became the object of watchful attention on the part of Her Majesty's government.

On the 4th of April Earl Russell writes to Mr. Adams as follows:

My attention having been drawn to a paragraph which appeared in the Daily News of the 17th ultimo, in which, under the heading of "Confederate War-Vessels," is included the Sumter, now called the Gibraltar, as having been thoroughly repaired at Birkenhead, and being ready for sea, I deemed it advisable at once to request the proper authorities to cause particular attention to be paid to this vessel.

I have now the honor to acquaint you that it appears from a report which has been received from the collector of customs at Liverpool, and which has been communicated to me by the lords commissioners of Her Majesty's treasury, that, since the arrival of the Sumter at Liverpool on the 13th of February last, she has been carefully watched by the custom-house officers, and that, although the vessel has received some repairs, nothing has taken place regarding her of a suspicious character.

The Sumter appears to be laid up in the upper part of the great float, at Birkenhead, and there seems to be no sign of her being at present intended for sea.

I have the honor to add that the authorities at Liverpool are instructed to continue to observe this vessel, and to report without delay any circumstances of an unusual character which may happen to take place with regard to her.'

To which Mr. Adams replies:

I have had the honor to receive your note of the 4th instant, in reference to a paragraph which appeared in the Daily News of the 17th ultimo, respecting the immediate preparation of the Sumter for departure from the port of Liverpool. I must confess that the information received by me from Liverpool, from wholly independent sources, had led me to believe the newspaper statement to be true. It is, however, with very great satisfaction I receive the contradiction of it from your lordship, as well as the assurance that the movements of that vessel are under the observation of Her Majesty's government. I am the more led to indulge this that the notice appears to have been spontaneously furnished to me with a degree of courtesy which I should be wanting in my duty if I were to fail properly to appreciate.

A month or six weeks later, all her war fittings were removed; and the vessel, having been adapted for running cargo, it was proposed to load some heavy ordnance on board of her, the intention being no doubt to run the blockade and convey the guns, which appear to have been intended for purposes of fortification, to one of the southern ports. The authorities immediately interfered, nor would they allow the ship to sail with the guns till thoroughly satisfied that they were incapable of being used on board, and were to be carried only as cargo.

On the 1st of July, Mr. Dudley, for once giving credit to the authorities for a desire to do their duty, writes:

The steamer Sumter is still in port. She has taken on the two large guns referred to in previons dispatches. The collector refuses to clear the vessel until they are removed and threatens to seize her if she sails without her clearance. Either the government or owners will have to give way. This looks as if the authorities were in earnest; at least, so far as this vessel is concerned.3

On further inquiry all doubt as to the guns being cargo was removed, and the vessel was allowed to clear with them on board.

The confident expectations at first entertained by Mr. Dudley of her being destined for further use as a vessel of war proved unfounded.

She assumed the humbler character of a blockade-runner, and is supposed to have been lost in attempting to get into Charleston.

It is impossible to say that any responsibility attaches to Great · Britain in respect of this vessel.

THE NASHVILLE.

The facts relating to the Nashville are very similar to the earlier part of the history of the Sumter.

The Nashville.

At Bermuda.

3 United States Documents, vol. iv, p. 203.

4

+ Page 328.

She is stated, in the case of the United States, to have been a large paddle-wheel steamer, formerly engaged on the New York and Charleston line; to have been lightened to diminish her draught; to have been armed with two guns, and to have been commanded by an officer who had been in the Navy of the United States. She ran out from Charleston on the night of the 26th of October, 1861, and arrived at the port of St. George, Bermuda, on the 30th. She was then short of coal, having, no doubt, taken only a sufficient supply to bring her to Bermuda, the object being to lighten her draught as much as possible, in order to facilitate her getting over the bar at Charleston. In a dispatch to the Duke of Newcastle, of the 2d of November, Governor Ord writes:

I have the honor to acquaint your excellency that these islands were visited, on the 30th ultimo, by the Confederate States paddle-wheel steamer Nashville, commanded by Lieutenant Peagram, and having on board Lieutenant-Colonel Peyton, of the Confederate States army, said to be a minister from those States to the court of Spain, with numerous other officers and persons apparently connected with the ship. The vessel anchored off the dock-yard; and Lieutenat Peagram and Colonel Peyton at once called upon Captain Hutton, R. N., the superintendent, and requested him to supply their vessel with 600 tons of coal, it being their wish to proceed to sea as early as possible.

