was at Calais on the 26th of November, 1863, Mr. Adams's Rappahannock. representation not being received until the 28th. In this case, however, the precipitancy with which the vessel was dispatched, in an incomplete state, to avoid detention, prevented her ever being avilable for service, and, although she had the confederate flag flying when she entered Calais, she had neither guns nor ammunition on board. King. The Shenandoah, or Sea King, escaped in a similar manner to the Shenandoah, or Sea Virginia and Rappahannock; and the first intimation that was received of her proceedings was from Her Majesty's consul at Teneriffe, reporting the transfer of crew and armament to her from the Laurel, at the Desertas, off Funchal. In this case, indeed, had information been received in time, it is not probable that she could have been detained, as she was a regular trading-vessel, well known as the Sea King in the East India trade. State of th case sels. In fact, as regards all these five vessels, the case may be shortly stated that, in three instances, information was not received as regards these ves in time for Her Majesty's government to take any measures of prevention; in one instance the vessel was equipped and armed in a confederate port; and in the remaining one the ship succeeded in baffling the vigilance of the authorities at the moment [51] of her intended seizure. The Virginia, (Georgia,) the Alabama, and the Shenandoah, were alike armed and manned in foreign waters. Not a single armed During the four years of the civil war, from 1861 to 1865, not a single armed ship for the confederate service was dispatched from any ship dispatched from port either of Great Britain or the British colonies; and only any British port. one vessel, the Alabama, which it would have been possible to detain, escaped for conversion into a cruiser. On the other hand, in looking at the preceding list, we see that four vessels were proceeded against in England, and thereby prevented from entering the confederate service, viz, the Alexandra, the England two iron-clads, and the Canton, or Pampero. Vessels proceeded against in and at Nassau. Although the prosecution of the first of these was not successful, it served to detain her for a long period; and a second prosecution, which was instituted at Nassau, has kept her under seizure until the end of the war; the iron-clads, the most formidable of all the intended cruisers were thus similarly detained, and eventually purchased to avoid further litigation, while the Canton, or Pampero, was condemned and remained in the hands of the Crown until the occasion for her seizure had passed. Mr. Adams's information at fault in The remaining ten vessels, denounced by Mr. Adams, proved to be ordinary merchantmen, intended chiefly for running the blockade, which is not an offense amenable to the law. all the other cases. To these cases may be added the alleged refit of the Sumter, at Liverpool, the report of which proved unfounded. The list includes all the suspected vessels in British ports, with the exception of the two-the Almandares and Pinero-which were alleged, though not by Mr. Adams, to be equipping at Montreal. No case was made out. (Colonial Office, February 6, 1865.) When the delay in seizing the Alabama is so severely criticised by Mr. Adams, it must be remembered that in the two preceding representations his information had proved to be erroneous, the Bermuda being evidently not intended for a ship of war, and the Oreto having been found innocent in a court of law. The latter was subsequently converted into a cruiser, but the readiness with which a merchant-vessel can be made available for belligerent purposes has been shown by the fact that the most efficient blockading ships in the Federal Navy were captured blockade-runners. 2. Reception of confederate vessels of war in British ports. Sumter. Nashville. Sumter. This vessel, the first that appeared in European waters, was, as stated in the memorandum, regularly commissioned and equipped, and sailed from the Mississippi. The Nashville was likewise of American origin, having sailed from Charleston. She had been intended to bring the confederate commissioners to England, but it appearing doubtful whether her tonnage would admit of her crossing Charleston Bar, they proceeded by another route. The first case of the destruction of a ship at sea, which was represented by Mr. Adams, arose out of the destruction of the Harvey Birch by the Nashville. He adduced it as a reason for her not being received in a British port. Other confederate cruisers. Tuscaloosa. Besides these two cruisers, the confederate government owned the Tuscaloosa, a prize of the Alabama, which was equipped and commissioned from the Alabama, and with regard to which a correspondence took place at the Cape of Good Hope. The Tallahassee, which escaped from Wilmington, and on her first cruise in six days is said to have destroyed fifty-four vessels. The Tallahassee. Tallahassee was originally the blockade-runner Atalanta, and ended her career by being reconverted into a merchantman, the Chameleon, and brought to Liverpool. The Chickamauga, formerly the blockade-runner Edith, (Colonial Office, December 31, 1864,) whose history is obscure, as it does not appear where she sailed from, or what became of her. Besides these, there were one or two other small vessels, such as the Etta, or Retribution, which made short cruises from blockaded ports to the Bahamas and West Indian Islands. Chickamauga. Retribution and others. There was also the Olinde, or Stonewall, which sailed from Bordeaux, and which, had she been able to enter upon her career as a cruiser, would have been a most dangerous adversary. Olinde. Consul Barrow, It will be seen, therefore, that the principal confederate cruisers were not all of English origin; four of them having been regularly commissioned in confederate ports, Sumter, Nashville, No. 6; February 4, Florida, and Tallahassee, and one, Stonewall, having sailed from a French port. 3. Engagement of men for the confederate service. 