From the letter it will be seen that refugees and deserters from the rebel confederacy are engaged in the manufacture of Greek fire, at Windsor, in Canada, to facilitate their incendiary purposes. With regard to attacks from armed bodies of rebels I feel much less apprehension than from individual efforts to burn and plunder our cities, as my means of information are such that I hope to be able to anticipate the former. It is almost unnecessary for me to add that I have enjoined increasing vigilance and activity on the part of the military and civil authorities throughout my command. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. E. D. TOWNSEND, Adjutant General U. S. A. Official copy: JOSEPH HOOKER, Major General Com'dg. E. D. TOWNSEND, Asst. Adjt. General. Colonel Hill to Captain Potter. HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SIR: I have the honor to report that, from information I have received, I am satisfied that very extensive preparations are being made in Canada for burning not only cities on the lakes, but others, and it is very necessary that great precaution and vigilance should be observed everywhere. I have the assurance that Greek fire is being prepared in Windsor. Buffalo, Cleveland, and this city will be the principal cities to be burned; and there will be armed attempts to rob and plunder. Cincinnati and Louisville are also mentioned. I am also informed that by some means a large number of rebel soldiers have been introduced into Canada; some, it is said, have been furloughed and have made their way through the lines. I have, at this time, very excellent means of obtaining information, and the only apprehension I have is that the person in my employ may fail me at the last moment. In this city I have called the attention of the hotel-keepers to the necessity of observing great vigilance in regard to their guests, and the hotels are daily visited by a secret agent in my employ. I am, captain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, B. H. HILL, C. H. POTTER, Captain & A. A. G., SIR: I have just received information, by telegraph, from Montreal, that the felons who proceeded from Canada into Vermont and committed the crimes of robbery, burglary, and murder at St. Albans, in that State, and who were arrested in Canada upon a requisition of this government, under the tenth article of the treaty of the 9th of August, 1842, have been set at liberty; that the stolen money which was found upon them has been restored to them, and that they are now at large near the border of the United States, in the province aforenamed.. This grave circumstance renders it my duty, under the direction of the President, to ask whether her Majesty's government has taken or purposes to take any measures to prevent a renewal of the invasions of the territory and sovereignty of the United States from the border provinces. If such measures have been taken, or are to be taken, this government desires to know their character, so far as it may be consistent with the interests of Great Britain to communicate the same. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., Jr., Jr., dr. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 1191.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 15, 1864. SIR: Referring to the correspondence between this department and yourself in regard to the refusal of the British authorities to deliver up the deserters from the Iroquois, I give you herewith a copy of a note which I addressed on the 14th instant to J. Hume Burnley, esq., announcing the decision of this government upon the application made through her Majesty's legation here for the delivery up of two apprentice boys who deserted from the British bark Cuzco, at Valparaiso, and enlisted on the United States sloop-of-war St. Mary's, and for indemnification of the Cuzco at that port. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 14, 1864. SIR: On the 11th of July last Lord Lyons, under instructions of Earl Russell, addressed to me a note informing me that two apprentice boys, employed on board the British bark Cuzco, deserted at Valparaiso and enlisted in the United States naval service on board the St. Mary's. Lord Lyons informed me that Captain McPherson, of the Cuzco, stated that he went on board the St. Mary's and demanded that the apprentices should be given up, and that the commander of the vessel gave Captain McPherson no satisfaction, and only replied that the boys could not be found without a deal of trouble; whereupon, the Cuzco being ready for sea, Captain McPherson was under a necessity of sailing without them. On my receiving the communication of Lord Lyons, Rear-Admiral Charles H. Bell was immediately directed to investigate the matter. On the 25th of August last, in the absence of Lord Lyons, you recalled my attention to the subject, on which occasion you presented to me a bill of damages resulting from the desertions of the Cuzco, amounting to thirty-nine pounds six shillings and twopence sterling. On the 16th of November last I had the honor to communicate to Lord Lyons the result of the investigation which had been directed in this case of two British deserters. It appeared that while the St. Mary's was lying at Valparaiso the captain of the Cuzco came on board and reported the fact of the alleged desertion; the apprentices concealed themselves on the St. Mary's so effectually as to baffle a search for them, which was made with good faith and diligence. After the departure of the Cuzco the deserters appeared. Arthur Cox, one of the deserters, was afterwards condemned by medical survey, and sent on the 31st of August last to the naval hospital at New York; the other, named Williams, was transferred with others to the United States ship Levante, which is attached to the United States squadron on the Pacific. I have now to inform you that this government does not deem itself under either a legal or a moral obligation to deliver up the aforenamed deserters or to pay any damages for their desertion. This decision is based upon the ground that on the 14th of September last, when the United States ship Iroquois was lying in the Downs, in England, two of her seamen deserted to the British shore; they were arrested at Dover and taken before a magistrate; the magistrate discharged them on the ground that they could not be abridged of their liberty by any law recognized in the United Kingdom. Mr. Adams complained of this proceeding to Earl Russell. Her Majesty's government affirmed the proceeding of the magistrate. It is not supposed that that government expects from us any different measure of justice or liberality than that which they mete to the United States. