rams.

Laird's iron-clad vessels." These facts, and others, were communicated by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell in a note dated July 11, 1863. Commenting upon them, Mr. Adams said: "A war has thus been practically conducted by a portion of her people against a Government with which Her Majesty is under the most solemn of all national engagements to preserve a lasting and durable peace." On the 16th of July, Mr. Adams sent to Lord Russell further evidence of the character of these vessels.3 On the 25th of July he again wrote him on the subject, with fresh proof of their purposes. On the 14th of August he again wrote to Earl Russell with "further information;" said that he regretted to see "that the preparation * ** is not intermitted;" and added: “It is difficult for me to give to your Lordship an adequate idea of the uneasiness and anxiety created in the different ports of the United States by the idea that instruments of injury, of so formidable a character, continue to threaten their safety, as issuing from the ports of Great Britain, a country with which the people of the United States are at peace." On the 3d of September Mr. Adams again earnestly, returned to

Chapman's affidavit, Vol. II, page 333. 2 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 325.

3 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 336.

4 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 341.

5 Vol. II, page 346-7.

ramis.

the subject. He wrote to Earl Russell, inclosing Laird's iron-clad "copies of further depositions relating to the launching and other preparation of the second of the two vessels of war from the yard of Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead." He said that he believed there was "not any reasonable ground for doubt that these vessels, if permitted to leave the port of Liverpool, will be at once devoted to the object of carrying on war against the United States of America," and he closed by saying that he had been directed" to describe the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed, in the event of an act of aggression committed against the Government and the people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels." The new evidence inclosed in this letter related only to the fact that the second ram was launched, and cannot be said to have strengthened the case as previously presented. Again, on the 4th of September, Mr. Adams sent to the Foreign Office evidence to show the preparation for immediate departure of one of these vessels.1 Late in the afternoon of the 4th, after the note had been dispatched to Earl Russell and a copy of it sent to Mr Seward, Mr. Adams received from Earl Russell a note, dated the 1st of September, saying that

1 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 353.

2 Adams to Russell, September 4, 1863, Vol. II, p. 358.

rams.

Laird's iron-clad "Her Majesty's Government are advised that they cannot interfere in any way with these vessels." On the 5th Mr. Adams replied, expressing his

Their detention

not an abandon

profound regret at the conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government have arrived;" and added: "It would be superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war." On the 8th of September Mr. Adams received a short note, written in the third person, in which it was said "instructions have been issued which will prevent the departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool." would appear from the British Blue Book that the instructions for their detention "had scarcely been sent" when Mr. Adams's note of the 3d September was received at the Foreign Office.*

It

There was little in all this transaction to lead ment of the lax the United States to hope for a returning and bet

construction

of

the duties of a ter sense of justice in the British Government. For

neutral.

they could not but observe, when comparing the dates of the receipt of the several notes which passed between Lord Russell and Mr. Adams, that when Her Majesty's Government, after a delay of six weeks, answered that it could not interfere with these vessels, it was in possession of convincing evidence of their character and destina

Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 360. 2 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 365. 3 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 366. 4 Layard to Stuart, Vol. II, page 363.

not an abandon

construction

neutral.

of

tion, which was not materially, if at all, strength- Their detention ened by the evidence contained in Mr. Adams's ment of the lax letter of the 3d of September. They were there- the duties of a fore forced to conclude that, in detaining the vessels, Her Majesty's Governinent was influenced, not by a change in their opinion as to the force or effect of the Foreign Enlistment Act, or as to the duty of Great Britain toward the United States, but solely by a desire to avoid, in the interest of peace, what Mr. Adams called the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed, in the event of an act of aggression committed against the Government and people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels." The United States fully and earnestly shared this desire with Great Britain, and they were relieved from a state of painful suspense when the dangers which Mr. Adams pointed out were averted. But they would have felt a still greater relief, could they have received at that time the assurance, or could they have seen in the transaction any evidence from which they could assume, that the Executive Branch of the British Government was no longer of the opinion expressed in Lord Russell's note of September 1 as to its duties in regard to evidence such as that inclosed in Mr. Adams's previous notes, and no longer intended to regard the Foreign Enlistment

The contracts with Arman for

of vessels in France.

Act, as expounded by the court in the Alexandra casc, as the measure of its international duties. Extensive as were the arrangements made from the construction Liverpool by the insurgent agents, at that time, for the construction in Great Britain of vessels of war intended to carry on war against the United States, their operations were not confined to Great Britain. Captain Bullock, without shifting his office from Liverpool, signed an agreement, “for the account of his principals," on the 16th of April, 1863, with Lucien Arman, ship-builder at Bordeaux, whereby Mr. Arman engaged "to construct four steamers of 400 horse-power, and arranged for the reception of an armament of from ten to twelve cannon." As it was necessary in France to obtain the consent of the Government to the armament of such vessels within the limits of the Empire, Mr. Arman informed the Government that these vessels were "intended to establish a regular communication between Shanghai, Yedo, and San Francisco, passing the strait of Van Dieman, and also that they are to be fitted out, should the opportunity present itself, for sale to the Chinese or Japanese Empire." On this representation permission was given to arm them, the armament of two to be supplied by Mr. Arman at Bordeaux, and that of the other two by Mr. Vorus at Nantes.