The idea is now started in private circles here, that, after all, the questions raised in the late controversy are not susceptible of arrangement excepting through a general conference of representatives of the maritime powers. Hence, it is not impossible that some proposition of the kind may be started from other quarters, but in the interest of this country, as the only remaining mode of disposing of the matter. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 1687.] Department of State, Washington, February 17, 1866. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 25th of January, No. 1137, together with a copy of a written circular, addressed to you by Lord Clarendon, in which you are requested to obtain authority from this gov ernment to make known to that of her Majesty any case in which a vessel or vessels intended for warlike purposes may be building for the service of the United States in the private ship-building yards of Great Britain. In reply thereto I transmit for the information of her Majesty's government a copy of a letter of the 15th instant, upon the subject, from the Secretary of the Navy. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., Sr., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 15, 1866. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, enclosing a despatch numbered 1137, from Mr. Adams, United States minister at London, accompanied by a copy of a circular from Lord Clarendon, asking to be informed if there are any vessels calculated for war purposes building in England on account of this government. In returning Mr. Adams's despatch I have to state that this government has had no vessel building within the British dominions, nor contracted for any to be built, during my administration of the Navy Department, commencing in March, 1861. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 4th ultimo. The information which it contains in regard to Parliament political tendencies, and the tone of the British press towards the United States, is appreciated. Mr. Hunter caused the copies of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, desired by you, to be forwarded during my recent absence. It is gratifying to me to be able to say that from all foreign countries we are receiving similar indications of confidence in our credit, resources, and stability as a nation, to those which your despatch affords. SIR: The event of the week has been the application of ministers to Parliament for a suspension of the habeas corpus in Ireland. The reason given for this strong measure is the spread of the Fenian organization, in spite of all the efforts made to check it by ordinary legal means. The explanations were made simultaneously in both houses on Saturday, an unusual day for transactions of other than mere formal business, and the necessary measures were passed with a rapidity believed to be unexampled even in the worst preceding cases. The object of this haste was acknowledged to be a desire to pounce, without a moment's warning, upon numbers of native Irishmen in Dublin, and elsewhere, claiming to be naturalized American citizens, yet conducting themselves so cautiously as to furnish no ground for legal proceedings against them; and at the same time involved in suspicion of privity in the conspiracy which is believed to be going on, gaining force every day. Hence there is reason to believe that the necessary sanction was scarcely passed through its forms, before hundreds of suspected men were swept into prison, without a reason assigned, or a moment's time given for deliberation or the production of evidence to show their freedom from any criminal intent. The first effect of this proceeding was an appeal to the acting consul at DubEin, Mr. West, from a number not only of those actually arrested, but also of others feeling themselves liable at any moment to be taken with equal suddenness, for protection, as being naturalized citizens of the United States. Mr. West immediately sent by telegraph to me a request for advice and direction. I replied at once recommending him generally to pursue the same line of conduet marked out in my former letters, with such modifications as the change of circumstances might make necessary. This has been followed up in a regular correspondence, more in detail, by letters, which is going on down to this moment. I presume that Mr. West makes his own reports to the department, thus putting you in possession of the facts as they daily happen. One of the gravest difficulties presented to me in this proceeding grows out of the conflicting views of allegiance entertained in the two countries. Here the courts adhere to the old doctrine generally held in Europe, that it is indefensible. We, on the other hand, maintain the absolute right of expatriation. Hence we are in some danger of a renewal of the dispute of half a century since, and, perhaps, of a similar issue, if the government here does not take care to temper its harsh measures of prevention with a discriminating regard for the possible innocence of those whom they may associate with the guilty. I cannot say that the position taken by Sir Thomas Larcom, the lord lieutenant's under-secretary, in his note to Mr. West, in reply to his first letter, favors the notion of much wisdom at headquarters just now. If the government begins by reversing the established principles of English law, and assuming every stranger taken to be guilty, until his own representative proves him to be innocent, it will be difficult to avoid some rather strong notice of this novelty in our international relations. I can scarcely imagine that such a doctrine will be seriously adhered to. Mr. West has already remonstrated against it, and I propose to confirm his action in this particular, with a hint that if persisted in I shall feel compelled to make it a subject for representation to my government. On the other hand, there is some reason to believe that many of these people now under arrest