352 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



all the facts to be made out and they (the 

 jury) were to adopt the conclusion of skilled 

 witnesses as to the destination of the vessel for 

 warlike purposes they would have to ask 

 themselves whether it could be doubted that 

 the Confederate Government had an interest 

 an immediate interest in the completion of the 

 vessel. The Attorney General then went into 

 the evidence he proposed to call to prove his 

 case. 



The testimony in the case was directed, and 

 tended, to prove, 



1st. That the vessel, from the nature of 

 her construction, was not intended for the 

 merchant service, but suitable for a vessel-of- 

 war. 



2d. That gun carriages and other warlike 

 equipments were being constructed for her. 



3d. That her builders had declared she was 

 being built for the Confederate States. 



4th. That the persons who contracted for her 

 and supervised her construction, were in the 

 service of the Confederate States. 



After the case had been summed up, the Lord 

 Chief Baron said : 



This is an information on the part of the crown for 

 the seizure and confiscation of a vessel that was in the 

 course of preparation, but had not been completed. It 

 is admitted that it was not armed, and the question is, 

 whether the preparation of the vessel in its then condi- 

 tion was a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The 

 information is an exceeding long one, but the main 

 question you will have to decide is this, whether, under 

 the 7th section of the act of Parliament, the vessel as 

 then prepared at the time of seizure was liable to 

 seizure. The statute was passed in 1819, and upon it 

 no question has ever arisen in our courts of justice ; 

 but there have been expositions of a similar statute 

 which exists in the United States. I will now read to 

 you the opinions of some American lawyers who have 

 contributed so greatly to make law a science, and, in- 

 deed, I may say an agreeable one. His lordship then 

 read a passage from Story and others. These gentle- 

 men are authorities which show that when two belli- 

 gerents are carrying on a war, a neutral power may sup- 

 ply without any breach of international law, and jvith- 

 out a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, munitions 

 of war gunpowder, every description of arms, every- 

 thing, in fact, that can be used tor the destruction of 

 human beings. 



Why should ships be an exception ? I am of opin- 

 ion, in point of law, they are not. The Foreign Enlist- 

 ment Act was an act to prevent the enlistment or en- 

 gagement of his Majesty s subjects to serve in foreign 

 armies, and to prevent the fitting out and equipping in 

 his Majesty's dominions vessels for warlike purposes 

 without his Majesty's license. The title of an act is not 

 at all time an exact indication or explanation of the act, 

 because it is generally attached after the act is passed. 

 But in adverting to the preamble of the act I find that 

 provision is made against the equipping, fitting out, 

 furnishing, and arming of vessels, because it may be 

 prejudicial to the peace of his Majesty's dominions. 

 The question I shall put to you is, whether you think 

 that vessel was merely in course of building to be de- 

 livered in pursuance of a contract that was perfectly 

 lawful, or whether there was any intention in the port 

 of Liverpool, or any other English port, that the ves- 

 sel should be fitted out, equipped, furnished, and armed 

 for purposes of aggression. Now, surely, if Birming- 

 ham, or any other town, may supply any Quantity of 

 munitions of war of various kinds for the destruction 

 of life, why object to ships ? Why should ships alone 

 be in themselves contraband? I asked the Attorney 

 General if a man could not make a vessel intending to 



sell it to either of the belligerent powers that required 

 it, and which would give the largest price for it, would 

 not that be lawful ? To my surprise the learned At- 

 torney General declined to give an answer to the ques- 

 tion, which I think a grave and pertinent one. But you, 

 gentlemen, I think, are lawvers enough to know that a 

 man may make a vessel and offer it for sale. If a man 

 may build a vessel for the purpose of offering it for sale 

 to either belligerent party, may he not execute an or- 

 der for it ? That appears to me to be a matter of course. 

 The statute is not made to provide means of protection 

 for belligerent powers, otherwise it would have said 

 you shall not sell powder or guns, and you shall not 

 sell arms; and if it had done so, all Birmingham would 

 have been in arms against it. The object of the statute 

 was this: that we snould not have our ports in this 

 country made the ground of hostile movements be- 

 tween the vessels of two belligerent powers, which 

 might be fitted out, furnished, and armed in those 

 ports. The Alexandra was clearly nothing more than 

 in the course of building. It appears that, according 

 to "Webster's Dictionary," equipping is furnishing 

 with arms, and furnishing is given in other dictionaries 

 as the same thing as equipping. It appears to me that 

 if true that the Alabama sailed from Liverpool without 

 any arms at all as a mere ship in ballast, and that her 

 armament was put on board at Terceira, which is not 

 in her Majesty's dominions, then the Foreign Enlistment 

 Act was not violated at all. The most important evidence 

 is that given by Capt. Inglefield, who gave a very mod- 

 erate statement, and has been spoken of on both sides 

 in the highest terms of approbation, and I think my- 

 self his evidence was very fair and candid. After read- 

 ing some of the evidence, his lordship said if you think 

 that the object was to furnish, fit out, equip and arm 

 that vessel at Liverpool, that is a different matter ; but 

 if you think the object really was to build a ship in 

 obedience to an order in compliance with a contract, 

 leaving those who bought it to make what use they 

 thought fit of it, then it appears to me that the Foreign 

 Enlistment Act has not been broken. 



The jury immediately returned a verdict for 

 the defendants. 



The Attorney General tendered a bill of ex- 

 ceptions to the Lord Chief Baron's ruling. 



Mr. Seward, in his despatch of July lltli to 

 Mr. Adams, states the impression produced by 

 the proceedings in the case as follows: 



First. You are authorized and expected to assure 

 Earl Russell that this Government is entirely satisfied 

 that her Majesty's Government have conducted the 

 proceedings in that case with perfect good faith and 

 honor, and that they are well disposed to prevent the 

 fitting out of armed vessels in British ports to depre- 

 date upon American commerce, and to make war 

 against the United States. 



Secondly. This Government is satisfied that the law 

 officers of the crown have performed their duties in re- 

 gard to the case of the Alexandra with a sincere con- 

 viction of the adequacy of the law of Great Britain, 

 and with a sincere desire to give it effect. 



Thirdly. The Government of the United States does 

 not descend to inquire whether the jury in the case 

 were or were not impartial. It willingly "believes they 

 were so, and it accepts the statement made with so 

 much unanimity by all the reporters of the case, that 

 the judge who presided at the trial made the bench re- 

 sponsible for the verdict by the boldness and directness 

 of his rulings against the prosecution. 



Fourthly. Great Britain being a free and constitu- 

 tional country, and the proceedings in the case of the 

 Alexandra having been thus far conducted by the Gov- 

 ernment in good faith and according to law, the United 

 States would not be justified in deeming the verdict 

 rendered by the jury a cause of national complaint, 

 provided that the Government prosecutes an appeal to 

 the higher courts until it be determined in the court of 

 last resort whether the law is adequate to the main- 





