full control of the Government, in Moelfra Bay. It was expected that when she quitted Liverpool she would touch at Queenstown. No telegram was sent to that point to meet her for two days and a half! It was probable that she would linger along the Welsh coast; and no telegrams were sent to its two most important points, Beaumaris and Holyhead, for three days!

Surely, because the British Government have conducted themselves thus, in 1862, it should be no precedent for the smaller and gratuitous insult to the American people, in showing national hospitality to the Georgia, in 1864; and Americans are not to be blamed for feeling sore, that that precedent should be again evoked and held up as the probable constant rule of British action hereafter.

In thus characterizing the Georgia reception, we do not forget that Sir Roundell Palmer attempts feebly to suggest, that it "was afterwards stated that she was likely to be dismantled and sold.". Have not the British Government had experience enough of Confederate pretences in speech and pretences in action, in the cases of the Gibraltar, the Florida, the Rappahannock, to say nothing about the original escape of this same Georgia—to know that the market value of such statements or promises, on the part of the Confederate Government, stands very low? Had the Attorney-General forgotten what Earl Russell, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had said in the House of Lords, only a fortnight before his own speech, about the latest case of these pretences, — the Lairds' disclaimer of building the iron-clads for the Confederates? We beg to remind Sir Roundell Palmer of it, if he attaches any weight to this promise of dismantling. Says Earl Russell, according to the report of his speech in the Times of April 30:

"The only thing with which I should be disposed to reproach myself in the present case, is the degree of credulity with which I received the assurances that were made, that the iron-clads were not intended for the Confederate States. The Collector of Customs at Liverpool, Mr. Edwards, said he believed it was never intended to use them for that purpose. The law-officers, on his authority, took the

same view. I was at first disposed to share that opinion; but evidence was poured in on me which there was no resisting; and I am convinced that the vessels were originally built for the Confederate States."

And again:

"I might have made a mistake [in causing the seizure of the rams], as it might happen that a policeman in the street, apprehending a man whom he sees quitting a house at three or four o'clock in the morning, with a sack-full of plate, might make a mistake, because it might turn out, singularly enough, that the man seized was the master of the house, who desired to go out at that early hour with a sack of plate on his back. That would be a singular occurrence, certainly; but no one would blame the policeman for having stopped the man."

By way of contrast with this Alabama precedent—to bring our protracted comments to a close- - we desire to call the attention of the Attorney-General to three or four additional specimens of American neutrality, of the period of Washington's Administration, showing our construction of that line of conduct, which, as he admits, ought to be binding on England. These precedents, we believe, will be quite new to most of our English readers; possibly, they may be so to Sir Roundell Palmer himself. At any rate, we are quite sure that he will find them utterly at variance with English action in both the instances of the Alabama and the Georgia.

VI.

AMERICAN TREATMENT OF FRENCH AND BRITISH ALABAMAS IN WASHINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION.

THE first precedent of this class, that we shall give, is stated on the authority of a letter from Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State, to Mr. Jay, our minister to Great Britain, dated August 11, 1794, and is to be found in the State Department at Washington, among the unpublished State documents, to which access is permitted to the public at large, on proper official application. Mr. Randolph's bold challenge of the facts stated in it, is, to our mind, a sufficient guaranty of their authenticity. Mr. Hammond, the British minister, to whom reference is made in the letter, had just received his letters of recall (July 28, 1794), and was then, it is presumed, on his way to England.1

“If” [says Mr. Randolph] “Mr. Hammond wishes any new evidence of our unchangeable neutrality, he may be told, and the British Ministry likewise, that the militia of Richmond in Virginia, actually marched at a moment's warning, between seventy and eighty miles to seize a vessel, supposed to be under preparation as a French privateer. Resistance was at first apprehended, but it was overawed, and the business completely effected.”

