far as one may be permitted to judge from the concurring testimony of all writers of international law, it certainly deserves. The United States have made an actual blockade of all the ports occupied by the insurgents, a blockade the validity of which Great Britain does not dispute. They are therefore entitled to consider every neutral who shall attempt to enter one of them or carry any thing to the besieged as violating his neutrality and converting himself into an enemy. Hence it happens that every British subject engaged in the work of aiding the insurgents by introducing contraband of war into blockaded ports not only violates his duty to his sovereign, but commits an exceedingly aggravated and injurious offence to the government of the United States. To associate such proceedings with the mere purchase and export of arms on behalf of the United States as of equal significance would seem to be most inequitable.

It is a fact that few persons in England will now be bold enough to deny, first, that vessels have been built in British ports, as well as manned by her Majesty's subjects, with the design and intent to carry on war against the United States; secondly, that other vessels owned by British subjects have been, and are yet, in the constant practice of departing from British ports laden with contraband of war, and many other commodities, with the intent to break the blockade and to procrastinate the war; thirdly, that such vessels have been, and are, insured by British merchants in the commercial towns of this kingdom with the understanding that they are despatched for that illegal purpose. It is believed to be beyond denial that British subjects have been, and continue to be, enlisted in this kingdom in the service of the insurgents, with the intent to make war on the United States, or to break the blockade legitimately established, and, to a proportionate extent, to annul its purpose. It is believed that persons high in social position and in fortune contribute their aid, directly and indirectly, in building and equipping ships-of-war, as well as other vessels, and furnishing money as well as goods, with the hope of sustaining the insurgents in their resistance to the government. To that end the port of Nassau, a colonial dependency of Great Britain, has been made, and still continues to be, the great entrepôt for the storing of supplies, which are conveyed from thence with the greater facility in evading the blockade. In short, so far as the acts of these numerous and influential parties can involve them, the British people may be considered as actually carrying on war against the United States. Already British property valued at eight millions of pounds sterling is reported to have been captured by the vessels of the United States for attempts to violate the blockade, and property of far greater value has either been successfully introduced or is now stored at Nassau awaiting favorable opportunities.

If it be necessary to furnish to your lordship a clearer idea of the nature and extent of this warfare, it may perhaps be obtained by reference to the two papers, marked A and B, which I have the honor to append to the present note. The one contains a list of all screw steamers and sailing vessels which have been, or still are, engaged in this illegal commerce, furnished to me from observation by the consul of the United States at Liverpool. The other is a copy of a letter from the consul in London, giving a further list of vessels, together with some particulars as to the mode by which, and the persons by whom, this hostile system is carried on. Neither of these lists can be regarded as complete, but the two are sufficiently so for the present purpose, which is to place beyond contradiction the fact of the extensive and systematic prosecution by British subjects of a policy towards the United States, which is uniformly characterized by writers on international law as that of an enemy.

I a am not unaware of the regret expressed in your lordship's note at the existence of this state of things, as well as of the readiness with which you have acquiesced in the possible application, by the forces of the United States, of the penalty held over the heads of the offenders in her Majesty's proclamation. But my present object in referring so much at large to these offences is to show the

great injustice of your lordship in proceeding to comment upon the action of the respective belligerents as if there was a semblance of similarity between them. So far as the United States are shown to be involved in censure, it is simply by the purchase and export of arms and munitions of war from a neutral, an act which your lordship expressly points out eminent authority to my attention to prove implies no censurable act on either party. Whilst, on the other hand, it is American insurgents who find British allies to build in this kingdom, and to equip and send forth, war ships to depredate on the commerce of a friendly nation, and it is British subjects who load multitudes of British vessels with contraband of war, as well as all other supplies, with the intent and aim to render null and void, so far as they can, a blockade legitimately made by a friendly nation, as well as to procrastinate and make successful a resistance in a war in which that nation is actually engaged. Surely this is a difference not unworthy of your lordship's deliberate observation.

But your lordship, in accounting for the admitted failure to enforce the enlistment law in Great Britain, has done me the honor to remind me that not long since her Majesty's government was itself so far made sensible of injuries of the same kind with those of which I now complain either inflicted or threatened against Great Britain in the ports of the United States as to have made them the subject of remonstrance through her Majesty's representative at Washington. With so fresh a sense of these evils before your lordship there will be no further cause of surprise at the earnestness with which I have followed the precedent then set. You do me the honor to recall the fact that the enlistment law of the United States, which preceded in its date of enactment that of Great Britain, is almost identical with it. And you further state that "the notorious evasion of its provisions during the late war waged by Great Britain and her allies against Russia" was the cause of the remonstrance to which I have already alluded. Your lordship further remarks that "Great Britain was then, as on other occasions, assured that every effort which the law would permit had been made to prevent such practices; that the United States government could only proceed upon legal evidence, the law as to which is almost, if not entirely, the same as in this country, and that without such evidence no conviction could be procured."