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. No. 832.] SIR: * Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. * * LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, * * * * London, December 16, 1864. In accordance with the desire expressed in 1164, of the 29th of November, I have transmitted to Lord Russell the information contained in General Dix's letter respecting the rebel organization at Marysburg, Prince Edward's county, in Canada. It is announced that Parliament will meet for the despatch of business on the 7th of February next. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c. No. 833.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, December 16, 1864. SIR: I transmit herewith copies of the London Times and the Daily News, containing a report of a case which came up for trial before Baron Martin, of the court of exchequer, involving a claim for goods furnished to persons engaged in running the blockade. The remarks made by the judge are particularly deserving of attention. They seem to have placed the solicitor general, who happened to be retained on the wrong side of the question, in some embarrassment. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c. [From the London Times of December 12, 1864.] ELLISSEN AND ANOTHER DS. JORSS AND ANOTHER. The solicitor general and Mr. Thomas Jones were counsel for the plaintiffs; Mr. Hawkins, Queen's counsel, Mr. Mellish, Queen's counsel, and Sir George Honyman appeared for the defendants. a This was an action by the plaintiffs, merchants in London, against the defendants, who are merchants at Leeds. The declaration was an agreement entered into between them, whereby it was agreed that the plaintiffs should supply the defendants with shipping to the amount of 250 tons for the purpose of enabling the defendants to send a cargo to Charleston to run the blockade. The contract was composed of series of letters, and the defence was that they did not constitute a definitive contract. The defendants had also pleaded that the contract was illegal, as being in contravention of international law, but this plea was withdrawn. A Mr. Laforce was the person whose ship the plaintiffs had engaged for the purpose of receiving the defendants' cargo, and the defendants having failed to supply it, Mr. Laforce sent the ship with a cargo on his own account and attempted to run the blockade with her, but ship and cargo having been both captured by a federal ship-of-war, and the voyage having been fruitless, Mr. Laforce brought an action against the plaintiffs for not providing cargo, and obtained £1,800 damages. The present action was therefore brought to recover from the defendants this sum of £1,800 and the costs they had been obliged to pay. Upon the opening of the case by the solicitor general, Mr. Baron Martin said he supposed the real question would be whether there was a con tract or not. The solicitor general said that was so. Mr. Baron Martin stated that he thought upon the correspondence there was evidence of a contract, but he should tell the jury that as to damages they ought only to be nominal. It could not be suffered that persons should openly engage to commit a breach of the Queen's proclamation, which might have the effect of involving this country in a war with the United States. He would suggest that the case should be taken as stated and some gentleman appointed to fix the amount of damages. Mr. Hawkins said that he thought it advisable to have the parole evidence of the conversations between the plaintiffs and defendants preparatory to the correspondence taking place. The solicitor general said that he should have contended that although the ship had been taken in attempting to run the blockade, the freight had been earned as soon as the goods were put on board, and did not depend upon the success of the voyage. Baron Martin said it was worthy of observation that this was a transaction between parties which went directly to involve this country in a war with the United States, and that of those parties there was only one single English name, Mr. Beach, and it was said that he was not a native Englishman, but a southerner. It was a transaction over which the government of this country had no control, and yet it was one in which they had, no doubt, been seriously blamed. Ultimately it was arranged that a special case should be stated for the opinion of the court above. [From the Daily News of December 12, 1864.] (Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Mr. Baron Martin and a speciat jnry.) ELLISON vs. JORSS. This was an action for the breach of contract to furnish a freight for a vessel. The solicitor general and Mr. T. Jones were counsel for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Hawkins. Queen's counsel, Mr. Mellish, Queen's counsel, and Sir George Honyman, for the defendants, The plaintiffs, Messrs. Ellison, were merchants in London, and Messrs. Jorss and North, the defendants, were also merchants, carrying on business at Leeds. The case for the plaintiffs, as opened by the solicitor general, was that in March, 1862, Mr. Jorss called upon Mr. Ellison and said he was in want of a vessel to take some Manchester goods to Charleston-in short, to run the blockade. Mr. Ellison knew that a Mr. Lafone, of Liverpool, had a steamer called the Tubal Cain, which he thought would answer his purpose, and he made arrangements with him for the conveyance of goods to the amount required by the defendants. A long correspondence by letters and telegrams ensued between the plaintiffs and defendants, the result of which was that the defendants agreed to send 200 or 250 tons of Manchester goods to Charleston by the Tubal Cain, and pay 15 pounds per ton. Subsequently they refused to carry out the arrangement, ostensibly because the vessel was not of the tonnage which they alleged the plaintiffs had represented, but really because they found they could get freight at a cheaper rate. There had been a plea of illegality of the transaction, but it had been withdrawn, and the case presented no complication or difficulty in that respect. Mr. BARON MARTIN said that, having looked at the correspondence, he thought there was a contract, but his impression was that the jury could only give nominal damages, because the contract was an illegal one, directly opposed to the Queen's proclamation, and having a direct tendency to involve the country in war. