These facts brought to Earl of the men, as well as their merchandise, have a price." On the 3d of November, 1863, Mr. Adams laid Russell's notice. before Earl Russell "new proofs of the manner in which the neutrality of Her Majesty's ports is abused by the insurgents in the United States, in order the more effectually to procrastinate their resistance," which he contended showed the "establishment in the port of St. George's, in the island of Bermuda, of a depot of naval stores for their use and benefit in the prosecution of the war.' This information should have put Lord Russell on the track of all the facts in regard to Bermuda. Had Her Majesty's Government pursued the investigations to which it gave them the clew, it would have done so. Earl Russell, on the 27th of November, answered that "Her Majesty's Government do not consider that they can properly interfere in this matter."3 The dates would seem to indicate a possibility that no inquiries were made at Bermuda. He sees no offense in them. On the 29th of December, 1863, Mr. Adams wrote Earl Russell that he had "information en titled to credit," that Ralph Cator, "an officer in Her Majesty's naval service," was engaged in violating the blockade;" and that there was 1 1 Ferguson to Lawton, December 23, 1863, Vol. VI, page 149. fense in them. "a strong disposition on the part of a portion of He sees no of Her Majesty's navy to violate the neutrality of their Sovereign in aiding and assisting the enemies of the United States." This, too, was answered in a week from its date, without taking the trouble to inquire in the West Indies. 2 Again, upon the 25th day of January, 1864, Mr. Adams called attention to "the manner in which the insurgents habitually abuse the belligerent privileges which have been conceded to them by Great Britain." It would seem that he had lately had a conversation with Earl Russell on the subject, for he says that he "deems it almost superfluous to enlarge further on the difficulties which must grow out of a toleration of the outrageous abuses of the belligerent privileges that have been granted to the insurgents." "It would be difficult," he adds, "to find an example in history of a more systematic and persistent effort to violate the neutral position of a country than this one has been from its commencement, that has not brought on a war. That this has been the object of the parties engaged in it I have never for a moment doubted." "It must be obvious," he says, "to your Lordship that, after such an exposition, all British subjects engaged in these violations of blockade must incur a suspicion Vol. I, page 739. 2 Vol. I, page 740. 3 Vol. I, page 746. Russell's again strong enough to make them liable to be treated as enemies, and, if taken, to be reckoned as pris Earl Russell replied to this note on the 9th of these March. He ignored the evidence and charges of the hostile use of the British West India ports. He alluded to a charge against Lieutenant Rooke, which he set aside as unimportant, and to a charge against one James Ash of a purpose to build ships for the insurgents. As to the latter charge, he reiterated the oft-repeated plea that there was no "legal and proper evidence" to sustain it; and having disposed of these, he confined himself to a notice of Mr. Adams's intimation that it might become necessary to treat blockade-runners as prisoners of war. This, he said, could not be assented to. A short discussion ensued, which was closed by a note of Mr. Adams, transmitting further evidence of the character of the trade between the British West Indian ports and the insurgent States, and calling Earl Russell's "particular attention to the express condition exacted from all vessels in trade with the insurgent ports, that one-half of the tonnage of each vessel may be employed by the socalled Government for its own use, both on the 1Adams to Russell, Vol. I, page 745. 2 Russell to Adams, Vol. I, pages 749-'51. 1 outward and homeward voyage; " to which Earl Russell replied in an answer in which he said, in substance, that admitting all the facts stated to be true, there was nothing in them worthy of attention; for "the subjects of Her Majesty are entitled by International Law to carry on the operations of commerce equally with both belligerents, subject to the capture of their vessels and to no other penalty."2 This discussion closed the correspondence which took place between the two Governments on this branch of the subject. It left Great Britain justifying all that took place, after actual knowledge of much, and possible knowledge of all, had been brought within its reach. It left, too, the Queen's Proclamation as to this subject virtually revoked, and Her Majesty's subjects assured that it was no violation of international duty to break the blockade. It is worthy of remark that Lord Westbury, the Lord High Chancellor, gave a judicial dicision to the same effect, which was soon after followed by the High Court of Admiralty.1 The executive and judicial branches of the British Government were thus a second time brought into 1 Adams to Russell, Vol I, page 756. 2 Russell to Adams, Vol. I, page 757. 311 Jurist N. S., 400.. +Law Reports Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts, Browning, Vol. 1, page 1. He again sees no offense in them. Blockade-run ning in partner accord in construing away Her Majesty's Procla mation. Blockade-running throve, and Nassau and Burship with the in- muda prospered under these repeated decisions of Her Majesty's Government. The Florida, too, surgent Government. arrived at Bermuda on the 16th of July, 1864, and remained there until the 27th, taking coal and supplies on board; and this at a time when like permission was refused to the vessels of the United States. It was a favorite idea of the insurgent authorities from the beginning to become interested with Englishmen as partners in blockade-running. One contract to that effect has already been alluded to. In July, 1864, McRae reported other contracts. Captain Bullock, "with whom (he said) I [McRae] am directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to consult," was a party to the transaction. These contracts "made provision for fourteen steamers, four to leave during the month of August, eight in December, and two in April, 1865." They were to be "built of steel, and to carry one thousand bales of cotton each, on a draught of seven feet water, and with an average speed of thirteen knots per hour." hour." Arrangements were at the same time made for the purchase of supplies for Huse and Ferguson pending the fin McRae to Seddon, July 4, 1864, Vol. VI, page 163. |