I shall proceed hereafter only upon the instructions which shall be
forwarded to me from your department.
The position which his lordship has taken in regard to the invitation of
a loan for the rebels appears to be directly in contravention of the law
heretofore laid down in the British courts. Encouraged by the tone of
the press, this loan has been announced in the markets of France and
this country. Of its success there appears to be much doubt. But if
successful, so far as I see, it liberates the government of the United
States from all further obligations to facilitate the exportation of
cotton. And if the statement be true that the rebel authorities have
prohibited the transfer of cotton to any parties but themselves, it
appears to justify the seizure and condemnation of it wherever it may be
[Page 174]
found. For virtually this
makes all the cotton remaining under the rebel control security for
money furnished to them in order to carry on the war.
Hon. Wm. H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D C.
[Enclosures.]
1. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, March 14, 1863, on failure of his
remonstrance to prevent the Sumter remaining at Liverpool.
2. Same to same, March 14, on rebel loan, and war-ship building in
Great Britain.
Mr. Adams to Lord Russell.
Legation of the United
States, London,
March 14,
1863.
My Lord: I have the honor to
acknowledge the reception of your note of the 9th instant, in
reply to mine of the 6th ultimo, respecting the case of the
steamer Sumter. Your lordship apprises me that “her Majesty’s
government, in the present state of their information on the
subject, are unable to assume” that the ship lately “called the
Sumter has not been legally and bona fide
sold to a British owner for commercial purposes,” thereby
leading me to infer that a sale, if so effected, would be
regarded as valid by them, to change the property of a
belligerent in a neutral port.
But I must ask pardon for calling your lordship’s attention to
the fact that such has not been the construction heretofore put
upon the law by the courts of Great Britain when applied to
belligerent vessels of their own enemies in neutral ports. In
the learned work on international law, published not long since
by Mr. Robert Phillimore, the same eminent individual who has
since been elevated to the position of a legal adviser of the
crown, I find it expressly affirmed that the purchase of
ships-of-war belonging to enemies is held in the British courts
to be invalid. And, further, that though the purchase of
merchant ships be not illegal, it is liable to great suspicion,
and requires to be established by the clearest proof.
Furthermore, should the ship, after such transfer, “be employed
under the management of a hostile proprietor, the sale will be
deemed merely colorable and collusive.”—(Commentaries on
International Law, vol. 3, pp. 307–8.)
I think I have already furnished sufficient evidence to your
lordship to show that the sale of this vessel is open to each
and all of these objections, whether it be considered as a
public or a private transaction. But her Majesty’s government,
in furnishing shelter for so long a period to the Sumter in the
harbor of Gibraltar, as a ship-of-war of a belligerent, has
determined the character of the vessel. I have reason to believe
that during the whole of the late war with Russia her Majesty’s
government steadily refused to recognize the transfer of any
vessels of that nation in neutral ports. It does not, then, seem
unreasonable if, on behalf of my government, I respectfully
venture to enter a remonstrance against the readinesss with
which your lordship appears to recognize the validity of a
transaction which the law not only presumes to carry fraud on
its face, but the highest authority in Great Britain declares to
be invalid altogether.
[Page 175]
I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest
consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your
most obedient servant,
Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Adams to Lord Russell.
Legation of the United
States, London,
March 14,
1863.
My Lord: I have the honor to
acknowledge the reception of your lordship’s note of the 9th
instant, in response to mine of the 9th ultimo, which laid
before you copies of intercepted correspondence, “going,” as I
alleged, “to show a deliberate attempt to establish within the
limits of this kingdom a system of action in direct hostility to
the government of the United States.” Your lordship observes
that this correspondence does not appear to her Majesty’s
government to contain any sufficient evidence of the
allegation.
I beg leave only to suggest that if a direct appointment of an
agent to establish himself in Great Britain for the purpose of
making contracts for the construction and equipment of six
iron-clad steamers, to be used in warring upon the United
States; if the direct nomination of a British subject to act as
resident agent for the raising of money to be used in payment of
all this warlike outfit, and if the proposed establishment of
naval officers in Great Britain for the purpose of
superintending and constructing the vessels built to cut up the
commerce of the United States do not show “a deliberate attempt
to establish within the limits of this kingdom a system of
action in direct hostility to the government of the United
States,” then must I despair of ever being able to convince your
lordship of the possibility of any violation of the neutrality
of her Majesty’s territory short of a direct attack upon a
vessel of the United States within the limits of her
jurisdiction.
It is not without profound regret that I shall do myself the
honor to transmit a copy of your lordship’s note for the
consideration of my government. I need not say that the
conviction is very general in the United States that the war has
been continued and sustained by the insurgents for many months
past mainly by the co-operation and assistance obtained from
British subjects in her Majesty’s kingdom and its dependencies.
That this impression has not been founded upon limited evidence,
I think I may affirm on the strength of the many papers which I
have heretofore had the honor to submit to your lordship’s
consideration. Having thus far found her Majesty’s government
unfortunately confessing itself without power to take the
necessary steps to interpose effective obstacles to the
prosecution of this system of warfare, notoriously established
in some of the ports of the kingdom, I shall abstain for the
future from adding, through the failure of representations on my
part, to the irritation which this state of things is very
naturally aggravating among my countrymen.
Should my government furnish me with instructions to renew the
subject, I shall do myself the honor to lay them before your
lordship at the earliest moment.
I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest
consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your
most obedient servant,
Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
[Page 176]
“Southern Aid” movement in England.
PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS.
The London and Confederate States
Bank—capital £2,000,000, (with power to increase this amount.)
In 20,000 shares of £100
each. Deposit £2 per share, with a
further deposit on allotment of £2.
In organizing the proposed London and Confederate States Bank, it
is assumed that the recognition of the southern States must
ultimately, if not even very shortly, be an accomplished
fact.
It is, therefore, thought desirable that preliminary measures
should at once be taken to form an establishment, which will be
prepared to commence operations on the resumption of trade.
It is confidently felt and openly asserted that every effort will
be made by the mercantile community of the south to carry on
their financial and export operations entirely independent of
previously existing channels, and that New York will cease to be
the medium through which shipments and financial business has
hitherto been conducted.
Norfolk, from the excellence of its harbor, facility of approach,
depth of water, and salubrity of its position, will afford
equal, if not superior, advantages to New York, and will likely
take the lead for passenger traffic and postal arrangements with
mail steamers.
Wilmington, Charleston, Mobile, and Savannah offer the readier
and cheaper despatch of the more bulky articles, as cotton,
grain, &c., &c., whilst New Orleans will continue to
forward the huge supplies floated down the Mississippi.
A further encouragement for the immediate prosecution of a scheme
of this nature is to be found in the hope and expectation that
any assistance and countenance given to the Confederate States
before their internal troubles have terminated will, at a future
time, tend to cement those good feelings which are so strongly
entertained towards them, and which so many in this country
earnestly desire should be mutual.
