V.

RETROSPECT OF THE ALABAMA CASE.- HER ESCAPE THE RESULT

-

OF BRITISH TREACHERY AND OFFICIAL CONNIVANCE OR NEGLIGENCE.

WE are sorry to pass under the shade of the Alabama case, again, in this Georgia discussion. We should not have done so, but for the Attorney-General's importing it into this speech -he, all the while, wondering at "the extraordinary and extravagant demands" of the Americans on account of damage done by the Alabama and similar vessels, which render it," as he says, "infinitely more difficult for us, at their request, to do any thing resting on our own discretion, and which we are not bound to do in law;" and also expressing the hope that this statement of his will not give offence to them "because," as he asseverates, "it is true, and because it is important that the matter should be understood."

Since Sir Roundell Palmer thus refers back to the old root of the Alabama bitterness, in part justification of the ministerial decision to admit the Georgia, we invite his attention to a grave error of his own, touching that same root of bitterness, which in our judgment goes to the very marrow of that controversy, and which we hope he will correct before wondering again at the irritation which Americans feel, when they hear that case cited as a specimen of British honor and neutral honesty. We once had occasion to notice the error in the columns of an American journal, and now reprint our former exposition of it, as appropriate to the present occasion. Sir Roundell Palmer's grave mistake consists in stating that orders were issued for seizing the Alabama on the 29th day of July (1862), the day of her escape, and in his not admitting at the same time if this statement were true that the

Collector of Liverpool had those orders in his pocket a day and a half, and never lifted a finger to execute them when the Alabama was within his reach, and when he was called upon by the American consul to prevent her escape. Here is the newspaper article:

THE CASE OF THE ALABAMA.

It is well known that the British ministry have made several elaborate attempts, both in State despatches and in Parliamentary debates, to throw off the blame of the escape of the Alabama, by showing that they issued an order to seize her, which reached Liverpool too late, or after the Alabama. had already sailed. But we assert, in the face of this, that for more than thirty-six hours after the order for seizure is said to have been issued, she lay undisturbed within the control of the admiralty, and during that time shipped forty or fifty men for her crew, gunpowder and materials for guncarriages, under the very eyes of the Custom-house authorities. Further, we assert, that, when she first made a show of getting out of the reach of the Custom-house jurisdiction, she did so in consequence of information, privately conveyed to her in advance, of the resolution of the Cabinet to detain her.

On the last point, to which we do not attach so much importance, because it rests upon a statement coming from a Confederate source, and therefore may be a Confederate lie," we will only say, that, in the published account of the cruise of the Alabama, written by one G. S. Fullam, entitled "Our Cruise in the Confederate States' War-Steamer Alabama - The Private Journal of an Officer," the writer, who is an Englishman, and who, we have seen it stated, is the son of an English clergyman, alleges, in reference to the hurried clearing out of the Alabama from her anchorage in Moelfra Bay (forty miles below Liverpool, on the Welsh coast, where she had dropped down on the morning of July 29, 1862), that " our unceremonious departure was owing to the fact of news being received to the effect that the customs' authorities had orders to board and detain us that morning." If this be true, who

gave the news of the determination of the Cabinet? And what sort of neutrality is that, which forewarns a criminal offender that process is out after him and that he had better fly?

But the other point is more incontrovertible, and rests for its authenticity on published diplomatic papers, both English and American. The Solicitor-General, Sir Roundell Palmer (now Attorney-General), speaking in debate in the House of Commons on the 27th of March, 1863, and defending the Ministry with all his power from the charge of having been remiss in permitting the escape of the Alabama, says of Earl Russell's connection with the affair: “ He told Mr. Adams on the 28th [of July] that the law-officers of the crown were consulted. He got their opinion on the 29th, and that very same day a telegraphic message was sent down to stop the ship." (London Times, March 28.) So, the new SolicitorGeneral, Collier, addressing his constituents at Plymouth, on the 17th of October following, says: "The government issued the necessary orders [for seizing the Alabama], but unfortunately the vessel escaped by stratagem on that very day.” (Times, October 19.) Thus, the two legal representatives of the British ministry in the House of Commons say, and with the greatest exactness as to dates, in order to clear the government from imputation of negligence, that the order to seize the Alabama issued July 29, and that she unfortunately escaped that very day.

