

[35] My Lord: I have the honor to transmit, for your information, the copy of an extract of a letter received by me from Mr. Dudley, the consul at Liverpool, giving some particulars of hostile outfits making *at that place. It is proper to add in correction of a statement therein contained, that Mr. Dudley has to-day informed me that the Southerner has not yet reached Liverpool. There is little doubt, however, of its ultimate destination.

I pray, &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[Inclosure.]

Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams.

United States Consulate, Liverpool, March 24, 1863.

Sir: On Saturday last Mr. William C. Miller &, Son launched from their yard, in Liverpool, an iron screw-steamer, called the Phantom, built for Fraser, Trenholm & Co. This vessel is large and to have great speed. The contract is not less than seventeen nautical miles per hour. Her engines are being made by Fawcett, Preston & Co. She has three port-holes 911 each side. Captain Bullock, Captain Tessier, Mr. Prioleau, the leading members of the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Mr. Thomas, of the firm of Fawcett, Preston & Co., and others, were present at the launch, She is intended for the South, either as a privateer or blockade-runner; there is no doubt about this, I think. She will turn up a privateer. Her draught of water will be light, and with her powerful engines her speed will be very fast. When afloat she will be a most dangerous craft to our commerce, if armed with two or three guns.

I have on several occasions referred to the steamer built at Stockton for Fraser, Trenholm & Co., called the Southerner. This vessel came here yesterday either to coal or else to fit out as a privateer. There is no doubt about this vessel. I suppose it will be impossible for me to obtain legal evidence against these two vessels, and nothing short of this will satisfy this government.

I am, &c.,

(Signed)

THOMAS H. DUDLEY.

The receipt of this note was immediately acknowledged by Earl Russell, and Mr. Adams was informed that the proper departments of Her Majesty’s government would be requested to make immediate inquiries on the subject.

On the same 27th March, 1863, Earl Russell sent copies of the said note and inclosure to the proper departments, with a request that instant inquiry should be made, and on the following day he wrote to Mr. Adams as follows:¹

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, March 28, 1863.

Sir: With reference to my letter of yesterday’s date, I have the honor to inform you that I have received from the home office a copy of a letter which has been addressed to the mayor of Liverpool respecting the two vessels, Phantom and Southerner, stated by the United States consul at that port to be fitting out for the service of the so-styled Confederate States.

In that letter the mayor of Liverpool is instructed to make immediate inquiries as to these vessels, or whichever of them is now at Liverpool, and to ascertain whether there is any reason to believe that they or either of them are or is being equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed with the intent to commit hostilities against the United States Government; and, if so, to report whether any evidence on oath can be procured in order to proceedings being taken under the foreign-enlistment act.

I have accordingly the honor to suggest that, as the United States consul ac Liverpool has stated in his letter to you that there is no doubt with respect to the vessel named the Southerner, you should instruct that officer to furnish the mayor of Liverpool with the information on which his belief is founded.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

The officers of customs at Liverpool made prompt and careful inquiry into the matters alleged by Mr. Adams, and inquiry was also made under the direction of the mayor of Liverpool, and the result of such inquiries was, on the 3d April, 1863, communicated by Earl Russell to Mr. Adams in the following note:²

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, April 3, 1863.

Sir: Since the date of my letter of the 27th ultimo, I have received from the board of the treasury a report made by the commissioners of customs, under date of the 31st ultimo, and from the secretary of state for the home department a report from the mayor of Liverpool, bearing the same date, containing the result of inquiries made by them in regard to the vessels Phantom and Southerner, denounced by you in your letter of the 26th ultimo as intended for the naval service of the so-called Confederate States.

It appears from the first of these reports that the Phantom was built at the yard of Mr. W. C. Miller, and is now in the Clarence graving-dock. Her length is 193 feet; her breadth, 22 feet; her depth, 12 feet; her gross tonnage, 321; and her probable register tonnage, 160.

[37] From the considerable space appropriated to her engines, and from her model, there seems to be no doubt a high rate of speed will be obtained; and from her light draught of water she is well adapted *for running the blockade; but as she has steel plates only half an inch thick, and as the angle-irons which compose the deck-beams are only five by three and a half inches thick, and as, moreover, she has no ports except for water-way, (three in all,) and a hurricane-house on deck, the surveyor of customs considers that she is not intended to carry guns, and that she is not fit for a privateer.

The mayor of Liverpool reports that the Phantom was launched on the 21st of March from the yard of Messrs. Miller & Co., and that her engines are being made and fitted by Messrs. Fawett, Preston & Co., of Liverpool; that she is in an unfinished state, and not expected to proceed to sea under a fortnight or three weeks. No distinct information could be obtained as to what she is intended for, but a strong impression exists that she is destined for the purpose of running the blockade.

The Southerner has not yet arrived at Liverpool.

A strict watch will be kept as regards both vessels.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

On the 7th of April, 1863, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the following note:¹

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, April 6, 1863.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of notes from your lordship, dated the 27th and 31st of March, and two on the 3d of April, in reply to certain representations of mine concerning vessels believed to be in preparation at Liverpool for the carrying on of hostilities at sea against the commerce of the United States. It is a source of great satisfaction to me to recognize the readiness which Her Majesty’s government has thus manifested to make the investigations desired, as well as to receive the assurances of its determination to maintain a close observation of future movements of an unusual character, that justify suspicions of any evil intent.

I pray, &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Mr. Adams subsequently (viz, on the 16th, 19th, and 23d May, 1863)² sent to Earl Russell copies of several sworn dispositions made by a detective police officer at Liverpool who had been employed to watch the ship-building yards, and by other persons. These depositions tended to show that the building and fitting of the Phantom was superintended by persons in the employ of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., a firm of iron-founders and engineers carrying on a very extensive business at Liverpool, (a member of which firm was the registered owner of the vessel.) It also appeared from the depositions that a Captain Bullock (to whom reference will be made hereafter) took part in superintending the work; and it was further sworn by two of the deponents (who were police-constables) that the vessel was entirely cased in steel plates; that she had three port-holes on each side, with steel plate shutters; that she had very little room for cargo; and that she appeared to them to be built for war purposes.

Immediately on the receipt of these depositions, further inquiries were directed by Her Majesty’s government, and were prosecuted accordingly, and the result of them was, on the 27th May, 1863, communicated by Earl Russell to Mr. Adams in the following note:^l

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams,

Foreign Office, May 27, 1863.

Sir: I had the honor, in my note of the 3d ultimo, to communicate to you the result of the inquiries which have been instituted by Her Majesty’s government, on the receipt of your letter of the 26th of March, in which you denounced the Phantom steamer as being in course of construction at Liverpool as a vessel of war for the service of the so-styled Confederate States.