Rather a contrast, this, - we submit, of marching seventy or eighty miles "at a moment's warning," and seizing with military force a vessel "supposed to be under preparation," and "completely effecting the business," - to waiting from June 23d to July 29th, as the British Government did in the case of the Alabama, with Minister Adams and Consul Dudley, spurring them up with constant letters and affidavits of an actual equipment, sometimes weekly, but often almost daily or even hourly, and then the Government so "completely!" effecting the busi

1 11 Sparks' "Writings of Washington," p. 42.

ness, that the Alabama was notified of their intention to seize her beforehand, and had gone off before the necessary order issued, and then when the evil might have been remedied by a subsequent order - postponing the sending of that order to Queenstown for two days and a half, and to the Welch coast for three days!

The next precedent which we shall cite, is one published quite at large in the historical and diplomatic publications of the day, but which does not seem to have attracted the attention it deserves. Its importance begins with its being a case of American neutral action before any Foreign Enlistment Statute had passed, and therefore proceeding upon purely international grounds. It relates to the French privateer, Republican, fitted out at New York, and seized by Governor Clinton with military force, on the 8th of June 1793. [The first Foreign Enlistment Act was passed June 5, 1794.]

Here is the fuming protest of the French Consul at New York, M. Hauterive, at the seizure, and his high-flying demand thereon for satisfaction upon Gov. Clinton, which we give as the first piece of this diplomatic history: (1 Am. State Papers, pp. 152-3.)

"NEW YORK, June 9, 1793.

"SIR, I have just been informed, that last night a French vessel, armed for war and ready to hoist sail, has been arrested by authority, and that even the captain has not been permitted to go on board. This strange use of public force against the citizens of a friendly nation, who assemble here to go and defend their brethren, is a signal violation of the laws of neutrality, which I cannot impute but to a misconception which your attention and your equity will not fail to rectify, as soon as you shall be informed of it.

I require, Sir, the authority with which you are clothed, to cause to be rendered to Frenchmen and allies, and I must add, to freemen, of whatever nation they may be, the liberty of flying to the succor of their country. It is not in a country where Frenchmen have spilt their blood in the cause of humanity, that they ought to find in the laws, obstacles to their following yet again the most pleasing of their propensities, and to fulfil the most sacred of their duties.

"HAUTERIVE, -Consul of the French Republic, New York. "To the Governor of the State of New York."

"CONSULATE OF NEW YORK. "We, Alexander Hauterive, Consul of the Republic of France to the United States, at New York, certify, that in consequence of a requisition made by us to the Mayor of New York, and to the Governor of the State of the same name, dated 9th June current, to obtain a replevy of the detention, made by authority in this port, of a French vessel, called the Republican, belonging to Louis A. H. Caritat, and commanded by the citizen Orset, the Governor of the said State replied to us by a letter, under his signature, that it was in conformity to the injunction of the President of the United States, that he had ordered a detachment of the militia of this State to detain the said vessel, until the President of the United States should be informed of the circumstances of the facts; upon which we have delivered to him an act certified and signed by us.

"Done in New York, the 10th June, 1793."

Next in order is the Cabinet Opinion of President Washington's three principal Secretaries, justifying the arrest and further detention of the Republican. The latter part of the document embraces another case of seizure, which is so much to the purpose of our general argument, that we do not feel at liberty to omit it. We copy from 4 Hamilton's Works, p. 424:

"CABINET OPINION.

"June 12, 1793.

"The President having required the opinions of the heads of the three departments, on a letter from Governor Clinton of the 9th instant, stating that he had taken possession of the sloop Polly, now called the Republican, which was arming and equipping, and manning by French and other citizens to cruise against some of the belligerent powers, and they having met and deliberated thereon, are unanimously of opinion, that Governor Clinton be desired to deliver over to the civil power the said vessel and her appurtenances to be dealt with according to law; and that the Attorney of the United States for the District of New York be desired to have such proceedings at law instituted, as well concerning the said vessel and her appurtenances, as against all the persons, citizens, or aliens, participating in the armament or object thereof, as he shall think will be most effectual for punishing the said offenders, and preventing the said vessel and appurtenances from be