IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 11 Having seen by this statement what the British government failed to do, let us inquire what it ought to have done. And since this country and England are bound to each other 29th of July, without register or clearance, under the command of Butcher, an English subject, who had been referred to in the deposition of Passmore. She picked up an additional fifty men off Point Lynass, and proceeded to Terceira in the Azores, where she anchored in the Portuguese waters; there she was shortly joined by a barque, the ‘ Agrippina,’ which had sailed from the Thames with the greater portion of the privateer’s guns and stores on board. The barque discharged her cargo into the ‘ 290,’ which was still flying the British ensign, and when the Portuguese authorities interposed, the person Butcher, it is alleged, represented his vessel to be English, aiding the English barque, which he said was sinking. Another vessel shortly arrived from Liverpool, the steamer ‘Bahama’ (which was at first believed to be the U. S. steamer, ‘Tuscarora,’ causing some commotion on board), conveying the confederate officer Captain Semmes, with Bullock, and fifty additional men, and stores for the privateer. The Portuguese authorities then ordered all three vessels off, but they merely went to a secluded part of the coast, and completed the transhipment of the stores. The ‘ Bahama’ cleared from Liverpool on the twelfth of August, having on board nineteen cases containing guns, gun-carriages, shot, rammers, &c., shipped by a firm of engineers and ironfounders of Liverpool. These cases were professedly shipped for Nassau. After the transfer of the cargo had been concluded Semmes took command, ran up the Confederate flag to the masthead, and christened the new steamer the ‘ Alabama.’ He read to the prew his commission from Jefferson Davis, as captain, and then made a speech, in which he explained the kind of warfare he proposed to wage, and called for volunteers. One hundred and ten of those on board consented, and forty refused, returning in the ‘ Bahama’ to Liverpool. Of those who remained, it is stated, in a recently published letter from a Mr. Underhill, dated St. Thomas, West Indies, and which professes to give a narrative taken down from the lips of the boatswain of the ‘ Alabama,’ during her passage from Liverpool to the Azores, that the most part belonged to the English Naval Reserve, all trained gunners, and that the crew receive from the Confederate government half the value of every American ship and cargo destroyed. The ‘ Bahama’ took out gold to pay the crew, and after transferring her cargo returned with the barque to England, while the privateer set out on its mission of destruction.” The general bad faith, or, at the very least, criminal apathy of the British government in this matter, was so great as to draw from Mr. Adams this indignant declaration (Letter to Mr. Seward, Dip. Cor. 219): “ It is very manifest that nt disposition exists here to apply the powers of the government to the investigation of the acts complained of, flagrant as they are, or to the prosecution of offenders.” Upon the part of Lord Russell, the correspondence is exceedingly ingenious in devising reasons for postponing the consideration of, or refusing1 to grant the demands of the American Minister. On the 4th of Sep. (Dip. Cor. 200) Mr. Adams, in writing to Lord Russell on the subject of the escape of the Alabama, July 29, was compelled to complain thus: “ I have not yet received any reply in writing to my several notes and representations I have had the honor to submit to her majesty’s government touching this flagrant case.” The answer to this was at last received on the 22d, and consisted of excuses, among which Sir John D. Harding’s ‘‘malady” does not appear. One may benevolently hope that Sir John D. Harding was able to forget it as easily as Lord John Russell. Let the reader contrast the churlish temper of the following letter, which is a fair specimen of Lord Russell’s style, with the earnest, open, and liberal language of this government, as it will be hereinafter shown. “ Foreign Office, Oct. 16, 1862. “ Sir :—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th inst., enclosing a copy of an intercepted lett r wtiiclt you had received from the United States government, being the further evi.ieuce with regard to the gun-boat ‘290;’ .... and with reference to your observations with regard to the infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, I have to remark, that it is true that the Foreign Enlistment Act, or any other act for the same purpose, can be evaded by very subtle contrivances; but her majesty's government cannot on that account go beyond the Letter of the existing law.” (Dip. Cor 223 ) Perhaps Lord Russell means that to decide in time is to go beyond the letter of the law; for it is of the failure to do that that Mr. Adams complains. The decision, as it was “at last” given, was entirely satisfactory, and had it been made known before instead of after the departure of the “ 290,” the “ letter” of the law, as Lord Russell understands it, might have been a little shattered, but the spirit of the law, which now lies wickedly violated, would have been preserved.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=