Mr. Adams, it would seem, entertained none of those notions of the duty or the necessity of having recourse to prerogative force in order efficiently to observe the obligations of neutrality, of which we hear so much in the argument of the United States.

Inquiry was at once made by the government. The collector of customs at West Hartlepool, where the vessel was, reported the next day as follows:

Finding, from a communication which I had seen from the American consul at Leeds to his broker here, that the steamer in question was suspected to be fitting out at this port for the purpose of being used as a privateer for the Confederate States, I have been keeping an eye on her, but I see nothing to indicate such to be her object, either as regards her external equipments, or the character of her crew, or anything in her case more than usual to give ground for remark, unless it be the circumstance that a large portion of her cargo consists of arms and ammunition; and it is possible that, although the destination of the vessel ostensibly is Havana, it may be the design eventually to run some if not the whole of the goods on board into the States referred to.2

The rest of the information collected pointed to a similar conclusion, and Mr. Adams was accordingly informed, on the advice of the attorneygeneral, that the vessel did not come within the terms of the foreignenlistment act, (to which, in his letter, he had referred,) and that there was no ground for any interference with the clearance or departure.

The Bermuda turned out, in fact, to be a blockade-runner. She sailed from Liverpool with cargo for Savannah, and succeeded in entering that port and returning to Liverpool. On her second voyage she was captured by a United States ship, and condemned as prize.

The next cases in order of time to which Mr. Adams called the attention of the British government were those of the Oreto or Florida, and of the Alabama, originally known as No. 290. As I shall have to enter in detail into the facts connected with these vessels further on, I will not here allude to them more particularly.

The Georgiana.

On the 16th January, 1863, Mr. Adams made a representation to Earl Russell respecting the Georgiana, a vessel built at Glasgow, and then fitting out at Liverpool, which he stated he "had reason to believe was intended to pursue a similar course with that formerly called No. 290-to wit, the destruction of the commerce of the United States." Mr. Adams inclosed a letter from the United States consul in London, "giving," as he said, the "particulars based upon credible information received by him, the authority for which it is not in his power to disclose," and he thus concludes his letter:

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.2

Lord Russell informed Mr. Adams on the following day, the 17th, that he had communicated copies of his letter and its inclosure to the board of treasury and to the secretary of state for the home department without delay, and had requested that orders might be sent by telegraph to the proper authorities at Liverpool, enjoining them to take such steps in the matter as might legally be taken. He added:

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.3

Inquiries were accordingly made, both by the customs officers and by the detective police at Liverpool, but it was found that the vessel was not in any way adapted for warlike purposes, and that from the nature 1 British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 134.

2 Ibid., p. 147.

3 Ibid., p. 148.

of her build, her cargo, and other attendant circumstances, she seemed to be intended to run the blockade; and such, in fact, proved to be the

case.

Vessels at Glasgow.

On the 21st of March, 1863, Lord Russell wrote to Mr. Adams "with reference to a report that vessels of war were being built at Glasgow for the so-styled Confederate States; that it appeared from information collected by the commissioner of customs that there were only two large steamers in course of construction at the yard of Messrs. Thompson & Co.; that one of them had the appearance of being constructed to receive armor-plates, but that the bottom was not more than half plated, and that the planking of her top-sides had only just commenced." The other, Lord Russell wrote, was a screwsteamer intended to be employed in the Mediterranean trade, but neither of these vessels could be completed for several months.1

In forwarding this letter to Mr. Seward, Mr. Adams stated:

It is proper to mention that the investigation appears to have been initiated by his lordship upon information not furnished from this legation, and that Lord Russell's communication to me was perfectly spontaneous.2

Mr. Adams's letter of acknowledgment to Earl Russell is as follows: MY LORD: I had the honor to receive your lordship's note of the 21st instant, apprising me of the preparations making in the yard of Messrs. Thompson & Co. of a vessel evidently constructed for hostile purposes.

