FOREIGN OFFICE, October 9, 1862. SIR: With reference to my letter to you of the 22d ultimo, I have the honor to enclose a copy of a letter which I have received from the board of treasury, forwarding the copy of a report from her Majesty's commissioners of customs relative to the supply of cannon and munitions of war to the gunboat No. 290. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. RUSSELL. TREASURY CHAMBERS, September 29, 1862. SIR: With reference to your letter of the 12th instant, and previous correspondence, I am directed by the lords, &c., to transmit herewith, for the information of Earl Russell, copy of a report, No. 478, dated 25th instant, of the commissioners of customs relative to the supply of cannon, &c., to the gunboat No. 290. I am, &c.. GEO. A. HAMILTON. No. 478.] CUSTOM-HOUSE, September 25, 1862. Your lordships having, by Mr. Arbuthnot's letter of the 16th instant, transmitted to us, with reference to Mr. Hamilton's letter of the 2d ultimo, the enclosed communication from the foreign office, with copies of a further letter and its enclosures from the United States minister at this court respecting the supply of cannon and munitions of war to the gunboat No. 290, recently built at Liverpool, and now in the service of the so-called Confederate States of America; and your lordships having desired that we would take such steps as might seem to be required in view of the facts therein represented, and report the result to your lordships, we have now to report: That, assuming the statements set forth in the affidavit of Redden (who sailed from Liverpool in the vessel) which accompanied Mr. Adams's letter to Earl Russell to be correct, the furnishing of arms, &c., to the gunboat does not appear to have taken place in any part of the United Kingdom or of her Majesty's dominions, but in or near Augra Bay, part of the Azores, part of the Portuguese dominions. No offence, therefore, cognizable by the laws of this country appears to have been committed by the parties engaged in the transaction alluded to in the affidavit. With respect to the allegation of Redden that the arms, &c., were shipped on board the 290 in Augra Bay partly from a bark (name not given) which arrived there from London, commanded by a Captain Quinn, and partly from the steamer Bahama, from Liverpool, we beg to state that no vessel having a master named Quinn can be traced as having sailed from this port for foreign parts during the last six months; the Knight Errant, Captain Quine, a vessel of 1,342 tons burden, cleared for Calcutta on the 12th of April last with a general cargo, such as is usually exported to the East Indies; but so far as can be ascertained from the entries, she had neither gunpowder, nor cannon on board. The steamer Bahama cleared from Liverpool on the 12th ultimo for Nassau. We find that Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., engineers and iron founders of Liverpool, shipped on board that vessel nineteen cases containing guns, gun carriages, shot, rammers, &c., weighing in all 158 cwt. 1 qr. 27 lbs.; there was no other cargo on board except 552 tons of coals, for the use of the ship; and the abovementioned goods having been regularly cleared for Nassau in compliance with the customs law, our officers could have no power to interfere with their ship ment. With reference to the further statement in the letter to Mr. Dudley, the consul of the United States at Liverpool, that the bark that took out the guns and coals is to carry out another cargo of coals to the gunboat 290, either from Cardiff or Troon, near Greenock, we have only to remark that there would be great difficulty in ascertaining the intention of any parties making such a shipment; and we do not apprehend that our officers would have any power of interfering with it, were the coals cleared outwards for some foreign port in compliance with the law. To the LORDS, &c., &c. F. GOULHURA. No. 243.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF the United States, SIR: About the time of writing my despatch No. 237, I was considering in my mind the expediency of asking a conference with Lord Russell in order to know whether the speech of Mr. Gladstone was to be regarded by me as conveying to the public the views of her Majesty's government. But as I was just then on the point of executing a promise I had made to visit Mr. W. E. Forster at his place in Yorkshire, I determined to put off a decision at least until after my return to London. In the meantime I have had the opportunity of free conversation with that gentleman, whose capacity, judgment, and tact in the treatment of American questions in Parliament have heretofore won for him much of my respect and regard. The conclusions to which I might have come were, however, greatly modified by the events which happened during the interval of my stay. It became tolerably apparent to me that Mr. Gladstone had been expressing his individual opinions and giving loose to his personal sympathy with the chief of the rebels, whilst his course was regarded by several of his colleagues as transcending the line of policy formerly agreed upon at the time of their dispersion for the summer. The first public indication of this took the shape of an informal notice in the Globe, an evening newspaper professing neutrality in our struggle, and occasionally used for that reason to express official opinions, which, not without a little sharpness towards Mr. Gladstone, drew a clear line between him and the ministry in regard to the sentiments in his