Charles Francis Adams to William H. Seward. Secretary of State, September 17, 1863

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception this week of your despatch, No. 688, of the 31st of August. I am glad to learn by it that you have returned to your duties, at Washington, invigorated by your excursion.

The only subject of interest during this week has been the situation of the iron-clad vessels at Liverpool. On Monday morning I was a little startled by the appearance in the morning newspapers of contradictory statements. The Post, which had been the first the week before to announce the detention of the ships, now came out with an intimation that the interdict would be soon removed, as the true object of the vessels would be made known. In the mean time Mr. Laird would be permitted to make a trial trip, on the promise that he would bring the vessel back to port on the same day. Concurrently with my reading of this notice, I received a telegram from Mr. Dudley, at Liverpool, announcing that one of the vessels had been taking in coals during the night, and was about to depart on what was called a trial trip, from which she would not return.

On that very same morning special notices, drawn up in identical terms, appeared in the Times, the News, and the Star, to the effect that the government had decided to detain the vessels for a decision upon their character. The official nature of this statement was distinctly marked.

Whilst I was in doubt what to make of this, I received another telegram from Mr. Dudley, announcing that the vessel, instead of going out on a trial trip, as expected, had been floated to Birkenhead, as if to tie up in dock.

The same evening I received from Lord Russell the note, a copy of which is herewith transmitted. Although the reasoning is a little varied from that in his preceding papers, I concluded that it would he better to enter into a pretty full consideration of it, if for no other motive, at least to soften in a degree the character of my former note, at which he appears to take exceptions. A copy of my reply accompanies this despatch.

* * * * * * * * *

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

[Enclosures.]

1. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, September 11, 1863.

2. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, September 16, 1863.

Lord Russell to Mr. Adams.

Sir: I have received your letter of the 5th instant, and have read it with great regret.

It has been the aim of the government of Great Britain to maintain a strict neutrality between the parties who for two years have carried on a civil war of unusual extent and loss of life on the continent of North America.

Her Majesty’s government have, for the most part, succeeded in this impartial course. If they have been unable to prevent some violations of neutrality on the part of the Queen’s subjects, the cause has been that Great Britain is a country which is governed by definite laws, and is not subject to arbitrary will. But law, as you are well aware, is enforced here, as in the United States, by independent courts of justice, which will not admit assertion for proof, nor conjecture for certainty.

In the United States, as in England, questions of this nature have been discussed by judges of great legal ability, whose learning and impartiality have given weight and authority to their decisions in every part of the civilized world.

Her Majesty’s government feel confident that the President of the United States will be disposed rather to resort to those great expositors of international law, and to be guided rather by a careful examination of the course of her Majesty’s government, than to yield to the hasty conclusions and prejudicial imputations of public clamor.

For instance, in the case still pending of the iron-clad steam-rams at Birkenhead, Mr. Seward, with his knowledge and perspicuity of judgment, cannot fail to acknowledge that it was necessary to show, not only that these vessels were built and equipped for purposes of war, but also that they were intended for the so-called Confederate States.

With a view to complete the evidence on this head, it was material to prove that the iron clads were not intended for the French government, or for the Pacha of Egypt. With respect to the French government, her Majesty’s government have received, upon inquiry, assurances, through Earl Cowley and the Marquis of Cadore, that the French government have nothing to do with the Birkenhead iron-clads.

In respect to the Egyptian government, it was only on the 5th instant that her Majesty’s government received a despatch from Mr. Colquhoun, her Majesty’s consul general in Egypt, which is conclusive on this subject.

Mr. Colquhoun reported on the 28th August that M. Bravay, a French subject, and a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, had stated to Ismail Pacha, very lately, that the orders for the two iron-clads were given when said Pacha was last in Paris. M. Bravay seems to have urged Ismail Pacha to fulfil the verbal contract of his predecessor, and to purchase these vessels, for which he, M. Bravay, had paid a large sum on account.

But Ismail Pacha, Mr. Colquhoun adds, refused to purchase these vessels.

From this example, and that of the vessels built for the Emperor of China, whose name was alleged all over the United States to be a mere sham to cover the real destination of the vessels, the President will gather how necessary it is to be dispassionate and careful in inquiries and statements upon subjects involving such great interests, and affecting the good faith and the character of a power so honorable as Great Britain.

These matters will, no doubt, be duly and dispassionately considered by the government at Washington, however they may have been understood in London.