Information of the same nature received from other sources has led me to a belief that this is one of a number intended to carry on the piratical species of warfare practiced by the insurgents against the commerce of the United States, in accordance with the plans laid down in the intercepted correspondence which I had the honor some time since to lay before you. It is a source of much gratification to me to learn that this proceeding is exciting the attention of Her Majesty's government.3

The intercepted correspondence alluded to by Mr. Adams had been forwarded by him to Earl Russell on the 9th of February, 1863.* It related to arrangements for the issue of a loan in England, on account of the confederate government, for the export of munitions of war to the Confederate States, and also to a supposed contract made by the confederate navy department with a Mr. Sanders, for the construction in England of six iron-clad steamers, combining the capacities of freighting and fighting ships, in a manner which could enable them to force the blockade. A correspondence ensued in which Lord Russell denied that the papers proved any overt acts against the law which warranted a criminal prosecution of the parties concerned. He added, however, in a note of the 2d of April, 1863, that

In view of the statements contained in the intercepted correspondence, Her Majesty's government have renewed the instructions already given to the custom-house authorities of the several British ports where ships of war may be constructed, and by the secretary of state for the home department to various authorities with whom he is in communication, to endeavor to discover and obtain legal evidence of any violation of the foreign-enlistment act with a view to the strict enforcement of that statute whenever it can be readily shown to be infringed, and Her Majesty's government would be obliged to you to communicate to them, or to the local authorities at the several ports, any evidence of illegal acts which may from time to time become known to you. On the 26th of March, 1863, Mr. Adams wrote to Earl Russell, forwarding an extract of a letter from Mr. Dudley, the United

The Phantom and

States consul at Liverpool, on the subject of two vessels, Southerner. the Phantom and the Southerner, which the consul believed to be intended for confederate cruisers. The principal reason for Mr. Dud

6

ley's suspicions seems to have been the connection of the firms of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., and Fawcett, Preston & Co., with these vessels. He says at the end of the letter: "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." Even of the information furnished by Mr. Dudley, part-namely, that the last-named of these two vessels, the Southerner, had arrived at Liverpool-was erroneous, and was corrected by Mr. Adams in his note, according to later advices received from Liverpool.

Mr. Adams was informed on the following day that immediate inquiry would be made on the subject, and inquiries were accordingly at once made, as in the case of the Georgiana, both through the customs authorities at Liverpool and by means of detective police officers, as to these two vessels. They failed to produce any evidence against them, and indeed one of them turned out to be a blockade-runner, and the other was afterwards engaged in trade in the Mediterranean. In acknowledgment of the steps which had been taken, Mr. Adams wrote ast follows to Earl Russell on the 6th of April, 1863:

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.1

The Alexandra.

On the 28th March, 1863, Mr. Dudley, the United States consul at Liverpool, wrote to the collector of customs at that port, forwarding six depositions relative to a vessel called the Alexandra, and applying for her seizure. Copies of these depositions were also forwarded to Earl Russell, by Mr. Adams, on the 31st of March; and after further inquiry by the authorities, the ship was seized on the 5th of April. Mr. Adams, being informed of this step, wrote on the 6th of April to Earl Russell to express his "lively satisfaction.""

The history of this vessel is well known. The proceedings which were instituted by the government in the proper court, failed, under the direction of the lord chief baron to the jury that, to establish the intention that the vessel had been equipped for the purpose of war, it was necessary that she should have been armed, as well as fitted for the reception of guns. The jury having given a verdict against the Crown, the application to the court of exchequer for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection of the judge in so directing the jury, failed by reason of the judges of that court being equally divided in opinion. Writing to Mr. Adams after the verdict had been given, Mr. Seward says:

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.

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.3

An appeal was made to the court of exchequer chamber, but it turned out that, owing to an omission in the act constituting the latter, no provision had been made for such a case.

After a detention of a year, pending the trial and appeal, the Alexandra was liberated.

1 British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 171.

2 Ibid., p. 231.

3 United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 291.

She went first to Bermuda, then to Halifax, and from thence to Nassau, where, after repeated investigations, she was again seized, in December, 1864, on a fresh charge of an intention to employ her as a ship of war in the confederate service, and though the proceedings in the vice-admiralty court there ended in an acquittal, the decision did not take place till the end of May, 1865, when the civil war was at an end. The costs and damages incurred by the government on account of the two seizures amounted to over £4,000.

On the 6th of April, 1863, a dispatch was received from the British consul at New York, in which allusion was made to a report The South Carolina. which had appeared in the newspapers of that city, that the Georgiana, which, as I have already said, was no more than a blockade-runner, and which is so denominated in the United States Documents,1 was intended to be armed as a confederate cruiser, and that a similar vessel, called the South Carolina, was building in the Clyde. The matter was referred to the commissioners of customs, and the latter reported, on the 13th of April, as follows:

