ALABAMA ,CLAIMy. HO 



colleagues, — tliat the Britisli Government liatl Lccn 

 guilty of cul])ul)lc want of the due diligence rc(i\iired, 

 either by the law of nations, the Kules of the Treaty, 

 or Act of Parliament. 



In fact, this vessel liad been Ijuilt and fitted out in 

 Great Britain in violation of her laws, Avith intent to 

 carry on war against the United States ; evidence of 

 this fact had been submitted, suflicicnt, in the opinion 

 of the Law Oflicers of the Crown, to justify her de- 

 tention ; notwithstanding wliich, by reason of absence 

 of due vigilance, and not without suspicion of conniv- 

 ance on the part of public officers, and with extraor- 

 dinary delay in issuing necessaiy orders, she was suf- 

 fered to go unmolested out of the immediate jurisdic- 

 tion of the British Government. Iler armament, sup- 

 plies, and crew were all procured from Great Britain. 

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

 treated as a legitimate man-of-war in the colonial ])orts 

 of Great liritain. 



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 Iloundell Palmer, surely 

 the British Government had reason to attach the 

 same censure to him in the case of the Alabama. 