In an earlier portion of your lordship's note you did me the favor to cite, as good authority, to me an extract of the message of the President of the United States of the 31st December, 1855, which went to show the extent to which assistance not only had been, but might be, rendered without censure by neutrals to belligerents. Perhaps your lordship will not deny equal weight to the very next passage in that message, even though it should somewhat conflict with your own allegation.

"Whatever concern may have been felt by either of the belligerent powers, lest private armed cruisers or other vessels in the service of one might be fitted out in the ports of this country to depredate on the property of the other, all such fears have proved to be utterly groundless. Our citizens have been withheld from any such act or purpose by good faith and by respect for the law.”

I forbear from quoting the text which follows, because it may revive unpleasant recollections in your lordship's as it does in my mind. I will content myself solely with the remark that the very last thing which your lordship would be likely to object to, the facts there stated would be the want of ability of the government of the United States to proceed with energy and effect in the repression of acts in violation of their enlistment act.

But, if evidences of another kind as to its energy under that law be needed, I have only to remind your lordship once more of the fact that on the 11th of October, 1855, her Majesty's representative at Washington, Mr. Crampton, addressed to the government of the United States a note, with evidence to show that a vessel called the Maury was then fitting out at the port of New York,

armed to depredate on British vessels. On the 12th the Attorney General sent, by telegraph, to the proper officer at New York to consult with the British consul, and to prosecute, if cause appear. On the 13th the collector stopped the vessel, then about to sail. On the 16th the district attorney had prepared and filed a libel of the vessel, and in the mean time ordered a thorough examination of her cargo. On the 19th the marshal had made a full report of his examination. On the same day the complainant, on whose evidence the minister and the consul had acted, confessed himself satisfied, and requested the libel to be lifted. On the 23d Mr. Barclay, her Majesty's consul at New York, published a note withdrawing every imputation made against the vessel. Thus it appears that in the brief space of four days the government's action under the enlistment law had been sufficiently energetic completely to satisfy the requisition of her Majesty's representative.

If any similar action has been had since the first day that I had the honor to call your lordship's attention to outfits of the same nature made in Great Britain, I can only say that I have not enjoyed a corresponding opportunity to express my satisfaction with the result.

The owners of the Maury were never compensated for the trouble and expense to which they were put by this process. But the Chamber of Commerce of New York adopted a series of resolutions, two of which may serve as a sufficient comment on the remark which your lordship has been pleased to let fall touching the "notorious evasion" of the enlistment law in America at the time alluded to:

66

Resolved, That no proper amends or apology have been made to A. A. Low & Brothers for the charge brought against them, which, if true, would have rendered them infamous; nor to the merchants of this city and country so falsely and injuriously asserted.

66

Resolved, That the merchants of New York, as part of the body of merchants of the United States, will uphold the government in the full maintenance of the neutrality laws of the country; and we acknowledge and adopt, and always have regarded the acts of the United States for preserving its neutrality as binding in honor and conscience as well as in law; and that we denounce those who violate them as disturbers of the peace of the world, to be held in universal abhorrence."

I pray your lordship to give one moment's attention to the manner in which the conduct imputed to Messrs. Low is stigmatized. I am sorry to confess that I have not seen the like indignation shown in this kingdom against similar charges made against distinguished parties in Liverpool, nor yet can I perceive it so forcibly expressed as I had hoped even in the tone of your lordship's note. I beg to assure your lordship that it gives me no pleasure to review the recollections of the events of that period. But inasmuch as they had been voluntarily introduced in the note which I had the honor to receive, and they seemed to me necessarily to imply an unmerited charge against the policy of the United States, I felt myself imperatively called upon to show that at least in one instance in which her Majesty's government made a complaint, there was no failure either in the manner of construing the powers vested in the government of the United States, or in their promptness of action under their enlistment law.

I pray your lordship to accept the assurance of the distinguished consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Right Honorable EARL RUSSELL, &c., &c., &c.

H.

List of vessels, from the United States consul at Liverpool, which have either sailed from Great Britain and Ireland since the 1st of August last, or are now in course of preparation to sail, with contraband of war, for the purpose of breaking the blockade of the rebel ports.

STEAMERS.-Bahama, from Liverpool on the 13th August, with men and cannon; Bonita, (late the Economist.) Iona, Pearl, Kelpie, Giraffe, Antona, Calypso, Havelock, Nicolai I, Julie Usher, (late Annie Childs,) Stanley, Albion, Denbigh, Pet, Neptune, Sheldrake, Gypsey Queen, Cornubia, Eagle, Ruby, Florida, Juno, Thistle, Northumbia, Douglas, Britannia, Royal Bride, Douro, Beacon, Georgiana, Prince Albert, Leipsig.

