the statement that they showed a deliberate attempt to establish within the limits of the Kingdom "a system of action in direct hostility to the Government of the United States," embracing the building and fitting out of ships of war, and the obtaining from Her Majesty's subjects of funds with which to execute these hostile projects. A month later Earl Russell replied that the papers merely showed that certain instructions had been given to the agents of the Confederate States, but that they contained no proof that those agents had "brought themselves within the reach of any criminal law of the United Kingdom."

At one time after the escape of the Alabama the British cabinet, said the Case of the United States, seemed to entertain the idea of amending the foreign-enlistment act. On the 19th of December 1862 Earl Russell informed Mr. Adams, in reply to the latter's representations, that Her Majesty's government were 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," and he expressed his readiness to receive from Mr. Adams suggestions as to how the British statute, as well as the neutrality laws of the United States, might be improved. The Government of the United States, though of opinion that its laws were sufficiently rigorous, authorized Mr. Adams to confer with Earl Russell. But when Mr. Adams offered to confer, Lord Russell replied that since his note was written the subject had been considered by the cabinet, and the lord chancellor had expressed the opinion that the British law was sufficiently effective, and that under these circumstances he did not see that he could have any change to propose. From this moment the British Government, said the Case of the United States, "resisted every attempt to change the laws and give them more vigor;" and the United States were forced "to believe that no complaints would be listened to by Her Majesty's government which were not accompanied by proof that the persons complained of had brought themselves within reach of the criminal law of the United Kingdom.'" Yet Lord Russell, in a letter to Lord Lyons, stated that he had admitted, in an interview with Mr. Adams, "that the cases of the Alabama and Oreto were a scandal and in some degree a reproach to our [British] laws.”

Case of the "Alexandra."

Encouraged by the immunity afforded by the decisions of Her Majesty's government, the insurgent agents in Great Britain began, said the Case of the United States, to extend their operations. Early in April 1863 a steamer called the Japan, but afterward known as the Georgia, left the Clyde with intent to depredate on the commerce of the United States. A small steamer called the Alar, belonging to a British subject, was dispatched with her armament and ammunition. They met off the French coast, and in twenty-four hours the guns and ammunition were transferred. In March 1863 a new gunboat, to be called the Alexandra, was launched at Liverpool. Proceedings were taken against her under the foreign-enlistment act, but, though her hostile character was clearly proved, the jury, under the construction of the law given by the court, promptly returned a verdict in her favor. The judge said that a neutral might "make a vessel and arm it, and then offer it for sale" to a belligerent; that, a fortiori, "if any man may build a vessel for the purpose of offering it to either of the belligerent powers, may he not execute an order for it?" That "to 'equip' is 'to furnish with arms;"" "in the case of a ship especially, it is to furnish and complete with arms;" that "'equip,' furnish,' 'fit out,' or 'arm,' all mean precisely the same thing;" and he closed this branch of the case by saying, "the question is whether you think that this vessel was fitted. Armed she certainly was not, but was there an intention that she should be finished, fitted, or equipped in Liverpool? Because, gentlemen, I must say, it seems to me that the Alabama sailed away from Liverpool without any arms at all; merely a ship in ballast, unfurnished, unequipped, unprepared; and her arms were put in at Terceira, not a port in Her Majesty's dominions. The foreign-enlistment act is no more violated by that than by any other indifferent matter that might happen about a boat of any kind whatever." This ruling was not reversed, and stood as the law of England till after the close of the civil war.

At the time it was made, two ironclads, "Lairds' Ironclads." afterward known as "Lairds' ironclads," or "Lairds' rams," were in course of construction at Birkenhead, opposite Liverpool. The keel of one of them was laid in the stocks from which the Alabama had been launched. Notorious facts, showing their construction as Confederate men-of-war,

were communicated by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell on July 11, 1863, July 16, July 25, August 14, and September 3. In his note of September 3 Mr. Adams said that he had been directed "to describe the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed in the event of an act of aggression committed against the government and the people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels." On the 4th of September he submitted evidence to show the preparation of one of the vessels for immediate departure. Late in the afternoon of the same day Mr. Adams received a note from Earl Russell, dated the 1st, saying: "Her Majesty's government are advised that they can not interfere in any way with these vessels." On the 5th Mr. Adams replied, expressing his "profound regret" at the conclusion at which Her Majesty's government had arrived, and added: "It would be superfluous in me to point out to your lordship that this is war." On the 8th of September Mr. Adams received a brief note in which it was stated that instructions had been issued which would prevent the departure of the two ironclads from Liverpool.

Cape Town.

About this time, said the Case of the United

The "Tuscaloosa" at States, an event took place at the Cape of Good Hope which tested afresh the purpose of Her Majesty's government to maintain its neutrality. In August 1863 the Alabama arrived at Cape Town, and was soon followed by the Tuscaloosa, a "prize" which she had captured off the coast of Brazil, and which she affected to treat as a tender. Though the Tuscaloosa had never been condemned, and still had on board her cargo of wool, and though she had on board only two guns, insufficient for any service other than that of slight defense, she was admitted and treated as a man-of-war. The British Government disapproved of this action and said that the most proper course would have been "to prohibit the exercise of any further control over the Tuscaloosa by the captors, and to retain that vessel under Her Majesty's control and jurisdiction until properly reclaimed by her original owners." These expressions were treated by the governor as a censure, and the Tuscaloosa having again come within the jurisdiction, he seized her and reported the facts to London. Her Majesty's government disavowed this act, and directed the governor, under "the peculiar circumstances of the case," to restore her "to the lieutenant of the Confederate States who lately commanded her; or, if he should have left the

Cape, then to retain her" till she might be handed over to someone possessing "authority from Captain Semmes, of the Alabama, or from the government of the Confederate States, to receive her." The Case of the United States now resumed Confederate Blockade the history of army purchases and blockade Runners. running. On the 3d of November 1863 Mr. Adams laid before Earl Russell new proofs to show the estab lishment at Bermuda of an insurgent depot of naval stores. On the 27th Earl Russell answered that Her Majesty's government did not consider that it could properly interfere in the matter. Other representations to the same effect were made by Mr. Adams, who closed the discussion by calling Earl Russell's attention to the condition exacted from all vessels in trade with the insurgent ports, that one-half of the tonnage of each vessel might be employed by the Confederate government for its own use both on the outward and homeward voyage; to which Earl Russell replied that, admitting all the facts stated to be true, there was nothing in them worthy of attention, since Her Majesty's subjects were "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." Evidence was again and again laid before Earl Russell to show that these blockade runners were, in fact, transports of the insurgents, carrying their funds for Liverpool, and bringing back arms and munitions of war, and that the operations of these vessels were clearly within the terms of the foreign-enlistment act. 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 American man-of-war Honduras was sent there for the purpose of paying in coin the claims for salvage. The United States consul in vain asked permission for the Hondu ras to enter the port, although the Confederate cruiser Florida had, less than six months before, remained eleven days at Bermuda, and taken on board a full supply of coal. Mr. Adams stated to Earl Russell that this incident had made a painful impression in the United States, especially as there was not a day during the month in which it happened when thirty-five vessels engaged in breaking the blockade were not to be seen flaunting their contraband flags in that port. Neither had its