Charles Francis Adams to William Hunter, Esq., Acting Secretary of State, Washington, D. C, June 2, 1865

Mr. Adams to Mr. Hunter

Sir: Within a couple of weeks there has been a singular attempt at a renewal of the panic in regard to the designs of our government which made the subject of my despatches some time ago.

A story has been sedulously circulated that the change in the Presidency had been the signal for a renewal of the old demand for reparation for the damage done by the Alabama and other vessels fitted out in England, and that in a more imperious and absolute manner. This at last assumed a distinct shape in the journal called the Owl, already referred to in former despatches as reputed to be conducted by persons who have more or less access to high sources of authority. The article was transferred without comment to the columns of the Times and other leading journals, and thus gained credence in spite of decided contradictions which appeared in the Globe and the News.

It should be observed that this publication called the Owl has developed this season much more decidedly than it did last year its sympathies with the cause of the rebels. Indeed, on more than one occasion it has betrayed most unmistakably its sources of authority in the statements made touching their affairs.

I have received intimations, but not founded on any authority I can rely on, that there are some secret affiliations in that journal with the power on the other side of the channel. Be this as it may, the fact is certain that the announcement to which I have referred was made the basis of a proposal for an alliance, offensive and defensive, between the two nations of France and Great Britain against the United States.

You may perhaps recollect that in a former despatch (No. 879, of the 16th of February) I distinctly referred to such a project as among the schemes agitated by the rebel agents and their friends on this side of the water.

The matter excited so much attention and stirred the very sensitive stock market so seriously as to give rise to a movement in the House of Commons intended to quiet it. But, rather unfortunately, Lord Palmerston, in answering an inquiry proposed by Sir John Walsh, on the 26th ultimo, gave a response so ambiguously couched as rather to increase than to diminish the credit given to the rumor.

The same thing happened again on Tuesday evening, as will appear by the report of what was said, in the copy of the London Times of Wednesday, which I now transmit. Very fortunately, however, Mr. W. E. Forster, not satisfied with the state in which the matter was left by Lord Palmerston, persevered with another adroit inquiry, addressed to Mr. Layard, the under-secretary of the Foreign Office. And this produced a plain and straightforward answer, which covered all the points in the case.

I shall not undertake to decide as to the causes which led Lord Palmerston thus twice over to evade making a rectification of this story.

Unquestionably, the only foundation for the report is to be had in the fact of the presentation of my successive notes to Lord Russell of the 7th of April and the 20th of May, the first of which was presented some time before the death of the late President, and the second was called forth only by a necessity imposed by the excursive nature of his lordship’s reply. Catching somehow or other at the knowledge of the existence of these notes, it has been thought worth while by somebody to make that fact the basis of an alarm which might tolerate the otherwise unwelcome suggestion of an alliance with France, as against the United States.

If I am right in my statement, it is not, perhaps, unfair to infer here the presence of three threads of influence combined in one cord of intrigue: The first, that of the indefatigable rebel emissaries; the second, that of French-Mexican-ism under imperial shelter; the third, that of aristocratic British sympathy with the rebellion

I shall probably have occasion for some time to come to notice and expose similar schemes. While but little disposed to attaóh importance to them, or to believe in any chances of their success, I think it my duty to continue to transmit to you the information, in order that you may be placed on your guard and hold in your hands at all times the means of counteracting the false impressions attemptd here by such devices.

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

The Alabama claims.

Mr. Shaw Lefevre. As some misapprehension was caused by the answer of the noble lord the other night to a question put by an honorable member, I wish to ask whether the communication which the noble lord said had been received from the United States government, with respect to the losses caused by the Alabama and other similar vessels, is in any way contradictory in tenor and spirit to Mr. Adams’s despatch of October, 1863, in which he stated that, in order to preserve amity and friendship between the two countries, he was instructed by his government to postpone any question which might arise with reference to the depredations of the Alabama to some future time when it could be discussed with calmness; and I also wish to ask whether that communication was dated before or after the accession of President Johnson.

Lord Palmerston. I can only repeat what I said on a former occasion—that communications have been going on between the two governments for a considerable time past with regard to the captures made by the Alabama and other ships of the same kind. My honorable friend wishes to know whether, in a recent communication, the identical words are repeated which were contained in any former one. I am not aware that the identical words are used, but the general tenor of the communication is the same and refers to the same matters as the previous ones, a certain portion of which have been laid before Parliament, and are now on the table of the House. My honorable friend asks whether the last communication was made since the accession of President Johnson. It was made here since that time; but whether the instructions upon which it was made were issued by President Lincoln or Pres ident Johnson I cannot inform you.

Lord R. Cecil. I understood the noble lord at the head of the government to say that the former demands on the subject of the Alabama had been conveyed in a correspondence, of which a portion had been laid before Parliament. I wish to ask the noble lord what are the dates, or at least what is the approximate period of the correspondence relating to the demands on account of the Alabama which has not been laid before Parliament.

Lord Palmerston was understood to say he was not able offhand to answer the question of the noble lord.

Mr. W. E. Forster. Is it not possible, in a case of such considerable importance, for the under-secretary for foreign affairs, or some other person on behalf of the government, to give a more explicit answer to the question which has been put by the honorable member? There seems to be an impression aboard—I believe an unfounded impression—that since the accession of President Johnson, claims with regard to the Alabama have been made in a different spirit from that in which they were made formerly. I rather gather from the question of the noble lord (Lord R. Cecil) that he is not altogether satisfied with the reply of the noble lord at the head of the government. It is of importance that the mind of the country should be set at rest upon this subject, and if it be the case,: as J believe it is, that no fresh feature has been introduced into the claims on account of the Alabama within these few months, I hope the under-secretary for foreign affairs will be able to state that distinctly.

Mr. Layard. The case is very simple. The original demand was that contained in papers which have been laid on the table of the House last year, or at the end of the previous session. Whenever case have arisen, whether solitary or otherwise, of vessels captured by the Alabama and other ships of that nation, Mr. Adams, in putting forward the claim in each particular case, has reiterated the original claims almost in the same words. A short time ago, in a note which reached her Majesty’s government before the death of President Lincoln, that demand was incidently renewed in words almost identical with the original claim. That is the state in which the case rests at present. There has been no fresh demand, neither has the claim been withdrawn. The demands which have been made of late are continuations of the original demand.

The adjournment of the House until next Thursday was then agreed to.