The rhetorical colour-to use an inoffensive phrase Chap. XIV. -thrown over the foregoing train of assertions, which purport to be statements of fact, makes it proper to place side by side with them a short recapitulation of the facts as they really were:

1. The number of ships built or purchased in British ports which became Confederate cruisers was four. Of these, one-the Oreto or Florida-had been seized and put on her trial, but released by a Vice-Admiralty Court for want of evidence.

2. The number of ships preparing for the Confederate service and stopped by the British Government (other than the Florida) was four. Two of these were iron-clads.

3. The number of ships which were made the subject of inquiry, but as to which the American Minister proved to have been misinformed, was ten.

4. Of the four ships which succeeded in putting to sea not one sailed armed or equipped for war, or

in a different light. "The partiality," said Mr. Davis, "of Her Majesty's Government in favour of our enemies has been further evinced in the marked difference of its conduct on the subject of the purchase of supplies by the two belligerents. The difference has been conspicuous since the very commencement of the war. As early as the 1st of May, 1861, the British Minister at Washington was informed by the Secretary of State of the United States that he had sent agents to England, and that others would go to France, to purchase arms, and this fact was communicated to the British Foreign Office, which interposed no objection. Yet in October of the same year Earl Russell entertained the complaint of the United States' Minister in London, that the Confederate States were importing contraband of war from the Island of Nassau, directed inquiry into the matter, and obtained a report from the authorities of the island denying the allegations, which report was inclosed to Mr. Adams, and received by him as satisfactory evidence to dissipate 'the suspicion naturally thrown upon the authorities of Nassau by that unwarrantable act.' So, too, when the Confederate Government purchased in Great Britain, a neutral country (and with strict observance both of the law of nations and the municipal law of Great Britain), vessels which were subsequently armed and commissioned as vessels of war, after they had been far removed from English waters, the British Government, in violation of its own laws and in deference to the importunate demands of the United States, made an ineffectual

Position

Chap. XIV. carrying on board any armament whatever. Three ran for upwards of 1,000 miles, unarmed, without an enlisted crew, without a captain or officers, and incapable of making the slightest resistance had they met with a Federal cruiser. Of these three, the Alabama and Shenandoah received their armament in Portuguese waters. The Florida shipped some guns at an uninhabited island in the Atlantic, but never got a crew, fired a shot, or attempted a capture, till she had found shelter in one of her own ports, from which she issued four months afterwards, armed and equipped for a cruise. The Georgia was armed while at anchor on the coast of France. It is true that the armament furnished to these ships was despatched to them from different British ports, pursuant, no doubt, to a preconcerted arrangement in each case, but this neither was nor could have been known to the British Government. That a Government is responsible for the prevention of acts which neither were nor could have

attempt to seize one vessel, and did actually seize and detain another which touched at the Island of Nassau, on her way to a Confederate port, and subjected her to an unfounded prosecution at the very time when cargoes of munitions of war were being openly shipped from British ports to New York to be used in warfare against us. Even now the public journals bring intelligence that the British Government has ordered the seizure, in a British port, of two vessels, on the suspicion that they may have been sold to this Government, and that they may be hereafter armed and equipped in our service, while British subjects are engaged in Ireland by tens of thousands to proceed to the United States for warfare against the Confederacy, in defiance both of the law of nations and of the express terms of the British Statutes, and are transported in British ships, without an effort at concealment, to the ports of the United States, there to be armed with rifles imported from Great Britain, and to be employed against our people in a war for conquest. No Royal prerogative is invoked, no executive interference is interposed against this flagrant breach of municipal and international law on the part of our enemies, while strained constructions are placed on existing Statutes, new enactments proposed, and questionable expedients devised, for precluding the possibility of purchase by this Government of vessels that are useless for belligerent purposes, unless hereafter armed and equipped outside of the neutral jurisdiction of Great Britain."-Message of President Davis, December, 1863.

been within its knowledge, is a thesis which few Govern- Chap. XIV. ments will be willing to maintain.

5. After the case of the Alabama no vessel, as to which any representation had been made by Mr. Adams or any circumstance of suspicion existed, succeeded in quitting a British port. Of the two which sailed during that period, one was a merchantman, which never was fitted as a ship of war, here or elsewhere, though she took on board guns, men, and ammunition, off Madeira. It may be questioned whether any law, however stringent, or any exertion of vigilance, could have prevented the sailing of the Georgia and Shenandoah.

