nock. The Rappahan- proceedings,' and furnished him with evidence tending to show the guilt of the purchasers, and also that one Rumble, inspector of machinery afloat of Her Majesty's dock-yard, Sheerness, had been the principle person concerned in enlisting the crew. Rumble was subsequently tried and acquitted, although the proof against him was clear. As to the vessel, any doubt of her character was at once removed. The insurgent flag was hoisted, and she went into commission under the name of the Rappahannock in crossing the Channel, and she entered the port of Calais claiming to be an insurgent man-of-war. What was done there is described in the statement of the Solicitor General to the jury on the trial of Rumble. "The prepations for equipping, which had been interrupted, were proceeded with; a number of boiler-makers were sent for from England, and many of them were induced to leave their employment in the dock-yard without leave, and when they returned they were discharged as being absent without leave; attempts were made to enlist more men; a large store of coals was taken in; but at this point the French Government stepped in. The French Government, not choosing their ports to be made the scene of hostile operations, interposed, and prevented any further equipment of the vessel, 1 Vol. II, pages 727, 735, 738, 747, 751, 754, 771, 776, 787. nock. and, by the short and summary process of mooring The Rappahana man-of-war across her bows, prevented her going out of the port, and she has been kept a prisoner in the harbor ever since." Contrast again the course of the French Government with that of the British Government in like cases. What vessel bearing a commission from the Richmond authorities was ever disturbed by a British gun-boat, no matter how flagrant might have been her violations of British sovereignty? In the summer or autumn of the year 1864, there was in London a vessel called the Sea King. She was a merchant steamer which had belonged to a Bombay company, and had been employed in the East India trade. On the 20th of September in that year she was sold in London to Richard Wright, of Liverpool,3 the father-in-law of Prioleau, of South Carolina, the managing partner in the Liverpool house of Fraser, Trenholm & Co. On the 7th of October Wright gave a power of attorney to one Corbett, an Englishman, "to sell her at any time within six months for a sum not less than £45,000 sterling. On the next day she cleared for Bombay, and sailed with a large supply of coal and about fifty tons of metal and a 1 Vol. IV, page 583. 2 Bernard's British Neutrality, page 359. The Shenaudoah. The Shenan- crew of forty-seven men." Corbett sold her to doah. the insurgents on the high-seas, or rather made the form of transfer comply with the facts of the original transaction which took place in England. On the day after the Sea King left London, the Laurel, a screw-steamer, "nearly new built, very strong, and admirably adapted for a privateer," left Liverpool, clearing for Matamoras via Nassau. She took on board "a number of cases containing guns and carriages;" and she had twenty-one seamen, six stewards, besides deck-hands and firemen," as first reported by the Consul at Liverpool. Further information after she left led him to write that she had taken "about one hundred men, forty or fifty of whom were on the pirate Alabama, and all Englishmen." The two vessels met off Madeira. On the morning of the 18th of October they went together to the barren island of Porto Santo near Madeira, and there, with eighteen hours' work, transferred to the Sea King the arms and ammunition from the Laurel, "guns, gun-carriages, shot, shell, powder, clothing, goods, &c." The insurgent commander of the Sea King and about forty men came out of the Laurel and took possession of Dudley to Seward, Vol. III, page 319. 2 Wilson's affidavit, Vol. III, page 326. 3 Dudley to Seward, Vol. III, page 316. 4 Dudley to Adams, Vol. III, page 317. 5 Dudley to Seward, Vol. III, page 318. 6 Wilson's affidavit, Vol. III, page 325. the vessel, and named her the Shenandoah; the insurgent flag was hoisted, the Laurel hoisted the English flag, and took on board some of the men of the Shenandoah, who could not be induced, even by "a bucketful of sovereigns," to aid in violating the Queen's Proclamation; and the two vessels separated. The The next appearance of the Shenandoah in a British port was at Melbourne in January, 1865. Her character and history were well known, and were at once brought to the notice of the Governor by the Consul of the United States. evidence was so clear that the authorities evidently felt they must go through the form of arresting and examining her. This was the shell conceded to the United States. The kernel was reserved for the insurgents. The vessel was discharged and allowed to make extensive repairs ; to go upon a dry-dock; to take on board three hundred tons of coal, having at the time four hundred tons on board; and the authorities deliberately shut their eyes while she enlisted about fifty men. The Shenandoah, with its British crew, continued its career of destruction until long after the insurgents had abandoned the contest in America. It was not until the 19th of June, 1865, that Bul 1 Vol. III, pages 393, 394, 396, 398. 2 Vol. III, pages 384-444. The Shenan doah. doah. The Shenan- lock, managing things to the last, issued his instructions to Captain Waddell to desist.' This communication the Foreign Office undertook to forward to him. Captain Waddell arrived with his ship in the Mersey in November, 1865, and surrendered his ship to the British Government, by whom it was handed over to the United States. Mr. Mountague Bernard's list of It is due to Great Britain to say that, in addi- . vessels detained tion to the rams, some other vessels were detained by Great Britain. by Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Mountague Bernard, one of Her Majesty's High Commissioners at Washington, in his able and courteous, but essentially British, "Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War," thus recapitulates the action of the British Government in the cases which have not been hitherto noticed in this paper. From his position, it may reasonably be assumed that the list is a complete one: "November 18, 1862-The Hector. Mr. Adams's application referred to the Admiralty November 18. This was an inquiry whether the Hector was building for Her Majesty's Government. On reference to the Admiralty it was answered in the affirmative.-January 16, 1863— The Georgiana. Referred to Treasury and Home 1 Bullock to Waddell, Vol. III, page 457. 2 Hammond to Mark, Vol. III, page 459. 3 Bernard's Neutrality, page 352. |