The evidence which I was then able to lay before you seemed to show that you had been misinformed in this respect; but as the depositions inclosed in your letters of the 16th, 19th, and 23d instant appeared to call for further inquiry, Her Majesty’s government did not lose a moment in causing such further inquiry to be made, and I now proceed to communicate to you the result.

1st. With regard to the allegation that the Phantom has port-holes, the collector at Liverpool has obtained from the surveyor a report, from which it appears that, though the Phantom has ports on deck, it is evident from their size and situation that they are intended for the escape of water, and not for guns, which the strength of the deck is not sufficient to carry; moreover, the permanent fittings on deck would interfere with the working of guns. The surveyor adds that, in his opinion, the Phantom is intended for mercantile pursuits, but whether of a lawful character or for running the blockade there is no evidence to show.

2dly. [38] The commissioners of customs, since the date of my last letter, have caused a strict watch to be kept upon the Phantom, but nothing has transpired worthy of special notice, and the several papers in regard to this vessel, including the depositions forwarded by you, having been submitted to the legal adviser of that board, he has reported that there is no evidence to warrant the slightest interference with her. Indeed, it is stated that during a recent interview between that officer and Mr. Squarey, the solicitor to the United States consul at Liverpool, Mr. Squarey admitted *that there was no case against the Phantom, and that the recoil of a heavy gun would shake her to pieces.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

In a subsequent note to Mr. Adams, dated 30th May, 1863, referring to the same subject, Earl Russell wrote as follows:²

The surveyor further observes that it is difficult for any one at all familiar with the construction and fittings of vessels intended for warlike purposes to account for the supposition that the Phantom is destined for such a service, her hull being of the most fragile character that can be conceived for a sea-going vessel, her steel-plates being but a quarter of an inch thick, and her iron frame of the same proportion.

The Phantom sailed on the 10th June, 1863, from Liverpool for Nassau, and is believed to have been employed as a blockade-runner. She was never used for war.

the southerner.

On the 3d June, 1863, Mr. Adams addressed to Earl Russell the following note respecting a vessel called the Southerner, alleged to be fitting out at Stockton-on-Tees:³

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, June 3, 1863.

My Lord: I have the honor to submit to your consideration copies of two depositions relating to a vessel which has been fitting out at Stockton-on-Tees, for some purpose not usual in times of peace. This vessel is called the Southerner, and is the same to which I called your lordship’s attention in my note of the 26th of March last. I think it can scarcely admit of a doubt that she is intended to carry on the same piratical mode of warfare against the commerce of the United States now practiced by the so-called Alabama and the Oreto. The person superintending her equipment appears to be the same who was equally active in the case of No. 290. I therefore feel it is my duty to call your lordship’s attention to the case, in order that the proper measures may be taken in season to prevent any evil consequences to the peace of the two countries from the escape of such a vessel.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

In this note were inclosed two depositions, sworn by persons who had inspected the vessel. These depositions, however, famished no evidence that she was in any way fitted or intended for war. It appeared that she had two small guns mounted on her decks; but these were afterward described by Mr. Dudley himself as small guns, such as are usually found in passenger vessels of her size.”

In answer to Mr. Adams’s note, Earl Russell, on the 4th June, 1863, wrote to Mr. Adams as follows:¹

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, June 4, 1863.

Sir: Your letter of yesterday respecting the Southerner was unfortunately not delivered at the foreign office till 8.50 p.m., some time after the business of the day was ended and the office closed.

I have, at the earliest possible hour this morning, communicated with the treasury and home department, and I have requested that orders may at once be sent by telegraph to the proper authorities, to pay immediate attention to the circumstances set forth in your letter.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

Orders were forthwith sent accordingly, and the collectors of customs at Stockton and Middlesborough-on-Tees, at West Hartlepool, and Liverpool, respectively, were instructed by telegraph to watch the vessel, to report any suspicious circumstance, and, should there be any legal proof of a violation of the foreign-enlistment act, to delay her, or, if necessary, detain her for the direction of the board of customs.

The collector of customs at Stockton, on the same day, (4th June, 1863,) reported concerning the Southerner as follows:²

[39] She appears to me to be calculated for neither running nor righting, but is certainly a very superior merchant-ship, built, I should say, expressly for carrying bales of cotton. The owners appear to me to have calculated, when they contracted about twelve months ago for building her, that the stock of cotton in America would have been from some cause or other released ere now. And, as *freights upon the article would have ruled high for fast vessels, they doubtless expected to reap great profits. For the present, however, they would seem to have been disappointed. And I understand that a sister ship, built in the Tyhe for the same parties, has, for want of more profitable employment, been sent to Alexandria on some miserably low freight.

This report was confirmed by the collector and the surveyor of customs at West Hartlepool and the acting surveyor of customs at Liverpool. These officers reported that she appeared to be intended for commercial purposes; that her ports were far too small for working guns, and were designed for letting away water; and that the two guns on board of her were ordinary signal guns, mounted on carriages such as are generally used by merchant-vessels of her class, and were, as so mounted, merely fit for firing signals with blank cartridge.³

On the 12th June, 1863, Earl Russell wrote as follows:⁴

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, June 12, 1863.

Sir: At the same time that I communicated to the lords of the treasury and to the secretary of state for the home department, as I informed you in my letter of the 4th instant, the statements respecting the Southerner contained in your letter of the 3d instant, I submitted those statements also to the consideration of the law advisers of the Crown; and I have since learned from them that, in their opinion, the evidence supplied by those statements would not support a charge against the vessel that she is so equipped, or fitted out, or destined, as to constitute a breach of the provisions of the foreign-enlistment act, and that it consequently did not afford sufficient warrant for arresting the vessel.

The greater portion of the two depositions inclosed in your letter consists of hearsay matter, or statements of mere belief, which, according to American equally with British law, are inadmissible in a court of justice, and upon which Her Majesty’s government could not legally proceed.

Attention will, nevertheless, continue to be paid to the vessel, with a view of guarding, as far as possible, against her being equipped in this country in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the foreign-enlistment act.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

On the 3d July, 1863, he again wrote as follows r¹

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, July 3, 1863.

Sir: I had the honor, on the 12th of June, to communicate to you the result of the inquiries which had, up to that time, been instituted by Her Majesty’s government with reference to the statements respecting the vessel Southerner, contained in your letter of the 3d of that month. I however added that attention should nevertheless continue to be paid to that vessel, with the view of guarding, as far as possible, against her being equipped in this country in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the foreign-enlistment act.

I have now to inform you, in fulfillment of that assurance, that Her Majesty’s government considered it desirable to request the board of admiralty to associate with the custom-house surveyor at Liverpool an officer well acquainted with the build and equipment of vessels of war, with instructions to survey the Southerner, and to report the result to Her Majesty’s government.