This request Captain Hutton declared himself unable to comply with, and the governor, on being applied to, having repeated the refusal, Lieutenant Peagram supplied himself from private sources.

The governor further states:

The object of the Nashville's visit has not been distinctly stated; but there can be no doubt that she is bound to England, and that she has on board persons who will endeavor to excite an interest in the favor of the Confederate States at some of the European courts, and probably to obtain supplies of material and stores for the sup port of their cause.

It had been reported that the Nashville left Charleston on the 12th ultimo, with exSenators Slidell and Mason, as representatives from the Confederate States to the gov ernments of France and England; that she had $2,000,000 on board for the purchase of material, and was intended to coal at Bermuda. This report no doubt led to the calling in here, on the 20th ultimo, of the United States steam-vessel Connecticut, which left here immediately after, and proceeded apparently to cruise south.

It appears from the report of the Nashville officers that these ex-Senators really did break the blockade about the time named, but in a smaller vessel, and that they reached Havana on their way to England. The United States steam-vessels being thus put upon a wrong scent, the Nashville ran the blockade the night of the 26th, probably with the remainder of the Confederate States representatives and the specie, and got to Bermuda in safety, from which she has every chance of reaching England unmolested by the United States vessels of war.

I trust my proceedings on this occasion will meet your Grace's approval.1

It is stated in the case of the United States, that "the Nashville took on board at Bermuda, by the permission of the governor, 600. tons of coal, and that this act was approved by Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for the colonies. This approval seems to have been elicited by the complaints which had been made to the governor by the consul of the United States at that port. It may also be that Her Majesty's government preferred to have the question settled, before it could be made the subject of diplomatic representation on the part of the United States."

This statement requires correction. In the first place, no permission was given by the governor. At that time none was required. No regulations having then been issued as to the stay of vessels in British ports, or the supply of coal to be allowed to them, it was free to a vessel of war to purchase as much coal as she required.

In the second place the quantity was, in fact, not 600 tons, but, as appears from a dispatch from Governor Lefroy to the Earl of Kimberley, either 4423 or 4723 tons, according as the report of an officer of the

British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 87.

port, who took down the amount, or the memory of the party who supplied the coal, may happen to be correct.1

This fact appearing in the evidence furnished by Her Majesty's Government, it is now said by the United States Government to "matter little which is the true account;" yet we have seen 150 tons treated as a considerable amount; and while on this subject I cannot help observing that although it is true that Governor Ord, in writing to the Duke of Newcastle, says, with reference to the amount of coal taken by the Nashville, he "has been informed they have taken in about 600 tons," the United States consul, Mr. Wells, who no doubt kept a sharp eye on what was doing, and was more likely to be well informed about it, states, in a letter to Mr. Seward of the 8th of November, "the Nashville took in about 500 tons of coal." Why should the larger figure at once be assumed to be the right one, without any reference to the statement of Mr. Wells?