are really more or less implicated in the organization which has its affiliations in both countries, and its object the subversion of British rule in Ireland. They are also astute enough to be capable of contriving means of raising a complication between the two nations, out of the questions that may follow from any abuse of the extraordinary powers of repression now resorted to here. This would suit their views exactly. My impression of the best course to pursue to meet this danger is frankness, and, if possible, the establishment of such a clear understanding with the ministry as may secure really innocent persons from the danger of serious annoyance, whilst it will leave it free to deal with unquestionable offenders as it shall think fit. Of course, in expressing these opinions, it is always to be understood that no action is to be taken upon them by me, so far as to commit the government in the absence of special instructions. I am strongly in hopes that nothing will happen to call for the exercise of much discretion in advance of the moment when you have it in your power to furnish all that will be necessary for a decis SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the department numbered from 1680 to 1686, inclusive, with the exception of 1684. The four others noted as missing last week have not yet come to hand. The London Times of yesterday morning contained a leader which made some sensation for a while. It gave countenance to, without absolutely affirming the truth of a rumor that Lord Russell had signified to the Queen his inability to continue in his post as leader, and had suggested the Duke of Somerset as a suitable person to be called to form a new government. This story obtained more currency than credit until the evening papers were issued, when four of the number were found to contain authorized positive contradictions. The inference generally drawn is that the article was intended to precipitate the fall of the cabinet, in order to make room for the new combinations, in which one of the persons believed to be much connected with the paper is understood to be deeply involved. If so, it has failed of its object, and by its failure has for the present imparted more strength to the government than it had before. There are nevertheless reasons to believe that the tenure of Lord Russell will not be extended much beyond the period which it may take to mature and carry a bill through Parliament for the extension of the franchise. That he is in ear nest in pushing such a measure cannot be doubted. If he should fail at first, it is not unlikely that he would continue to struggle until the lukewarmness which prevails among a large section of his own friends, and constitutes the greatest obstacle to success, shall have been fully overcome. This may keep him at the head of his party yet for some time to come. I cannot perceive any prospect of effective ultimate resistance to such a policy, provided Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright determine to work in harmony in the House of Commons. No combina tion possible in that body, as now constituted, can stand long against their opposition. Hence the question seems to be simply one of time, provided no external topics should come in to give to popular sentiment some new direction. Yet it may very possibly be that several changes in the ministry will intervene before the final triumph. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1161.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: At the last moment last week I transmitted to you a copy of the London Times of Saturday last, containing the report of a debate in the House of Commons the night before on two different topics connected with America. I had not time to draw your attention to the singular statement made by Sir Roundell Palmer touching certain facts of the negotiation carried on between the two governments, which attempted to create an impression that the failure of the British cabinet to improve their preventive laws was entirely owing to the action at Washington. There was a want of ingenuousness in the purely lawyer-like manner in which the case was drawn up, which for the time completely imposed on the least credulous members of the assembly. It seemed to me to be a proceeding which called for some form of remonstrance at once. So I prepared and sent a note to Lord Clarendon, briefly recapitulating the principal steps in the transactions referred to, and clearing the chronology over which some mist had been thrown. It can hardly be presumed that a case can be felt to be very strong which is thought to stand in need of such kind of support. The effort to prove by mere argument the inefficiency of our statute, without any evidence of facts to support it, in the past practice, is quite of a piece with Lord Russell's allegations in the Portuguese question, which I presume to have emanated from the same source. The truth is, that with the highest respect for Sir Roundell Palmer in private life, I have never been able entirely to acquiesce in his notions of his duty as an officer of the government in a deliberative assembly. I have the honor to transmit a copy of my note to Lord Clarendon. Since it was sent I perceive I made an omission in not fortifying my own report of my last conference with Lord Russell by the corroborating evidence of his lordship himself, in his note to Lord Lyons of the 14th February, 1863. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to the Earl of Clarendon. