Mr.Adams to Mr. Seward, April 3, 1862

Mr.Adams to Mr.
Seward.

Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of
despatches from the department, numbered 209, 210, and 211. They make
particular reference only to one subject, the revocation by Great
Britain of her recognition of the insurgents as a belligerent. I have
already in my despatch, No. 135, of the 27th of March, submitted my
views on the expediency of pressing the subject at this time. After
consultation with some of our friends, I still adhere to the opinion. A few weeks more of news
like that we have received for some time back may dispose of it without
further difficulty. On the other hand, a contrary current would subject
us to needless mortification in a refusal. There is no change worthy of
note in the state of affairs here. The late naval action in Hampton
roads has made a great sensation, and is regarded as likely to work a
complete change in the policy of this country in fortifications and the
naval marine. You will not fail to observe the notice already taken of
it in Parliament. The subject is to be resumed to-morrow night. The
opinion of the military and naval efficiency of the United States has
undergone an astonishing change within the last month.

I transmit herewith a copy of Lord Russell’s note to me of the 27th, in
reply to mine of the 25th of March, on the subject of the gunboat Oreto
and the agency of British subjects in supplying aid to the rebels. The
Oreto has sailed from Liverpool.

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

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Sir: Upon receiving your letter of the 25th
instant I immediately directed that the treasury and customs
department should be requested to take such steps as may be
necessary to ascertain whether the Oreto is equipped for the purpose
of making war on the United States; and if that fact can be proved,
to detain the vessel.

The charge that nearly all the assistance now obtained from abroad by
persons still in arms against the government of the United States,
and which enables them to continue the struggle, comes from Great
Britain and its dependencies, is somewhat vague. I believe the
greater part of the arms and ammunition sent from this country to
America during the struggle has gone to the United States.

I agree with you in the statement that the duty of nations in amity
with each other is not to suffer their good faith to be violated by
ill-disposed persons within their borders, merely from the
inefficiency of their prohibitory policy. But it is, at the same
time, a duty not to punish persons on suspicion, without any proof
of their evil intent. It is not the custom of this country to
deprive any person of liberty or property without evidence of some
offence. If such evidence can be obtained, the laws are sufficient
to prevent the accomplishment of their evil designs against friendly
nations.

You have not yourself hitherto furnished me with evidence that any
vessel has received a hostile or warlike equipment in British
waters, which has been afterwards used against the United States.
The care that was taken to prevent the warlike equipment of the
Nashville, in British waters, must be familiar to your
recollection.

With regard to co-operation with the policy of the United States in
respect to the blockade, I must remind you that Great Britain has
abstained, as far as possible, from complaints of the irregularity
of the blockade which has been instituted.

Her Majesty’s government have been mindful of the suddenness of the
danger with which the United States were threatened; of the
inadequacy of the naval force then at the disposal of the
government, and of the great
difficulty of blockading a coast of three thousand miles. But beyond
forbearance and a liberal interpretation of the law of nations in
favor of the United States her Majesty’s government cannot go. If by
co-operation with the policy of the United States is meant either
taking part in the civil war still raging, or imposing restraints on
the Queen’s subjects unknown to international law, I cannot
undertake that her Majesty’s government will adopt either of those
courses. It would be an unheard-of measure to prohibit merchants
from sending ships to sea destined to the southern ports. Should
such ships attempt to violate the blockade, capture and condemnation
are the proper penalty of such attempts. No authority can be found
for any other.

But while these attempts are made on the one side, the United States
government have willingly received in the ranks of their army
British subjects, who violate the Queen’s proclamation, in order to
serve against the confederates. Nay, the law of the United States,
by which parents can prevent the enlistment of their sons, being
minors, has been set aside, to the prejudice of British subjects,
the fathers and mothers of thoughtless lads of sixteen or seventeen
years of age.

These evils are perhaps inseparable from the unhappy contest now
carried on in America. I can only trust it may have a speedy
termination, suitable to the reputation of the United States, and
conducive to the future happiness of all the inhabitants of a
country so lately prosperous and united.

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