I deem it right, however, to observe that the question at issue between yourself and her Majesty’s government relates to two separate and distinct matters—the general international duties of neutrality, and the municipal law of the United Kingdom. With regard to the general duties of a neutral, according to international law, the true doctrine has been laid down repeatedly by Presidents and judges of eminence of the United States, and that doctrine is, that a neutral may sell to either or both of two belligerent parties any implements or munitions of war which such belligerent may wish to purchase from the subjects of the neutral; and it is difficult to find a reason why a ship that is to be used for warlike purposes is more an instrument or implement of war than cannon, muskets, swords, bayonets, gunpowder, and projectiles to be fired from cannon and muskets. A ship or a musket may be sold to one belligerent or the other, and only ceases to be neutral when the ship is owned, manned, and employed in war, and the musket is held by a soldier, and used for the purpose of killing his enemy. In fact, the ship can never be expected to decide a war or a campaign, whereas the other things above montioned may, by equipping a large army, enable the belligerent which requires them to obtain decisive advantages in the

Then, again, as regards the employment of the subjects of a neutral by either belligerent: it is obvious that even if the whole crew of a ship-of-war were composed of the subjects of a neutral, that crew should have less influence on the results of the war than whole regiments and brigades employed on land, and composed of the subjects of a neutral state.

Now, admitting that the confederates have been able to employ some vessels built in the United Kingdom, in spite of the efforts of her Majesty’s government to prevent it; and admitting also, that which is believed to be the fact, that the confederates have derived a limited supply of arms and ammunition from the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the federal blockade of their ports; yet, on the other hand, it is perfectly notorious that the federal government have purchased in and obtained from the United Kingdom a far greater quantity of arms and warlike stores.

As far, then, as regards the drawing warlike supplies from the United Kingdom, the federal government has done in that respect a great deal more than the confederates have done; and if, in contradiction to the doctrine repeatedly and deliberately promulgated by Presidents of the United States, the furnishing of such supplies by the subjects of a neutral to one belligerent is, as you would seem to represent it, an act of war against the other belligerent, the United Kingdom of Great Britain must be deemed to be at war with both the contending parties in North America, but to have given greater assistance in the war to the federals than to the confederates.

But if the question with regard to men is to be raised, the difference is far greater. Even admitted, as asserted by you, though her Majesty’s government have no knowledge of the fact, that a small number of British subjects have, in defiance of her Majesty’s proclamation, engaged in the service, either by sea or land, of the confederates, it might be asked whether no British seamen are now employed in the naval service of the United States government? At all events, it is well known that large numbers of natural-born subjects of her Majesty have fought and fallen in the ranks of the federal armies, and it is confidently asserted, though her Majesty’s government have no proof of the fact, that agents of the federal government are employed within the United Kingdom to engage subjects of her Majesty to emigrate to the United States with a view of engaging when there in the military service of the federal government.

Her Majesty’s government would fain hope that such reports are unfounded, because such a proceeding would not only be a departure from international comity, inasmuch as it would be tempting British subjects to act in violation of her Majesty’s proclamation, but it would also be diametrically at variance with the doctrine laid down by the President of the United States, upon a similar matter in 1855, during the war between Great Britain and Russia.

Upon the second branch of this subject, namely, the question how far her Majesty’s government have enforced the municipal law of the United Kingdom commonly called the “foreign enlistment act,” her Majesty’s government can only repeat that they have taken every step to enforce that law, which by legal authority they have been advised to be within their competency, and her Majesty’s government will, from a due regard to their own good faith, and to the national dignity, continue, without regard to any other considerations, to pursue the same course.

Her Majesty’s government forbear from making any remarks upon the passage which is quoted by you from some confederate newspaper, the editor of which tries to show what damage the Warrior could inflict upon the seaboard of the federal States. Such remarks have, happily, no bearing upon the present state of things, and may be dismissed without comment.

Her Majesty’s government, in conclusion, can only hope that the government at Washington may take a calmer and more dispassionate view of these matters than seems to be inferred from your note; but, at all events, her Majesty’s government can, with perfect sincerity, assure you that it is their earnest desire faithfully to perform the duties of neutrality in the unhappy conflict which now devastates so large a portion of the States of North America, and that so far from being animated by any feelings of hostility towards either of the contending parties, they would deem it fortunate and honorable to Great Britain if any opportunity should occur which could offer to her Majesty’s government the slightest chance of being in any way useful in promoting the establishment of peace.

