For some time past one of the principal topics of conversation in Liverpool, both on ’Change and in private circles, has had relation to a system of political espionage and terrorism which has for some time been exercised in that town in connexion with gentlemen supposed to be directly or indirectly connected with the Southern or secessionist States of North America. We have heard of one gentleman being constantly dogged by private ‘detectives’ for many months past. All visitors to his residence and place of business have been carefully scrutinised, and it is supposed that owing to ‘information received’ from Liverpool many persons, friends of the gentleman above alluded to, have been seized and searched, and in some cases imprisoned, immediately on their arrival at Boston and New York. Employés, it is said, have also, in some cases, been tampered with, and even the privacy of correspondence and of business affairs has been mysteriously violated. We have also heard of cases in which goods sent from Liverpool for shipment by ‘suspected’ firms have been watched from the manufacturing districts to the Liverpool dock quays, and in some instances, it is more than hinted that packages have been opened furtively en route, and their contents overhauled and noted. We do not, at present, feel justified in giving publicity to all the rumours which point to the authors of these proceedings, so foreign to English ideas of everything that is fair, honourable, and manly.
The second cutting, from the Evening Star, but originally from the Manchester Examiner, was reprinted by the New York Times (credited as being from the Liverpool Mercury). The original title was ‘THE POLITICAL SPY SYSTEM IN LIVERPOOL’. The New York Times, perhaps surprisingly given its geographical position, entitled it: ‘AMERICAN POLITICAL SPIES IN ENGLAND.; THE GRIEVANCE NOT TO BE BORNE.’ It was printed in America on 16 November, but must have originally been written in October:
We heard the other day, upon excellent authority, that one of the members of an influential Liverpool firm is watched as systematically and tenaciously [as if ] he were known to be hatching some infernal machi[ne] which would annihilate President Lincoln and his whole Cabinet at one blast. Ever a mysterious stranger, in the person of a ‘private detective’, is on his track. The gentleman cannot leave his office but this odious ‘double’ is seen shuffling about the doorway. Whether he walks, rides, or visits, he is sure at some turn to encounter the same tormenting and scrutinising gaze. Even at home he is not safe; for when he imagines himself snugly shrouded with his family and Penates, his demon may be noticed peering in at the window, or hovering about the threshold, until the victim re-appears once more to undergo the daily round of dogging and hunting until, as evening approaches, he is again ‘earthed’ at home. Nor is this all. It is reported that the domestics of the gentleman alluded to have been waylaid and questioned as to his habits and operations; while it is stated that, in his case, as in the case of other ‘suspected’ persons and firms, goods consigned from the manufacturing districts have been opened on their transit to Liverpool, inspected, and their contents duly noted and reported. In order to show the extent to which these proceedings are carried on, as well as their vindictive character, we may mention that several friends of the merchant in question, and others, have been reported as passengers by a particular steamer, and, on their arrival at New York and Boston, have been searched, and, in some instances, imprisoned. Where these things are known – and during the last few days they have been the theme of much remark in mercantile circles – they have excited general sur[pri]se and indignation.’
These items show the feelings of sympathy held by many in Britain for the Confederacy in its struggle for independence. In his covering letter, Pollaky writes to Sanford that by reading these articles, he will see the necessity for them to meet for discussion. He felt that it was impossible for his men (who were not all as cautious as he himself was) to watch the same person for three or four months, ‘without being tumbled too [sic]’. He also includes the information that the Commissioner of Police has been advised anonymously of what was happening, and that he felt that, ‘this officious individual will do something to get a slice of popularity’. This description, presumably of Sir Richard Mayne, forms a nice contrast with the deference he would be showing to that official in his letters only a few months later.
This letter will be returned to in Chapter 9, as it contains within it a mysterious paragraph concerning Pollaky’s nationality. It continues with Pollaky’s assurance that he will continue the task, together with a rare burst of literary expression:
I will fight until I receive Your Orders to withdraw, no matter what the consequences may be – But I am not by nature nor experience a Don Quixote, and will & cannot fight against Mills without a good object in view of –
He concludes:
Let me know if You please Your resolution I am too much a man of buisness [sic] not to take my share of risk where the bargain is good – but You will oblige me to be very plain with me on this subject[.]
Saturday.
HSS.139.14.33. Pollaky to Sanford
‘29th Oct.61’ [Tuesday]
Having received some instructions from Sanford, Pollaky sent a man to Grimsby and Hartlepool to carry out surveillance in both places. He makes another request for Sanford to come to London so that matters would ‘go more smoothly’.
HSS.139.13.9. Pollaky to Sanford
Pollaky complains that he has not received his weekly payment:
29th 61 [Probably Tuesday 29 October 1861]
Mr. M. did not make his weekly payment to me on last monday (yesterday) in notifying the fact to You I must respectfully but peremptorly [sic] demand the keeping of the engagements entered into – As I have to pay my men for whose honesty and Labour I am made answerable if the men are not paid regularly they turn generally traitor.
