the work, the other contracting parties having a similar allowance. The portion of the proceeds of cotton belonging to the insurgents was "to be paid to the credit of the War Department with Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool." The insurgents were to furnish officers to command the vessels. The document was signed by "C. E. Thorburn," and by "Chas. H. Reid & Co.," and by "The Mercantile Trading Co., Limited; Edgar P. Stringer, Managing Director, London, 23d September, 1863." Mr. Thorburn was a shareholder in the Trading Company, and on the 3d of October Mr. Stringer is found corresponding with him about the purchase of these vessels. 3 2 Meanwhile the operations of the insurgents at Nassau and Bermuda had gone on with even more vigor than during the previous year. Huse's credit had been strained to the utmost, but was now restored. The purchases and supplies for the Quartermaster's Department appear to have been transferred during this summer exclusively to Nassau. Seixas was instructed to place one thousand bales of cotton at Nassau for the Quartermaster's Department, before the close of [281] the year, and was told that "the wants of the Quartermaster General are at Nassau, not Bermuda."4 Heyliger diligently complied with his instructions to forward quartermaster's stores. On the 29th of October he sent 40 tons by the "Antonica," "Margaret," and "Jessie." On the 2d of November he shipped by the “Hansa” 19 tons; the next day by the "Beauregard" 40 or 50 tons; and a large quantity by the "Alice;" and on the 5th of November he sent 20 tons by the "Banshee.” The "Margaret" and the "Jessie" were captured; the others ran the blockade. The Quartermaster's Department was much employed in collecting and forwarding cotton to meet these purchases.5 Major Ferguson was in Liverpool at this time as an agent for the purchase of quartermaster's stores, and was sending large amounts forward. Fraser, Trenholm & Co. refused his drafts, because Heyliger had already overdrawn the Quartermaster's account. Ferguson thereupon wrote, urging that cotton should be forwarded. "I have," he says, 6 616 more faith in cotton than I ever had. If we can but get that out, we can buy all England, for most *of the men, as well as [282] their merchandise, have a price." These facts brought to Earl notice. On the 3d of November, 1863, Mr. Adams, laid before Earl Russell 66 new proofs of the manner in which the neutrality of Her Russell's Majesty's ports is abused by the insurgents in the United States, in order the more effectually to procrastinate their resistance," which he contended showed the "establishment in the port of St. George's, in the island of Bermuda, of a depot of naval stores for their use and benefit in the prosecution of the war." This information should have put Lord Russell on the track of all the facts in regard to Bermuda. Had Her Majesty's Government pursued the investigations to which it gave them the clew, it would have done so. Earl Russell, He sees no offense on the 27th of November, answered that "Her Majesty's Government do not consider that they can properly interfere in this matter." 9:9 The dates would seem to indicate a possibility that no inquiries were made at Bermuda. in them. 1 Vol. VI, page 140. 4 Bayne to Seixas, September 29, 1863, Vol. VI, page 139. 5 Bayle to Lawton, November 13, 1863, Vol. VI, page 147. 6 Fraser, Trenholm & Co. to Lawton, November 26, 1863, Vol. VI, page 149. 9 Vol. I, page 738. On the 29th of December, 1863, Mr. Adams wrote Earl Russell that he had "information entitled to credit," that Ralph Cator, "an officer in Her Majesty's naval service," was "engaged in violating the [283] blockade;" and that there was *" a strong disposition on the part of a portion of Her Majesty's navy to violate the neutrality of their Sovereign in aiding and assisting the enemies of the United States." This, too, was answered in a week from its date, without taking the trouble to inquire in the West Indies.2 Again, upon the 25th day of January, 1864, Mr. Adams called attention to "he manner in which the insurgents habitually abuse the belligerent privileges which have been conceded to them by Great Britain." It would seem that he had lately had a conversation with Earl Russell on the subject, for he says that he "deems it almost superfluous to enlarge further on the difficulties which must grow out of a toleration of the outrageous abuses of the belligerent privileges that have been granted to the insurgents."3 "It would be difficult," he adds, "to find an example in history of a more systematic and persistent effort to violate the neutral position of a country than this one has been from its commencement, that has not brought on a war. That this has been the object of the parties engaged in it I have never for a moment doubted." 