a cargo of her subjects' merchandise.
was not mistaken in his conjecture, is proved by the letter in reference to this point, addressed by direction of Earl Russell to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce.
The letter says: ‘British property on board a vessel belonging to one of the belligerents must be subject to all the risks and contingencies of war, so far as the capture of the vessel is concerned.
The owners of any British property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel captured and destroyed by a Confederate vessel of war, may claim ill a Confederate prize-court compensation for the destruction of such property.’
However one may wish to avoid reviving an old grievance, which is now happily a grievance of the past, it is impossible to avoid comparing the extreme complaisance of the Foreign Office toward the acts of Semmes
—acts for which a neutral ordinarily demands instant reparation—and its summary action in the case of the Trent
, when the property of its subjects had been in no way injured.
In one case it excused not only the officer, but the Government
under which he was acting; and its suggestion of a remedy for the owners, in view of the character of prize proceedings in the Confederacy
, was little less than a mockery.
In the other case, it accompanied its diplomatic demands with hostile preparations, and it encouraged the manufacture of public sentiment in favor of war by withholding explanatory despatches.
The inference is unavoidable that the Government
deliberately intended to pursue a policy as unfriendly as it could possibly be without passing the technical bounds of a legal neutrality.
After cruising as far as the Banks, the Alabama
turned her head southward.
Her coal was nearly exhausted, and arrangements had been made before starting for receiving a