That officer’s report has now been received, and I have the honor to acquaint you that it appears from it that the Southerner is an ordinary-built iron screw steam passenger and cargo vessel of 1,569 tons, fitted with engines of 300 horse-power; that she is also fit ted with top gallant, forecastle, and poop-deck, with deck-house continuous fore and aft with the same, in the same manner as the Inman line of screw-boats sailing between Liverpool and New York; that she is fitted up aft, under the poop-deck, with cabin accommodation for about sixty-six saloon passengers; the forecastle for the crew, and deck-houses for the ship’s officers; that her holds are appropriated for the reception of cargo, and that she is fitted with steam-winches for working the same.

The admiralty surveyor further reports that he finds, upon examination, that her top sides are of iron plates three-eighths of an inch thick, and are in no way fitted or secured for the working of guns; and that she has two gangways fitted one on each side amidships, for the purpose of working her cargo.

The surveyor, in conclusion, says that, upon fully examining the Southerner, he cannot find anything, with regard to construction or fittings, that would lead him to suppose that she was intended for belligerent purposes.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

On the 9th August, 1863, the Southerner sailed from Liverpool, with a clearance for Alexandria, via Cardiff. She proceeded to Alexandria, and was employed in the Mediterranean in the conveyance of cotton and of passengers, and was never used for war.²

[40] *the alexandra.

On the 28th March, 1863, application was made by Mr. Dudley to the collector of customs at Liverpool for the seizure of a vessel stated to be lying in one of the docks in the port of Liverpool, and called the Alexandra.¹ Mr. Dudley at the same time laid before the collector six sworn depositions, one made by himself, and the others by various other persons, tending to show that she was constructed for warlike use, and that she was intended for the service of the Confederate States.

Copies of the depositions were, on the 31st March, received by Earl Russell from Mr. Adams, together with a note, in which Mr. Adams stated that he would remit no exertion to place in the hands of Her Majesty’s government all the information that could be obtained. The receipt of this note was on the same day acknowledged by Earl Russell, and instructions were immediately given that whatever measures could legally be taken in view of the facts thus brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty’s government should be adopted.² The depositions were at the same time laid before the law-officers of the Crown, in order that they might advise the government thereon.

On the 3d April, 1863, Earl Russell further wrote to Mr. Adams, as follows:³

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, April 3, 1863.

Sir: With reference to my letter of the 31st ultimo, I have the honor to inform you that the secretary of state for the home department has instructed the mayor of Liverpool to cause immediate inquiries to he made with the view of ascertaining whether the Alexandra, denounced by you in your letter of the 30th ultimo, is being equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed with the intention of her being employed in the service of the so-called Confederate States, with intent to commit hostilities against the Federal Government of the United States; and if this should appear to be the case, the mayor is further instructed to adopt whatever steps can legally be taken in the matter.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

On the 5th April, 1863, the Alexandra was, pursuant to the direction of Her Majesty’s government, seized by the officers of the customs at Liverpool, under the powers created by the seventh section of the foreign-enlistment act;⁴ and proceedings were soon afterward instituted in the court of exchequer by the attorney-general on behalf of the Crown, in order to obtain a condemnation of the ship under the provisions of that act.

Mr. Adams was informed that orders to seize the vessel had been given, and he, on the 6th April, 1863, wrote to Earl Russell as follows:⁵

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, April 6, 1863.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your lordship’s note of the 5th instant, in answer to mine of the 30th ultimo, making certain representations in regard to the character of a vessel in Liverpool known as the Alexandra. It is with the most lively satisfaction that I learn the decision of Her Majesty’s government to detain that vessel. Believing that such an act, at the present moment, is calculated to defeat the sanguine hopes of the common enemies of both nations, to sow the seeds of dissension between them, I shall remit’ no effort to procure all the information possible to support it. To that end I have, agreeably to your lordship’s suggestion, sent the necessary instructions to the consul of the United States at Liverpool to put himself in communication with the authorities designated at that place to pursue the subject.

I pray, &c.,

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[41] On the 22d June, 1863, the cause came on for trial in the court of exchequer, before the lord chief baron (the chief judge of that court) and a special jury; the attorney-general, the solicitor-general, and the Queen’s advocate, with two other members of the bar, conducting the case for the Crown. The trial occupied three days. At the close of the third day the jury returned a verdict against the Crown and in favor of the persons claiming to be owners of the ship.¹ Application was thereupon made on behalf of the Crown to the four judges of the court of exchequer sitting as a collective court, to obtain a new trial of the cause, on the grounds, first, that the instructions which had been delivered by the lord chief baron to the jury as to the intent and interpretation of the law were erroneous; and, secondly, that the verdict was contrary to the weight of *testimony. After long argument, the hearing being continued during six days, this application failed, the four judges composing the court being equally divided in opinion, and judgment was given against the Crown.² All the judges pronounced their opinions seriatim in open court. From this judgment an appeal was made on behalf of the Crown to another tribunal, (the exchequer chamber,) composed of all the judges of the superior courts of common law sitting collectively; but it was adjudged, after argument, that the jurisdiction assigned by law to this tribunal did not authorize it to entertain, the appeal.

Costs and damages amounting to £3,700 were paid by the Crown, as the defeated party, to the claimants of the ship.

While these proceedings were pending, and after the verdict of the jury had been delivered, Mr. Seward addressed to Mr. Adams a dispatch, dated the 11th July, 1863, which contained the following instructions in regard to the case of the Alexandra:

1st. You are authorized and expected to assure Earl Russell that this Government is entirely satisfied that Her Majesty’s government have conducted the proceedings in that case with perfect good faith and honor, and that they are well disposed to prevent the fitting out of armed vessels in British ports to depredate upon American commerce and to make war against the United States.

2dly. This Government is satisfied that the law-officers of the Crown have performed their duties in regard to the case of the Alexandra with a sincere conviction of the adequacy of the law of Great Britain, and a sincere desire to give it effect.

3dly. The Government of the United States does not descend to inquire whether the jury in the case were or were not impartial. It willingly believes they were so, and it accepts the statement made with so much unanimity by all the reporters of the case, that the judge who presided at the trial made the bench responsible for the verdict by the boldness and directness of his rulings against the prosecution.

4thly. Great Britain being a free and constitutional country, and the proceedings in the case of the Alexandra having been thus far conducted by the government in good faith, and according to law, the United States would not be justified in deeming the verdict rendered by the jury a cause of national complaint, provided that the government prosecutes an appeal to the higher courts until it be determined in the court of last resort whether the law is adequate to the maintenance of the neutrality which Her Majesty has proclaimed, and provided, also, that in the mean time the Alexandra and other vessels that may be found violating or preparing to violate the law be prevented, so far as the law may allow, from leaving British ports to prosecute their work of devastation.

During the whole course of these proceedings, viz, from the 5th April, 1863, to the 24th April, 1864, the Alexandra remained under seizure and in the possession of the officers of customs.