I have to add that instructions have been issued for preventing the departure of the iron-clad vessels in question from Liverpool until satisfactory evidence can be given as to their destination, or, at all events, until the inquiries which are now being prosecuted with a view to obtain such evidence shall have been brought to a conclusion.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

Mr. Adams to Lord Russell.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt on the 14th of your note, dated on the 11th, in reply to mine of the 5th of the current month.

Your lordship remarks that you had read my letter with great regret. On my part, I am very sure that it could not exceed the regret with which I wrote it.

You are pleased to observe that her Majesty’s government hopes my government may take a calmer and more dispassionate view of the matters involved in this discussion than seems to be inferred from my note. If in that note I should have unfortunately led her Majesty’s government to any inference of the kind, I can only assure your lordship that the fault must be exclusively mine. At the same time I feel it my duty not to disguise from you the very grave sense it entertains of the danger that her Majesty’s kingdom may be freely used by the enemies of the United States, in conjunction with numerous ill-disposed subjects of her own, to carry on a war against them in manner and spirit wholly at variance with the rules of neutrality, which her Majesty’s government has prescribed for itself in the present contest, as well as with the stronger obligations of amity and good will imposed by solemn treaties long since entered into between the parties.

Your lordship appears disposed to throw aside the extract made in my note from an insurgent publication as “happily having no bearing upon the present state of things.” That publication was predicated upon the expectation raised by the report of the case of the Alexandra, that no further obstructions to the full execution of the policy therein indicated would be made in the ports of her Majesty’s kingdom. Coming, as it did, in corroboration of secret information derived from other sources, I certainly felt as if it was incumbent upon me to lay before you a view of the consequences not unlikely to result from the adoption of the conclusions announced to me in your note of the 1st, which fully justified that expectation. If her Majesty’s government have not the power to prevent the harbors and towns of a friendly nation from being destroyed by vessels built by British subjects, and equipped, manned, and despatched from her harbors with the intention to work that immense mischief, then is the neutrality of the kingdom nothing more than a shadow, under which war may be conducted with more effect than if undisguised, and all international obligations, whether implied or expressed, not worth the paper on which they are written.

It is no part of my intention to renew with your lordship the discussion of the extent to which a belligerent may draw resources from the territories of a neutral, nor yet to examine the degree in which the respective parties to the present contest have done so in Great Britain.

The limit in the first instance is well known to be the law of trade, which passively ignores the character of the purchaser. That limit, I desire once more to declare to your lordship, has never been passed by the government of the United States, whatever may be the insinuations or intimations to the contrary, to which your lordship alludes. The repeated and authorized denials of them made by me would seem, in ordinary courtesy, to be entitled to full confidence, at least so long as it is admitted that no evidence exists to impair its reputation for good faith.

On the other hand, the history of the past two years has proved beyond the possibility of denial that the insurgents have steadily and persistently been engaged in transgressing the limit above laid down. They have built ships in the ports of this kingdom with the intent to make war on the United States; they have equipped and armed those ships with the aid of British subjects; they have manned those ships by the enlistment of British subjects, and without ever entering any insurgent harbors; they have sailed on the high seas committing depredations on the property of the people of the United States under protection of the British flag. In advance of this series of proceedings I have been steadily engaged in making representations of the danger of the same to your lordship, the correctness of which has been almost uniformly verified by the result. In the very first instance in which I had the honor to present a remonstrance to your lordship, (the case of the gunboat Oreto,) it appears, from the admission of the individual now in command of that vessel, under the name of Florida, that she was built in the port of Liverpool with the intent to carry on war against the United States. I quote from the language of a letter signed J. N. Maffit, which has appeared in the public prints, when I say that “that corvette has, in fact, been built and armed by the government of the Confederate States of America.”

This building and arming are well known to have been done from the ports and harbors of Great Britain and its dependencies; and just so has it been with the other vessels of the same nature now on the ocean, that have never yet earned any national character excepting that which may attach to them from the territory where they were built, equipped, manned, and armed.

It is unnecessary for me to enlarge further upon this view of the case, or to contrast this conduct of the insurgents with that observed by the United States. I shall content myself only with pointing out to your lordship that the suffering by Great Britain of such proceedings as I have complained of is in violation of the rules of neutrality established by the law of nations, as liad down by distinguished writers, including your lordship, as well as of the very terms of the enlistment act, as adopted in this kingdom for the purpose of enforcing those rules.