This last matter shows how reliable, or not, his men were. We find out another reason for his dissatisfaction. It seems that ‘Mr M.’ (Morse) who was supposed to give Pollaky his money:
has a fit of indigestion, and makes me go to his residence unnecessarly [sic] and sends Mrs. M. to confer with me !!!
Perhaps today we would call Pollaky’s objection to having to deal with Mrs Morse instead of her husband sexist. Taken in its context, it reads like material for a novel by Dickens, and we may find a kind of wry amusement in Pollaky’s indignant use of three exclamation marks underlined twice.
HSS.139.14.34. Pollaky to Sanford
Pollaky had found himself in an invidious position:
31 oct 61 [Thursday]
I dont know how to conduct myself nor how to act under the difficulties which have arisen –
I have seen Mr M. yesterday, he told me that he will write to You declining of any further being mixed up in this affair – He also paid me yesterday the weeks money due on Monday; but does not hold out any precise apearance [sic] for next week. It appears moreover that Mr Adams [unreadable] has had a conference with Mr M. about this affair.
I again express my belief that Your immediate arrival here would settle & put the whole matter at rest and do away with any objectionable difficulty.
Aware of the other team of agents not only duplicating his work, but getting in his way, Pollaky felt that Sanford would be able best to sort out misunderstandings. Beneath the apparent politeness of this letter lurks restrained annoyance and, perhaps, sarcasm, for he was also now aware of who had employed them, and undoubtedly felt that Sanford knew of the situation too.
The letter ends with details of further Confederate supplies:
There arrived in Billiter St 70 Cases of Rifles yesterday. Large quantities of leather Belts Swords and Blankets were sent to the Great Northern Railway by Campbells & Co for shippment [sic] in a northern port […]
HSS.139.13.7. Pollaky to Sanford
The cataloguer of these letters has written brief headings on most of them. Many just read ‘Surveillance’. The heading for this letter reads, ‘Surveillance – Distressed over lack of Funds – Pollaky’.
Ventnor [Isle of Wight] Saturday [November]<
br />
My dear Sir!
I was indeed astonished to receive a letter from You with the London Postmark; and I suppose You are in London altho’ You did not send me Your adres [sic] –
I dont think I misunderstood Your directions –
I discontinued the personal surveillance – but I told You that I will follow B. to Portsmouth. I reported to You the result – I found that B received while in P. several letters from this place and I at once turned my path particularly as the order which he gave will precipitate his return to Southsea on Tuesday next[.] I do all for the best but with no means and with no prospect it is very hard working in such matters. You will be kind enough also to bear in mind that West Hartlepool and Grimsby entailed on me expenses which I was called upon to defray while the Surveillance was Kept up in all its vigour and that no good came of it was no fault of mine. I expect nothing but fairness – and I am sure You will not hesitate to accord me as much –
Please adress [sic] me poste restante at Southsea. I will be there on Tuesday or Wednesday next; and if you desire me to resume my work, I will return to London forthwith, and make arrangements according to the mode of working You think best under prevailing circumstances.
I have it from Mr King that Messrs Mason & Slidell arrived at the Havannah [sic] and will come to England in the ordinary Mail Packet from the Royal Mail Company at Southampton – How this tallies with Your information about letters received in England dispatched by them I cannot understand Yours truly
Saturday
HSS.139.14.35. Pollaky to Sanford
Even Sanford, it would seem, was now expressing doubts as to the advisability of continuing to employ Pollaky and his agents. Pollaky writes, in some confusion, that he is ignoring Sanford’s decision as to the future and continuing to carry out surveillance:
Friday 22th [sic] Nobr. 61
Events have been following themselves so quickly, that I do not know where to begin and I still ignore Your decision as to the future; that I dont feel justified to express myself to [sic] freely in this Rapport [sic].
I arrived at Southsea on Tuesday noon and in the afternoon I picked up BullocK & Yancy and a stranger at the Portland Hotel. They had a long Conference, after which Yancy and Stranger returned to London, & BullocK and myself went to Southampton, where we arrived at 10pm Tuesday.
The next day, he continues, Yancey and Bulloch had exchanged a number of telegrams, and later met with a correspondent from The Times. On Thursday morning at eight o’clock the Confederate ship Nashville had arrived at Southampton flying the Confederate flag. Pollaky fully expected that this would be reported in the press for all to see. On asking Morse what action he should take, Morse had replied that there was nothing to be done, and Pollaky writes of his disappointment at Morse’s indifference.
This is most curious, since Bulloch was in Savannah, Georgia at the time. Pollaky introduces into this letter a Captain Barkley, who meets with the others. This was not a spelling mistake, as there was a Confederate agent of that name. Was Pollaky confusing the names Bulloch with Blakely (or Barkley)? It would seem unlike him to make an error of that sort. Perhaps he was not taking proper care because he felt resentful? The following sentence is telling:
I am now out of my pocket about 15£ and will go no further. This is therefore virtually my last rapport [sic] unless You furnish the means for following up this buisness [sic].
