tried in the court of exchequer before the lord chief baron and a special jury. A verdict having been rendered in favor of the persons claiming to be the owners of the ship, the Crown sought to obtain a new trial. This application failed, as also did a subsequent effort to prosecute an appeal before the court of exchequer chamber. The costs and damages, amounting to £3,700, were paid by the Crown, as the defeated party, to the claimants of the ship. During the whole course of these proceedings up to April 24, 1864, the Alexandra remained under seizure, in the possession of the officers of the customs. At the end of that time, the Executive having no legal power to detain her, she came again into possession of the persons claiming to be her owners, by whom she was sold to a merchant at Liverpool. Her new owner changed her name to The Mary, and after certain alterations she sailed from Liverpool for Bermuda, and thence to Halifax. On her arrival at Halifax Mr. Seward informed the British legation at Washington that it was supposed that she was to be armed and equipped at Halifax for the Confederate government. The lieutenantgovernor of Nova Scotia was immediately advised to that effect. In November 1864 The Mary returned from Halifax to Bermuda and then proceeded to Nassau, where proceedings were begun against her for having taken on board at Bermuda certain packages the contents of which suggested that the design existed to employ her in the naval service of the Confederate States. On May 30, 1865, these proceedings were terminated by her release. The war was then over. The expense of the colonial government incurred by the seizure amounted to upward of £300.

The British Case next took up the case of the ironclad rams El Tousson and El Monassir, commonly known as "Lairds' ironclads." The history of these vessels has been stated in the summary of the American Case. Orders to seize them were issued October 9, 1863, and they remained under seizure till May 1864, when they were sold to Her Majesty's government for the sum of £220,000. The evidence which the gov ernment had up to that time been able to obtain was, said the British Case, so imperfect as to make the event of a trial doubtful; and in agreeing to the purchase Her Majesty's government was mainly actuated by a desire to prevent by any means within its power, however costly, vessels of so formidable character, constructed in a British port, from passing directly or indirectly into the hands of a belligerent.

The next case taken up by the British Case was that of the Canton, or Pampero. This vessel was brought to Earl Russell's attention by Mr. Adams in a note of October 17, 1863. By the end of November inquiries directed by the government had led to the production of some evidence that she was intended for the Confederate service. On December 10 she was seized by the collector of customs at Glasgow, and in April 1864, no defense having been made, was declared forfeited. She remained under seizure till October 1865, when she was given up to her owners, the war having long since been ended.

In 1864, said the British Case, representations were made by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell respecting two vessels named the Amphion and the Hawk; and in 1865 respecting three others, the Virginia, the Louisa Ann Fanny, and the Hercules. In none of these cases were any reasonable grounds of suspicion found upon examination to exist, and none of the vessels was in fact armed or used for the purposes of war.

Action on Complaints.

clared:

After this review of the cases (except the Florida and the Alabama) brought before Her Majesty's government, the British Case de

"1. That in every case directions were given, without the least delay, for investigation and inquiry on the spot by the proper officers of government; and these officers were orderea to keep a watchful eye on the suspected vessel; and the directions and orders so given were executed.

"2. That in some cases the attention of the government had been directed, before the receipt of any communication from Mr. Adams, to vessels as to which there appeared to be ground for suspicion.

"3. That as soon as any evidence was attained it was submitted without delay to the law officers of the Crown, and they were called upon to advise as to the proper course of proceeding.

"4. That in every case in which reasonable evidence could be obtained the vessel was seized by the officers of the government, and proceedings were instituted against her in the proper court of law. By reasonable evidence is understood testimony which, though not conclusive, offered nevertheless a reasonable prospect that the government might be able, when the time for trying the case should arrive, to sustain the seizure in a court of law.

"5. That in several of the cases in which a seizure was made the government found itself unable, or uncertain whether it would be able, to sustain the seizure by sufficient evidence, and was under the necessity of either releasing the vessel and paying the costs of the trial and detention, or of purchasing her at the public expense.

"6. That in every one of the cases enumerated either the information furnished to the government proved to be erroneous, and the supposed indicia of an unlawful intention to be absent or deceptive, or this intention was defeated or abandoned by reason of the measures taken and the vigilance exercised by Her Majesty's government.

"7. That it is easy to infer special adaptation for war from peculiarities or supposed peculiarities of construction which are really equivocal; and such inferences are liable to be fallacious, especially in cases where the vessel is constructed with a view to some employment which, though commercial, is out of the ordinary course of commerce.”

Flotilla.