This is the language of Martens on the subject:

“Celui la au contraire blesse les devoirs de la neutralite qui, sans engagemens anterieurs, * * * * * tolere sur son territoire les preparatifs militaires de l’ une des puissances belligerentes, en souffrant des armemens en course” &c., &c.

I now quote from the authority of your lordship himself:

“Attempts on the part of the subjects of a neutral government to take part in a war, or to make use of a neutral territory as an arsenal or barracks for the preparation and inception of direct and immediate hostilities against a state with which their government is at peace, as by enlisting soldiers, or fitting out ships-of-war, and so converting, as it were, neutral territory into a hostile depot or post, in order to carry on hostilities therefrom, have an obvious tendency to involve in the war the neutral government which tolerates such proceedings. Such attempts, if unchecked, might imply at least an indirect participation in hostile acts, and they are, therefore, consistently treated by the government of the neutral state as offences against its public policy and safety, which may thereby be implicated.”

How far the enlistment act appears to have been infringed upon, I trust I need go no further to show than to quote the view, with which your lordship has heretofore honored me, of what acts constitute a violation of that statute:

“The foreign enlistment act is intended to prevent the subjects of the crown from going to war when the sovereign is not at war.

“Thus, private persons are prohibited from fitting out a ship-of-war in our ports, or from enlisting in the service of a foreign state at war with another state, or in the service of insurgents against a foreign sovereign or state. In these cases the person so acting would carry on war, and thus might engage the name of their sovereign and their nation in belligerent operations.”

And here your lordship will permit me to remind you that her Majesty’s government cannot justly plead the inefficacy of the provisions of the enlistment law to enforce the duties of neutrality in the present emergency as depriving them of the power to prevent the anticipated danger. It will doubtless be remembered that the proposition made by you, and which I had the honor of being the medium of conveying to my government, to agree upon some forms of amendment of the respective statutes of the two countries, in order to make them more effective, was entertained by the latter, not from any want of confidence in the ability to enforce the existing statute, but from a desire to co-operate with what then appeared to be the wish of her Majesty’s ministers. But, upon my communicating his reply to your lordship, and inviting the discussion of propositions, you then informed me that it had been decided not to proceed any further in this direction, as it was the opinion of the cabinet, sustained by the authority of the lord chancellor, that the law was fully effective in its present shape.

It should here be observed that it was because I inferred from the language of your lordship’s note of the 1st of this month a virtual abnegation by her Majesty’s government of all power practically to prevent the violation of those admitted obligations of neutrality notoriously going on within this kingdom, that I felt it my duty to represent in firm, but I trust not disrespectful nor unsuitable language, the strong sense of injury which my government would unquestionably entertain on learning the unfortunate conclusion to which they had arrived.

And here I must ask permission of your lordship to observe that the disposition shown in that note to attach credit to a fraud which, to me, seems so transparent as that attempted in the person of Mr. Bravay, was calculated to inspire in me the most serious fears of the possibility of my ever being able to interpose the smallest obstacle in future to the most barefaced imposture that might be practiced in these cases on her Majesty’s government. Well knowing the unscrupulous character of the parties engaged in these operations, I had every reason to apprehend they would always be prepared with some similar specious pretence to annul any attempts further to hinder their illegal operations.

The simulated ownership of this Mr. Bravay appears to have dated so long back as on the 3d of July last. It was first alleged that it had been claimed through the official agency of the consul of France at Liverpool. And in this form the story was honored by the countenance of the first minister, Lord Palmerston, in the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the 23d of that month. Your lordship will recollect that I took immediate measures to procure an effectual disavowal of that authority by the French consul, and to furnish the evidence to you. Supposing that her Majesty’s government were perfectly satisfied with this, you may judge of my extreme astonishment when I gathered from your note of the 1st instant that her Majesty’s government, nearly two months afterwards, was still entertaining doubts about the truth of this story, and had not, during the long interval, obtained the evidence to set the matter at rest. Had your lordship done me the favor to mention the doubt at any time, I flatter myself that I could have supplied the necessary proof to dispel that illusion. I could have pointed out the fact that Mr. Bravay, professing to act as the agent of the Pacha of Egypt, yet carefully abstaining from any communication with his alleged employer, had addressed himself instead to the Emperor of the French, to get the support of his embassy in England, in order to effect the transfer of the vessels from under the British authority.