But after writing this complaint, he makes it plain that he will continue his surveillance. This letter was written with clear handwriting but evidently at ever increasing speed. Pollaky’s illegible signature at the end trails off, almost as if in angry disgust.
HSS.139.13.5. Pollaky to Sanford
Pollaky gives some information, but also complains that despite having written three letters since he had been sent to the Isle of Wight, he has had no response:
25th [November 1861?]
No letter from You since Your [sic] sent to me to Ventnor. I have since Written 3 letters to You.
The Pacific Steamer is now loading guns and powder for the South she has been bought for 7500£ by B.
I cannot express my surprise of not hearing from You and I wish You to Know that we are doing absolutely nothing at present[.]
I am 16£ [sic] out of pocket expenses incurred by travelling[.]
Pollaky’s oft repeated complaints of not being paid and not having his letters and reports acknowledged show these matters to have been a continuing thorn in his side. He felt that he had invested a lot of time and energy into this investigation, and was plainly annoyed by the disorganisation of his employers. Though trying to be polite so as not to antagonise them, the irritation he felt is obvious from the wording of his next letter:
HSS.139.13.13. Pollaky to Sanford
Pollaky complains to Sanford that he has received no letters from him, and therefore no instructions. He is still £15 out of pocket, and accuses Sanford of impoliteness:
26th [November 1861?]
No letters, it is certainly a strange way of doing a strange business – I dont find fault with Your not going further in this matter what I complain of, is of Your not telling me plainly Your intentions when last here – and on the contrary by encouraging me to make certain statements which I would not have made; if I had known Your true intentions. You even dont dismiss me with the common politeness in such matters. As I have informed You before I am out of pocket of 15£ – have I to lose them? or will you pay – ? I shall not insist if You decline – but will be more carefull [sic] in the future. Your 2 weeks are now long at end & still there is no answer.
The British authorities were keeping an eye on the proceedings of the Civil War in America. Although, in common with other European governments, the Confederacy was never officially recognised, there were still potential embarrassments between countries to be avoided, both financial and political. As early as 17 June 1861, Lord Somerset, First Lord of the Admiralty had written a letter to Lord John Russell, Foreign Secretary, expressing restrained concern:
I hear by a private letter from the consul at Brest that the French Admiral who is going to the North American station has received orders to salute the flag of the confederate states. We have given no such orders. If however this report be true, our admiral should not be left without orders on the subject. I believe that while we acknowledge the Southern states as belligerents, we are in no way bound to take the further step of saluting their flag. It may be desirable that we should however act in concert with the French and therefore you will perhaps inquire as to the orders given to the French Admiral.
On 27 November 1861, Major Anderson, by now back in America wrote from Savannah to Edmund Molyneux, British Consul at Savannah detailing in no uncertain terms the triumph of the Fingal’s escape to America, even though:
[…] the United States’ Consuls through detectives employed for the purpose, discovered that she was taking on board munitions of war. This fact was immediately made public through the newspapers, and the ship was closely watched by the detectives sent from London and Liverpool by the American Consuls at those places.
This letter was deemed important enough to be published in the Confidential Cabinet Papers in a book entitled Papers Relating to the Blockade of the Ports of the Confederate States, although more probably for the information on the movements of the Fingal than for the carryings-on of the detectives. Both this book and Lord Somerset’s letter are kept at the National Archives in Kew. As can be seen from Somerset’s letter, the British Government was trying to appear unconcerned, trying to blend in with the crowd, so to speak, to appear neutral, though many sympathised with the Southern States and perhaps would have been more vocal if it hadn’t been for the issue of slavery. On 8 November, however, Messrs Mason and Slidell, Confederate Commissioners to London, had been captured by a Union ship while they were en route to England and then imprisoned in Boston. It was no wonder then that Anderson might feel the need to write his letter in order to show that things were going well for th
e Confederacy. Mason and Slidell eventually arrived in England on 29 January 1862.
HSS.139.14.36. Pollaky to Sanford
Still in some confusion as to whether he should continue his work or not, Pollaky wrote to Sanford with a little information, including the hint that he knew Sanford would not let him be out of pocket:
29th Nov. 61 [Friday]
Your letter dtd 27th at hand, you say You wrote to me few days ago, I have received no letters from You – ‘You say when You saw me You gave me for fortnight wherewithal to proceed’ – true, but Your ulterior Comunication [sic] contains the following sentence ‘better luck next time’ and other words implying that in following the track I was then on, You were satisfied and not likely to let me be out of pocket.
He quotes Sanford’s words from a letter written to him, ‘You are deserving great Credit for Your activity and intelligence’, thus trying to prove it impossible for Sanford to say that he had not done his work properly. He finishes by indicating that if necessary he will make representations to the US Government in Washington. He later did so, but with no success.
That he was upset by the offhand treatment he was getting from Sanford and Morse may be deduced from his handwriting and the fluidity of the language he used as well as what he actually wrote. His signature is completely illegible.
HSS.139.13.15. Pollaky to Sanford
Paddington' Pollaky, Private Detective Page 9