Now in the "History of the cruise of the Alabama," which we have just quoted, Second Officer Fullam states (p. 4): "At 9:15 A. M. of the 29th of July, 1862, we weighed anchor and proceeded slowly down the Mersey, anchoring in Moelfra Bay, having on board relatives and friends of the builders, both ladies and gentlemen. Our ostensible object in sailing was to go on a trial. trip, and the presence of the ladies and gentlemen gave a certain color to the report. In the evening we transferred our visitors to a steam-tug. We remained here, shipping hands, &c., until 2 A. M. of the 31st, when we got under weigh, ostensibly bound for Nassau.'

As further showing the whereabouts of the Alabama after

July 29th, there is, among the papers published in the English Blue Books for 1862, by order of the House of Commons, a letter signed W. H. Smith, Collector at Beaumaris [a Welsh town on Moelfra Bay], which states, that the Alabama lay at anchor in that bay from 71⁄2 P. M. July 29th, to about 3 A. M. July 31st, and that during that time the steam-tug Hercules went alongside and put people on board the Alabama. There can be, therefore, no doubt, from official sources, that the Alabama lay at anchor upwards of thirty-six hours at Moelfra Bay, within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Beaumaris, and that during that time she was supplied with men from the tug Hercules, which, Fullam says, took up her pleasure party again to Liverpool.

Now, were the English government apprised of this, and did they take any steps to seize her in Moelfra Bay? Leaving out of view Fullam's statement, that, instead of being seized, they were apprised in advance that the order was coming, we ask our readers to consider whether the following letter from our vigilant consul at Liverpool - Thomas H. Dudley, Esq.

to the collector of that port, amounts to sufficient notice, or not, of the movements of the future pirate? This letter also appears in the published diplomatic documents of both countries:

"U. S. CONSULATE, LIVERPOOL, July 30, 1862. "SIR, -Referring to my previous communication to you on the subject of the gunboat No. 290,' fitted out by Mr. Laird at Birkenhead, I beg now to inform you that she left the Birkenhead dock on Monday night, (the 28th) and yesterday morning (the 29th) left the river, accompanied by the steam-tug Hercules. The Hercules returned last evening, and her master stated that the gunboat was cruising off Point Lynas, that she had six guns on board, concealed below and was taking powder from another vessel.

"The Hercules is now alongside the Woodside Landing Stage, taking on board men (forty or fifty), beams, evidently for gun carriages and other things, to convey down to the gunboat. A quantity of cutlasses was taken on board on Friday last.

"These circumstances all go to confirm the representations heretofore made to you about this vessel, in the face of which I cannot but regret she has been permitted to leave the port, and I report them to

you that you may take such steps as you may deem necessary to prevent this flagrant violation of neutrality.

"Respectfully, I am your obedient servant,

"THOMAS H. DUDLEY, Consul.

"THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Liverpool."

That nothing may be wanting to complete the chain of proof in our case, we will add, that Earl Russell, by a communication to Mr. Adams, dated July 4, 1862, had expressly authorized Mr. Dudley to communicate directly with the custom authorities at Liverpool.1 So, then, if our readers follow us, the order to seize the Alabama (by telegraph) was in the hands of the Liverpool collector July 29. Mr. Dudley's letter, as above, was put into his hands the next day-July 30. The steam-tug Hercules was at that moment at the Birkenhead dock, and there she doubtless remained several hours, loading up with men and munitions of war, as indicated by Mr. Dudley. The Alabama herself lay, something like a day after this, only forty miles off, and within sight of the Welsh coast. The tug went down and delivered her consignment of men and munitions of war in due course, under the eyes of the Liverpool collector and with the order for her detention in his pocket, and not a finger was lifted to make the seizure; and now Earl Russell, without any reference to this last crowning act in the farce, admits that the rest of the case, up to that point, was "a scandal and a reproach."

Do not fair-minded Englishmen agree with us, that if ever a government ought to be affected with the consequences of culpable neglect of duty by its agents, here is a case for the application of the principle?

Since the appearance of the above article (probably with no reference whatever to it), Earl Russell has taken occasion to say in the House of Lords, in debate on the 29th of April last, that the first statement above put forth on the authority of the Alabama's historiographer is an undoubted fact: that informa

1 "Correspondence respecting the Alabama," &c., p. 5. Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, July 4.