whose views must be directed by greater considerations. The views of the rebels are evident; they know that the honor of this country, and the proper feelings of the people in general, will not submit to such open violation of solemn treaties and established laws acknowledged by all nations. The necessary consequence must be a war, which is the object they have in view, and they are not delicate in the choice of means that may bring about an end so much desired by them.

"These reflections, my lord, your excellency will communicate to the French ministers, expressing, at the same time, that an explanation is desired, not a menace intended; but, on full consideration of the present circumstances, they must be satisfied peace, however earnestly wished, cannot be maintained, unless an effectual stop is put to our just causes of complaint.

"Lord Macartney and Governor Shirley have transmitted many depositions on oath to ascertain the complaints, the particular subjects of which have been sent to your excellency, but I do not trouble you with them, as you need no proofs to be convinced that the French governors are acting the most unjustifiable conduct in the West Indies, where there is too much reason to suspect they are concerned in the piracies." In consequence of the seizure of the English vessel Experience, the English_embassador addressed the following demand to the French government on the 8th July,

"Que le vaisseau anglais nommé L'expérience, et sa cargaison, soient restitués d'abord aux propriétaires ou à leur ayant-cause, et que les capteurs reparent tout le dommage qu'ils ont fait. Il serait superflu d'insister davantage sur la justice de cette demande, en parlant à un ministère aussi éclairé que celui de France, et c'est à dessein que l'ambassadeur évite d'appuier sur les circonstances de cette prise; il se bornera à dire que ce bâtiment anglais était à l'avère près du port de Cherbourg quand il à été pris par les pirates américains, qui sont sortis de ce même port pour s'emparer de ce vaisseau, et qui ont été accompagnés de plusieurs sujets de sa majesté très chrétienne, et même de plusieurs soldats français qui ont été complices de cet attentat."

In reply to those representations M. de Vergennes read a note verbale to Lord Stormont, the following extract of which relates to the conduct of the French government with regard to the privateers which had been admitted into the French ports:

"C'est d'après cette conviction que le roi me charge de déclarer à votre excellence, que fidèle à l'observation des traités, que sa majesté s'attend qu'ils ne seront pas moines exactement observés de la part de l'Angleterre, elle ne permettra rien qui pourrait y déroger; et que sensible aux plaintes que vous avez eu commission de me porter contre les trois corsaires (américains) la Représaille, le Lexington, et le Dolphin, lesquels, après avoir eu injonction de sortir des ports de France pour n'y plus revenir, y sont cependant rentrés malgré cette défense; sa majesté, bien éloignée d'approuver cette navette [138] que les traités reprouvent, en *est, au contraire, très-mécontente, et ne peut mieux

en témoigner son mécontentement qu'en ordonnant, comme elle le fait, de séquestrer les dits corsaires dans les ports où ils peuvent être relâchés pour y être retenus jusqu'à ce qu'on puisse avoir des sûretés suffisantes qu'ils retourneront en droiture dans leur patrie, sans infester de nouveau les mers d'Europe.

"Quant aux prises que ces corsaires ou d'autres peuvent avoir amenées, ou pourront amener, par la suite, dans nos ports, les ordres sont renouvelés non-seulement pour qu'on n'en permette pas la vente, mais encore pour qu'on les fasse partir aussitôt que le vent et les circonstances du temps pourront le permettre, sans se prêter à aucune des exceptions que la cupidité des vendeurs et des acheteurs est ingénieuse à former; et il est enjoint aux officiers préposés à cet effet, d'y tenir sévèrement la main, sauf à en répondre en leur propre et privé nom. Il leur est pareillement recommandé de veiller soigneusement à ce que les facilités de commerce dont les Américains jouissent dans les ports de France n'excèdent pas celles d'un commerce permis.

"Si quelque sujet anglais se croit fondé à intenter une action personnelle contre quelqu'un des sus-dits corsaires, la voie des tribunaux leur est ouverte ici comme en Angleterre. La loi décide les affaires contentieuses, et jamais l'autorité.

