Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

to ask you whether I am right in understanding that you have no objection to my sending to the blockaded ports, by her Majesty's ships of war, not only British official correspondence with British authorities, but also the official correspondence of other powers friendly to the United States, with the agents of the same powers in the southern States.

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

The Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c.

LYONS.

Mr Seward to Lord Lyons.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 18, 1861.

MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday, and to state, in reply, that it was intended in my previous communication, to which it refers, to say that official correspondence of other powers with the agents of those powers in blockaded ports, as well as that of British authorities with their agents, might be sent by British vessels of war.

I am, &c.,

The Right Hon. Lord LYONS, &c., &c., &c.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, October 23, 1861.

SIR: Having received information that a bag of despatches addressed by her Majesty's acting consul at Richmond, in Virginia, to her Majesty's consul at New York had been taken from a gentleman of the name of Crosse, at Baltimore, and sent to General Dix, I directed Mr. Bernal, her Majesty's consul at the latter place, to make inquiries of the general on the subject. You will perceive by the enclosed copy of a despatch from Mr. Bernal that the general referred him to you. I therefore do myself the honor to ask you to be so kind as to favor me with such information as it seems proper that I should receive with regard to the seizure of the despatches in question. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

Mr. Bernal to Lord Lyons.

LYONS.

BRITISH CONSULATE, Baltimore, October 22, 1861.

MY LORD: In pursuance of the instructions in your lordship's despatch of the 19th (received this morning) having reference to the reported seizure of a bag of despatches, I proceeded to Fort McHenry, where I had an inter view with General Dix. I asked him to be good enough to inform me if it

was true that on or about the 16th instant a bag of despatches, addressed to her Majesty's consul in New York by her Majesty's acting consul at Richmond, was taken away from Mr. Thomas Crosse, a British subject, by the provost marshal in this city, and sent to him. General Dix replied very briefly that he must decline giving me any information, and referred me to Mr. Seward. In order that there should be no mistake, I repeated my question, and received the same answer.

I have, &c.,

F. BERNAL.

Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 24, 1861.

MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday, requesting information in regard to a bag supposed to contain despatches from the acting British consul at Richmond, addressed to Mr. Archibald, the British consnl at New York, which bag was taken from a man named Cross by the provost marshal of Baltimore.

In reply, I have the honor to inform you that having received information from General Dix that such a bag had been found concealed in the trunk of a man of that name-a spy of the insurgents, who escaped before he could be arrested-I directed the general to forward it hither. On its arrival, although it had a label attached to it, addressed to Mr. Archibald, and the words on her Britannic Majesty's service, there was nothing to identify it as having been forwarded by the British vice-consul at Richmond. This circumstance, in connexion with those under which the bag was brought through the military lines of the United States, naturally occasioned doubts as to its containing official correspondence. I consequently directed the bag to be opened, when it proved to contain not a single communication for Mr. Archibald, or for any other officer of the British government on this continent. It did contain a few apparently official letters to functionaries of the British government at London. These were promptly forwarded, as received, to Mr. Adams, with directions to cause them to be delivered to their address.

The other contents of the bag are, and will be, retained here. It is unnecessary to specify their character. I will only add that they are such as no consul, or acting consul, of a foreign government has a right to forward in any way from a place in rebellion against this government.

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your lordship a renewed assurance of my very high consideration.

To Lord LYONS.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, October 28, 1861.

:

SIR Her Majesty's government have had under their consideration the note which I had the honor to address to you on the 22d ultimo, with the despatch from Mr. Consul Archibald which accompanied it.

Her Majesty's government have learned with much surprise, from those papers, the cruel treatment to which the nine British seamen who were imprisoned in Fort Lafayette were subjected by the United States authorities. Her Majesty's government are unable to comprehend the grounds on which persons, who were accused of no offence, were confined in irons and treated as criminals; and although it has been satisfactory to them to learn, from the answer which you did me the honor to make to my representations on the subject, that orders were given for the release of these men, yet her Majesty's government cannot but consider that some amends are due to them for the sufferings to which they were thus causelessly exposed. Her Majesty's government have accordingly instructed me to bring the matter again to the notice of the government of the United States, and to express their hope that due compensation may be awarded to the sufferers.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

LYONS.

No. 122.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 11, 1861.

SIR: The case in regard to pirates engaged by the insurgents in this country practically stands thus: every naval power, and every commercial power except one, practically excludes them from their ports, except in distress, or for a visit of any kind longer than twenty-four hours, and from supplies, except of coals, for twenty-four hour's consumption.

Great Britain, as we are given to understand by the answer of Earl Russell, allows these pirates to visit her ports and stay at their own pleasure, receiving supplies without restriction.

