DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



347 



dom intended to prevent ill-disposed persons from in- 

 volving it in difficulty by committing wanton and in- 

 jurious assaults upon foreign nations with which it is 

 at peace, of which her Majesty's ministers are invit- 

 ed to take cognizance, of which they do take cogni- 

 zance so far as to prepare measures of prevention ; 

 but which, by reason of circumstances wholly within 

 their own control, they do not prevent in season to 

 save the justly complaining party from serious injury ; 

 in the substantial points of the case little room seems 

 left open for discussion." 



On the substantial points of the case, as stated by you, 

 there is, on the contrary, great room open for discussion. 



I must ask, first, what are the circumstances within 

 the control of the Government to which you allude? 

 Do you mean that her Majesty's Government, in con- 

 struing a penal statute or in cairying into effect the 

 provisions of a penal statute, were to nurry at once to 

 a decision, and to seize a ship building and fitting out 

 at Liverpool without being satisfied by evidence that 

 the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act had been 

 violated in the case of such vessel ? Do you mean that 

 her Majesty's Government were to dispense with proof, 

 and to inflict injury upon the Queen's subjects by seiz- 

 ing a ship upon your mere assertion that the owners of 

 that ship were violating the laws ? 



If sucn is your meaning, I must reply that the Gov- 

 ernment of this country respect the law. They do not 

 seize upon property to the loss and damage of its owners 

 without proof that they are legally entitled to do so. 



Perhaps your meaning is, that her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment should have proceeded on the opinion of 

 Mr. Collier, without awaiting for any other authority. 



But here again I must reply that the usage of this 

 country requires that the Government should consult 

 their own legal advisers, and obtain the opinion of the 

 law officers of the crown before they proceed to en- 

 force a penal statute. 



If you mean to contend, therefore, that a nation in a 

 state of profound peace should set aside the formalities 

 of law and act at once upon presumptions and sur- 

 mises, I entirely differ from you. I may remind you 

 that the evidence sufficient to satisfy a court of law as 

 to the "equipment" or " fitting out" of a vessel for 

 warlike purposes, and of its actual Destination, is not 

 attainable without difficulty. 



If you mean that her Majesty's Government wilfully 

 delayed or neglected the measures by which the char- 

 acter of the Alabama could have been legally ascer- 

 tained, I must give a positive and complete denial of 

 the truth of any such assertion. The opinion of the 

 law officers, until the receipt of which her Majesty's 

 Government could not act, was delivered at the foreign 

 office on the 29th of July, but in the morning of that 

 day the Alabama, under pretext of a pleasure excur- 

 sion, escaped from Liverpool. 



With regard to the very different circumstances of 

 1793 and 1794, those circumstances are recorded in 

 history. It is notonious that Monsieur Genet, the 

 French minister to the United States, fitted out priva- 

 teers in the ports of the United States ; that he bSasted 

 in his despatches of the captures of British vessels 

 which those privateers had made', and that he procured 

 a sham condemnation of those captured vessels in 

 neutral ports. It is notorious, also, that he endeavored 

 to make the United States the basis of his operations 

 and of attempts to raise rebellions against England in 

 Canada, and against Spain in Louisiana. 



According to your own account the United States 

 purposely delayed to give any redress to the com- 

 plaints made by the British Government of the cap- 

 tures of British merchant vessels, because they felt un- 

 willing to act on a policy of repression till they had 

 given due notice of the construction they put upon a 

 treaty offensive and defensive with France, which had 

 been quoted in defence of the depredations committed 

 on British commerce. 



It is evident* that by so acting the United States 

 Government deliberately made themselves parties in 

 the interval to the proceedings carried on in their own 

 ports, and the same Government, with the sense of 



justice which distinguished them, made compensation 

 afterwards for the injuries inflicted under cover and 

 protection of their own flag, and promised to exclude 

 French privateers " from all further asylum in " their 

 " ports. 



In Mr. Jefferson's letter, quoted by you, he says : 

 " Having for particular reasons forborne to use all the 

 means in our power for the restitution," Ac. * * 

 Here is the inquiry stated, and here are the grounds 

 why it was permitted. 



But the British Government have given no asylum 

 to belligerent privateers bringing prizes into British 

 ports, xhey have no particular reasons to allege; 

 they have not forborne to use all the means in their 

 power ; they have used all the means they could use 

 consistently with the law of the land, and by no fault 

 of theirs have those means in a single instance proved 

 inefficacious. There was no want of a statute to en- 

 force, nor of a will to enforce it ; evidence was want- 

 ing and an authority to decide upon that evidence till 

 it was too late. But her Majesty's Government cannot 

 promise the United States to act without evidence, 

 nor to disregard the legal authority of their own law 

 officers. 



As to other points, we are nearly agreed so far as 

 the law of nations is concerned. But with respect to 

 the statement in your note that large supplies of vari- 

 ous kinds have been sent from this country by private 

 speculators for the use of the Confederates, I have to 

 observe that that statement is only a repetition in detail 

 of a part of the assertion, made in my previous letter 

 of the 19th ultimo, that both parties in the civil war 

 have to the extent of their wants and means induced 

 British subjects to violate the Queen's proclamation of 

 the 13th of May, 1861, which forbids her subjects from 

 affording such supplies to either party. 



It is, no doubt, true that a neutral may furnish as a 

 matter of trade supplies of arms and warlike stores im- 

 partially to both belligerents in a war, and it was not 

 on the ground that such acts were at variance with the 

 law of nations that the remark was made in the former 

 note. But the Queen having issued a proclamation 

 forbidding her subjects to afford such supplies to either 

 party in the civil war, her Majesty's Government are 

 entitled to complain of both parties for having induced 

 her Majesty's subjects to violate that proclamation, 

 and their complaint applies most to the Government 

 of the United States, because it is by that Government 

 that by far the greatest amount of such supplies have 

 been ordered and procured. 



I do not propose to discuss other collateral topics 

 which have been introduced, but, in explanation of 

 my former letter, I must say that I never meant to ac- 

 cuse you of giving any encouragement to the enlistment 

 of British subjects in this country to serve in the civil 

 war unhappily prevailing in the United States. 



But it is notorious that large bounties have been 

 offered and given to British subjects residing in the 

 United States to engage in the war on the Federal side, 

 and these British subjects, acting in defiance of the 

 laws of their country and of the Queen's proclamation, 

 have been encouraged by the United States Govern- 

 ment so to act. 



A recent and striking example of the open avowal 

 of this .course of conduct on the part of the United 

 States Government is to be found in the correspondence 

 between Mr. Seward and Mr. Stewart with reference 

 to the crew of the Sunbeam, in which, although it does 

 not appear that any bounties were offered, Mr. Seward 

 has treated an endeavor to induce British sailors to en- 

 list in the belligerent service of the United States as 

 affording no grounds of complaint to her Majesty's 

 Government. 



I have the honor to be, with the highest considera- 

 tion, sir, your most obedient humble servant, 



RUSSELL. 

 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., Ac., &c. 



LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. LONDON, ) 

 January 26th, 1S63. ( 



MY LORD : I have the honor to acknowledge the re- 

 ception of your lordship's note of the 24th instant, in 



