[WM. H. ASPINWALL TO G. V. FOX]
Rockwood
Sept. 18, 1861.
My dear Fox
I received your letter when in town yesterday. I agree with what you say about McC. I consider him a genius, and hope he will prove himself a great man, by showing himself superior to vanity from the adulation which generally surrounds those occupying prominent positions. In this connection, pray repeat to your brother in law what I told him in April -- not to allow Gen. Scott to resign -- he is loved and revered by the people in the Eastern and Middle States, and from these come the sinews of war at present. His loss would tell fearfully in those quarters. We cannot bear anything of the kind. I have been much exercised the last week about the loan. Have given my sole attention to stirring up subscriptions and promoting the efforts of others in that direction. The Banks of this City were in doubt whether they could take the second lot of 50 millions on the 1? Octo. Certainly they would not at the daily rate at which they were being relieved last week -- hesitation or refusal would be fatal; and yet with the best intentions in the world, they cannot retain permanently more than a certain amt of their capitals; and on the extent of the subscriptions by individuals and other corporations towards taking off their hands what they were already committed for, depended their ability to take more. I think the matter stands much better now, and that a new start has been given. I am prepared for what you say about the Potomac, and have thot from the strength of the batteries there and the efforts
[p. 377]
made by the rebels to secure boats that they might contemplate crossing the river below Washington -- but of this you keep of course a sharp watch.
Annapolis will again become an important point for you, and I should think you would have an armed vessel with a wide-awake Commander there. If the Potomac be closed, Annapolis will be more handy both to your Navy Yard -- the sea -- and to Northern supplies, than Baltimore.
I have sent to the Secretary a letter from Capt. Dall formerly of the Pacific Mail Co. -- on the Oregon route -- a first rate young man -- of the David Porter style -- should you want a commander on the Pacific for any gunboat or small steamer.
By the way, would not Porter be the man to command the naval part of the special expedition to the Southern Coast? and since I am asking questions, let me enquire if you can give one of the new gunboats to Wm. E. Leroy -- now on his way home in command of the Mystic. His good Father has a letter from him expressing a great desire for active service.
Truly Yours
Wm. H. Aspinwall
London, April 18, 1863.
Sir, -- . . . By availing of the consuls' service we avoid drawing upon ourselves the observation which would perhaps defeat our object, and we also avail of the arrangements and experiments which both these gentlemen have made. Mr. Dudley, having a vice-consul, will be able to leave his post, in case of need, upon this business; and we have assured him that you will not only make any explanations regarding such absence which may hereafter be required by the Secretary of State, but will also fully appreciate his zeal. . . .
To offer to buy the ironclads without success, would only be to stimulate the builders to greater activity, and even to building new ones in the expectation of finding a market for them from one party or the other. . . . We call your attention to the inclosed article by Professor Goldwin Smith. . . . We understand that Professor Smith is a high authority, and we presume he is writing entirely of "his own motion," and in the interests of his own country. Could we find a sound legal writer to lay open to the people of England the consequences to their own commerce hereafter, and also, though a
[p. 41]
more delicate point, the danger to it now, through a war with us, and to do it entirely from an English point of view, we think the value of the ironclads, the Southerner, and other dangerous vessels, would decline rapidly. We shall carefully consider this and other points before acting. . . .
Respectfully yours,
W. H. Aspinwall,
J. M. Forbes.
London, April 25, 1863.
. . . We find Mr. Adams extremely desirous of avoiding any pretense for a clamor being raised by the opposition, which would hurt his efforts to stop the Alexandra, and still more the ironclads. Without embarrassing Mr. Adams by consulting him directly, we shall take care to do nothing, in a small way, that would interfere with the larger interests at stake.
We inclose you a telegram cut from the London papers, giving the "Evening Post's" version of Mr. Seward's threatenings and of your plans. It is quite clear from this, that some great indiscretion has occurred at home, which, of course, makes our action infinitely more difficult than it would be under ordinary circumstances.
The consuls are clearly of opinion that, since the Confederate loan was so far successful as to give the
[p. 45]
shipbuilders at least a part of their money, it would be impossible to approach the builders of the ironclads with an offer with any chance of its acceptance at present. We are of the same opinion, and must therefore limit ourselves to watching the effect of the proceedings against the Alexandra and of the debates in Parliament, and to preparing (when the right time comes to make an offer) to have some negotiator step in, who will not be identified with America. . . .
Private and Confidential. After his speech last night, Mr. Cobden said to me in his quiet way: "You can't conceive how Admiral Wilkes's appointment is hurting us, your best friends, on this side, and making capital for our joint enemies! What a pity he cannot be nominated to some honorable post where he would not cause irritation by all that he does! I would not like him disgraced, but would like to see him promoted to some safe place." Now, I know that Mr. Forster and others of our best friends have the same views, and it is worth considering whether you cannot help them and us!
London, June 27, 1863.