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. If there had been a plea of illegality that difficulty might arise. Mr. BARON MARTIN. What I suggest is that you should take the opinion of the court as to whether there is a contract; and if they think there is, then that they should appoint an arbitrator to assess the damages on such principle as they may direct. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I shall advise my client to agree to that. Mr. BARON MARTIN. I don't think that a person bringing an action upon an illegal contract of this nature can recover damages. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Allow me to say a word upon that point. I am the last man to stand up for a contract having the tendency your lordship states. (Laughter.] Mr. BARON MARTIN. The Queen, for the good of the state, and, if possible, to keep the country out of war, issued a proclamation, ordering in the most direct terms that this shall not be done. Mr. HAWKINS. We are quite prepared to go into the box and criminate ourselves, and be cross-examined by the solicitor general. (Laughter.] Mr. BARON MARTIN. I think the course I suggest would do justice to all the parties and save expense. The solicitor general again reminded his lordship that the plea of illegality had been withdrawn. Mr. BARON MARTIN. But neither that nor the fact of the parties choosing to treat the transaction as a matter of honor will blind me or the court above as to the nature of the contract. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Mr. Justice Willes took an opposite view of the matter to your lordship. Mr. BARON MARTIN. There is no judge for whose opinion I have greater respect, but upon this point I must have a judgment of my own. I cannot think that a jury would give damages for the breach of a contract which is against the Queen's proclamation for the general good of the community. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I believe that the court of common pleas confirmed the decision of Mr. Justice Willes. The learned counsel then stated that in consequence of the defendants not performing their contract, Mr. Lafone, the owner of the Tubal Cain, brought an action against the present plaintiffs for this breach of faith. It was tried before Mr. Justice Willes at Liverpool. Mr. Ellison was advised to set up every possible defence, and among other pleas there was one of illegality; but Mr. Justice Willes held that it was not a good one, and the result was that Mr. Lafone obtained a verdict for £1,885. The Tubal Cain was captured in running the blockade; but that did not signify, as evidence was given at the trial to prove that. It was the custom at Liverpool and London, in this trade, that where the freight was not expressly made payable until the conclusion of the voyage, the freight was earned the moment the vessel started. Mr. BARON MARTIN said he never heard of that custom before. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I will call the foreman of the jury who gave the £1,885 damages, and whom Mr. Mellish, who appeared for Mr. Lafone, addressed with so much effect. I will also call Mr. George Gladstone. Mr. MELLISH. The jury cut down the damages by one-half. Mr. Justice Willes said the damages ought to have been double the amount. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. With regard to the question of damages, I may state that my client, in addition to the £1,00, had paid £185 for the costs of Mr. Lafone, and £95 for his own attorney's costs, and then he has lost all the profits of the voyage. We say that he ought to recover as much as £2,707, or, upon another principle of calculation, £3,707. In conclusion, the learned counsel said that this was one of the hardest cases which was ever brought before a court of justice. Mr. BARON MARTIN. I do not think there is any hardship if the party agrees to take the risk of running the blockade. Mr. Ellison, one of the plaintiffs, who spoke with a foreign accent, said that in March, 1862, Mr. Jorss called upon him and said he was going to Paris to settle with some gentlemen about an expedition to the Confederate States, and that he wanted a ship to take some goods to Charleston. He asked if he (the plaintiff) knew of any ship, and he replied that Mr. Lafone had a ship for which he wanted goods. He asked witness to make inquiries, and then followed the correspondence which had been read. He stated that supposing the defendants had performed the contract, if they shipped 200 tons, he would have received for freight £3,000, and if they shipped 250 tons, £3,700. After some discussion between the parties, it was ultimately agreed that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff, damages £2,707 6s. 10d., subject to a special case to be stated for the opinion of the court above. Mr. BARON MARTIN said it was worthy of observation that in this transaction, which had a direct tendency to involve this country in a war with the United States, not a single English name appeared except Beach, and the person who bore that name was the consignee of the goods in the southern States, and probably he was an American. Mr. HAWKINS. He is a southerner. Mr. BARON MARTIN. Much blame is cast upon the English government in respect of these transactions, which it is almost utterly impossible for them to stop. This transaction is conducted entirely by foreigners in this country, not a single Englishman having anything to do with it. Very likely that is the history of most others of the same kind. They come over here, and while enjoying the freedom of this country, engage in transactions which have a direct tendency to involve us in war. No. 835.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, December 16, 1864. SIR: I have the honor to transmit an address of the emancipation society of London to the President, which was presented to me by a large and respect |