On the receipt of the said letter, we referred the same to our collector at Glasgow for his inquiry respecting the South Carolina; and it appears from the report of the measuring surveyor of shipping at that port, which has been forwarded to us by the collector, that there are about forty ships building at the present time in the port, and it may be intended to give one of them that name; that the only ship apparently designed for a ship of war is the one building in the yard of Messrs. Thomson, referred to in our report to your lordships of the 11th ultimo, and that she is still in a very unfinished state. The measuring surveyor adds that he is giving his closest attention to this vessel, and will take care to keep the collector fully informed of her progress from time to time. 2

A report having appeared in the "Daily News," on the 17th of March, 1863, that the Gibraltar, which, after acting as a The Gibraltar or confederate ship of war under the name of the Sumter, had Sumter. been sold to private owners, and had arrived at Liverpool in the previous month, was fitting out at Birkenhead as a vessel of war, Lord Russell at once requested that inquiries might be made on the subject, and communicated the result to Mr. Adams. I shall have subsequently to go fully into the case of this vessel also, which was an object of constant vigilance during her stay at Liverpool, and which was not permitted to leave until the authorities were satisfied that there was no intention of again equipping her as a confederate cruiser.

Iron-clads at Bir

On the 7th of July, 1863, Mr. Dudley forwarded to the collector of customs at Liverpool several depositions relative to two ironclad steamships building in Messrs. Lairds' yard at Birken- "kenhead. head, which were alleged to be intended for the service of the Confederate States, one only of which had at the time been launched, the other being still in process of construction. Representations were also made on the subject by Mr. Adams, and a lengthened correspondence ensued. A strict watch was from the first kept upon the vessels, and inquiries made as to 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, of Paris, who produced a legal instrument, from which it appeared that the vessels had, in fact, been built to the order of Captain Bullock, (the confederate agent who had been instrumental in obtaining the Florida and Alabama for the confederate government,) but that Bullock had transferred his interest in them to Bravay. M. Bravay stated that he had purchased them for the Viceroy

1 Vol. i, p. 772.

2 British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 163.

of Egypt; but the Viceroy, on inquiry, disclaimed any intention of acquiring them.

On the 9th of September, 1863, a letter was addressed to the builders, Messrs. Laird, informing them that the government could not permit the vessels to leave the Mersey until satisfactory evidence could be given of their destination, or until the inquiries then being prosecuted on the subject should be brought to a conclusion; and, on the 9th of October following, both vessels were seized and given over into the care of the captain of Her Majesty's ship Majestic, then stationed at Liverpool. A commission was sent to Egypt for the purpose of procuring evidence with a view to their condemnation, but the result appearing doubtful, it was decided by the government to purchase them, though it was not in want of them, rather than run the risk of their passing directly or indirectly into the hands of a belligerent. They were accordingly purchased in May, 1864, for the sum of £220,000.1

pero.

Mention has already been made of the inquiries instituted by the The Canton or Pam-government as to vessels supposed to be building for the Confederate States at Glasgow. On the 17th of October, 1863, Mr. Adams wrote to Earl Russell, stating that, in addition to a formidable steam-ram in process of construction at that port, there was also another steamer ready to be launched, called the Canton, having all the characteristics of a war-vessel, which was about to be fitted out and dispatched with the same intent from the same place. Mr. Adams inclosed some extracts from a letter from the United States consul at Glasgow, who, he said, entertained no doubt as to the destination of the vessel, although, from the secrecy used in the process of construction and preparation, he had been slow in gaining evidence on which to base a representation.2

Directions were at once given to the proper authorities to make inquiries and to take any measures which might legally be possible. The investigations remained for some time without any definite result. The vessel was carefully examined. It appeared that though in course of being fitted as a passenger-ship, she possessed some peculiarities of construction which rendered her capable of being converted into a vessel serviceable for warlike use. The builders, however, and the firm through whom she had been contracted for, disclaimed any knowledge of such an intention, and declared their belief that she was intended for the merchant service. The evidence as to her being intended for the confederate service, which was supplied by the United States consul, did not go beyond vague rumor and hearsay.

The vessel was launched on the 29th of October, 1863. On the 16th of November the collector of customs at Glasgow reported that, as she was being rapidly got ready for sea, he had arranged with the captain of Her Majesty's ship Hogue, then stationed in the Clyde, to prevent the possibility of a departure pending the decision of the authorities ;3 and a week later a gun-boat was moored alongside of her to prevent any chance of her leaving surreptitiously.4

By the end of November, the inquiries of the Government led to the production of evidence showing who were the real owners of the vessel, and that they had contracted to sell her to one Sinclair, calling himself a citizen of the Confederate States. A letter from Sinclair was produced, dated in the previous September, in which he said that "the