He was foiled in his attempt by the plain answer, that the ships having a foreign destination, the French agents had no authority to intervene with the British government to effect such a transfer. Not satisfied with making this answer however, I am informed that the French government at once applied to the viceroy of Egypt in order to verify the correctness of Mr. Bravay’s statement. The answer was, as might naturally have been inferred, a complete disavowal of any share in the transaction. Mr. Bravay, on being applied to for a copy of any contract under which he could claim to act for the Pacha, was obliged to confess that he had none. But he then pretended that his agreement was verbal with a person who he was sure could not this time be confronted with him to prove his want of veracity, the late Pacha of the same country.

Such being the facts attending this extraordinary imposture, your lordship may judge of my surprise on learning from your note that on 1st of September “the inquiries set on foot by her Majesty’s government had failed to show that the statement of French ownership was without foundation;” furthermore, that “ there was no legal evidence against Mr. Bravay’s claim, and that the responsible agent of the customs at Liverpool affirmed his belief that these vessels had not been built for the confederates.” Lastly, “that upon these and other grounds her Majesty’s government were advised that they could not interfere in any way with these vessels.”

Under these circumstances, I trust I may be pardoned if I was somewhat moved in perceiving that the peace of two great countries, and the lives of, perhaps, thousands of the people inhabiting them, were about to be seriously endangered by the acts of profligate and unscrupulous mischief-makers, whose operations were to be permitted by reason of the want of a scruple of technical evidence to prove a gross and flagrant fraud.

With regard to the opinion of her Majesty’s customs agent at Liverpool, I had already had abundant causes to know the value of that in various preceding instances in which I have had occasion to address remonstrances against the notorious proceedings at that port. If her Majesty’s ministers look no further for proof to invalidate the evidence which I have had the honor to present, I can readily foresee what will be the issue. I respectfully submit that the interests of two nations are of too much magnitude to be measured by the infinitesimal scale of the testimony permissible before a jury in a common law court. I may be pardoned if I here remind your lordship of the significant language used in a parallel case in former days by that distinguished British statesman, George Canning, when he deprecated the consequence of permitting the paltry, pettifogging way of fitting out ships in British harbors, to “ sneak his country into a war.” It may, indeed, well be that the inability to prevent some violations of neutrality in past instances, which your lordship is candid enough to confess, may be regarded by the United States as proceeding from special causes, which ought not to impair confidence in the enforcement of a general policy of neutrality by her Majesty’s government; but I pray your lordship to consider what can he that security, when all the barriers are virtually removed out of the way of an effective levying of war against them from this kingdom on the most formidable scale.

I feel it my duty to persist in the opinion that the evidence which I have had the honor to present to your attention, in regard to the character and intent of the war vessels fitting out at Liverpool, is entitled to belief, at least so long as it is not rebutted by far stronger proof to the contrary than that held out by the unsupported word of a French commercial adventurer, found to be capable of prevarication, if not of absolute falsehood, or by the bare opinion of an official person probably entertaining a sympathy with the cause of the guilty parties. The very fact that resort has been had to such flimsy pretences to prevent the detection of the true object, seems to afford the strongest proof that that object is not a lawful one, and is the one pointed out in the evidence. All exterior circumstances go to confirm this view. The universal impression notoriously existing in Liverpool, the concurrent intimations of the press of the insurgent States, and the absence of any other suitable explanation, though not constituting in themselves technical evidence, are yet important adjuncts to that which may fairly be classed under the definition. For myself, I must add that I entertain not a shadow of doubt that the substance of the evidence is true. If, then, there be any virtue in the authority upon which her Majesty’s government deliberately decided that the provisions of the enlistment act could be enforced without the need of any amendment, this is, surely, a most fitting and urgent occasion upon which all the majesty of the law may be invoked to the end of establishing justice and maintaining peace.

In conclusion, I pray your lordship’s attention to the fact that, in spite of the decision to which her Majesty’s government appear to have arrived, and which you have done me the honor to communicate to me, I have reason to believe that no efforts are intermitted to prepare the war vessels for immediate departure. Well acquainted, as I am, with the desperate character of the chief persons engaged in the insurrection in the United States, I shall be little surprised at learning of their resort to any and every expedient, however audacious or dishonest, which may have for its object the possession of these formidable ships.

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,