"Pour ce qui est du Dolphin, que votre excellence prétend être un bâtiment français, armé en France, avec l'équipage de la même nation, et n'ayant qu'un seul officier américain, l'examen, le plus impartial en sera fait, et si la chose est effectivement telle qu'elle vous a été représentée, il en sera fait justice."

On the 15th of March, 1778, the French embassador in London communicated to the English government the recognition of the independence of the American colonies, and the treaties which had been signed between France and the United States, which led to the withdrawal of the English embassador from Paris, and to the subsequent hostilities between the two countries without any formal declaration of war.

In 1779 the French government published an exposé des motifs of its conduct relative to Great Britain, to which a reply was published by Great Britain, written by the historian Gibbon, and contained in vol. iv of his miscellaneous works. In reply to the latter memorial, the French government published a paper entitled "Observations de la cour de Versailles sur le mémoire justicatif de la cour de Londres." In this paper 1See "Droit des Gens;" Martens, vol. i. Causes Célèbres, 1761-'88, p. 462.-(F. O. Lib., Oct. 730.)

the following extracts occur in justification of the asylum granted to the American privateers in the French ports:

"En donant asile aux Américains, le roi n'a fait que remplir un des premiers devoirs de l'humanité, en même temps qu'il a exercé un droit inhérent à la souveraineté; droit qui appartient à toutes les nations indépendantes, qui ne peut être restreint que par des conventions, et dont l'exercice est plus étendu en Angleterre que dans aucun autre état de l'Europe. Le roi n'a eu aucune raison de renoncer à l'exercice de ce droit au préjudice des Américains, parce que cette nation ne l'a jamais offensé; et c'eût été de sa part nne tyrannie, une cruauté inouïe que de les expulser de ses états, parce qu'ils étaient injustement opprimés par la Grande-Bretagne. Des Américains ont séjourné dans plus d'un pays de l'Europe. En est-il aucun d'où ils n'aient été forcés de sortir; aucun où ils n'avaient joui du droit de l'hospitalité; aucun où ils n'aient été aussi tranquilles et aussi surs que dans les provinces les plus reculées de l'Amérique? A quel titre la cour de Londres prétend-elle donc faire un crime au roi de n'avoir chassé les Américains de ses états?

"Non-seulement le roi a donné un asile aux Américains, mais il a aussi admis leurs corsaires et leurs prises; et c'est là un des principaux griefs de la cour de Londres, sur lequel elle s'est appésantie la plus, et qui a fourni la matière la plus ample à ses déclamations et à ses reproches. Mais quelques mots suffiront pour établir les véritables principes sur cette matière, et pour démontrer que le ministre anglais les a méconnus volontairement.

"Les roi est le maître d'admettre dans ses ports les navires de toutes les nations de l'univers. Ce droit s'étend sur les bâtiments de guerre comme sur les bâtiments marchands; et il n'admet de restriction que celles qui sont établis par des traitrés. Celui d'Utrecht en renferme relativement aux bâtiments de guerre l'article XV. porte en substance, 'que les parties contractantes' (la France et l'Angleterre) 'ne permettront pas à leurs ennemis respectifs d'armer dans leurs ports, d'y vendre leurs prises, et d'y séjourner au delà du temps requis pour réparer leurs dommages et se pourvoir des choses nécessaires pour être en état de remettre à la mer. Le roi a suivi ponctuellement cette conduite par rapport au corsaires américains. Sa volonté, à cet égard, est constatée par les ordes les plus précis, et surtout par leur exécution. Il est vrai que

le ministère anglais avance que ces ordres étaient illusoires, qu'ils étaient trans[139] gressés ouvertement; impunément, et même sous l'autorité *du gouvernement; mais cette accusation est une calomnie d'autant plus révoltante qu'elle est contraire à la notoriété publique, constatée même par les gazettes ministérielles imprimées en Améri

que.