SAILING VESSELS - Ellen, Agrippina, (sailed from Cardiff October 10, with shot, shell and coal. This is the vessel that carried arms and coal from London to the No. 290 at Terceira. See depositions of Redden and King.) Severn, Queen of the Usk, Digby, Clarence, Mary Frances, Chatham, Peep o' Day, Speculation, Monmouth, Intrinsic.

B.

Mr. Morse to Mr. Adams.

UNITED STATES CONSULATE,
London, December 24, 1862.

SIR: In compliance with your request, I herewith forward a list comprising most of such steamers and sailing vessels as are known to me to have left the port of London laden with supplies for the insurgents now in rebellion against the United States.

I do not pretend that all the vessels which have left this port in the confederate service are known to me, but believe the following list of vessels can be relied on as being a part of those which have left with supplies, principally contraband of war, with the intention of either running the blockade directly, or of going to a neighboring Atlantic or Gulf port, and there discharging their cargoes into another class of vessels, the more easily to get such Cargoes to their places of destination.

The tonnage given is the net tonnage, or the carrying space of the vessel, the space taken up by machinery, &c., being deducted.

The screw steamer Fingal left Greenock in the summer of 1861. Her cargo was sent there to her by the steamer Colletis from London.

Vessels which have left ports on the east coast of England, and which may not have been reported by any other consul:

Circassian, Modern Greece, Stettin, Bahama, and Bermuda, from Hartlepool; Hero, Pataras, Labnan, Sidney Hall, and Tubal Cain, all screw steamers; and brig Stephen Hart During the last six or eight weeks there have been great exertions made in this country to procure good, fast steamers, and to forward them, laden with supplies for the insurgents, to the ports of the rebel States, or to ports adjacent to the coast of those States. Many of the boats in this service have been purchased on the river Clyde. Three new ones, destined for the same service, have recently been launched there, and have not yet gone to Sta They have been named Emma, Gertrude, and Louisiana; and several more are building there.

The ownership of these steamers, the cargoes they carry out, and the manner of conducting the trade, is a question of much interest to Americans. During the early stages of the war the trade was carried on principally by agents sent over from the Confederate States, aided by a few mercantile houses and active sympathizers in this country. These agents, with their friends here, purchased the supplies, and procured steamers, mostly by charter, and forwarded the goods.

But by far the largest portion of the trade, with perhaps the exception of that in small arms, is now, and for a long time has been, under the management and control of British merchants. It is carried on principally by British capital, in British ships, and crosses the Atlantic under the protection of the British flag.

Parties come from Richmond with contracts made with the rebel government by which they are to receive a very large percentage above the cost in confederate ports of the articles specified British merchants become interested in these contracts, and participate in their profits or less. I have seen the particulars of one such contract drawn out in detail, and have heard of others.

There are good reasons for believing that a large portion of the supplies more recently sent to the aid of the insurgents has been sent by merchants on their own account. Several will join together to charter a steamer and make up a cargo independent of all contractors, each investing as much in the enterprise as he may deem expedient, according to his zeal in the rebel cause, or his hope of realizing profits from the speculation.

Again some one will put up a steamer to carry cargo to a rebel port at an enormous rate of freight, or to ports on the Atlantic or Gulf coast, such as Bermuda, Nassau, Havana, Matamoras, &c., at a less freight, to be from there reshipped to such southern ports as appears to afford the best opportunities for gaining an entrance. Ships bound on these voyages are, of course, not advertised, or their destination made known to the public. Their cargoes are made up of individual shipments, on account and risk of the shippers, or go into a joint stock concern, on account and risk of the company, each member thereof realizing profit or suffering loss in proportion to the amount he invested in the adventure. Both steamers and cargoes are often, if not generally, insured in England "to go to America with liberty to run the blockade."'

Some individuals and mercantile firms appear to have entered into the business of supplying the rebels with the means of carrying on and prolonging the war with great zeal and energy on their own account. Mr. Z C. Pearsons, of Hull, has been largely interested in this contraband trade, but appears not to have been very fortunate in its pursuit, for he has had several valuable steamers taken by our blockading squadrons, and, in addition to this bad luck, appears to have received in payment for the goods he did get in a kind of paper or payment that could not be made available here.

Of the firms which are the most largely engaged in this mode of rendering aid to and sustaining the rebellion, Frazier, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, and the firm of W. S. Lindsay & Co., of London, are among the more prominent.

Had

The foregoing list of vessels, steam and sailing, was taken from memorandums. my other duties allowed me time to examine my despatches for the last year and a half, I could no doubt add others to the list, and give you some interesting particulars concerning many of them. But for want of that time I am obliged to submit it, imperfect as I fear it is. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. C. F. ADAMS,

United States Minister at London.

F. H. MORSE, Consul.