Out of my profound respect for your Lordship's representation, I have reviewed the whole of this paragraph with the utmost care. I am compelled now to confess that I can perceive no ambiguity in the meaning sufficient to justify any of the implications which your Lordship appears to desire to raise from it. Starting from a point of moral obligation, in my view as strong between nations as it is between individuals, that injuries inflicted on an innocent party, of which, if not prevented, it has a right to complain, provided that it give notice in time seasonable for the application of adequate means of prevention, should be so far as practicable repaired or compensated for by the party that does the wrong, or suffers it to be done by persons under its control, I have applied the general principle to the case before me. The fact that warning had been given in full season to prevent the departure of "No. 290" does not depend upon my statement, inasmuch as it is simply a question of dates open to the inspection of all men. The fact that Her Majesty's Government were convinced of the justice of the representation made, is patent from the determination to which your Lordship admits that they ultimately came to detain the vessel. The fact that this decision was so long delayed as to fail in effecting the object intended, whereby great injury has been actually done, and is yet likely to ensue to the commerce of the United States, is equally a question purely of dates. Inasmuch as these constitute the substance of the paragraph of my note to which exception is taken, I must confess myself wholly at a loss to perceive upon what ground any doubt can further be raised about it. But your Lordship proceeds to do me the honour to address a series of questions to me as to the possibie meaning that may be conveyed in my language, which might imply, from the failure to act of Her Majesty's Government, motives of some kind or other that I have not distinctly expressed. I must respectfully ask to be excused from entering into any such field of controversy. I desire neither to make charges nor to raise implications of an unnecessary nature to complicate the difficulties of this painful subject. All that I deem it my duty to know is that a grievous wrong has been done to an innocent and friendly nation, by what seems to me to have been a most unfortunate delay in effecting a prevention that later experience conclusively shows ought to have been applied in time. Of the reasons that prevented such an application, inasmuch as none of them could have grown out of the course of the injured party, I have no wish to enter into a discussion. The principle of justice is not merely that right should be done, but that it should be sufficiently prompt to effect its object. Otherwise it is justice denied. Upon that I am content to rely. As it is probable that I may receive at an early moment further instructions from my Government in respect to the substantial point involved in the present correspondence, I deem it unadvisable farther to take up your Lordship's time by enlarging the limits of the discussion of purely incidental questions. I desire to express my obligation to you for the ready and full manner in which your Lordship has exonerated me from the suspicion of encouraging the enlistment of Her Majesty's subjects in the service of the United States. At the same time it is not without regret that I perceive the charge still persevered in against the Government of the United States. If I understand your Lordship aright, it is now affirmed that because the Government offers large bounties on enlistment in the United States, and because British subjects in the United States, tempted by these bounties, do occasionally enlist, therefore your Lordship is justified in having affirmed, in your former note, that the Government of the United States, systematically and in disregard of the comity of nations, induced them to enlist. As well might I, in my turn, in view of the frequent applications made to me to procure the discharge of citizens of the United States who have been tempted in the same manner to enlist in Her Majesty's service in this kingdom, assume the existence of a similar policy. Further than the presence of a general offer I do not perceive that your Lordship's reference to the action of Mr. Seward, of which I am not in a situation to speak authoritatively, appears to extend. Further than this, I must still continue to disclaim the belief in the existence of any systematic policy, as well in the one case as in the other. (Signed) I pray, &c. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. [137] H No. 21. Earl Russell to Lord Lyons. Foreign Office, January 28, 1863. (Extract.) I HAVE to state to your Lordship that I lately received from Mr. Adams some papers respecting the proceedings of the "Alabama," which Mr. Adams informed me he had been instructed to submit for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. These papers contain accounts of the various captures made by the "Alabama," but they do not appear to Her Majesty's Government to affect in any way the principles of international law applicable to that ship, upon which the answers of Her Majesty's Government to the demands of the United States' Government in this case have been framed. Some of the Memorialists pray that the United States' Government will so order their naval force as to prevent the captures made by the "Alabama." That is undoubtedly the remedy for the evil of which the Memorialists complain, but it is, of course, one with which Her Majesty's Government have no concern. There is also an allegation that the crew of the "Alabama" are partly, or mainly, composed of British subjects. If this be so, these persons are acting in violation of the Queen's Proclamation, and of the Foreign Enlistment Act; but, unfortunately, in accordance with the principles upon this subject maintained by Mr. Seward, in his note to your Lordship in the case of the "Sunbeam."* My Lord, No. 22. Earl Russell to Lord Lyons. Foreign Office, February 14, 1863. I HAD a conversation a few days ago with Mr. Adams on the subject of the "Alabama.' It did not appear that his Government desired to carry on the controversy on this subject from Washington; they rather left the conduct of the argument to Mr. Adams. On a second point, however, namely, whether the law with respect to equipment of vessels for hostile purposes might be improved, Mr. Adams said that his Government were ready to listen to any propositions Her Majesty's Government had to make, but they did not see how their own law on this subject could be improved. I said that the Cabinet had come to a similar conclusion; so that no further proceedings need be taken at present on this subject. * Mr. Seward to Mr. Stuart. I am, &c. Sir, Department of State, Washington, November 12, 1862. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th instant, which relates to the case of certain seamen captured on board of the British steamer "Sunbeam," in her attempt to violate the blockade. Those seamen, in the protest which accompanied your note, say, that while they were in this city, friendless and penniless, every inducement was held out to them by Acting Master and ex-officer Rogers, of the United States' cruizer " Georgia," to join the American navy or the military forces of the United States, which induce ments they strenuously opposed, preferring rather protection, and, if unavoidable, privations, under the British flag. Upon this statement you request me to cause instructions to be issued to prevent the exercise of any similar pressure upon British subjects who may be captured for any alleged intention to violate the blockade. Having taken the President's instructions upon the subject I have now to reply that the case, as presented by the seamen, does not seem to me to warrant the complaint that a pressure of any kind was made upon the seamen of the "Sunbeam." The term "every inducement" is, indeed, very vague; but it certainly does not comprehend duress, force, menace, intimidation, bribery, falsehood, or even deceitful propositions. The seamen are understood to have been free men without occupation, except the unlawful and forbidden one which had just then failed them. They were needy, and, it seems to me, that they could well have complained of severity and harshness if, being disposed, they had been refused permission to enter into the service of the United States. I avail, &c. (Signed) WILLIAM H. SEWARD. |