Charles Francis Adams to Right Honorable the Earl of Clarendon, March 12, 1866

Mr. Adams to the Earl of Clarendon.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your note of the 10th instant, and of a copy of a statement made to your lordship by the attorney general, in reply to the remonstrance which I felt it my duty to address to you on the 24th ultimo, against what appeared to me to be errors affecting the position of my government, in his speech in the House of Commons the previous evening.

I have read that statement with the attention which is due not less to the distinguished position of that eminent individual, than to my own personal respect for his high character. If I have unfortunately failed in entirely mastering the purport of his reasoning, it may, perhaps, be owing to my own inability to understand the necessity for any at all.

The question which it was my intention to propound was not one touching any class of opinions, but simply naked facts. I pray your lordship’s pardon if I briefly recapitulate the conflicting statements.

I understand the attorney general substantially to affirm:

1. That her Majesty’s government had voluntarily initiated a proposition to the government which I have the honor to represent, to amend and improve the provisions of the British enlistment law, for the benefit of the United States.

2. That her Majesty’s government had been deterred from prosecuting this friendly purpose entirely by the cold and repulsive manner in which that proposition had been met by the United States.

The necessary inference from these propositions, if well founded in the facts, is, that the whole responsibility for any failure of her Majesty’s government in securing from Parliament greater safeguards against the abuse of neutrality in this kingdom devolves on the United States.

In behalf of my government, I have only respectfully to repeat my counter statement, to the following effect:

1. That her Majesty’s government, so far as any knowledge of their proceedings was communicated to me, never initiated any proposition to the United States to improve the legislation against abuses of neutrality in this kingdom.

2. That the only thing done was a suggestion of an intention to make such a proposal, and that was elicited by a demand of the United States that something or other should be done. But even this was made conditional upon their consent to reciprocate whatever might be subsequently proposed by the British, and concurred in by the United States government.

3. That that intention was definitely abandoned before any reply from the United States came to the knowledge of her Majesty’s government.

So far as the statement made by her Majesty’s attorney general may be construed to corroborate the preceding averment of facts, I take great pleasure in expressing my satisfaction with it. So far as it may fall short of admitting them, I must submit that the way to prove the truth and to convict me of error is still open, not through reasoning so much as by an appeal to living testimony. I shall be prepared at all times, very cheerfully, to correct any misapprehension I may have myself fallen into of these facts, so far as they may involve the course of other parties, provided it shall be made plain to me from the proper authority.

Meanwhile, I must take the liberty to insist that my government must be considered as wholly free from every shadow of responsibility for the decision of her Majesty’s government to abide by the existing legislation as a sufficient prevention of all abuses of the neutrality of the realm.

I pray your lordship to accept, &c., &c.