When it is stated that the approval of the colonial secretary of what has been done "seems to have been elicited by the complaints which had been made to the governor by the United States consul," I am struck by the fact that there is a total absence of all such complaint. Beyond an application made by the consul to the governor, on hearing of the ship's arrival, soliciting that an order may be given that no supplies shall be granted to the vessel, no remonstrance or complaint of any kind is made by Mr. Wells.*

When it is insinuated that "Her Majesty's government preferred to have the matter settled before it could be made the subject of diplomatic correspondence," two things should be added: the first, that the supplies furnished to the Nashville at Bermuda never did become the subject of diplomatic correspondence, no complaint having ever been addressed to Her Majesty's government, either as to the fact of coal having been supplied to the Nashville, or as to the quantity furnished to her. The subject is brought forward as a matter of complaint, for the first time, in the proceedings before this tribunal. Further, it should be stated that the approval of the secretary of state was elicited by the request of Governor Ord himself, who asked to be informed if he had acted rightly in allowing the vessel to coal. It is distressing to have so frequently to advert to inaccuracies of this kind.

The approval of the secretary of state for the colonies was in these words:

The course pursued by you in the present instance was in strict accordance with the principles which you will find laid down in my circular dispatch.

I have further to state that both you and Captain Hutton showed a very proper discretion in declining to furnish supplies to a war-vessel of one of the belligerent parties from public stores belonging to the British government.

Her Majesty's government entirely approve of the whole of your proceedings on this occasion.5

The secretary of state, by the same mail which carried out the approval of the secretary of state as to what had been done, sent a circular to the governors of Her Majesty's colonies, containing instructions for their future guidance in such cases:

Having had occasion to consult the law-officers of the Crown on the subject of remonstrances addressed to the governors of some of the colonies by consuls of the United States in regard to certain particulars in the treatment of vessels bearing the flag of

the States which have seceded from the Union, I think it right to communicate to you, for your information and guidance, the principles which ought to be observed in cases of the kind which raised the present question.

You will understand, therefore, that no foreign consul has any power or jurisdiction to seize any vessel (under whatever flag) within British territorial waters, and that the British authorities ought not to take any steps adverse to merchant-vessels of the Confederate States, or to interfere with their free resort to British ports.

With respect to supplies, even of articles clearly "contraband of war," (such as arms or ammunition,) to the vessels of either party, the colonial authorities are not at liberty to interfere, unless anything should be done in violation of the foreign-enlistment act, 59 Geo. III, cap. 69, which prohibits the equipping, furnishing, fitting-out, and arming of ships or vessels of foreign belligerent powers, and also the supply of guns or equipments for war, so as to increase the warlike force of vessels of war, but which does not render illegal the mere supply of arms or ammunition, &c., to private ships or vessels.

If it should be necessary for the colonial anthorities to act in any such case, it should only be done when the law is regularly put in force, and under the advice of the lawofficers of the Crown.

With respect to the supplying in British jurisdiction of articles ancipitis usus, (such, for instance, as coal,) there is no ground for any interference whatever on the part of the colonial authorities.1

It is plain from these instructions that Her Majesty's government, acting under the advice of the council of the Crown, took the same view of the law applicable to such a case that all writers on international law had taken, namely, that in the absence of regulations made by the neutral state, a belligerent vessel in a neutral port enjoys perfect liberty to obtain, from private sources, whatever supplies she may require.

Nor, even if the governor had had any discretion in the matter, could it be said that he had exercised such discretion unwisely. The Nashville did not appear to be going on a mission of war at all. She was imperfectly armed with only two rifled 6-pounder guns. She was conveying to Europe agents authorized to communicate with European governments on behalf of the Confederate States. The quantity of coal allowed her was no more than was sufficient for the purpose of such a voyage, and there was then no rule limiting the supply to the quantity to take her to her nearest port. As a ship of war she was at liberty to buy what she wanted.

I am therefore quite at a loss to see how the supply of coal at Bermuda can be made a ground for asking damages at the hands of this tribunal. The argument that what was done, at a time when there was unrestricted freedom in respect of such transactions, is to be tried by the test of stringent regulations, afterward made for the purpose of placing restraints on that freedom, is obviously unsound. When it is said that there was a violation of neutrality in allowing a confederate vessel to take as much coal as she wanted, while the United States were not permitted to establish a depot of coal for the supply of their ves sels, the argument which confounds the obvious distinction between a public national store and the resources of private dealers, if indeed worthy of attention, has already been disposed of.

