clined by Great Britain.

Propositions de- them more effective had been favorably received. Although the law of the United States was considered as of very sufficient vigor, the Government were not unwilling to consider propositions to improve upon it." Lord Russell replied that, since his note was written, the subject had been considered in Cabinet, and the Lord Chancellor had expressed the opinion that the British law was sufficiently effective, and that under these circumstances he did not see that he could have any change to propose.1

The United States are unable to state what amendments to the Foreign Enlistment Acts of the two countries the British Government might have proposed had they not changed their minds between December, 1862, and March, 1863. It is to be presumed, from the use of the word "construction" in Lord Russell's note, that it was in contemplation to make some proposition to remedy a supposed defect in the British statute as to the construction of a vessel intended to carry on war, as distinguished from the "equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming" such a vessel. It was understood to be the opinion of the British lawyers that the construction of such a vessel was not an offense under the act of 1819. It is also possible that Her Majesty's Government may have

Adams to Seward, Vol. I, page 668.

clined by Great

desired to give to the Executive in Great Britain Propositions desome power similar to that possessed by the Execu- Britain. tive of the United States for the arrest of vessels so constructed. As the proposal for negotiations on the subject was withdrawn, it is impossible to do more than conjecture what was contemplated. From the hour when Lord Russell informed Mr. Adams that the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the British laws were sufficiently effective, the British Government resisted every attempt to change the laws and give them more vigor.

newed and de

Mr. Adams again, on the 26th of March, 1863, Propositions resought an interview with Lord Russell on the sub-clined. ject of the rebel hostile operations in British territory. What took place there is described by Lord Russell in a letter written on the following day to Lord Lyons:1 "With respect to the law itself, Mr. Adams said either it was sufficient for the purposes of neutrality, and then let the British Government enforce it; or it was insufficient, and then let the British Government apply to Parliament to amend it. I said that the Cabinet were of opinion that the law was sufficient, but that legal evidence could not always be procured; that the British Government had done everything in its power to execute the law, but I admitted that the cases of

1 Vol. I, page 585. See also Mr. Hammond's letter to Messrs. Lamport and Holt and others, Vol. I, page 602; also Lord Palmerston's speech already cited, Vol. IV, page 530.

Propositions the Alabama and Oreto were a scandal, and, in some degree, a reproach to our laws."

renewed and declined.

The Tribunal of Arbitration will thus see that about three weeks before Earl Russell made his extraordinary official reply to the representations of Mr. Adams, he had informed Mr. Adams "that the Lord Chancellor had expressed the opinion that the British [neutrality] law was sufficiently effective, and that, under these circumstances, he did not see that he could have any change to propose " in it. It will also now be observed that when that declaration was made, Mr. Adams's note of February 9, 1863, with the proof of the complicity of the insurgent agents in England, had been in Earl Russell's portfolio four days. It will also be observed that that proof established, or af forded to Earl Russell the clew by which he could, and, as the United States say, should have satisfied himself 1. "That contracts were already made for the construction of iron-clad fighting-ships' in England." 2. That Fraser, Trenholm & Co. were the "depositaries" of the insurgents in Liverpool, and that the money in their hands was "to be applied to the contracts."3 3. That they (F., T. & Co.) were to pay purchases made by Mr.

Vol. I, page 668.

2 Mallory to Mason, Vol. I, page 573.

3 Memminger to Spence, Vol. I, page 574.

1

newed and de

Huse and other agents. 4. That other contracts Propositions refor the construction of vessels besides those for clined. the six iron-clads had been taken by parties in Great Britain. 5. That parties in England were arranging for an insurgent cotton loan, the proceeds of which were to be deposited with Fraser, Trenholm & Co. for the purpose of carrying out all these contracts.3

When the United States found that the proof of such aggravated wrong was not deemed worthy of investigation by Her Majesty's Government, because it contained no statements which could be used as evidence to convict a criminal before an English jury, they were most reluctantly forced from that time forward, throughout the struggle, to believe, that no complaints would be listened to by Her Majesty's Government which were not accompanied by proof that the persons complained of had brought themselves "within reach of the criminal law of the United Kingdom;" that the penal

1

Memminger to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Vol. I, page 574; and same to same, Vol. I, page 575.

2 Memorandum No. 11, in Vol. I, page 572.

3 Benjamin to Mason, Vol. I, page 564. Memminger to Mason, Vol. I, page 565. Memminger to Spence, Vol. I, page 574. Memminger to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Vol. I, page 574.

It is supposed to be a principle of English law that a person accused of crime has the right to have the witnesses against him subjected to a personal cross-examination. The absurdity of Earl Russell's position is shown by the fact that every witness whose correspondence was inclosed in Mr. Adams's note of February 9, 1863, was then in Richmond, behind the bayonets of General Lee's army.

newed and de

clined.

Propositions re- provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 were to be taken by Great Britain as the measure of its duty as a neutral; and that no amendment or change in that act was to be made with the assent of the existing Government.

These proceedings were an aban

vance, of

diligence."

"due

They earnestly and confidently insist before this donment, in ad- tribunal, that this decision of Her Majesty's Government was in violation of its obligations toward the United States; that it was an abandonment, in advance, not only of that "due diligence" which is defined in the Treaty of Washington as one of the duties of a neutral, but of any measure of diligence, to restrain the insurgents from using its territory for purposes hostile to the United States.

The Georgia.

Encouraged by the immunity afforded by these several decisions of Her Majesty's Government, the insurgent agents in Great Britain began to extend their operations.

Early in April, 1863, a steamer, called the "Japan," which was afterward known as the "Georgia," left the Clyde, "with intent to depredate on the commerce of the United States." This vessel had been publicly launched on the 10th of the previous January as an insurgent steamer, at which time "a Miss North, daughter of a Captain North, of one of the Confederate States, officiated as priestess, and christened the craft

1 Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Vol. II, page 666.