ALABAMA CLAIMS. 119 
colleaguegy—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, 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 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 Mlorida 
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. 
