348 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



But your lordship, in accounting for the admitted 

 failure to enforce the enlistment law in Great Britain, 

 has done me the honor to remind me that not long since 

 her Majesty's Government was itself so far made sen- 

 sible of injuries of the same kind with those of which I 

 now complajn either inflicted or threatened against 

 Great Bntain in the ports of the United States as to 

 have made them the subject of remonstrance through 

 her Majesty's representative at Washington. With so 

 fresh a sense of these evils before your lordship there 

 will be no further cause of surprise at the earnestness 

 with which I have followed the precedent then set. 

 You do me the honor to recall the fact that the enlist- 

 ment law of the United States, which preceded in its 

 date of enactment that of Great Britain, is almost iden- 

 tical with it. And you further state that " the notori- 

 ous evasion of its provisions during the late war waged 

 by Great Britain and her allies against Russia," was 

 the cause of the remonstrance to which I have already 

 alluded. Your lordship further remarks that " Great 

 Britain was then, as on other occasions, assured that 

 every effort which the law would permit had been 

 made to prevent such practices; that the United 

 States Government could only proceed upon legal evi- 

 dence, the law as to which is almost, if not entirely, the 

 same as in this country, and that without such evi- 

 dence no conviction could be procured." 



In the earlier portion of your lordship's note you did 

 me the favor to cite, as good authority to me, an ex- 

 tract of the message of the President of the United 

 States of the 31st December, 1855, which went to show 

 the extent to which assistance not only had been, but 

 might be, rendered without censure by neutrals to bel- 

 ligerents. Perhaps your lordship will not deny equal 

 weight to the very next passage in that message, even 

 though it should somewnat conflict with your own al- 

 legation. 



" Whatever concern may have been felt by either of 

 the belligerent powers, lest private armed cruisers or 

 other vessels in the service of one might be fitted out 

 in the ports of this country to depredate on the prop- 

 erty of the other, all such fears have proved to be ut- 

 terly 'groundless. Our citizens have been withheld from 

 any such act or purpose by good faith and by respect 

 for the law." 



I forbear from quoting the text which follows, be- 

 cause it may revive unpleasant recollections in your 

 lordship's as it docs in my mind. I will content my- 

 self solely with the remark that the very last thing 

 which your lordship would be likely to object to, the 

 facts there stated would be the want of ability of the 

 Government of the United States to proceed with en- 

 ergy and effect in the repression of acts in violation of 

 their enlistment act. 



But if evidences of another kind as to its energy 

 under that law be needed, I have only to remind your 

 lordship once more of the fact, that on the llth of Oc- 

 tober, 1855, her Majesty's representative at Washing- 

 ton, Mr. Crampton, addressed to the Government of 

 the United States a note, with evidence to show that a 

 vessel, called the Maury, was then fitting out at the 

 port of New York armed to depredate on British ves- 

 sels. On the 12th the Attorney-General sent, by tele- 

 graph, to the proper officer at New York to consult 

 with the British consul, and to prosecute, if cause ap- 

 pear. On the 13th the Collector stopped the vessel, 

 then about to sail. On the 16th the District Attorney 

 had prepared and filed a libel of the vessel, and in the 

 meantime ordered a thorough examination of her cargo. 

 On the llith the Marshal had made a full report of his 

 examination. On the same day the complainant, on 

 whose evidence the minister and the consul had acted, 

 confessed himself satisfied, and requested the libel to be 

 lifted. On the 23d Mr. Barclay, her Majesty's consul 

 at New York, published a note 'withdrawing every im- 

 putation made against the vessel. Thus, it appears 

 that in the brief space of four days the Government's 

 action under the enlistment law had been sufficiently 

 energetic completely to satisfy the requisition of her 

 Majesty's representative. 



If any similar action has been had since the first day 



that I had the honor to call your lordship's attention to 

 outfits of the same nature made in Great Britain, I can 

 only say that I have not enjoyed a corresponding op- 

 portunity to express my satisfaction with the result. 



The owners of the Maury were never compensated 

 for the trouble and expense to which they were put 

 by this process. But nie Chamber of Commerce of 

 ]Sew York adopted a series of resolutions, two of which 

 may serve as a sufficient comment on the remark which 

 your lordship has been pleased to let fall touching the 

 "notorious evasion " of the enlistment law in America 

 at the time alluded to : 



" Resolved, That no proper amends or apology have 

 been made to A. A. Low &, Brothers for the charge 

 brought against them, which, if true, would have ren- 

 dered them infamous ; nor to the merchants of this 

 city and country so falsely and injuriously asserted. 



" Resolved, That the merchants of New York, as 

 part of the body of merchants of the United States, will 

 uphold the Government in the full maintenance of the 

 neutrality laws of the country ; and we acknowledge 

 and adopt, and always have regarded the acts of the 

 United States for preserving its neutrality as binding in 

 honor and conscience as well as in law ; and that we 

 denounce those who violate them as disturbers of the 

 peace of the world, to be held in universal abhor- 

 rence." 



I pray your lordship to give one moment's attention 

 .to the manner in which the conduct imputed to Messrs. 

 Low is stigmatized. I am sorry to confess that I have 

 not seen the like indignation shown in this kingdom 

 against similar charges made against distinguished 

 parties in Liverpool, nor yet can'l perceive it so for- 

 cibly expressed as I had hoped even in the tone of your 

 lordship s note. 



I beg to assure your lordship that it gives me no 

 pleasure to review the recollections of the events of 

 that period. But inasmuch as they had been voluntarily 

 introduced in the note which I had the honor to re- 

 ceive, and they seemed to me necessarily to imply an 

 unmerited charge against the policy of the United 

 States, I felt myself imperatively called upon to show 

 that at least in one instance in which her Majesty's 

 Government made a complaint, there was no failure 

 either in the manner of construing the powers vested 

 in the Government of the United States, or in their 

 promptness of action under their enlistment law. 



Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, at "Washing- 

 ington, in a letter to Mr. Adams, on January 

 19th, 1863, in relation to the preceding note of 

 Mr. Adams, on December 30th, said : 



You have properly replied to Earl Russell's note, 

 and cleared up the argument of the case by a paper 

 which seems to the President as convincing as it is 

 calm and truthful. 



Earl Russell's argument does not satisfy the Presi- 

 dent that redress ought not to be granted to our citi- 

 zens for the depredations which have been committed 

 by the " 290." He trusts that your reply may yet in- 

 duce a reconsideration of that subject. I therefore 

 leave that branch of the case at rest until there shall 

 have been an opportunity to hear further from you 

 upon that subject. 



On the 16th of January, Mr. Adams notified 

 Earl Russell that another vessel was about to 

 depart from London, to pursue a similar course 

 as the Alabama. 



On the 24th of January, Earl Russell replied 

 to the note of Mr. Adams, of December 30th, 

 as follows : 



FOREIGN OFFICE, January 24th, 1863. 



SIB : It is impossible for me to leave without notice 

 some of the statements contained in your letter of the 

 80th ultimo. 



These statements contain or imply a grave charge 

 against her Majesty's Government. You speak of the 

 " admitted fact of a violation of a statute of this king- 