speech. The next and more marked proof is to be found in the report of a speech made by Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and published in the morning papers, which is palpably designed to neutralize the influences which might have been and which in many quarters undoubtedly were drawn of an actual change in the cabinet policy. Putting these things together, I was led to the belief that it was wiser for me not to meddle with the matter at all just now, but rather to let it blow over as a nine days' wonder. I prefer to avoid any appearance of anxiety or of distrust in the sincerity of the profession thus far made, and still more any proceeding which might be construed minatory. I shall therefore let this week pass away without making any sign of consciousness of what is going on. On the other hand, the fact is very certain that the departure of Lord Lyons has been again postponed. The last time I saw him he announced to me that he should go on the 11th. Yet he is still here, and there is no sign of his immediate moving. Concurrently with this delay comes a notice that the first cabinet council is called for the 23d instant, which is earlier than usual, and intimations appear that one reason for this anticipation is the urgent nature of the American difficulty. Without putting too much stress on these unauthorized conjectures, it is perfectly fair to infer some connexion between the approximation of the cabinet meeting and the postponement of Lord Lyons's return. I do not therefore doubt that the opportunity will be taken to reconsider the situation, and to lay down the line of policy for the regulation of the minister during the subsequent season. How far the question of a recognition of the insurgents will enter into the deliberation I will not venture to predict. My own opinion is that that event now depends almost entirely on the fortune of the war. If we prove ourselves by February next no more able to control its results than we are at this moment, it will be difficult for ministers longer to resist the current of sentiment leaning in that direction in both houses of Parliament. I do not know that many of them will be longer inclined to do so. Even the unpleasant alternative of appearing to uphold slavery against the action of a free government will be acquiesced in as an overruling necessity dictated by the popular opinion. I feel it my duty to say thus much, in order to prevent the smallest misconception of the existing state of things on this side in the minds of the government at home. But it has occurred to me that, prior to this day of meeting, it may be expedient for me to solicit an interview with Lord Russell to dispose of other matters which have been left pending for some time past. I may then be able incidentally to open a way to the subject most interesting to both countries, and to invite informal disclosures, if any are to be made, as well as in the same way to intimate probabilities which may ensue in certain contingencies that can be imagined. The matter requires delicate treatment, but, as at present advised, I am inclined to venture upon the experiment. Whatever the results of it may be, I shall endeavor to lay them faithfully before you in my next. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 244.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the department numbered 362 and 363; likewise a printed circular, No. 24, of the 25th of September, respecting the renewal of passports. This leaves two despatches. Nos. 360 and 361, yet unaccounted for. I now transmit a copy of Lord Russell's note to me of the 16th instant, in reply to mine of the 9th, a copy of which was forwarded with my despatch No. 238, of the 10th of October. The attitude of indifference to the consequences of their own inaction under the provisions of the enlistment law is continued, and will probably remain to the last. In the meantime the vessel which was suffered to escape is continuing its piratical voyages on the ocean. Mr. Dudley will send you further particulars received by the captain of the ship Emily Farnum, who has arrived at Liverpool. I know not what has become of the Tuscarora. The probabilities are that the next attack will be made on the California steamers. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. FOREIGN OFFICE, October 16, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, enclosing a copy of an intercepted letter which you had received from the United States government, being the further evidence with regard to the gunboat No. 290, to which you alluded in your previous communication to me of the 30th ultimo, and with reference to your observations with regard to the infringement of the enlistment law, I have to remark that it is true the foreign enlistment act, or any other act for the same purpose, can be evaded by very subtle contrivances; but her Majesty's government cannot, on that account, go beyond the letter of the existing law. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. RUSSELL. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 248.