§ EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) put some questions to me the other evening to which I was not at the time prepared to give an answer. He referred to certain despatches and notes of Mr. Adams, and expressed an opinion that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government had been influenced by those communications. I have since been looking to the dates in relation to the course I had taken in the matter, and I find that so far from the conduct of Her Majesty's Government having been influenced by the notes of Mr. Adams of the 4th or 5th of 545 September, which did not reach me until a day or two later, I find that on the 3rd of September the decision was taken to detain and prevent the departure of the ironclad rams from Birkenhead. On that day Mr. Layard wrote to the Treasury desiring that they should be stopped. On referring to private letters of my own, I find that I wrote from Scotland to Lord Palmerston on the 3rd of September—
The conduct of the gentlemen who have contracted for the ironclads at Birkenhead is so very suspicious that I have thought it necessary to direct that they should be detained.And on the 4th September I wrote to the noble Lord—The pressing matter, however, is that of the ironclad rams. I have desired they should not be allowed to leave the port of Liverpool.It is therefore impossible that the course then pursued could be influenced by letters written by Mr. Adams on the 4th and subsequent days. Some reference has been made to the Correspondence presented to the Congress of the United States with reference to the language Mr. Adams was instructed to use in reference to these vessels. Now, with regard to the language used in the correspondence between Mr. Adams and myself, I do not mean to say that if the language had been more intemperate I should at all have desisted from the course which I took. As soon as I had come to the conviction that the ironclads were intended for the Confederates, it appeared to me my duty to take steps to detain them until we could obtain full evidence of their destination. I am quite of the opinion of Mr. Canning, that whatever we do we ought not to sneak into a war; and I thought it my duty to detain the ironclads, believing that they were intended to depart from this country for the purpose of carrying on war against the Federal States. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) went much into the question as to what it was my duty to represent to the United States' Government; and although he has not directly charged me, he has insinuated that I failed to take due notice of Mr. Adams's language. In answer to that I beg leave to read some extracts from the papers presented to Congress, which will show the tone of the correspondence. Referring to his letter of the 16th of September, I said to Mr. Adams on the 25th of September—I can assure you that I am not less anxious than yourself that the duties of neutrality should be performed strictly and impartially by the Government of Great Britain. There are, however, passages in your letter of the 16th, as well as in 546 some of your former ones, which so plainly and repeatedly imply an intimation of hostile proceeding towards Great Britain on the part of the Government of the United States, unless steps are taken by Her Majesty's Government which the law does not authorize, or unless the law, which you consider as insufficient, is altered, that I deem it incumbent on me, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, frankly to state to you that Her Majesty's Government will not be induced by any such consideration either to overstep the limits of the law, or to propose to Parliament any new law which they may not, for reasons of their own, think proper to be adopted. They will not shrink from any consequences of such a decision."—Correspondence, No. 5, p. 24.That was the language which the noble Earl must have read in the papers laid before Congress, but, having access to those Papers, he did not think fit to quote it. Anxious as he was to know what language was used by me after the notes of the 4th or 5th of September, he never reverted to the despatch which I have now read. In return I got a letter from Mr. Adams in the following language:—Legation of the United States, London,Sept. 29, 1863.My Lord,—I have the honour to acknowledge the reception of your note of the 25th inst. I shall take pleasure in transmitting a copy to my Government. I must pray your Lordship's pardon if I confess myself at a loss to perceive what portions of my late correspondence could justify the implications to which you refer. So far from intimating 'hostile proceedings towards Great Britain, unless the law, which I consider as insufficient, is altered,' the burden of my argument was to urge a reliance upon the law as sufficient, as well from the past experience of the United States as from the confidence expressed in it by the most eminent authority in the kingdom. Neither do I feel any ground for the other implication. It is very true that I have deeply regretted the supposition that Her Majesty's Government should admit itself powerless to execute any of those obligations which are recognized by the consent of civilized nations as well as the faith of treaties to be binding equally upon all; and I have taken the liberty to point out the consequences which follow that inability, in the absolute necessity imposed upon an aggrieved party to defend itself from the worst of injuries. This is the principle which I have been directed to maintain not from any idea of presenting any form of condition whatever to Her Majesty's Government" but from a confident expectation that an address to its sense of right may avail to gain for the United States exactly the same measure of justice which it would expect from that country in return were the respective situations reversed. If in any respect I have appeared to transgress the line of argument here laid down, I pray your Lordship to consider the fault as one not of intention on my part, and not at all belonging to my Government. In transmitting your Lordship's note, without further comment, I shall hope to be able to submit the question in what degree its sentiments may have been in any particular misinterpreted by me. I trust that it is unnecessary for me to 547 make any assurances to your Lordship of the earnestness with which I have ever striven to maintain to the utmost of my power the relations of amity and goodwill between the two countries.I pray your Lordship, &c.Correspondence, No. 5, p. 25.C. F. ADAMS.I will not quote any more, but there was afterwards a despatch from Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams expressing a hope that the relations of the two Governments might be carried on with goodwill on both sides without any misinterpretation of each other's intentions. I consider, therefore, that if there had been any intimation of a threat, that threat has been entirely withdrawn, and that the assurances given to us by the Government of the United States were that they wished to maintain the most friendly relations with us.