At the end of that time, the executive having no legal power to detain her, she came again into the possession of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., the persons claiming to be her owners, by whom she was, in June, 1864, sold to a Mr. Henry Lafone, a merchant residing at Liverpool. By her new owner her name was then changed to “‘The Mary;” her fittings on deck and below were altered and made apparently suitable to a vessel of commerce; and in July, 1854, she sailed from Liverpool for Bermuda and thence to Halifax. Mr. Seward, on being informed of her arrival there, wrote as follows to Mr. Hume Burnley, Her Britannic Majesty’s chargé d’affaires at Washington:¹

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

Department of State,
Waslmigton, September 13, 1864.

Sir: This Department has been informed that the steamer Mary, which formerly, under the name of the Alexandra, was charged in the British courts with having been built for the naval service of the insurgents, has arrived at Halifax for the supposed purpose of there being armed and equipped for that service.

It is consequently suggested that you communicate with the governor of Nova Scotia, in order that the hostile designs of that vessel against the United States and their shipping may not be carried into effect from any port within his jurisdiction.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

A copy of this note was at once transmitted by Mr. Burnley to the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, who replied as follows:

Lieutenant Governor Macdonnell to Mr. Burnley.

Government House,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, September 30, 1864.

[42] Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 13th instant, which did not reach me till the 28th instant. Your letter incloses a communication from Mr. Seward, representing that *the Mary, formerly the Alexandra, has arrived at Halifax, for the supposed purpose of being armed and equipped for the confederate service.

Mr. Seward therefore suggests that you should communicate with me, in order that the hostile designs of that vessel against the United States and their shipping, may not be carried into effect from any port within my jurisdiction.

In reply, I have to state that, in future, as heretofore, my most strenuous exertions shall be directed to maintaining within the neutral waters of this portion of Her Majesty’s dominions the strictest observance of those orders which have been issued for my guidance in reference to belligerent cruisers, whether Federal or confederate.

I cannot, however, interfere with any vessel British-owned, in a British harbor, on mere suspicion nevertheless, I have so decided a determination to prevent any abuse of the accommodation afforded by this port to any party, that I have instituted inquiry, for my own satisfaction, into the rumored destination of the Mary. I have even directed that the Mary shall be watched, and am prepared to interfere, if any illegal equipment of that vessel, for warlike purposes, be attempted in this province.

At the same time you may inform Mr. Seward that the result of my inquiries hitherto leads me to suppose that the Mary, although originally strongly built, and apparently intended for warlike purposes, is now lying here an embarrassment to her owners, unsalable and unserviceable, either as an ordinary merchantman or a cruiser. Her speed under steam does not exceed four and a half knots, and I believe she is considered a failure, whatever may have been her original destination. Therefore no difficulty is likely to arise in her case.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

R. G. MACDONNELL, Lieutenant-Governor, &c.

The Mary returned in November from Halifax to Bermuda, and thence proceeded to Nassau, where, on the 13th December, 1864, she was seized by order of the governor, and proceedings were instituted against her in the vice-admiralty court of the colony,² it having been discovered that she had taken on board at Bermuda certain packages the contents of which afforded some evidence that a design existed of employing her in the naval service of the Confederate States. The cause was heard on the 22d and 23d May, 1865, and on the 30th May the court decided that there was no “reasonably sufficient” evidence of illegal intent to support a sentence of forfeiture, and the vessel was accordingly released.¹ The war had by that time terminated, and all armed resistance to the authority of the Government of the United States was at an end. The costs and expenses which the colonial government incurred by the seizure of the vessels amounted to £311 18s.

El Tousson and El Monassir, (iron-clad rams.)

On the 7th July, 1863, Mr. Dudley made formal application to the collector of customs at Liverpool to seize, under the provisions of the above-mentioned act, a vessel described by him (Mr. Dudley) as “an iron-clad steam vessel of war,” launched three days before, and then lying at Birkenhead.² He at the same time laid before, the collector several depositions on oath, sworn by himself and various other persons, in which it was stated that two iron-clad steamships, similar in all material respects to each other, had for many months been in process of construction in the shipbuilding yard of Messrs. Laird & Co., shipbuilders of Birkenhead; that they were of very great strength, and manifestly designed for vessels of war; that each was furnished with a ram or piercer, of wrought-iron, projecting under the water-line, and was also prepared to receive two iron turrets for heavy guns, and that two of such turrets were being constructed in the yard. One only of the said vessels had been launched, and to this Mr. Dudley’s application related. The said depositions contained also allegations tending to show that the vessels were intended for the naval service of the Confederate States.

Copies of these depositions and of Mr. Dudley’s application were, on the 11th July, 1863, sent by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.³

On the 13th July these depositions were referred to the proper departments of the government, and to the law-officers of the Crown.⁴

That these two vessels were in course of construction had for a long time been known to Mr. Dudley, and he had sent information respecting them to the Government of the United States, commencing in the month of July, 1862. It was Mr. Dudley’s opinion that they would be most formidable ships, possessing more power and speed than any ironclads previously built, and so heavily plated as to be invulnerable.

Further depositions in support of the application were subsequently submitted by Mr. Dudley to the collector of customs, and transmitted by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.⁵

[43] The second of the two vessels above mentioned was launched on the 29th August, 1863; and an application, supported by sworn depositions, for the seizure of her was, on *the 1st September, 1863, made by Mr. Dudley to the collector of customs at Liverpool. Copies of these further depositions were sent by Mr. Adam to Earl Russell.⁶

Her Majesty’s government had, at the earliest moment, given directions that a strict watch should be kept over the vessels, and that diligent inquiry should be made for the purpose of ascertaining their character and destination.

It was at first reported that they were built for the government of France. Subsequently, they were claimed by a M. Bravay, a French merchant and member of a firm carrying on business in Paris, who stated that he had purchased them on account of the Pasha of Egypt. M. Bravay had, in fact, in August, 1863, made an application to the French government, stating the alleged purchase, and requesting that the good offices of the French embassy in London might be used in his behalf, in order to enable him to send the vessels to Alexandria;¹ and it further appeared that he had, in February, 1863, made a claim upon the Pasha’s government on account of two iron-clad vessels of war, which he affirmed that he had been ordered to procure by the then Pasha’s predecessor, (who died in 1862,) and for which he alleged that he had paid a large sum on account.² Finally, he produced to the British naval attaché at Paris a number of papers relating to the, vessels, and furnished him with a copy of a legal instrument, dated 18th July, 1863, from which it appeared that the iron-clads had, in fact, been built to the order of Bullock, but that Bullock’s interest in them had been transferred, or purported to be transferred, to Bravay.³

On the 28th August, 1863, Her Britannic Majesty’s consul-general in Egypt reported to the government that the Pasha of Egypt refused to ratify the order alleged to have been given by his predecessor, or to purchase the vessels. This report was received by the government on the 5th September.⁴

On the same 5th September the builders of the vessels, in reply to an inquiry addressed to them by the under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, wrote to him as follows:⁵

Messrs. Laird Brothers to Her Majesty’s foreign office.