"Si l'on prétend que le roi aurait dû refuser toute retraite aux corsaires américains, parce qu'il aurait dû les regarder comme pirates, on demande de quel droit le roi aurait pu les juger tels? Les Américains ne sont point ses sujets; il n'est ni le juge ni l'arbitre des querelles domestiques de l'Angleterre. Il avait adopté la neutralité, et il l'aurait enfreinte de la manière la plus odieuse en prononçant sur l'état des Américains. Ces principes sont certains, et c'est une véritable dérision que de les méconnaître, comme ce serait une adulation, une faiblesse inexcusable que de les violer. La cour de Londres seule a eu des pirates en mer; ce sont ses bâtiments marchands qui, en pleine paix, cnt enlevé des bâtiments français; et cette cour ne soutiendra pas, sans doute, que ce procédé était contraire à ses ordres ou à ses intentions, puisque les coupables, quoique dénoncés, sont demeurés impunis, et que les navires pris n'ont pas été restitués."

It results from the foregoing statements that no such contrast between the conduct of France on the occasion of the revolt of the British provinces in 1774, and that of Great Britain on the occasion of the recent insurrection in the United States, as that which Mr. Adams has sought to draw, can really be drawn. Great Britain by no act of hers conferred upon her revolted colonies any belligerent character, or sought to enforce against neutrals belligerent rights; on the contrary, for a long period she dealt with her colonies as revolted provinces by acts of ordinary legislation, and by restrictions on their trade. On the other hand, the United States, within a few months after the commencement of the insurrection, conferred upon the Southern States belligerent rights by the proclamation issued by the President of the United States on the 19th of April, 1861, establishing the blockade of the Southern States," in pursuance. of the laws of the United States and of the laws of nations in such cases provided." FOREIGN OFFICE, October 30, 1865.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 11.]

Memorandum respecting representations made by Mr. Adams of breaches of neutrality during the civil war.

August 15, 1861.

1. BERMUDA.

Letter acknowledged and referred to Treasury, August 15.

Steamer said to be fitting out for confederates at Hartlepool. Not a case for interference. Proved to be a blockade-runner.

North America, No.

1, 1861, pp. 69, 70.

September 30, 1861.

2. SUMTER.

Complaint of the Sumter having been acknowledged as a ship of war at Trinidad by the governor and the captain of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus.

North America, No. 1, 1861, pp. 82-84.

The circumstances had been already reported and the opinion of the law-officers taken, (September 16,) who decided that no irregularity had been committed. Mr. Adams was informed accordingly.

The Sumter had run the blockade of the Mississippi, whence she went to Puerto Cabello, and then to Trinidad. She was afterward laid up at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the United States steamer Tuscarora. While at Gibraltar the captain was assassinated by the lieutenant. The ship was dismantled and sold to a British firm in December, 1862, and came to Liverpool. Her proceedings there occasioned a subsequent correspondence.

3. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONFEDERATE DEPOT AT NASSAU.

October 1, 1861.

Letter acknowledged and referred to colonial office, October 8.

The allegations in Mr. Adams's letter were denied by Mr. H. Adderley, the person who was stated to have the shipment of the supplies, and Mr. Adams expressed his satisfaction at the denial. (Mr. Adams, January 10, 1862.)

North America, No. 1, pp. 117, 118.

November 22, 1861.

4. NASHVILLE.

Acknowledged and referred to law-officers, November 23.

[140] *This was a complaint of the confederate steamer Nashville having been permitted to enter Southampton after destroying the American bark Har6; Tuscarora and vey Birch.

North America, No.

Nashville.

The Nashville, which had escaped from Charleston, proved to be regularly commissioned as a ship of war, and was, under the advice of the law-officers, acknowledged accordingly.

For correspondence as to the proceedings of the Nashville and United States steamer Tuscarora at Southampton, see Parliamentary Papers, presented 1862.

February 18, 1862.

5. ORETO, OR FLORIDA.

Acknowledged and referred to treasury, February 18.

Alleged to be fitting at Liverpool for the confederate service.

The customs officers reported that she was intended for a merchant-vessel and was stated to be going to Italy. No proof was forthcoming of her equipment, and she sailed, March 22, without any armament on board. On arriving at Nassau she was seized by Her Majesty's ship Greyhound for violation of foreign-enlistment act. The case was tried in the vice-admiralty court, and the ship released, August 2, 1862. She then ran the blockade of Mobile, and having armed there, escaped again as the Florida ship of war, under the command of Captain Maffit.