1865. 3. Engagement of men for the confederate service. In each of these cases, where evidence could be procured, prosecu tions were instituted, and where men of the naval reserve could be traced, their names were erased from the naval-reserve list. The cases represented were the following: Jones & Co., engagement of naval-reserve men on board the Florida, Georgia, and Alabama; Campbell, of Liverpool; and enlistments for the Rappahannock. 4. Miscellaneous. Names of cases. 4. Miscellaneous. Under this head come the representations respecting the alleged confederate depots at Nassau and Bermuda; the proceedings of confederate agents in England; the lading of .blockade-runners in EngList of cases. land; Emily St. Pierre; confederate agency; payment of Alabama seamen; Captain Cator's employment in blockade-running; the shipment of stores for the confederate government in the Will o' the Wisp; the conveyance of the Florida seamen to Nassau in the City of Richmond; the reception of the converted Sumter, or Gibraltar, at Liverpool, and the sale and conversion of the Georgia there. In none of these cases could Her Majesty's government interfere. 52] Summary of steps taken by Her Majesty's government. taken by Her Ma Summary of steps The following is a summary of the steps taken by Her Majesty's government to prevent or punish breaches of the Jesty's government. Queen's neutrality: Proceedings taken with regard to ves sels. Proceedings taken with regard to vessels. Five prosecuted 1. Oreto, at Nassau. 2. Alexandra, in England and at Nassau. North America, 3, 4. Iron-clads. No. 3, 1863, pp. 11, 12. 5. Canton, or Pampero. Also orders given to detain the Alabama, had she touched at Queenstown or Nassau after her evasion from Liverpool. The governor of the Bahamas was likewise instructed to watch other vessels, regarding which representations had been made, as the Louisa Ann Fanny, &c. Prosecutions for the engagement of men for the confederate service. Prosecutions for 1. Mr. Rumball, (Rappahannock,) acquitted. enlistments. 3. Jones and Highat, (Georgia and Florida,) convicted. 3. Campbell, (Georgia, convicted.) 4. Seymour, Cunningham, and Buchanan, (Rappahannock,) convicted. 5. Captain Corbett, (Shenandoah,) case pending. When it was found that such vessels as the Rappahannock and Amphion, although useless to Her Majesty's navy, might be reconverted into confederate cruisers, instructions were given that no more ships should be sold out of Her Majesty's navy. Moreover, when Captain Osborne's fleet returned from China, and it was feared the vessels composing it might fall into confederate hands, Her Majesty's government interposed, both in India and in England to prevent their sale. When the sale and conversion of the Georgia was complained of a customs notification was published forbidding vessels of war to be sold and dismantled in British ports. Finally, as we have been shown by the preceeding statement, every representation of Mr. Adams was considered immediately on its receipt, and referred, when requisite, to the law-officers or other departments of Her Majesty's government, without even a day's delay. FOREIGN OFFICE, October 30, 1865. [53] * CASE OF THE ALEXANDRA. SUMMING-UP OF THE LORD CHIEF BARON, JUNE 24, 1863. dra. LORD CHIEF BARON. Gentlemen of the jury: This is an information on the part of the Crown, following a seizure by some offi- Summing up in the cers of the government taking possession of a vessel which case of the Alexanwas in the course of building at Liverpool. It had not been completed. It is admitted that it was not armed; and the question is, whether the condition of the vessel falls within the foreign-enlistment act, as to which, upon all questions of fact, you will exercise your own right of deciding. Gentlemen, the information is exceedingly long, containing some ninety counts, and the way in which that arises is this. The seventh clause of the act of Parliament speaks of its being unlawful to equip, to furnish, to fit out, or to arm a vessel. Then there are counts charging the defendants first with furnishing, then with equipping, then with fitting out, but not with arming. Then the various forms in which the endeavor, the attempt, the being concerned, and so on can be put, are all repeated over again with every variety of the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, and so on. And in that way the counts are swelled out to the number of ninety. But they all come at last to this question: Was this vessel, as then prepared, at the time of the seizure, under the act in question? The case you have to decide on the present occasion is no doubt one not merely of