The actual governmental seizure of the Rams did not occur until mid-October, though they had been placed under official surveillance on September 9.  Both sides were jockeying for position in the expected legal battle when the case should be taken up by the courts[1033].  At first Russell even thought of making official protest to Mason in London and a draft of such protest was prepared, approved by the Law Officers and subsequently revised by Palmerston, but finally was not sent[1034].  Possibly it was thought that such a communication to Mason approached too nearly a recognition of him in his desired official capacity, for in December the protest ultimately directed to be made through Consul-General Crawford at Havana, instructed him to go to Richmond and after stating very plainly that he was in no way recognizing the Confederacy to present the following: 

“It appears from various correspondence the authenticity of which cannot be doubted, that the Confederate Government having no good ports free from the blockade of the Federals have conceived the design of using the ports of the United Kingdom for the purpose of constructing ships of war to be equipped and armed to serve as cruisers against the commerce of the United States of America, a State with which Her Majesty is at peace....”

     “These acts are inconsistent with the respect and comity
     which ought to be shewn by a belligerent towards a
     Neutral Power.

     “Her Majesty has declared her Neutrality and means strictly
     to observe it.

     “You will therefore call upon Mr. Benjamin to induce his
     Government to forbear from all acts tending to affect
     injuriously Her Majesty’s position[1035].”

To carry out this instruction there was required permission for Crawford to pass through the blockade but Seward refused this when Lyons made the request[1036].

Not everyone in Britain, however, approved the Government’s course in seizing the Rams.  Legal opinion especially was very generally against the act.  Adams now pressed either for an alteration of the British law or for a convention with America establishing mutual similar interpretation of neutral duty.  Russell replied that “until the trials of the Alexandra and the steam rams had taken place, we could hardly be said to know what our law was, and therefore not tell whether it required alteration.  I said, however, that he might assure Mr. Seward that the wish and intention of Government were to make our neutrality an honest and bona-fide one[1037].”  But save from extreme and avowed Southern sympathizers criticism of the Government was directed less to the stoppage of the Rams than to attacks of a political character, attempting to depict the weakness of the Foreign Minister and his humiliation of Great Britain in having “yielded to American threats.”  Thus, February II, 1864, after the reassembling of Parliament, a party attack was made on Russell and