ALABAMA CLAIMS. 110 



collea2:ues, — 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 Treat}^, 

 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, 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- 

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

 dinary delay in issuing necessary orders, she was suf- 

 fered to go unmolested out of the immediate jurisdic- 

 tion of the British Government. Her 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 ports 

 of Great Britain. 



Sir Alexander Cockburn was constrained to admit 

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

 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 Alahama. 