66 It must be obvious," he says, " to your Lordship that, after such an exposition, all British subjects engaged in these violations of blockade [284] must incur a suspicion *strong enough to make them liable to be treated as enemies, and, if taken, to be reckoned as prisoners of war." 4 to these facts. Earl Russell replied to this note on the 9th of March. He ignored the evidence and charges of the hostile use of the British West Earl Russell's atIndia ports. He alluded to a charge against Lieutenant tention again called Rooke, which he set aside as unimportant, and to a charge against one James Ash of a purpose to build ships for the insurgents. As to the latter charge, he reiterated the oft-repeated plea that there was no "legal and proper evidence" to sustain it; and having disposed of these, he confined himself to a notice of Mr. Adams's intimation that it might become necessary to treat blockade-runners as prisoners of war. This, he said, could not be assented to. A short discussion ensued, which was closed by a note of Mr. Adams, transmitting further evidence of the character of the trade between the British West Indian ports and the insurgent States, and calling Earl Russell's "particular attention to the express condition exacted from all vessels in trade with the insurgent ports, that one-half of the tonnage of each vessel may be employed by the so-called Government for its [285] own use, both on the outward and homeward voyage; to which Earl Russell replied in an answer in which he said, in substance, that admitting all the facts stated to be true, there was nothing in them worthy of attention; for "the subjects of Her Ma- He again sees no jesty are entitled by International Law to carry on the operations of commerce equally with both belligerents, subject to the capture of their vessels and to no other penalty.”7 offense in them. This discussion closed the correspondence which took place between the two Governments on this branch of the subject. It left Great Britain justifying all that took place, after actual knowledge of much, and pos 1 Vol. I, page 739. 2 Vol. I, page 740. 4 Adams to Russell, Vol. I, page 745. 5 Russell to Adams, Vol. I, pages 749-'51. 6 Adams to Russell, Vol. I, page 756. 7 Russell to Adams, Vol. I, page 757. 3 Vol. I, page 746. 1 sible knowledge of all, had been brought within its reach. It left, too, the Queen's Proclamation as to this subject virtually revoked, and Her Majesty's subjects assured that it was no violation of international duty to break the blockade. It is worthy of remark that Lord Westbury, the Lord High Chancellor, gave a judicial decision to the same effect, which was soon after followed by the High Court of Admiralty. The executive and judicial branches of the British Government were thus a second time brought into *accord in construing away Her Ma- [286] jesty's Proclamation. 2 Blockade-running throve, and Nassau and Bermuda prospered under Blockade - running these repeated decisions of Her Majesty's Government. The in partnership with Florida, too, arrived at Bermuda on the 16th of July, 1864, and remained there until the 27th, taking coal and supplies on board; and this at a time when like permission was refused to the vessels of the United States. the insurgent Government. It was a favorite idea of the insurgent authorities from the beginning to become interested with Englishmen as partners in blockade-running. One contract to that effect has already been alluded to. In July, 1864, McRae reported other contracts.3 Captain Bullock, with whom (he said) I [McRae] am directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to consult," was a party to the transaction. These contracts "made provisions for fourteen steamers, four to leave during the month of August, eight in December, and two in April, 1865."3 They were to be "built of steel, and to carry one thousand bales of cotton each, on a draught of seven feet water, and with an average speed of thirteen knots per hour."3 Arrangements were at the same time made for the purchase of supplies for Huse and Ferguson pending the fin*ishing of the vessels. The "Owl" was the first of these vessels [287] to arrive. The insurgent Navy Department claimed the right "to place a naval officer in charge of her in conformity with regulations."4 The treasury doubted this, but Mallory insisted upon his right. This drew from Bullock an indignant letter, complaining that the navy had taken these vessels. Good ships were building for the navy; why take these vessels, which were not suited for naval purposes. 