great importance, but really is a momentous question. It is a question the importance of which it is impossible to exaggerate, and which one approaches with varied sentiments. One certainly has a feeling of the deepest regret that such a question should ever have arisen, and I cannot help expressing the deepest sorrow, almost anguish, that one feels that such a question should have arisen by dissension among those who are connected with us by the dearest possible ties that can bind nation to natiou; a common lineage, a common language, common laws, and a common literature, and above all-I say above all these— a strong desire for constitutional freedom. But, gentlemen, passing from that which really is a matter of feeling, which it is impossible not to entertain, and entertaining not to express, let us go at once to the business of the moment. The charge is only that there should be a condemnation of the vessel as being properly seized; but that seizure necessarily involves the commission of a misdemeanor. And then the inquiry is and must be, Was a misdemeanor committed under the terms of the act of Parliament? If there was, and if the ship has been seized, in consequence of that misdemeanor, the information is right, and your verdict must be for the Crown. If there was not, (and I shall presently state to you what appears to me to be the question of fact you have to try,) then the information founded upon the seizure ought to have a different termination, and your verdict ought to be for the defendants. Gentlemen, I am rather disposed to agree with what fell from Sir Hugh Cairns as to the line which is to be taken with respect to the charge, which unquestionably involves a charge of crime. The learned attorney-general is quite right in saying that there are occasions where, upon facts being proved to which no answer is given, the verdict may very well be for the Crown in an accusation of a certain kind. I do not think it necessary to go into any particulars, or to cite examples, or to do anything more than to say that such may be the case. But, generally speaking, there can be no doubt it is in this country, and I hope it will continue to be so, the privilege of the accused to stand out and say, "Prove whatever you allege against me, and do not call on me to disprove it." And so far as you have to deal with facts, and to come to conclusions satisfactorily in your judgments, no doubt you may act on the unsupported testimony of not very creditable witnesses, if, under the circumstances, you believe them. On the other hand, you ought to be thoroughly persuaded of the truth of what involves an accusation of crime, although it takes only the character of the seizure of a vessel. Gentlemen, I for one must protest against the doctrine that no one is to be convicted of any crime if there is any possible solution of the circumstances by the imagination of his innocence. We might just as well shut up courts of criminal justice if that were to be the rule. Neither property nor life would have any protection if that were so. But there must be, in my judgment, at all times before conviction takes place, that sober satisfactory persuasion that the truth is a verdict of guilty which a man would have in the conduct of his own most important concerns. To say that it is free from doubt is to take it out of the ordinary category of human affairs. There is nothing free from doubt. The clearest testimony of all the witnesses, the most respectable that ever were congregated, may be the result of systematic perjury. But you cannot assume that, so as to get rid of testimony as to which no man entertains a doubt. It seems to me, therefore, gentlemen, that neither are you to take the extreme case which some persons contend for in the case of murder, that if there be the least shadow of any doubt whatever you are to acquit the prisoner. Not so. There must be a grave doubt, and no doubt you must have a thorough persuasion and satisfaction with respect to guilt before you can convict; undoubtedly that persuasion must be arrived at in the manner described by the learned solicitor general, and I cannot do better than express myself in the man[54] ner in which he did in the House of Commons in the now cele brated and able speech which he made, and which we have all read. It must be by proof, and not by suspicion; and in that point of view no doubt the question that might be raised before you would, in point of fact, be this: Are certain parts of the case matters of mere grave suspicion, or are they accompanied by such persuasions of the truth of the facts suggested or stated as to lead you to be satisfied that they did occur? Now, gentlemen, with these observations I will go at once to the statute in question, and to points of fact which I think I ought to submit to you. Gentlemen, that statute is one which was passed in the year 1819, upon which no question has ever arisen in our courts of justice, and it is here before you for the first time. But it so happens that we have expositions of the statute by decisions in the American courts, which we very justly pay the greatest respect to; for two of the most celebrated writers upon law-Mr. Chancellor Kent and Mr. Justice Story— are Americans, and they have contributed certainly more to render law a science, and to render the pursuit of it, I was almost going to say |