DIPLOMATIC COEEESPONDENCE A!NT> FOEEIGN RELATIONS. 



313 



may have been substantially of the most friendly 

 nature, in accelerating the termination of the ravage 

 committed by that vessel, I do not at the same time 

 feel at liberty longer to disguise from your Lordship 

 the sense of extreme surprise which the knowledge 

 of it has caused, not less on account of the singular 

 recognition thus incidentally made of the authority 

 of one, long pointed out as the principal offender 

 against the neutrality of this kingdom, and enjoying 

 a degree of impunity difficult to be understood, than 

 of the fact that her Majesty's Government appears 

 to have determined thus to act without deigning any 

 signification of its purpose to the party most directly 

 interested in the decision. 



Since the preceding was written I have had the 

 honor to receive unofficially from your Lordship the 

 gratifying intelligence that her Majesty's Government 

 have decided to send orders to detain the Shenandoah 

 if she comes into any of her Majesty's ports, and to 

 capture her if she be found on the high seas. I have 

 taken great pleasure in transmitting this to my Govern- 

 ment. At the same time, I trust I may be pardoned 

 if I am compelled to remark that had her Majesty's 

 Government felt it to be consistent with its views to 

 adopt this course at the time when it adopted that 

 upon which it has been my painful duty to animad- 

 vert, it would have most materially contributed to 

 allay the irritation in my own country inseparable 

 from the later outrages committed by that vessel. 



Having thus acquitted myself of the unpleasant 

 duty with which I have been charged, I pray, &c. 

 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 



On the 6th of November, 1865, the Shenan- 

 doah arrived at Liverpool, with a crew of 133 

 men. She was given up by her commander to 

 the British authorities at Liverpool, and her 

 officers and crew suffered to depart Earl Clar- 

 endon stating, in answer to the remonstrance 

 of Mr. Adams, that on inquiry none known to 

 be British subjects were on board, and that in 

 the absence of some definite charge of an offence 

 cognizable by British law, and supported by legal 

 evidence, the British Government could not as- 

 sume or exercise the power of keeping any of 

 them under any kind of restraint. 



On the 10th of November, the vessel with her 

 stores, etc., was delivered up by the senior naval 

 officer at Liverpool to the United States Consul 

 at that point. An answer to Mr Adams' letter 

 of October 21st, was despatched by Earl Clar- 

 endon, who had succeeded Lord Eussell in the 

 foreign office. 



FOREIGN OFFICE, Nov. 18. 



SIR : I have now the honor to reply to the letter 

 which you addressed to my predecessor on the 21st 

 of October last respecting the proceedings of the late 

 Confederate steamer Shenandoah in the Pacific. 



But I must in the first instance observe, that in 

 alluding to the answer given to you by Lord Russell, 

 on the 2(5th of September, 186-t, respecting the con- 

 duct of the yacht Ueerhound in rescuing from the 

 sea a portion of the crew of the Confederate steamer 

 Alabama, after her conflict with the United States 

 cruiser Kearsarge, you omit to notice the principal 

 passage, in that answer, in which Lord Russell says: 

 "In point of fact, however, her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment have no lawful power to arrest and deliver up 

 the persons in question "(that is, the persons rescued 

 from the sinking Alabama). " They have been guilty 

 of no offence against the laws of England, and they 

 have committed no act which could bring them within 

 the provisions of the treaty between Great Britain 

 and the United States for the mutual surrender of 

 offenders; and her Majesty's Government are, there- 

 fore, entirely without any legal means by which, even 



if they wished to do so, they could comply with your 

 above-mentioned demand (namely, that those offi- 

 cers and men should now be delivered up to the 

 Government of the United States as escaped prisoners 

 of war). 



I may add, that if beyond the limits of British ter- 

 ritory the commander of the Deerhound had improp- 

 erly interfered to protect the officers and crew of 

 the Alabama from the belligerent rights of the United 

 States, it was for the commander of the Kearsarge 

 to use the means in his power for the prevention of 

 such interference. Once upon British soil, they were 

 entitled to the protection of British laws, which they 

 bad in no respect violated ; and her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment could not deprive them of that protection 

 because of the possibility (whether afterwards realized 

 or not) that they might again leave this country and 

 become engaged in further hostilities with the tfnited 

 States. The demand for their delivery up, which 

 was made by you in fact, was identical with one 

 which had at various times been made by foreign Gov- 

 ernments for the extradition or expulsion of other 

 foreign refugees Poles, Hungarians, and others; 

 and to which the invariable answer had been that the 

 laws of this country did not empower the Govern- 

 ment to take any such measure. The answer to 

 every such demand is found in the fundamental insti- 

 tutions of this country, in the law of habeas corpus, 

 and of trial by jury. If any evidence had been offered 

 to her Majesty's Government identifying any of those 

 persons as British subjects who had unlawfully en- 

 listed in the service of the Confederate States, or who 

 were guilty of any other violation of our laws, they 

 would have been duly prosecuted ; but no such evi- 

 dence was brought forward. 



The case of the Deerhound, therefore, furnishes, 

 when examined, no materials for complaint against 

 her Majesty's Government. 



The next subject of complaint preferred by you is 

 the conduct of her Majesty s Government in not pre- 

 venting the vessel called the Sea King from leaving 

 the shores of England to join another vessel called 

 the Laurel, which was sent to meet her near Madeira 

 with arms and ammunition. 



You do not affirm that her Majesty's Government 

 had any power or jurisdiction over either of these 

 vessels when beyond the limits of British territory ; 

 but, unless that assertion be made or implied, the 

 complaint falls to the ground. For while these ves- 

 sels were in British waters no information was given 

 (much less any evidence offered) to her Majesty's 

 Government to show that any persons concerned in 

 their outfit or equipment were guilty of or were con- 

 templating any infringement of the Foreign Enlist- 

 ment Act, or of any other law in force in the United 

 Kingdom, nor even that they were suspected of being 

 engaged in any design whatever, hostile or dangerous 

 to the United States. 



Your complaint, indeed, is against the general laws 

 of this country. The executive power of the British 

 Crown does not, nor does the executive power (as 

 the Act of Congress of 1818 is understood in this 

 country) of the L nited States, extend to the detention 

 and seizure of an unarmed merchant vessel, on the 

 mere suspicion that she will or may be armed at sea 

 in the waters of a foreign power. 



Under the municipal law of this country (which 

 goes at least as far as any obligation which may be 

 supposed to attach to it under the law of nations) the 

 British Government is able to detain and prosecute 

 natural-born British subjects who may enter into the 

 war service of a foreign power without the license of 

 the Crown, or who within her Majesty's dominions 

 may fit out, arm, or equip (or attempt to fit out, arm, 

 or equip) vessels to cruise or commit hostilities 

 against any State in amity with her Majesty. But 

 the British laws do not and cannot effectually reach 

 subjects of her Majesty who may go to a 'foreign 

 State, and there enter into any kind of naval or mili- 

 tary service. You are well aware that many subjects 