6 On the 5th of October, 1864, orders were given for more arms, and McRae was ordered to supply Huse with $50,000 for the purpose." On the 26th of November, Ferguson reports his doings in the purchase of woolen goods, and gives the reason for "making Liverpool his headquarters." As late as the 7th of January, 1865, McRae is ordered to pay to Bullock £105,000. The steamer "Laurel," the same which took the arms and men to the Shenandoah, was then in Wilmington. She was sent out with a cargo of cotton, with instructions to the officer in command to sell the steamer and the cotton, and to pay Bullock £12,000 out of the proceeds, putting the balance to the credit of the *treasury, with Fraser, Trenholm & Co. No efforts seem to [288] have been spared to sustain the dying fortunes of the insurrection. The insurgents, at the last, fell into the unaccountable error of supposing that the British Government intended to interfere with their 111 Jurist N. S., 400. 9 Law Reports Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts, Browning, Vol. I, page 1. 3 McRae to Seddon, July 4, 1864, Vol. VI, page 163. * Mallory to Trenholm, September 21, 1864, Vol. VI, page 171. 5 Same to same, September 22, 1864, Vol. VI, page 172. 6 Bullock to McRae, November 1, 1864, Vol. VI, page 173. 7 Gorgas to Seddon, October 5, 1864, Vol. VI, page 172. Ferguson to Lawton, November 26, 1864, Vol. VI, page 175. Trenholm to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., December 24, 1864, Vol. VI, page 177. 66 a blockade-running. They changed the apparent ownership of the Stag into the name of John Fraser & Co., lest it should be seized as transport owned by the Confederate States, engaged in the blockade." It is needless to say that the precaution was not required. Evidence had over and over again been laid before Lord Russell that these blockade-runners were, in fact, transports of the insurgents, carrying their funds for Liverpool, and bringing back their arms and munitions of war, and that the operations of these vessels were brought clearly within the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act; but he ever turned a deaf ear to the charges. On the 15th of March, 1865, Mr. Adams complained of this matter for the last time. The United States steamer San Jacinto having been wrecked on the Bahamas, and her officers and crew having found shelter at Nassau, the "Honduras," also a man-of Continued partiality. war, was sent there for the purpose of paying in coin the claims [289] for salvage. *The Consul asked permission for the "Honduras" to enter the port, which was refused, although the "Florida" had, less than six months before, remained eleven days at Bermuda, and taken on board a full supply of coal. In bringing this breach of hospitality to the notice of Earl Russell, Mr. Adams said: "I shall not seek to dwell on the painful impression this proceeding has made in the Naval Department of the United States, which at the same time had too much reason to be cognizant of the abuse made of that port by persons practically engaged in hostilities in violation of Her Majesty's Proclamation. There was no single day during the month in which this incident happened that thirty-five vessels, engaged in breaking the blockade, were not to be seen flaunting their contraband flags in that port. Neither has its hospitality been restricted to that hybrid class of British ships running its illegal ventures on joint account with the insurgent authorities in the United States. The Chameleon, not inaptly named, but before known as the Tallahassee, and still earlier as a British steamer fitted out from London to play the part of a privateer out of Wilmington, was lying at that very time in Nassau, relieved indeed of her guns, but still retaining all the attributes of her hostile occupation. But a few days earlier the steamer Laurel, whose [290] history *is already too well known to your Lordship, by my note of the 7th instant, had reappeared after its assumption of the name of the Confederate States, and had there been not only received, but commissioned with a post mail to a port of Her Majesty's Kingdom."2 Lord Russell took no notice of Mr. Adams's charge, that many of these blockade-runners were, in fact, transports in the insurgent service, and that the ports of Nassau and Bermuda were depots of ordnance and