Birkenhead, September 5, 1863.

Sir: We have received your letter of the 4th instant, stating that Lord Russell has instructed you to request us to inform him, with as little delay as possible, on whose account and with what destination we have built the iron-clad vessels recently launched, and now in course of completion at our works.

In reply, we beg to say that although it is not usual for ship-builders to declare the names of parties for whom they are building vessels until the vessels are completed and the owners have taken possession, yet, in this particular case, in consequence of the many rumors afloat, coupled with the repeated visits of Mr. Morgan, the surveyor of customs, to our works, we thought it right to ask permission of the parties on whose account we are building the vessels to give their names to the English government, in the event of such information being asked for officially in writing.

They at once granted us the permission we sought for.

We therefore beg to inform you that the firm on whose account we are building the vessels is A. Bravay & Co., and that their address is No. 6 Rue de Londres, Paris, and that our engagement is to deliver the vessels to them in the port of Liverpool when they are completed according to our contract.

The time in which we expect to have the first vessel so completed is not less than one month from this date, and the second not less than six or seven weeks from this date.

We are, &c.,

(Signed)

LAIRD BROTHERS.

A. H. Layard, Esq., M. P.

The inquiries directed by Her Majesty’s government were actively prosecuted, and, although they led to no conclusive result, nevertheless convinced the government that there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining sufficient evidence as to the destination of the vessels. On the 9th September, 1863, both vessels being then in an unfinished state, the following notice was sent to the builders by the secretary of the treasury:

Her Majesty’s Treasury to Messrs. Laird Brothers.

Treasury Chambers, September 9, 1863.

Gentlemen: I am desired by my lords commissioners of Her Majesty’s treasury to acquaint you that their lordships have felt it their duty to issue orders to the commissioners of customs that the two iron-clad steamers now in the course of completion in your dock at Birkenhead are not to be permitted to leave the Mersey until satisfactory evidence can be given of their destination, or at least until the inquiries which are now being prosecuted with a view to obtain such evidence shall have been brought to a conclusion.

I am, &c.,

(Signed)

GEORGE A. HAMILTON.

Messrs. Laird & Co., Birkenhead.

[44] *The builders replied as follows:¹

In reply, we beg to inform you that we have forwarded a copy of your letter to Messrs. A. Bravay & Co., at No. 6 Rue de Loudres, Paris, on whose account we are building the vessels, and to whom we beg to refer you for further information; inasmuch as our engagement with them is to deliver the vessels at the port of Liverpool when they are completed according to our contract.

The builders having informed the collector of customs that they wished to take the vessel which was nearest completion (named El Tousson) for a trial-trip, in order to test the machinery, but with an assurance that she should be brought back again, they were told that circumstances had come to the knowledge of the government which gave rise to an apprehension’ that an attempt might be made, without the privity and against the intention of the builders themselves, to carry away the vessel by force while on such trial-trip.² The government, therefore, could not permit the trip to take place, unless on the condition that a force of seamen and marines, from Her Majesty’s channel fleet, (which was then in the Mersey,) sufficient to defeat any such attempt, should be placed on board of the vessel.

On the 7th October, 1863, the builders were told that, in consequence of further information received by the government, it was deemed necessary to place an officer of the customs on board the vessel named El Tousson, with authority to seize heron behalf of the Crown in the event of any attempt being made to remove her from her actual position, and that he was instructed to obtain from the commanding officer of Her Majesty’s ship of war Majestic any protection which might be necessary to support him in the execution of his duty.³

On the 9th October, 1863, orders were issued to seize both the vessels, and they were seized accordingly.⁴ The vessel remained under seizure from that time until the month of May, 1864, when they were, by agreement, sold and transferred to Her Majesty’s government for the aggregate sum of £220,000.⁵ The evidence which the government had up to that time been able to obtain was so imperfect as to make the event of a trial doubtful; and in agreeing to the purchase, Her Majesty’s government was mainly actuated by a desire to prevent by any means within its power (however costly) vessels of so formidable a character, constructed in a British port, from passing directly or indirectly into the hands of a belligerent.

the canton, or pampero.

On the 18th October, 1863, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the following note, (with an inclosure:)⁶

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, October 17, 1863.

My Lord: It is with great regret that I find it my duty once more to call your lordship’s attention to the efforts making in this kingdom to aid the insurgents in America in carrying on their resistance to the Government of the United States. I have strong reason for believing that, in addition to a very formidable steam-ram now in process of construction at the port of Glasgow, but not yet so far advanced as fully to develop her character, there is another steamer ready to be launched, called the Canton, having all the characteristics of a war-vessel, which is about to be fitted up and dispatched with the same intent from the same place. I beg leave to submit to your lordship’s consideration some extracts from a letter addressed to me by W. L. Underwood, esq., the consul of the United States, giving some information in regard to this case. Mr. Underwood himself entertains no doubt of the destination of this vessel, although from the secrecy used in the process of construction and preparation, itself a cause of suspicion, he has been slow in gaining evidence on which to base a representation.

Not doubting that Her Majesty’s government will take all suitable measures to ascertain the correctness of these allegations, I pray, &c.

(Signed)

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

The extracts inclosed in the above note contained a description of the Canton.

The information thus furnished by Mr. Adams was immediately communicated to the proper departments of the government, and the officers of customs and local authorities were instructed to make immediate inquiry, and to take such legal measures as might prevent any attempt to infringe the law.

[45] The inquiries thus directed were pursued for a considerable time with very little result. The vessel was carefully examined, both by the surveyor of the customs and by the commanding officer of Her Majesty’s ship Hogue, stationed in the Clyde; and the specifi*cations on which she was constructed, as well as the contract for building her, were produced and exhibited by the agents through whom the contract had been made. It appeared that, though she was being fitted up as a passenger-ship, there were some peculiarities in her construction such as to render her capable of being converted, not indeed into a regular ship of war, but into a vessel serviceable for war purposes. She had been contracted for by a person resident in London, through the agency of a Glasgow firm; and this firm, as well as her builders, stated that they believed her to be intended for the merchant service, and were not aware of any intention to dispose of her to the Confederate States.

The vessel was launched on the 29th October, 1863, (her name having been previously changed to the “Pampero;”)¹ and the United States consul at Glasgow soon afterward made a formal application that she might be seized, supporting it by several depositions on oath, to which others were afterward added from time to time.² No evidence whatever of her being intended for the confederate service, beyond vague rumor and hearsay, was furnished by the United States consul in these depositions or otherwise, nor by Mr. Adams.