Her career continued until her seizure in the harbor of Bahia by the United States ship Wachusetts, in October, 1864.

Reference to foreign-enlistment act.

In the second representation made by Mr. Adams, March 25, 1862, the following passage occurs, which, as being the first reference to the operation of the Mr. Adams, March foreign-enlistment act, may be worthy of remark:

25, 1862.

"It is with the deepest regret that the President directs me to submit to Her Majesty's Government a representation of the unfortunate effect produced upon the minds of the people of the United States from the conviction that nearly all of the assistance that is now obtained from abroad by the persons still in arms against their Government, and which enables them to continue the struggle, comes from the kingdom of Great Britain and its dependencies. Neither is this impression relieved by the information that the existing municipal laws are found to be insufficient, and do not furnish means of prevention adequate to the emergency."

March 10, 1862.

6. BLOCKADE-RUNNERS LADEN IN ENGLAND.

Letter acknowledged March 13. Referred to law-officers March 12, who decided (March 22) that Her Majesty's government could not interfere.

7. EMILY ST. PIERRE.

April 24, 1862.

Acknowledged and referred to law-officers, April 24.

A blockade-runner which, after capture, was rescued by her master and two men from the prize crew and brought to Liverpool.

Under advice of law-officers Her Majesty's government refused to interfere.

North America, No.

11, 1861.

June 23, 1862.

8. ALABAMA.

North America, No.

3, 1863.

Custom-house correspondence,

sented 1863.

pre

North America, No.

1, 1864.
Ditto, No. 3, 1864.
Ditto, No. 3, 1865.

Acknowledged, referred to treasury and law-officers, Junë 25. A vessel known as the No. 290, building by Messrs. Laird, at Liverpool. Law-officers reported (June 30) that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed on, but that the vessel should be watched. The reports received from the customs were sent to Mr. Adams, (July 4,) with a suggestion that the United States consul at Liverpool should procure further proofs of equipment, &c. Mr. Adams acknowledged, and promised to act on this, suggestion, (July 7.) He sent further depositions accordingly, (July 22 and 24,), and accompanied the latter letter by an opinion of Mr. Collier in favor of seizure. The law-officers reported (July 29) that she should be seized; but on the morning of the 29th she had sailed from the Mersey, under pretext of a trialtrip. A copy of the law-officers' opinion was sent to the Bahamas in case of the Alabama going there. She, however, proceeded to Angra Bay, Azores, where she met the Bahama and Agrippina, with her armament, her commander, Captain Semmes, and forty-two seamen. She then hoisted the confederate flag, and sailed for Port [141] Royal, Martinique, *next to Blanco Island, (belonging to Venezuela,) where she coaled, then to Arcas Keys, then destroyed the United States ship Hatteras, off Galveston, and afterward to Jamaica, where she was received and recognized as a regularly commissioned ship of war.

She continued her depredations at the Cape of Good Hope and elsewhere, until she was finally sunk by the United States ship Kearsarge, off Cherbourg, June 19, 1864.

Naval-reserve men dismissed for engaging on board Alabama.

It having been found that four-naval reserve men had sailed in the Alabama, on her first start, their names were erased from the naval-reserve list. (Admiralty, February 27, 1863.)

November 17, 1862.

9. HECTOR.

Referred to admiralty, November 18.

This was an inquiry whether the Hector was building for Her Majesty's government; and, after reference to the admiralty, was answered in the affirmative.

January 16, 1863.

10. THE GEORGIANA.

Acknowledged and referred to treasury and home office, January 17.

Said to be fitting at Liverpool for confederates, though Mr. Adams could not divulge the authority on which the statement was made.

The reports from the customs sent to Mr. Adams on the 18th, 19th, and 27th January went to show that the vessel was not for war purposes.

She sailed on the 21st January for Nassau, and was wrecked in attempting to enter Charleston, March 19, 1863..

February 9, 1863.