quartermasters' stores. His only reply, made four days after the surrender of Lee at Appomattox, was a repetition of the old story, "there is nothing in the law of nations which forbids the attempt of neutral ship-owners or commanders to evade the blockade." To the last the British Government refused to interfere. The fears which induced the insurgents to try to cover up the ownership of the "Stag" were groundless. The partnership continued until the United States. interfered, and closed the business, before the English partners could deliver the last vessels under the contract. It is necessary to add a few words in regard to the closing operations of Bullock's department, before bringing this imperfect outline of Great Britain's violation of its duties as a neutral to a close. 1 Trenholm to Mallory, December 17, 1864, Vol. VI, page 176. 2 Adams to Russell, Vol. I, page 709. 3 Russell to Adams, Vol. I, page 714. 4 6 *On the 30th of November, 1863, the London Times announced [291] that "the screw gun-vessel 'Victor,' recently purThe Rappahannock. chased from the Admiralty, has, as had been expected, passed into the hands of the Confederate Government." "The Victor,' an old dispatch-boat belonging to Her Majesty's Navy, was one of a number of ships ordered by the Admiralty to be sold as worn out and unserviceable. An offer for her was accepted on the 14th of September, 1863, and on the 10th of November the hull was delivered to the order of the purchasers, Messrs. Coleman & Co., the masts, sails, and rigging having been previously removed, as the pivots and other fittings for guns." The steamer, instead of being taken away, remained at Sheerness, "refitting, under the direction of persons connected with the royal dock-yards."3 Many facts came to the knowledge of Mr. Adams, indicating that the vessel was intended for the insurgents. In pursuing his inquiries, however, the suspicions of the parties concerned were probably excited; for the vessel, "by no means prepared for sea, and with no adequate force to man her," was carried with the workmen actually engaged upon her, across the English Channel and taken into Calais. Mr. Adams called Lord Russell's attention to these *pro- [292] ceedings, and furnished him with evidence tending to show the guilt of the purchasers, and also that one Rumble, inspector of machinery afloat of Her Majesty's dock-yard, Sheerness, had been the principal person concerned in enlisting the crew. Rumble was subsequently tried and acquitted, although the proof against him was clear. As to the vessel, any doubt of her character was at once removed. The insurgent flag was hoisted, and she went into commission under the name of the Rappahannock in crossing the Channel, and she entered the port of Calais claiming to be an insurgent man-of-war. What was done there is described in the statement of the Solicitor General to the jury on the trial of Rumble: "The preparations for equipping, which had been interrupted, were proceeded with; a number of boiler-makers were sent for from England, and many of them were induced to leave their employment in the dock-yard without leave, and when they returned they were discharged as being absent without leave; attempts were made to enlist more men; a large store of coals was taken in; but at this point the French Government stepped in. The French Government, not choosing their ports to be made the scene of hostile operations, interposed, and prevented any further equipment of the vessel, *and [293] by the short and summary process of mooring a man-of-war across her bows, prevented her going out of the port, and she has been kept a prisoner in the harbor ever since." Contrast again the course of the French Government with that of the British Government in like cases. What vessel bearing a commission from the Richmond authorities was ever disturbed by a British gunboat, no matter how flagrant might have been her violations of British sovereignty? The Shenandoah. In the summer or autumn of the year 1864, there was in London a vessel called the Sea King. She was a merchant steamer which had belonged to a Bombay company, and had been employed in the East India trade. On the 20th of September in that year she was sold in London to Richard Wright, of Liverpool," the father 1 Vol. II, page 725. 6 2 Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, page 357. 3 Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, Vol. II, page 726. 4 Vol. II, pages 727, 735, 738, 747, 751, 754, 771, 776, 787. 5 Vol. IV, page 583. 6 Bernard's British Neutrality, page 359. 7 Vol. III, page 319. |