In order to exemplify the anxiety of Her The Anglo-Chinese Majesty's government to avoid anything that might be thought to compromise its neutrality, the British Case referred to the case of the Anglo-Chinese flotilla. In March 1862 the Chinese Government authorized Mr. Lay, the inspector-general of Chinese customs, to purchase a steam fleet for the Emperor's service. To this end Mr. Lay entered into an agreement with Captain Osborn, of the British navy, to take command of the fleet, and Her Majesty's gov ernment gave permission to enlist officers and men for the service. In September 1863 Captain Osborn arrived in China with the flotilla, consisting of six vessels of war and two other vessels. Differences having arisen as to the conditions under which Captain Osborn was to hold his command, he suggested that he would turn over the ships to the Chinese Government. The British minister at Peking objected to this course, on the ground that Her Majesty's government would not have consented to the organization of the squadron unless on the understanding that it was to be placed under the orders of an officer in whose prudence and high character they had full confidence; and he also reported to Her Majesty's government that the ships were not such as the Chinese could manage, and that it would not be safe to sell them on the coast, as they might fall into the hands of hostile daimios in Japan, or be bought for employment as Confederate cruisers in those seas. The minister of the United States at Peking was also apprehensive as to the latter contingency. It was subsequently arranged to send part of the flotilla to England and to take the other part to Bombay, and to sell them all on account of the Chinese Government. Captain Osborn took four of the vessels to Bombay and the rest to England. Orders were, however, sent to Bombay to permit one of the vessels there, which was a dispatch

boat, to be sold, care being taken to prevent her from being equipped as a vessel of war, or sold to either of the belligerent parties in America; but the sale did not take place. The other three vessels at Bombay were ordered to be retained. Of the three vessels sent to England, one, which was a store ship, was sold. The other three vessels, which were men-of-war, were retained until the objections to their sale might be removed, the expense of their detention being defrayed by Her Majesty's government. After the close of the civil war in the United States the Government of Egypt purchased the three vessels which were detained in England. Of the four vessels at Bombay, the Indian Government purchased two. The vessels altogether brought £103,026 less than the value at which they were estimated when they left China. This sum was paid by Great Britain to the Chinese Government. Sir Frederick Bruce, who was at that time British minister at Peking, writing in December 1865 from Washington, to which place he had been transferred, said that there was no doubt that agents of the Confederate government were on the lookout to purchase the more powerful vessels of the squadron from the Chinese; and Mr. Adams, in a note to Lord Clarendon of December 28, 1865, expressed the high sense entertained by the Government of the United States of the friendly proceedings of Sir Frederick Bruce, in China, in regard to the disposition of the vessels of the flotilla.

Five parts (IV., V., VI., VII., and VIII.) of The "Florida," "Ala- the British Case were devoted to an examina

abma," " "Georgia," tion of the cases of the Florida, the Alabama,

and "Shenandoah."

the Georgia, and the Shenandoah. The facts in these cases are discussed elsewhere. The conclusion at which the British Case arrived was that, of the four vessels in question, two-the Shenandoah and the Georgia-were never, in any manner or degree, within the dominions of Her Majesty, fitted out, armed, or equipped for war, or specially adapted to warlike use; nor was any information respecting them conveyed to Her Majesty's government by the minister or the consular officers of the United States, nor did any come to the knowledge of that government, till they had respectively departed from Her Majesty's dominions. The other two vessels-the Alabama and the Florida-though suitable by their construction for vessels of war, were not armed for war till they had departed from British jurisdiction and had arrived 5627-39

at places remote from and out of the control of Her Majesty's government, nor till they had passed into the possession and control of the Confederate government, through the latter's agents. The crews of all the four vessels, though composed partly of British subjects who had been induced by promises of reward to take service when at a distance from England, were actually enlisted on the high seas or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's government; the crew of the Florida was chiefly enlisted in a port of the Confederate States, which she entered and lay in before engaging in any operation of war.

In conclusion (Part X.) the British Case conMeaning of "Due tended that there was no ground on which Diligence." the United States could maintain a claim for pecuniary indemnity. It had been seen that Her Majesty's government, not content with performing its recognized international obligations, had on more than one occasion overstepped them, and had on two occasions voluntarily incurred a large expenditure in order to prevent vessels armed or built for war in Great Britain from passing into belligerent hands. On the other hand, a charge of injurious negligence on the part of a sovereign government, in the exercise of any of the powers of sovereignty, must be sustained on strong and solid grounds. The general assumption that such powers were exercised with good faith and reasonable care ought to subsist until it had been displaced by proof to the contrary. It was not enough to show that a government had acted on an opinion from which an arbitrator could be induced to dissent; or that a judgment pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, and acted upon by the Executive, was tainted with error; or that there had been some defect of judgment or penetration, or somewhat less than the utmost possible promptitude and celerity of action; or that there had been some delay or omission occasioned by mere accident; or that an act had been done which it was the duty of the government to prevent. On the contrary, it was necessary to show that there had been "a failure to use, for the prevention of an act which the government was bound to endeavor to prevent, such care as governments ordinarily employ in their domestic concerns, and may reasonably be expected to exert in matters of international interest and obligation." These considerations, it was said, applied with especial force to nations whose institutions