6. Each of these ships was commanded and officered by Americans holding commissions in the Confederate navy, and was the property of the persons acting as the Government of the Confederacy, by whose agents she had been bought and paid for. It is possible—though there is no proof of this—that in one case or more the name of the nominal British owner may have remained on the register; but this fictitious ownership would not give British nationality to the ship, would not have protected her from capture as Confederate property, whilst unarmed and uncommissioned, and could fasten no responsibility on the British Government. None of the men serving in them appear to have been enlisted

1 It is with reference to this period, during which occurred the seizure of the Alexandra, the iron-clads, and the Pampero, that Mr. Fish says: "The Queen's Government sat with folded arms, as if unmindful of its international obligations, and suffered ship after ship to be constructed in its ports to wage war on the United States," whilst, "strange to say," the questions which had arisen were argued in courts of law. Mr. Fish appears to be quite astonished that people should have patience to argue and consider a question of public and private right carefully and thoroughly in a court of justice. Parliament, says he, could have settled it in a trice, and could, I presume (for the observation goes that length), have condemned the Alexandra-which remained all the while under seizure-without a trial. The point of his argument, however, is that the British Government did nothing, sheltering itself under the uncertainty of the law-an assertion which is so far from being true that it is directly the reverse of the truth.

Chap. XIV. in this country.

Some, doubtless, of those who were carried to sea in them were not unaware of the service in which they would be asked to engage; but, setting these aside, the evidence conclusively shows that the Confederate agents did exactly what we should have expected them to do: they shipped all the men they could pick up in the streets of Liverpool or elsewhere, hiring them for fictitious voyages, and trusting to secure them, when once fairly afloat, by working on the thoughtless, adventurous character of the seaman, and by the offer of high pay and bounty. In the case of the Alabama this manœuvre was very successful, since out of ninety men seventy took service; but we have seen how completely it was disappointed in those of the Shenandoah and Florida.

This plain statement disposes of the allegation, which is substantially urged by the Government of the United States, that the course of the British Government in respect of these enterprises was one of passive connivance, or of systematic and persistent inaction. It shows that, during the time when this Government is accused of having remained passive, ship after ship was detained and seized by process of law, where evidence could be obtained, and, where this was impossible, at the cost of the national treasury. It shows that from the summer of 1862 to the end of the war no vessel on which suspicion had fallen, none with anything warlike in construction or equipment, was suffered to leave a British port, and that the two which sailed during that period and afterwards cruised under the Confederate flag had escaped the vigilance of the Minister and Consuls of the United States, as they had escaped that of the British Government and its officers.

The solitary case of any real importance is that of the Alabama. On the degree of importance which may fairly or properly be assigned to a particular case, the general course of the Government having been such as we have seen it was, I shall say nothing. The case

itself, however, raises some questions of principle, which Chap. XIV. are not undeserving of attention.

It was known to the British Government, long before she sailed, that this vessel was apparently designed for war; and there was strong reason to suspect that she was intended for the Confederate service. Evidence on this latter point, which might have satisfied a jury, was in the possession of the Commissioners of Customs at the earliest on the 22nd July, at latest on the 23rd. As to the destination chosen for the ship and the scheme for sending her officers and armament to meet her, these were matters which neither the Government nor its officers knew or had any means of knowing. They are therefore to be rejected from consideration in judging of the acts or omissions of the Government. In forming such a judgment, we are bound to regard the case exactly as we should have regarded it if the Alabama had gone to arm herself, not at Terceira, but at Savannah or Mobile.

The question whether there has been an international wrong resolves itself into two, which should be kept distinct :

1. Is it among the international duties of a neutral Government to prevent the despatch from its ports of vessels apparently designed for war, but unarmed, which it has reason to believe constructed or intended for the service of a belligerent?

2. Did the British Government neglect that duty?

If there was no such international duty, it is immaterial whether the Government was or was not hesitating, dilatory, or remiss in enforcing English law. There can be no international injury where there is no violation of an international duty. To the question, whether there is such an obligation, I shall revert presently. I desire first to say a few words on the question of neglect.

Injurious remissness or injurious inattention on the