By the end of November, however, the inquiries directed by the government had led to the production of some evidence, and it was eventually ascertained that the real owners of the vessels were several persons resident respectively in London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Dumbarton, and that they were under a contract to sell her to one Sinclair, calling himself a citizen of the Confederate States; but that Sinclair bad lately been, and then was, desirous of canceling the contract. A letter from Sinclair, asking that the contract might be canceled, was placed in the hands of the law-officers of the Crown for Scotland, and was as follows:¹

London, September 24, 1863.

My Dear Sir: When I made a contract with yon in November last for the building of a steamship, I was under the impression, having taken legal advice, that there was nothing in the law of England that would prevent a British subject from building such a vessel for any foreign subject as a commercial transaction. Although the recent decision of the court of exchequer in the case of the Alexandra would seem to sustain the opinion, yet the evident determination of your government to yield to the pressure of the United States minister, and prevent the sailing of any vessel that may be suspected of being the property of a citizen of the Confederate States, is made so manifest that I have concluded it will be better for me to endeavor to close that contract referred to, and go where I can have more liberal action.

In these circumstances I desire to put an end to our transaction, by your returning me the cotton certificates which I delivered to account of price, and my canceling the contract.

The increased value of shipping since the date of our transaction will, I have no doubt, enable you at once to meet my wishes in this respect. I shall feel much obliged by an early reply.

(Signed)

G. SINCLAIR.

Edward Pembroke, Esq.

On the 10th December the Pampero was, by direction of Her Majesty’s government, seized by the collector of customs at Glasgow, and legal proceedings were instituted to obtain a declaration of forfeiture.² The case was appointed to be tried in April, 1864, when, no defense being made, a verdict was entered for the Crown, and the vessel was declared forfeited. She remained under seizure until October, 1865, and was then given up to her owners, all reasons for detaining her being at an end.³

the amphion, the hawk, the virginia, the louisa ann fanny, the hercules.

In the year 1864 representations were made by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell respecting two vessels named the Amphion and Hawk; and, in the year 1865, respecting three others, the Virginia, the Louisa Ann Fanny, and the Hercules, all of which he alleged to be fitting out in ports of the United Kingdom under suspicious circumstances, and to be probably destined for the naval service of the Confederate States. In each of these cases the information furnished was immediately transmitted to the proper departments of the government, and careful inquiry was made. In none of them were any reasonable grounds of suspicion found on examination to exist, which would have justified the executive in interfering, and none of the suspected vessels were ever in fact armed or used for purposes of war. The dates at which Mr. Adams’s representations in these several cases were respectively first received, and were referred for inquiry, were as follows:

The Amphion.—Received March 18, 1864; referred on the same day to the home department.⁴

[46] *The Hawk.—Received April 16, 1864; referred to the treasury, the home department, and the lord advocate, (the law-officer of the Crown for Scotland,) April 18, 1864.⁵

The Virginia and Louisa Aim Fanny.—Received January 30, 1865; referred to the treasury February 1, 1865.⁶

The Hercules.—Received February 7, 1865; referred to the treasury and to the home department February 8 and 9, 1865.⁷

In acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Adams’s note respecting the Hercules, Earl Russell wrote as follows:¹

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, February 8, 1865.

Sir: I have received your letter dated the 7th instant, and delivered at the foreign office at a late hour yesterday evening after the close of business; but not being marked immediate, it did not come under the notice of the under-secretary of state until 1 p.m. to-day.

The matter shall be immediately attended to, but, in the mean time, I wish to call your attention to the dates of the letters which yon inclose. The first letter of the United States consul at Liverpool is dated the 2d instant, and affirms that a steamer named the Hercules is fitting out in the Clyde for the confederate service, and that this vessel is to be ready for sea in eight days. The second letter which you transmit to me is dated Glasgow, the 4th instant, and contains further information respecting this vessel, and states, moreover, that the trial trip is to take place to-day.

In a former instance I was able by means of the lord advocate to prosecute the owners of a vessel building in the Clyde, and to get a verdict entered by consent, which defeated the purpose of the confederate agent. But these operations are very quick, and unless I have timely notice I can have but little hopes of stopping these nefarious transactions.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

RUSSELL.

The attention of the government had been directed to the Amphion and Hawk, and inquiry made respecting them, before the receipt of any representation from Mr. Adams concerning those vessels. A vessel called the Ajax, as to which no representation had been made or information furnished, but which was suspected by some of her crew of being intended for the confederate service, was examined and searched by the officers of customs at Queenstown, and afterward, under instructions from the government, by the colonial authorities at Nassau.² She was not, however, found to be adapted or intended for warlike use, and was never applied to such use.

In sending information to Mr. Adams respecting the Virginia, Mr. Dudley, in a letter dated the 27th January, 1865, wrote as follows:³

Like the Sea King, any steamer now destined for privateering fits away as a commercial vessel, and there is nothing about her movement before she leaves port, or until within a few hours of her leaving, when she may suddenly change owners, and her master be given authority to sell at a given sum out of British waters, to create any mistrust of the purpose of those who control her here.

Under such a mode of operations it is next to impossible for us to get testimony in season, and sufficiently strong, to ask for their detention. The only course left me, therefore, is to call your attention to all cases offering any reasonable ground of suspicion, and leave them to be disposed of as you may deem most expedient.

summary.

The preceding statement of facts shows the general course of conduct pursued by Her Britannic Majesty’s government, in relation to vessels alleged to be, or suspected of being, fitted out or prepared within British territory for belligerent use. It includes all the cases (except those of the Florida and Alabama, which will be presently stated) in which information that any vessel was being built, equipped, or prepared for sea in any British port, and intended, or supposed to be intended, for warlike use, was received by, or came to the knowledge of, Her Majesty’s government before the departure of such vessel.

It will have been seen—

1. That in every case directions were given, without the least delay, for investigation and inquiry on the spot by the proper officers of government; and these officers were ordered to keep a watchful eye on the suspected vessel; and the directions and orders so given were executed.

2. [47] That in some cases the attention of the government had been directed, before the *receipt of any communication from Mr. Adams, to vessels as to which there appeared to be ground for suspicion.

3. That as soon as any evidence was obtained it was submitted, without delay, to the law-officers of the Crown; and they were called upon, to advise as to the proper course of proceeding.

4. That in every case in which reasonable evidence could be obtained the vessel was seized by the officers of the government, and proceedings were instituted against her in the proper court of law. By reasonable evidence is understood testimony which, though not conclusive, offered nevertheless a reasonable prospect that the government might be able, when the time for trying the case should arrive, to sustain the seizure in a court of law.

5. That in several of the cases in which a seizure was made the government found itself unable, or uncertain whether it would be able, to sustain the seizure by sufficient evidence, and was under the necessity of either releasing the vessel and paying the costs of the trial and detention, or of purchasing her at the public expense.