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Following up the plan suggested in my despatch No. 243, I asked an interview with Lord Russell. He gave it to me yesterday. The cabinet meeting appointed for that time had been postponed until to-day, which will yet be in season for the departure of Lord Lyons, who goes in the Scotia to-morrow. My surmise as to the connexion between the two events proved correct. I opened the conversation with a reference to the topic which had occupied us at our last meeting, the remonstrance of Lord Palmerston against a sentiment supposed to have been attributed to him by me on the strength of a statement made by the commander of the Quaker City. Since that time, I said that I had had communication with the government at home, and had received a despatch on the subject which seemed to me finally to dispose of it. I then read the essential parts of it, and expressed the hope that his lordship would communicate the information to Lord Palmerston. His lordship said that he would do so, and that this would dispense with the necessity of saying anything about it through Lord Lyons.. I then turned in a half serious way to the departure of Lord Lyons, and expressed a hope that he was about to go with a prospect of remaining for some length of time. For myseif I was obliged to confess that I had lately been called somewhat suddenly to the consideration of the condition of my travelling equipage, in certain possible contingencies, which at one moment seemed to approach more nearly than I liked. If I had trusted to the impressions generally prevailing here, directly after the delivery of a certain speech, my conclusions s to my departure would have been absolute. But I preferred to wait until later developments, like those which had since taken place, should give a more definite idea of the extent of the authority to which it was entitled. The speech of Sir George Lewis had done much to set the balance once more even. His lordship took my allusion at once, though not without a slight indication of embarrassment. He said that Mr. Gladstone had evidently been much misunderstood. I must have seen in the newspapers the letters which contained his later explanations. That he had certain opinions in regard to the nature of the struggle in America, as on all public questions, just as other Englishmen had, was natural enough. And it was the fashion here for public men to express such as they held in their public addresses. Of course it was not for him to disavow anything on the part of Mr. Gladstone; but he had no idea that in saying what he had, there was a serious intention to justify any of the inferences that had been drawn from it, of a disposition in the government now to adopt a new policy. I replied that I did not expect a disavowal nor even did I seek to impute to Mr. Gladstone an intention of the kind referred to. At the same time, I could not sufficiently express my great regret at the occurrence on account of the ill effects it was likely to have upon the relations of the two countries. On the one side, it would be reprinted in every newspaper in America, and construed as an official exposition of the policy of the government; and in this view it was scarcely necessary for me to say how much it would tend to increase the irritation already very great there. On the other, it was having a great effect in concentrating the popular inclination in this kingdom which was swaying every day more and more unfavorably to us. I regretted to be obliged to confess that from the day of my arrival, I had observed a regular and steady decline of good will towards the United States. Lord Lyons had been to see me in the morning. Whilst we had united in deploring the respective tendencies on the two sides, we had also joined in expressing our intention to continue our utmost efforts to counteract them. But for my part I was much less sanguine of success when I perceived the influences brought to bear upon opinion here by leading men. Lord Russell admitted that opinions were much divided and that there had been an unfavorable change to us going on. But he still thought that in most popular meetings the greater number would sympathize with the United States. To which I replied that, admitting it might be so now, this slight preponderance would soon disappear under the effect of two or three more speeches like that of Mr. Gladstone. Whilst I was willing to acquit him of any deliberate intention to bring on the worst effects, I could not conceal from myself the fact that he was doing it quite as certainly as if he had one. His lordship intimated as guardedly as possible, that Lord Palmerston and other members of the government regretted the speech, and Mr. Gladstone himself was not disinclined to correct, so far as he could, the misinterpretation which had been made of it. It was still their intention to adhere to the rule of perfect neutrality in the struggle, and to let it come to its natural end without the smallest interference, direct or otherwise. But he could not say what circumstances might happen from month to month in the future. I observed that the policy he mentioned was satisfactory to us, and asked if I was to understand him as saying that no change of it was now proposed. To which he gave his assent. I remarked that this answer left me nothing more to trouble him with, and then took my leave. I ought to observe that before my interview, I met with Baron Brunnow, the Russian ambassador, in the ante-chamber, and he took me aside on his return from his conference to express his firm belief that the government here intended faithfully to adhere to their policy. He reminded me of a former meeting of the same kind, when I appeared to doubt, and he had said the same thing. So far, he had proved to be right. I admitted the fact, but added that at some future time I might, perhaps, be able to put him in possession of the evidence which had then affected my judgment. I could not do it just now. |