. . . You will have seen in the papers a report of the Alexandra trial, but as a matter of record we have advised the consul, Mr. Dudley, to have it reprinted in pamphlet form, and sent to every member of the House of Commons, and to other influential parties. The ruling of the judge caused universal surprise, and we consider the chance good for a reversal of the decision next fall, when the full court meet; until which time we understand the government intend to hold the Alexandra. We are also advised that the consul can make out so strong a case against the Liverpool ironclads that he counts with great confidence upon getting them stopped until the full court meet; we shall hope to bring you more exact information as to the time of this meeting. [1]
[p. 47]
We shall also have a full consultation with our minister and Mr. Evarts as to the best time to strike at the ironclads, and we hope to report to you in person very soon after you receive this letter, as it is our purpose to leave in the Great Eastern on Tuesday, the 30th, and we ought to reach New York on Friday or Saturday, 10th or 11th of July. Meantime we beg to say that the law officers of the Crown seem entirely taken by surprise at the decision of the Chief Baron, and that it is received by the bar and the public as an evidence that, if such be the proper construction of the law, it will be absolutely necessary to the peace of nations to have a better law made. . . . We still do not think, in the fluctuating state of public opinion (upon which, to a certain extent, hangs the action of the British government), that it is safe to trust to the British law alone for security from the ironclads. If things look worse, in regard to the law, when we strike at the ironclads, we think the Navy Department ought to be prepared to put a sufficient force near each to stop her before she can get her armament or her full complement of men. This would be a very irritating and dangerous experiment upon our friendly
[p. 48]
relations with England, but it may become necessary. We understand from the minister that, except for repairs in case of accident, or for shelter in stress of weather, our national ships are not admitted to the hospitalities of British ports; but our continental friends are not so uncharitable, and we can have vessels at various ports in the reach of telegraph. . . .
Notes
[p. nts]
Note from page 46: 1 This case, The Attorney-General v. Sillem and others, is found fully reported in parliamentary documents of 1863 and 1864; and also, on appeal, in 2 Hurlstone & Coltman's Reports, 431, and 10 House of Lords Cases, 704. It was an information for an alleged violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and was tried 22-25 June, 1863. Chief Baron Pollock charged the jury that it was lawful to send armed vessels to foreign ports for sale, and that the question was whether the Alexandra was merely in the course of building to carry out such a contract. The act did not forbid building ships for a belligerent power, or selling it munitions of war. And so a belligerent could employ a person here to build for them a ship, easily convertible into a man-of-war. He defined the word "equip" as meaning "furnishing with arms," and left to the jury the question, Was there an intention to equip or fit out a vessel at Liverpool with the intention that she should take part in any contest: that was unlawful. Or was the object really to build a ship on an order, leaving it to the buyers to use it as they saw fit: that would not be unlawful. The jury found for the defendants. On a rule for a new trial, the court was equally divided; whereupon the junior judge withdrew his own judgment in favor of a new trial, and it was refused. Thereupon the Crown appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds for lack of jurisdiction, first by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and finally, on April 6, 1864, by the House of Lords. The Alexandra was not one of the rams, but only a gunboat. She seems to have been used for a test case. -- Ed.
Paris, May 29, 1865. . . . We have been made aware, by the debates in Parliament and otherwise, that there is no public prosecutor in England, even for the most dangerous crimes against society, and consequently no officer whose business it is, upon reasonable suspicion, to protect us against the infraction of their foreign enlistment act. . . .
Tarrytown, Aug. 2?, 1862
My dear Fox
I have been thinking for some time about the probability that a properly shaped cylindrical shot fired 6 or 8 feet under water will be the next improvement on iron clad vessels. At short range great effect could be attained below the iron plating. Would it not be well to make experiments now that the water is warm -- either at West Point Foundry or some other convenient place, with a gun slung between a couple of scows, and fired by a wire?
I have the plan for firing a gun projecting 6 or 8 or 10 feet below the water line of a vessel, which I think would work well, if it is found the shot can be relied on to do the intended injury -- under water.
[p. 347]
Would it not be well to mention this to Secretary Welles for his consideration?
Very truly
Your friend
Wm. H. Aspinwall
London, April 18, 1863.
Sir, -- We beg leave to inform you that we have obtained a loan of £500,000, for the period of six months, from Messrs. Baring Brothers & Co., on the deposit of $4,000,000 of the 5-20 bonds handed us, and with the understanding that, in case of the issuing of letters of marque to cruise against British vessels, they shall have a right to claim a prompt reimbursement of their advance, by sale or otherwise, as you may elect. The existing agitation of the public mind, both in and out of Parliament, rendered this condition a sine quâ non, and we may safely express our doubt if any other house would have undertaken to make the loan; certainly none on terms so liberal. . . .
We wait impatiently the promised official statement of funded and floating debt, amount of currency notes, etc., and also of revenue from imports and from internal sources; they are much needed
[p. 42]
to remove the almost incredible misapprehensions which have been produced by false or undefined newspaper articles. . . .
Your obedient servants,
W. H. Aspinwall,
J. M. Forbes.
London, 25 April, 1863.
. . We have now to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 30 March, handed to us by the Hon. Robert J. Walker, and to say that this gentleman has also repeated to us the verbal explanations which you made to him before his departure. We have carefully considered both, and we find that the main object of his visit to Europe is to acquaint European capitalists with the actual circumstances and resources of our country. [1] We think it will render great service in helping to stem the current of ignorance and misapprehension so generally prevalent in Europe, and in compliance with your suggestions we shall confer freely with him on all occasions, when we think he can, by his advice or his knowledge of facts, or by his political position, aid us in carrying out the objects of our mission; but we do not consider ourselves called on, either by your letters or by our own judgment of what is expedient, to show him our instructions, although he has exhibited to us his own; nor do we feel justified, under our understanding with Messrs. Baring Bros. & Co., to mention to him, or any one else here, the particulars of our temporary loan.
. . . We have not been negligent on the last suggestion of your letter, and are prepared to resort to it whenever other means fail; but the institution
[p. 44]
of criminal prosecution against Laird and other builders by us, or any American or official party, would be liable to raise up such an excitement as would frustrate the object in view. The English government must be moved to take these proceedings, or, failing to do this effectually, we can count on a local English association for action; and either of these must command a support we could not rely on, and both must be exhausted before we take the last chance. . . .