6. That in every one of the eases enumerated either the information furnished to the government proved to be erroneous, and the supposed indicia of an unlawful intention to be absent or deceptive, or this intention was defeated or abandoned by reason of the measures taken and the vigilance exercised by Her Majesty’s government.

7. That it is easy to inter special adaptation for war from peculiarities or supposed peculiarities of construction which are really equivocal; and such inferences are liable to be fallacious, especially in cases where the vessel is constructed with a view to some employment which, though commercial, is out of the ordinary course of commerce.

case of the anglo-chinese flotilla.

The steady determination of Her Britannic Majesty’s government to guard against any act or occurrence which might be supposed to cast a doubt on its neutrality, and its readiness even to go beyond, for this purpose, the strict measure of its international obligations, were exemplified in the case of the iron-clad rams, and were even more strikingly shown in that of the flotilla of gun-boats equipped for service in China.

In March, 1862, the Chinese government gave authority to Mr. Lay, inspector-general of Chinese customs, then on leave in England, to purchase and equip a steam-fleet for the Emperor’s service;¹ and a sum of money was placed at his disposal for the purpose.

Mr. Lay accordingly entered into an agreement with Captain Sherard Osborn, an officer in Her Majesty’s navy, according to which the latter was to take command-in-chief of the fleet, receiving orders from the Chinese government through Mr. Lay. Her Majesty’s government, by orders in council, gave permission to enlist officers and men for this service.

In September, 1863, Captain Sherard Osborn arrived in China with the flotilla, consisting of six vessels of war. These were the Pekin, China, and Keang-soo, of six guns each, the Kwangtung and Tien-tsin of four guns, and the Amoy of two, the Thule yacht, and the Ballarat store-ship.

A difference, however, arose between the Chinese government on the one side, and Mr. Lay and Captain Osborn on the other, as to the conditions on which Captain Osborn was to hold his command; and, this difference not having been adjusted, Captain Osborn informed Sir F. Brace, Her Majesty’s minister at Pekin, that the force would be disbanded. He asked at the same time whether Sir F. Bruce saw any objection to his surrendering to the Chinese government the eight ships which he had brought out.¹

Sir F. Bruce thereupon informed the Chinese government and Captain Osborn of his conviction that Her Majesty’s government would not have consented to the organization of this powerful squadron, unless on the understanding that it was to be placed under the orders of an officer in whose prudence and high character they had full confidence, and that he could not consent to the ships and stores being handed over to the Chinese government without instructions to that effect from Her Majesty’s government.¹

Among other reasons for this course Sir F. Bruce reported to Her Majesty’s government that the ships were not such as the Chinese could manage, and that it would not be safe to sell them on the coast, as they might fall into the hands of hostile daimios in Japan, or be bought for employment as confederate cruisers in those seas.² The following letter from the United States minister at Pekin to Sir F. Bruce shows that he was equally alive to the latter danger:

[48] Mr. Burlingame to Sir F. Bruce.³

Pekin, November 7, 1883.

Sir: When the Chinese government refused the doings of its agent, Mr. Lay, and there was nothing left for Captain Osborn but to dissolve the force of the flotilla, the question was how it could be done with safety. I feared that the ships might fall into the hands of the confederates, who are supposed to have agents in China; and then there was the common apprehension from lawless men on the coast in the interest of the Taepings as well as from pirates, and the desire of the daimios in Japan to procure steamers at any price.

It was clear that the Chinese could do nothing of themselves with the steamers, and that, unless something were done by you, they would certainly fall a prey to one of these several dangers. In my solicitude on account of the rebels in my own country, I made an earnest protest against the delivery of the ships to the Chinese. You responded, in that spirit of comity which has ever distinguished our relations, that the ships should be taken back to England, and that no effort on your part should be spared to prevent them from taking a direction against the interests of my country.

Though subsequent events made it necessary for the ships to take the direction indicated by the desire of the Chinese themselves, still I should be wanting in appreciation of your conduct did I not mark it with my most heartfelt thanks, and at as early a period as possible bring it to the attention of my Government.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

A. BURLINGAME.

It was eventually arranged that Captain Osborn should send part of the flotilla to England, take the other portion to Bombay, and sell them all on account of the Chinese government.

Captain Osborn accordingly took three vessels, the Keang-soo, (6 guns,) Kwangtung, (4 guns,) and Araoy, (2 guns,) and the dispatch-boat Thule, to Bombay, where he arrived in January, 1864.⁴ At his request the government of India took charge of the vessels and the military stores on board of them, and he then proceeded to England, where he arrived in February. The rest of the flotilla, consisting of the Pekin and China, (6 guns,) the Tien-tsin, (4 guns,) and the Ballarat store-ship, were sent to England, where they arrived in April.¹

On the first intelligence of the arrangement made with the Chinese government for disposing of these vessels in India and England, a letter was addressed by the foreign office to the admiralty, India office, and colonial office,² stating that the “vessels are understood to be fully equipped for belligerent purposes, and Her Majesty’s government are of opinion that it is incumbent upon them to take any precaution that may legally be within their power to prevent them from passing in their present state into the hands of any power or state engaged in hostility with another power or state in amity with Her Majesty.”

It was therefore desired “that the attention of the naval, colonial, or Indian authorities, both at home and on any station abroad within Her Majesty’s dominions, where the vessels may be expected to be met with, should be called to the necessity of taking such measures as may be legally within their power in furtherance of the views of Her Majesty’s government in this matter; and specifically as regards Captain Osborn, who is an officer in Her Majesty’s naval service, that he should be pointedly cautioned against disposing of any of the vessels to be used in the naval service of a belligerent power.”

Sir F. Bruce, at Pekin, and Sir H. Parkes, at Shanghai, were instructed to make a similar communication to Captain Osborn, in case that officer was still in China when the dispatch reached them.

In anticipation of these instructions Commodore Montresor had warned Captain Osborn on his arrival at Bombay against selling the vessels, and had joined with the governor in remonstrating against any attempt to sell the Thule, which, as being an unarmed dispatch-boat, did not, in Captain Osborn’s opinion, come within the same category as the armed vessels, but which the two former officers considered open to objection, as having been equipped for naval service, and capable of being adapted in some degree to belligerent purposes.³

The Thule was, notwithstanding, advertised for sale in Bombay on the 16th of February, after Captain Osborn’s departure; but the government of Bombay forbade the sale. Orders were sent from home in April to permit the sale of the Thule, but to retain the other vessels. Care was also to be taken that the Thule was not equipped as a vessel of war for either of the belligerent parties in America.⁴

The sale, however, did not take place.

[49] *The three armed vessels sent to England arrived in April, and were moored in Woolwich dock-yard. The Ballarat, being merely a store-ship, did not come under the custody of the government, and was sold.