11. CONFEDERATE AGENCY IN ENGLAND.

Acknowledged February 12; referred to law-officers, treasury, and home office, February 23.

This was the case of the intercepted correspondence.
Answered March 9; no cause to interfere.

12. SUMTER, OR GIBRALTAR, AT LIVERPOOL.

North America, No. 8, 1853.

February 16, 1863. Referred to law-officers, February 17. After her sale at Gibraltar, (see No. 2,) the Sumter's name was changed to the Gibraltar. Mr. Adams complained of her being refitted for confederate Customg Co rreservice. The law-officers reported March 3, and Mr. Adams was in- spondence, presented formed, March 9, that there was no case for interference.

1863, 1864.

It appeared that guns were shipped on board the Gibraltar, but they proved to be siege guns. She was wrecked in attempting to enter Charleston in July.

13. PAYMENT OF MEN, LATE OF ALABAMA, IN ENGLAND.-MESSRS. KLINGENDER'S AGENCY.

March 4, 1863.

Acknowledged and referred to law-officers, March 12, 1863, who decided that no offense had been committed.

March 26, 1863.

14. PHANTOM AND SOUTHERNER.

Acknowledged and referred to treasury and home office March 27, law-officers June 2.

Phantom fitting at Liverpool, Southernor at Stockton-on-Tees. Mr. Adams informed that there was no ground for interference, July 3.

Both vessels proved to be intended for blockade-runners.

March 30, 1863.

15. ALEXANDRA.

Acknowledged and refered to law-officers, treasury, and home office, March 31, 1863.

[142]

* Reports were received from the treasury on the 31st, and home office April 1. On the 4th of April the law-officers advised seizure.

The trial ended in the discharge of the vessel, and the costs and damages having been compromised for £3,700, she was delivered to the owners. She was then sent to Nassau, where she was again tried on a similar charge of violation of foreign-enlistment act, and again acquitted. She has remained there ever since, and is now known as the Mary.

April 8, 1863.

16. THE VIRGINIA OR JAPAN.

Acknowledged and referred to the home office and treasury, April 8.

When Mr. Adams complained, this vessel had already sailed from Greenock on the 2d of April for Alderney. Instructions were sent to the governor of Guernsey to have her watched. She did not, however, go to the Channel Islands, but went to the coast of France, where she met a small steamer, the Alar, of Newhaven, off Morlaix, and took from her her crew and equipment. She then apparently went into Cherbourg. An explanation was furnished to Mr. Adams, April 21, and on the 30th of April the law-officers reported that no offense under the foreign-enlistment act had been committed by the Alar. The Virginia was subsequently known as the Georgia, and her arrival at Liverpool in 1864 occasioned a further correspondence.

July 11, 1863.

North America, No. 5, 1864.

17. IRON-CLADS AT LIVERPOOL.

Acknowledged and referred to treasury, home office, and law-officers, July 13.

These vessels, known as the El Monnassir and El Tousson, and said to have been ordered of Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead, by M. Bravay for the Egyptian government, were seized, and eventually purchased for Her Majesty's service.

October 17, 1863.

18. CANTON OR PAMPERO.

Acknowledged and referred to treasury, home office, and admiralty, October 19. This vessel, which was being constructed in the Clyde, nominally as a merchant-ship for the China trade, was, after inquiry, and under the advice of the lord advocate, seized and tried. The Crown took judgment by default, the case being undefended, and the vessel remained under seizure until the close of the war. (Lord Advocate, October 19, 1865.)

19. ALLEGED CONFEDERATE DEPOT AT BERMUDA.

November 3, 1863.

Acknowledged and referred to the law-officers November 5, who reported (November 12) that there was no case for interference. Mr. Adams informed accordingly, November 27.

November 28, 1863.

20. RAPPAHANNOCK.

Acknowledged November 30; referred to home office, admiralty, treasury, and lawofficers, November 29.

This vessel, formerly Her Majesty's ship Victor, had been sold by the admiralty to Messrs. Coleman in October, but without masts or sails. (From Admiralty, October 24 ;;

to Admiralty, October 24.)