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, MY LORD: I have the honor to submit to your lordship's consideration an extract of what pports to be a speech of her Majesty's attorney general, Sir R. Palmer, in the House of Commons last evening, which I find reported in the London Times of this morning: "The honorable member for Windsor (Mr. Labouchere) is slightly in error when he says that the English government was several times requested to amend the foreign enlistment act; in fact, the very reverse of that statement is nearer to the truth. It should be remembered that at an early period of the American war, the government of this country, foreseeing that very important questions of international law might arise during the progress of the war, suggested to the American government that the foreign enlistment acts of both countries should be revised, and any additions that might be thought necessary made to them. What was the answer made by the American government to this offer of ours? What was the answer of the American government to this offer? Why, to use a humble expression, they threw cold water on it altogether. They said that they had no objection to enter into the consideration of such a question, but for their own part, they were of opinion that their foreign enlistment act required no amendment and was perfectly adapted for its purposes. I ask the house what position the government would have been placed in if, after the receipt of such an answer as that, they had asked Parliament to add more stringent provisions to the foreign enlistment act. The first question asked in the house would be whether we had received any intimation from the American government of any intention to make corresponding changes in their foreign enlistment act. Our answer to such a question would have been that we had received a communication on the subject from the United States government, who were of opinion that there was no necessity for making any alteration in their foreign enlistment act. After giving such an answer how could the government expect to have their bill adopted by the house? [Hear.]" Disclaiming, as a representative of a foreign country, the smallest right to raise questions in regard to any words that may be uttered in the great deliberative assemblies of this kingdom by members in no way sharing a responsibility for the proceedings of her Majesty's government towards foreign nations, I cannot at the same time decline to observe that the confidential relation of the distinguished person who holds the position of chief legal adviser to the Crown, invests any statement which he thinks proper to make in regard to the action of a foreign country with an authority before the world closely akin to that of her Majesty's ministers themselves. It seems, therefore, difficult for me to avoid bringing to your lordship's attention those particulars in the extract above submitted which appear to me not only to be at variance with the actual facts in the transaction therein referred to, but doing more or less of injustice to the position occupied by my government as a party to it. I understand it to be substantially affirmed in the passage cited— 1st. That the British government spontaneously, of its own volition, initiated early in the war a proposition to the government which I represent to revise the foreign enlistment acts of both countries, and make such additions as might be thought necessary to them. 2d. That the answer of the United States to this offer was like throwing cold water on it altogether. They said they had no objection to enter into the consideration of such a question, but they were satisfied with their own law as it stood. Hence it is clearly implied in the sequel, though not affirmed in words, that as a consequence of this answer, the British government were reluctantly compelled to desist from appealing to Parliament at all. It is with unaffected regret that I feel absolutely constrained to point out to your lordship the grave errors of fact contained in both these propositions. Inasmuch as the several papers from which I proceed to quote as my authorities have been given to the world in print, long since accessible to all men, it is only necessary for me to refer to them in brief, in order to substantiate my statement. On the 25th of October, 1862, I received from Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, a brief letter enclosing papers connected with the ravages committed by the Alabama. It closed with these words: "The President directs that you lay copies of the substance of these papers before Earl Russell in such manner as shall seem best calculated to effect two important objects: first, due redress for the national and private injuries sustained; secondly, a prevention of such lawless and injurious proceedings hereafter." On the 27th of the same month, that is, two days later, he repeated the instructions, using the same terms "redress" and "prevention." On the 20th of November I addressed a note to the Right Hon. Earl Russell, at the close of which are these words: "I have the honor to inform your lordship of the directions which I have received from my government to solicit redress for the national and private injuries already thus sustained, as well as a more effective prevention of any such repetition of such lawless and injurious proceedings in her Majesty's ports hereafter." It was in answer to this demand that the proposition of Earl Russell, to which the Attorney General refers in his remarks, was made. In his reply to my note, dated the 19th December, 1862, after declining the first proposition of Mr. Seward for redress for the past, his lordship goes on to speak of the second, which related to prevention for the future. This is the lan guage used: "As regards your demand for a more effective prevention for the future of the fitting out of such vessels in British ports, I have the honor to inform you that her Majesty's government, after consultation with the law officers of the Crown, are of opinion that certain amendments might be introduced into the foreign enlistment act, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, would have the effect of giving greater power to the executive to prevent the construction in British ports of ships destined for the use of belligerents. But her Majesty's govern ment consider that before submitting any proposals of that sort to Parliament, it would be |