The admiralty refused to purchase the vessels for the government; and it was settled that they should be placed at moorings in the Med-way, and there retained until the objections to their sale might be removed, and that any expenses incurred by this course should be defrayed by Her Majesty’s government.⁵

In the meanwhile Captain Osborn, learning that it was not the intention of the government to purchase the vessels left in charge of the Bombay authorities, wrote to ask permission to relieve himself of all responsibility, by substituting a mercantile firm at Bombay as the agents to carry out Sir Frederick Brace’s instructions for the sale of the vessels on account of the Chinese government.⁵

The matter was referred to the law-officers, who reported that the sale within Her Majesty’s dominions, even to a belligerent power, of armed ships of war, already legally equipped with a view to a different object, under Her Majesty’s license, would not be illegal the foreign enlistment act did not, in their opinion, prohibit such a sale. Her Majesty’s government had therefore two alternatives. It might, on the one hand, inform Captain Osborn that it did not interpose any objection to his selling the vessels to any person or in any way that he might think fit; such sale (provided no addition were made to their equipments or furniture, before delivery to the purchaser, for the purposes of any belligerent power) being in no way contrary to law. If, on the other hand, the government were not prepared to take this course, it was morally bound to take upon itself the responsibility from which Captain Osborn desired to be freed.

Captain Osborn, the admiralty, and India office were thereupon apprised that Her Majesty’s government could not at present sanction the sale of the vessels in India, but was prepared to take on itself the responsibility of detaining the vessels in question unsold until further orders. A similar communication was made to the Chinese government, through Sir F. Bruce, with the assurance that the Chinese government should not ultimately lose the value of the vessels.¹

An offer was made in December, 1864, by Messrs. Ritherdon & Thompson, to purchase the three vessels in England on behalf of a foreign government.² They were informed that a written guarantee would be required from the representative of the power for whom the vessels might be purchased, that they would not be used for warlike purposes against any power with whom the Queen was at peace, and that the government reserved to itself the right of refusing, without giving any reason, to sell the vessels when the name of the principal in the transaction should be disclosed. The negotiation was dropped. Overtures were also made in 1865 by Messrs. Bake & Co. to buy the vessels for the government of Mexico, but these also failed.

A committee appointed to assess the value of the vessels at the time they left China valued them, with the concurrence of Captain Osborn, at £152,500, and Mr. Wade was instructed to inform the Chinese government that the admiralty would be intrusted with the sale of them, that the amount realized would be transmitted to the Chinese government, and any loss upon the original value of the ships would be made good by Her Majesty’s government. The admiralty was at the same time again cautioned against the sale of the vessels either directly or indirectly to any state or body of persons at war with a state in amity with Her Majesty.³

In June, 1865, the civil war in America having come to an end, the restrictions on the sale of the vessels were withdrawn; but, from the delay and consequent deterioration, the price realized fell far short of the original estimate.

The government of Egypt purchased the three vessels in England for £30,100. Of the four vessels left at Bombay, the government of India purchased two for £14,500, from which, however, a sum of £6,376 had to be deducted for dock-yard expenses. A sum of £11,250 was realized by the sale of the two remaining vessels; and the balance of £103,026 was provided by a parliamentary grant, and paid over to the Chinese government.⁴

The guns and munitions of war on board the vessels had been procured from Her Majesty’s government, and they were taken back by the military authorities in England and India, and the amount remitted to the Chinese government.

[50] Sir Frederick Bruce, writing in December, 1865, from Washington, to urge a speedy settlement of the Chinese claim, said, “I may mention that there is no doubt that agents *of the confederates were on the look-out to purchase the more powerful vessels of the squadron from the Chinese, had they been left in their hands, and it is equally certain that the Chinese would have sold these vessels as being unsuited to them. It is not difficult to conjecture what would have been the effect on our relations with this government had any of these vessels been turned into confederate cruisers. It would have been impossible to disabuse this government and people of the idea that the flotilla was a deep-laid scheme to supply the confederates with an efficient squadron in the Pacific.¹

And Mr. Adams, in a note to Lord Clarendon of December 28, 1865, on the same subject, wrote as follows:² “In a conversation which I had the honor to hold with your predecessor, the Bight Honorable Earl Bussell, on the 25th of February, 1861, I acquitted myself of what was to me a most agreeable duty, of signifying to Her Majesty’s government the high sense entertained by that which I have the honor to represent of the friendly proceedings of Her Majesty’s envoy in China, Sir Frederick Bruce, in regard to the disposition to be made of the vessels then known as the Osborn Flotilla.”

1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 133.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 138.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 143.
2. Ibid., p. 147.
3. Ibid., p. 148.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 149.
2. Ibid., p. 151.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 152.
2. Ibid, pp. 154, 155, 156.
3. Ibid., p. 160.
4. Ibid., p. 167.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 168.
2. Ibid., p. 170.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 171.
2. Ibid., pp. 171, 173, 176.
3. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 177.
2. Ibid., p. 179.
3. Ibid., p. 187.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 190.
2. Ibid., p. 193.
3. Ibid., pp. 201 and 207.
4. Ibid., p. 203.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 208.
2. Ibid., p. 209.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 222.
2. Ibid., p. 227.
3. Ibid., p. 229.
4. Ibid., p. 232.
5. Ibid., p. 231.
1. Appendix, vol. iii, p. 56.
2. Ibid., p. 57.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 272.
2. Ibid., p. 258.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 286.
2. Ibid., p. 317.
3. Ibid., p.315.
4. Ibid., p. 323.
5. Ibid., pp. 326, 333.
6. Ibid., pp. 345, 349.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 339.
2. Ibid., p. 315.
3. Ibid., p. 372.
4. Ibid., p. 353.
5. Ibid., p. 355.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 358.
2. Ibid., p. 367.
3. Ibid., p. 387.
4. Ibid., pp. 388, 389, et sea.
5. Ibid., pp. 457–459.
6. Ibid., p. 467.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 478.
2. Ibid., p. 486.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 511.
2. Ibid., p. 520.
3. Ibid., p.533.
4. Ibid., pp. 566, 567.
5. Ibid., pp. 543, 544.
6. Ibid., pp. 595, 596.
7. Ibid., p. 580.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 582.
2. Ibid., pp. 575, 590.
3. Ibid., p. 596.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 681.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 682.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 682.
2. Ibid., p. 686.
3. Ibid., p. 689.
4. Ibid., p. 692.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p.700.
2. Ibid., p. 684.
3. Ibid., p. 695.
4. Ibid., pp.700, 703.
5. Ibid., p. 701.
5. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 704.
1. Ibid., p. 710.
2. Ibid., pp. 712–714.
3. Ibid., pp. 712–714.
4. Ibid., p. 721.
1. Appendix, vol. ii, p. 718.
2. Ibid., p. 719.