ALABAMA CLAIMS. 119 



colleagues, that the British Government had been 

 guilty of culpable want of the due diligence required, 

 either by the law. of nations, the Rules of the Treaty, 

 or Act of Parliament. 



In fact, this vessel had been built and fitted out in/ 

 Great Britain in violation of her laws, with intent to! 

 carry on war against the United States ; evidence of \ 

 this fact had been submitted, sufficient 2 in the opinion 

 of the Law Officers of the Crown, to justify her de 

 tention ; notwithstanding which, by reason of absence 

 of due vigilance, and. not without suspicion of conniv-f 

 ance on the part of public officers, and with extraor 

 dinary delay in issuing necessary orders, she was suf-f 

 fered to go unmolested out of the immediate jurisdic 

 tion of the British Government. Her armament, sup-i 

 plies, and crew were all procured from Great BritainJ 

 And, in like violation of law, she was received and 

 treated as a legitimate man-of-war in the colonial ports 

 of Great Britain. 



Sir Alexander Cockburn was constrained to admit 

 want of due diligence as to the case of the Alabama, 

 in three distinct classes of facts, each one of which 

 sufficed to establish the responsibility of the British 

 Government. 



If Sir Alexander had any good cause to accuse his 

 colleagues, as he did, of precipitancy and want of 

 knowledge or practice of law, because they came to 

 provisional conclusions in the case of the Florida 

 without waiting to hear Sir Roundell Palmer, surely 

 the British Government had reason to attach the 

 same censure to him in the case of the Alabama. 