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, what has now fallen from the noble Earl only confirms me in the opinion I have already expressed in regard to the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to place before Parliament the Papers which have been already submitted to Congress, and thus compelling us to collect from scraps here and there what has been the course really pursued by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl might, I think, have vindicated himself, without charging me—very gratuitously, I think—with having studied those letters which he has read, and deliberately forborne to quote the language which lie had really used. The fact is, my Lords, I have never seen or read one word of the letters referred to by the noble Earl. I told your Lordships, I think the other evening, that I would read certain extracts from the Correspondence which had been laid before Congress, which had been published in an evening newspaper; and I also said, I had seen the whole of the Papers laid before Congress, in this country, because I had seen the volume. It is certainly true that I had seen the volume, but I had not read one word of it. Therefore, the charge made against me of having read and abstained from quoting language used by the noble Earl, is utterly inconsistent with the facts. I find now that the tone of the noble Earl's Correspondence, so far as the extract with which he has favoured us goes, is more becoming his position and more satisfactory than that which appears in the Papers laid before the House. But there is one point upon which I should wish to receive some little explanation from the noble Earl. The noble Earl states, referring to the dates, that it was on the 3rd of September became to the determination that the 548 ironclad rams should be stopped and should not be allowed to proceed to their intended destination. Now, I want to know, if that be the case, how it is that on the 4th a letter was written by the noble Earl, stating that the matter was still under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and that it was not until the 8th the decision was come to that they should be stopped. If the noble Earl had come to the determination to detain the ironclad vessels on the 3rd September, how was it that the noble Earl stated in his letter of the 4th that the matter was still under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government? There is another question I should like to ask the noble Earl—whether he had asked for any explanation from the United States' Government, why the despatch of Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, which had never been submitted to the noble Earl, was laid before Congress without any intimation that it had not been transmitted to the noble Earl—whereby the American people have been led to believe that that letter had been presented to and received by the noble Earl, and that it had excited a considerable influence over the determination of our Government. That despatch, it appears, had exercised a considerable influence in the United States. Now, I would ask the noble Earl, whether he does not consider, since he has seen the publication of the whole Correspondence, that it is necessary for the honour of this country to ask for some explanation about a despatch which had never been delivered, but which, nevertheless, is made a portion of the diplomatic Correspondence laid before Congress?
§ EARL RUSSELLHaving heard the noble Earl say that the Correspondence laid before Congress was contained in a bulky volume, I concluded, perhaps somewhat too hastily, that he had read it. If he did not, of course what I said on that point entirely falls to the ground, and must be withdrawn. As to the last question of the noble Earl, I think it more affects the conduct of the United States Government towards their own people than their conduct towards us. It is the habit—and the wise habit, I think—of Mr. Adams to weigh over the despatches which he receives, and to consider what it is his duty to do; and when they contain complaints, to consider how he can most effectually urge these complaints, and to endeavour to perform his duty in the most conciliatory spirit possible. I can only say that Mr. 549 Adams has pursued that course from the first. Almost the first time I saw him he told. me that he had several despatches couched in strong terms, but he did not think it discreet to read them to me, and he then went on to describe in his own language what the complaints of his Government were. So far as regards the conduct of Mr. Adams, I think it is calculated to maintain friendly relations between the two Governments. I certainly, at present, do not see the necessity for asking Lord Lyons to call Mr. Seward's attention to the presentation of this despatch to Congress. No doubt, a certain effect may have been produced in the United States by the publication of that despatch; hut that effect will, of course, be reversed when it is discovered that the despatch has never been presented.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI beg to say, that I never for one single instant threw out the slightest imputation against Mr. Adams. On the contrary, I think that Mr. Adams has exercised a wise discretion, and that from the first he showed himself a friend to both countries in the course which he pursued. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary for the noble Earl to enter into any defence of Mr. Adams on the present occasion. The noble Earl quite surprised me by saying that, in regard to the despatch of the 11th, Mr. Adams had communicated to him the substance of it.
§ EARL RUSSELLNo; what I said was, that it was Mr. Adams's habit, when there was any substantial grievance to complain of, to communicate to me his views of the despatch.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYThen how did it happen that, having come to the decision of stopping the ironclad rams on the 3rd September, you wrote upon the 4th that the matter was still under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government?
§ EARL RUSSELLThe matter was still under correspondence at the time. Mr. Layard had written a letter to the Treasury, and the matter was under consideration still in the Treasury, and we had to wait for their answer. I being in Scotland at the time, my letter, I suppose, would not reach Mr. Adams until a day or two after. When the matter was under consideration between two Departments, we did not think it necessary to tell the parties that it was determined.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEthought it would be of great advantage if some means could be devised for ex- 550 changing Parliamentary Papers with Foreign Legislatures. This had been done with France in former times. He would suggest to the Government to lay this American volume before Parliament, for, of course, Lord Lyons had communicated it to his Government. He communicated last year's volume, and it was laid in due course before Parliament.
§ EARL GRANVILLEthought it would hardly be advisable for the Government to take upon themselves to lay before Parliament the blue-books, yellow-books, and other papers published by foreign Governments.