"We have not been told what is to be the standard of ⚫ due diligence' for us. A neutral will now be bound to adopt a system of espionage in order to ascertain whether any vessel is intended for a hostile cruise. It will be bound to increase its police, that it may have full information of all such undertakings. It will be bound to interfere with its subjects, to make minute inquisitions, to take an enormous number of costly and laborious precautions which before this Treaty it was not bound to take."

On the 29th of June, 1871, in the House of Lords, in reference to a motion for an Address to Her Majesty in regard to the Treaty of Washington. (See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. CCVII, pp. 729-741).

Earl Granville said :

"On the one hand, nothing is so easy as to prevent a vessel of the Alabama class escaping from our shores; and the only loss to the country which would result from such a prevention would be the small amount of profit which the individual constructing and equipping the vessel might derive from the transaction, which in almost every case is contrary to the Proclamation of the Queen." (P. 741).

Note C.

MEMORANDUM OF CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE ENGLISH FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT, 1861-71.

On the 7th of September, 1861, Mr. Seward, writing to Mr. Adams, said:

"I do not think it can be regarded as disrespectful if you should remind Lord Russell that when, in 1838, a civil war broke out in Canada, a part of the British dominions adjacent to the United States, the Congress of the United States passed, and the President executed, a law which effectually prevented any intervention against the Government of Great Britain in those internal differences by American citizens, whatever might be their motives, real or pretended, whether of interest or sympathy. I send you a copy of that enactment. The British Government will judge for itself whether it is suggestive of any measures on the part of Great Britain that might tend to preserve the peace of the two countries, and, through that way, the peace of all nations." (Am. App. vol. I, p. 102, 660).

On the 28th of November, 1861, and, as it appears, before Mr. Adams had taken the direct action indicated in the despatch of Mr. Seward above quoted, Lord Russell wrote to him as follows:

"Having thus answered Mr. Adams upon the two points to which his attention was called, the undersigned has only further to say that if, in order to maintain inviolate the neutral charac

ter which Her Majesty has assumed, Her Majesty's Government should find it necessary to adopt further measures, within the limits of public law, Her Majesty will be advised to adopt such measures." (Am. App. vol. I, p. 661).

On the 27th of March, 1862. Lord Russell wrote to Mr. Adams in part as follows:

66

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 evil-disposed persons within their borders merely from the inefficacy of their prohibitory policy." (Am. App. vol. II, p. 602).

On the 20th of November, 1862, Mr. Adams, in accordance with explicit instructions from Mr. Seward, wrote to Lord Russell, submitting to his consideration a large number of papers, establishing the fact that the Alabama had destroyed a number of United States vessels, and so was actually carrying out the intention which Mr. Adams alleged that she had prior to her departure from the ports of Great Britain, and in the conclusion of the letter, Mr. Adams said:

"Armed by the authority of such a precedent, having done all in my power to apprise Her Majesty's Government of the illegal enterprise in ample season for effecting its prevention, and being now enabled to show the injurious consequences to innocent parties, relying upon the security of their commerce from any danger through British sources ensuing from the omission of Her Majesty's Government, however little designed, to apply the proper prevention in due season. I have the honor to inform your lordship of the directions which I have received from my Government to solicit redress for the national and private injuries already thus sustained, as well as a more effective prevention of any repetition of such lawless and injurious proceedings in Her Majesty's ports hereafter." (Am. App. vol. III, p. 72; vol. I, p. 666. Brit. App., vol. IV, p. 15).

un the 19th of December, 1862, Lord Russell in part replied to Mr. Adams as follows:

"As regards your demand for a more effective prevention for the future of the fitting out of snch vessels in British ports, I have the honor to inform you that Her Majesty's Government, after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown, are of opinion that certain amendments might be introduced into the Foreign Enlistment Act, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, would have the effect of giving greater power to the Executive

to prevent the construction, in British ports, of ships destined for the use of belligerents. But Her Majesty's Government consider that, before submitting any proposals of that sort to Parliament, it would be desirable that they should previously communicate with the Government of the United States, and ascertain whether that Government is willing to make similar alterations in its own Foreign Enlistment Act; and that the amendments, like the orginal statute, should, as it were, proceed pari passu in both countries.

"I shall accordingly be ready at any time to confer with you, and to listen to any suggestions which you may have to make by which the British Foreign Enlistment Act, and the corresponding statute of the United States, may be made more efficient for their purpose." (Am. App., vol. I, p. 667; vol. III, p. 888. Brit. App., vol. IV, p. 25).

On the 25th of December, 1862, this reply of Lord Russell was forwarded by Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward (Am. App., vol. III, p. 87), and on the 19th of January, 1863, Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Adams, replying to the suggestions of Lord Russell, in part as follows:

"It is not perceived that our anti-enlistment act is defective, or that Great Britain has ground to complain that it has not been effectually executed. Nevertheless, the proposition of Her Majesty's Government that the two Governments shall confer together upon amendments to the corresponding acts in the two countries evinces a conciliatory, a liberal, and just spirit, if not a desire to prevent future causes of complaint. You are, therefore, authorized to confer with Earl Russell, and to transmit for the consideration of the President such amendments as Earl Russell may, in such a conference, suggest, and you may think proper to be approved.

"You will receive herewith a copy of some treasonable correspondence of the insurgents at Richmond with their agents abroad, which throws a flood of light upon the naval preparations they are making in Great Britain. You will use these papers in such a manner as shall be best calculated to induce the British Government to enforce its existing laws, and, if possible, to amend them so as to prevent the execution of the unlawful designs which will thus be brought to their notice in a manner which will admit of no question in regard to the sufficiency of evidence." (Am. App., vol. III, p. 113; vol. I, p. 546, 667).

On the 9th of February, 1863, Mr. Adams wrote to Lord Russell transmitting the "treasonable correspondence of the insurgents

at Richmond with their agents abroad," and said in part as follows:

"These papers go to show a deliberate attempt to establish within the limits of this kingdom a system of action in direct hostility to the Government of the United States. This plan embraces not only the building and fitting out of several ships of war under the direction of agents especially commissioned for the purpose, but the preparation of a series of measures under the same auspices for the obtaining from Her Majesty's subjects the pecuniary means essential to the execution of those hostile projects." (Am. App., vol. I, p. 562).

On the 13th of February, 1863, Mr. Adams having had a personal interview with Earl Russell, wrote to Mr. Seward as follows:

"In obedience to your instructions contained in dispatch No. 454, I called the attention of Lord Russell, in my conference of Saturday, to the reply made by him to my note of the 20th of November last, claiming reparation for the damage done by No. 290, and security against any repetition of the same in future. I observed that my Government had not yet authorized me to say anything in regard to the answer on the first point, but with respect to the second, his lordship's suggestion of possible amendments to the enlistment laws in order to make them more effective had been favorably received. Although the law of the United States was considered as of very sufficient vigor, the government were not unwilling to consider propositions to improve upon it.

"To that end I had been directed to ask whether any such had yet been matured by Her Majesty's ministers; if so, I should be happy to receive and to transmit them to Washington. His lordship, repeating my remark that my Government considered its present enlistment law as sufficiently effective, then added that since his note was written the subject had been considered in the cabinet, and the Lord Chancellor had expressed the same opinion of the British law. Under these circumstances he did not see that he could have any change to propose.

66

"I replied that I should report this answer to my Government. What explanation the Government was ready to give for its utter failure to execute a law confessed to be effective did not then appear." (Am. App., vol. I, p. 668).