The Nashville arrived at Southampton on the 21st November, 1861. On her way she seized and set fire to a United States merAt Southampton. chant-vessel, making her crew prisoners of war. On this ground, as well as her being a vessel of the insurgent government, Mr. Adams objected to her being received into a British port.

It was ascertained that the Nashville was duly commissioned as a ship of war of the Confederate States, and was under the command of a duly commissioned officer.

The law-officers, on being consulted by the government, gave an

1 British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 88.

opinion in strict conformity to established principles of international law:

The Nashville appears to be a confederate vessel of war; her commander and officers have commissions in the confederate navy; some of them have written orders from the navy department, Richmond, to report to Lieutenant Pegram " for duty" on board the Nashville, and her crew have signed articles to ship in the "confederate navy." Her having captured and burnt a United States merchant-vessel on the high seas cannot, under these circumstances, be considered (to adopt Mr. Adams's words) as "voluntarily undertaken by individuals not vested with powers generally acknowledged to be necessary to justify aggressive warfare;" nor does it at all approximate within the definition of piracy; nor is it an unauthorized act of violence; and if (as Mr. Adams suggests) Her Majesty's government is called on in this case either to recognize a belligerent, or to denounce à wrong-doer," Her Majesty's government must, upon the facts and documents now appearing, adopt the former course.

66

With reference to the allegation that some of her officers are to be put in command of vessels now fitting out in British ports for hostile purposes against the United States, we can only say that if reasonable evidence can be procured that such vessels are being so fitted out, in contravention of the foreign-enlistment act, all parties concerned therein should be legally proceeded against, with the view to their being personally punished, and to the forfeiture of the vessels.

We may add (generally) that it will be competent to Her Majesty, as a neutral power, either to designate the particular ports to which alone the national ships of the belligerents are permitted to resort; to limit the time for which, or to define the circumstances under which, they may so resort thereto, or to make and publish such general regulations with reference thereto as she may think proper; but subject to such limitations, Her Majesty cannot interfere with the national ships of one party resorting to her ports in respect of hostile acts done on the high seas to the ships of the opposite party.

Sir Hugh Cairns and Dr. Deane, being consulted by the United States consul as to the possibility of recovering chronometers seized as prizes on the taking of the Harvey Birch, advised:

It appears from the affidavit of Captain Nelson that the Harvey Birch was taken possession of and burnt on the high seas, outside the limit of British waters, and that the armed ship Nashville carried the flag of the Confederate States.

From the statement in the newspaper above referred to, the commander of the Nashville seems to have held a commission under the Confederate States and in the navy of those States.

The British government has considered the Federal and Confederate States entitled to be treated as belligerents, each possessed of the rights of war, one of which rights is the capture and destruction of vessels belonging to the enemy by the commissioned vessels of the belligerents.

If, therefore, the Nashville was a commissioned vessel belonging to the Confederate States, we are of opinion that Captain Nelson has no legal rights in this country against the Nashville or her commander.

There is nothing in what was done in relation to the Nashville after her arrival at Southampton which could give occasion for any complaint. As soon as it was found that she was about to undergo repairs at that port, instructions were given by the government to exercise the utmost vigilance to see that nothing was added to her equipment or her power as a vessel of war.3 Mr. Adams, naturally anxious to prevent any attempt of this nature, found, on applying to Earl Russell, that he had been anticipated by the spontaneous action of the government. Nothing was done to the Nashville beyond necessary repairs, and she eventually left England on the 3d of February, 1862, the same in point of equipment and strength as she had been on leaving Charleston.

On the 15th of December the United States steamer Tuscarora arrived also at Southampton, and having taken in 150 tons of coal proceeded to keep watch on the Nashville, evidently, as the sequel showed, for the

1 British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 92.

United States Documents, vo'. ii, p. 560. 3British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 91.

Ibid., p. 102.