We find it difficult to believe that the government of Great Britain has constituted this exception with full deliberation. I intimated in a preceding despatch, No. 112, a hope that the subject might be reconsidered before it should be necessary for us to consider what remedies we can adopt to prevent the evils which must result to our commerce from the policy thus indicated by Great Britain. I have consulted on the subject with Lord Lyons, and he may perhaps communicate with his government thereupon. Meantime, I am directed by the President to instruct you to recall the attention of her Majesty's government to the question, under the influences of a spirit of peace and friendship, and with a desire to preserve what remains of a commerce mutually important to both countries.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

CASE OF THE PERTHSHIRE.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

BRITISH LEGATION,

Washington, D. C., October 11, 1861.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit to you a copy of a memorial addressed to Earl Russell, her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, by Mr. William Gray, owner of the British ship "Perthshire," which appears to have been interfered with by United States ships-of-war. I am directed by Lord Russell to ask the government of the United States for an explanation.

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

Hon. W. H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c.

LYONS.

Mr. Gray to Earl Russell.

HARTLEPOOL, August 28, 1861.

your

MY LORD I take the liberty of directing your lordship's attention, in official capacity as secretary of state for foreign affairs, to the following facts connected with the seizure and detention by a United States steamship of the ship "Perthshire," of the port of Hartlepool, whilst engaged in lawful commerce upon the high seas, and to request that your lordship will, through the British ambassador at Washington, bring the case before the government of the United States, and demand compensation for the loss I have sustained by the detention of my ship, and which loss I estimate at the sum of two hundred pounds sterling, besides rendering void all insurances effected upon the ship, her cargo and freight, (of the gross value of forty thousand pounds sterling,) by compelling the ship to deviate from her voyage.

The "Perthshire," a ship of 810 tons register, was chartered by a merchant in Liverpool, in March last, to proceed in ballast from Grimsby to Pensacola, and there load a cargo of timber for the United Kingdom; the charterer, however, having the option, through his agent at Pensacola, of ordering the ship to Mobile to load cotton for Liverpool at a lump sum of £2,300.

The ship sailed from Grimsby in March last, and on the 13th of May was making for the harbor of Pensacola, when she was ordered to heave to by the commander of the United States steamship "Niagara." She was boarded by Lieutenant Brown, boarding officer, who informed Captain Oates, of the "Perthshire," that Pensacola was blockaded, and indorsed the vessel's register as follows:

"Boarded by the United States squadron May 13, 1861, and warned not to enter the harbor of Pensacola.

Ex. Doc. 1-12

"GEORGE BROWN,

"Lieut. United States Navy, Boarding Officer."

In reply to the inquiry of Captain Oates, the lieutenant informed him that Mobile was not blockaded. The ship then proceeded to Mobile, where she arrived on the 14th May. Mobile was not blockaded until May 26. At Mobile the "Perthshire" loaded a cargo of cotton for Liverpool, and proceeded to sea on May 31; outside the port she was again boarded by the boarding officer of the United States steamship "Niagara," who examined his [her] clearances, expressed himself satisfied with them, and said the ship might proceed on her voyage. She proceeded with light and variable winds until the 9th of June, when she was boarded by the boarding officer of the United States ship "Massachusetts," who, after communicating with his ship, sent a prize crew of 29 men and 2 officers on board the "Perthshire," who took possession of the ship and all the captain's papers, hauled down the British flag and hoisted the United States flag. They altered the course of the ship, and took her back towards Pensacola, off which place, on the 12th of June, after sailing about 200 miles back, they fell in with the United States squadron, the commander of which ordered the "Perthshire's" release, without, however, making any compensation for the detention to which she had been subjected, nor for the ship's stores, consisting of tea, coffee, and sugar, used by the prize crew whilst on board the "Perthshire."

On the ship being released, the captain's papers were returned to him, and his clearance indorsed as follows:

"Boarded June 9, 1861, by the United States steamship 'Massachusetts,' detained under note 159, page 339, Vattel's Law of Nations; liberated by commanding officer of the Gulf squadron June 12, 1861.”

This indorsement was without any signature.

A paper was given to the captain of the "Perthshire," on which was written, also without signature, as follows:

"Vattel's Law of Nations. Sir Walter Scott's Opinion. Note 159, page 339, article 3. Things to be proved:

"1. The existence of a blockade.

"2. The knowledge of the party supposed to have offended. "3. Some act of violation."

Such, my lord, is a plain, unvarnished statement of the facts connected with this extraordinary seizure and detention. The ship having reached her destination safely prevents a discussion as to liability in the event of loss after the deviation in the voyage, but which the Liverpool underwriters say they would have been exempted from had such taken place.

The ground upon which I base my claim for £200 is as follows: The ship had been nine days at sea when she was seized. She was taken back almost to the place from which she first started, and three days after that (or twelve days from leaving Mobile) she was as far from Liverpool as on the 31st of May, when she sailed from Mobile. Her freight was about £550 per month, and twelve days at that rate is about the sum I claim.

The case of the "Perthshire," my lord, has been commented upon by all the leading journals in Great Britain, and without exception they pronounce it a case in which our government ought to make a demand for damages. I venture to hope, therefore, that your lordship will take such steps with regard to this matter as will prevent a repetition of improper interference with British ships, and at the same time obtain for me the reasonable and fair compensation I claim.

I have, &c.

The Right Hon. Earl RUSSELL, &c., &c., &c.

WILLIAM GRAY, Owner of the ship "Perthshire."

« ForrigeFortsett »