desirable that they should previously communicate with the government of the United States, and ascertain whether that government is willing to make similar alterations in its own foreign enlistment act, and that the amendments, like the original statute, should, as it were, proceed pari passu in both countries." Such was the origin of the proposal alluded to by the distinguished Attorney General. It must, therefore, be plain to your lordship that it was not made early in the war, but only after the ravages committed by the Alabama had roused the attention of my government to the subject. Neither was it initiated spontaneously, but was wholly the offspring of a demand made by my government for more effective measures of prevention of such ravages committed by vessels fitted out from British ports. I now proceed to show to your lordship, in like manner, the fallacy in the other proposition of the Attorney General. On the 25th of December, 1862, I wrote to Mr. Seward, transmitting for consideration the proposal made by Earl Russell. On the 19th of January, 1863, Mr. Seward addressed to me a reply, in which he refers to his lordship's proposal in these words: "It is not presumed that our anti-enlistment act is defective, or that Great Britain has ground to complain that it has not been effectually executed. Nevertheless, the proposition of her Majesty's government, that the two governments shall confer together upon amendments to the corresponding acts in the two countries, evinces a conciliating, a liberal, and just spirit, if not a desire to prevent further causes of complaint. You are, therefore, authorized to confer with Earl Russell, and to transmit, for the consideration of the President, such amendments as Earl Russell may in such a conference suggest, and you may think proper to be approved." I shall abstain from entering into any discussion of whether this language is or is not fairly to be considered as throwing cold water on it altogether.' That is a matter of opinion. At present I shall strive to confine myself strictly to the consideration of facts. The point now is to ascertain, if possible, precisely what effect the communication of it did actually have on the action of her Majesty's government. On the 7th of February I was favored with an interview by Earl Russell, upon which occasion I communicated to him the substance of the answer. The official report of this inter view, which I made to Mr. Seward on the 13th of February, is in the following words: "In obedience to your instructions, contained in despatch No. 454, I called the attention of Lord Russell, in my conference of Saturday, to the reply made by him to my note of the 9th of November last, claiming reparation for the damage done by No. 290, and security against any repetition of the same in future. I observed that my government had not yet authorized me to say anything in regard to the answer on the first point; but with respect to the second, his lordship's suggestion of possible amendments to the enlistment laws, in order to make them more effective, had been favorably received; although the law of the United States was considered as of very sufficient vigor, the government were not unwilling to consider propositions to improve upon it. "To that end I had been directed to ask whether any such had yet been matured by her Majesty's ministers; if so, I should be happy to receive and to transmit them to Washington. His lordship, repeating my remark-that my government considered its present enlistment act as sufficiently effective-then added that, since his note was written, the subject had been considered in the cabinet, and the lord chancellor had expressed the same opinion of the British law. Under these circumstances he did not see that he could have any change to propose." Thus it appears that the essential fact is developed, that his lordship's answer, declining to proceed any further, was made forthwith, and was the result of cabinet deliberations, previously held, and of the opinion of the lord chancellor thereupon given. It was in no way the effect of the communication made by myself at the moment, but had been prepared in advance to meet it whenever it came, or whatever it might be. It fell in with an opinion expressed by Mr. Seward, but was in no manner dependent upon it. If this be the correct chronology, it follows that no such hypothetical difficulty in an sppeal to Parliament, after such an answer as is described by her Majesty's attorney general, could ever have been possible. Her Majesty's government had decided, before the answer ever appeared, not to make any such appeal, but rather to abide by the lord chancellor's confidence in the existing statute. In addressing this note to your lordship, I pray you to understand that I disclaim all intention to impute an evil motive to the distinguished and excellent gentleman against whose language I have been constrained to enter this protest. In the present state of the relations between the two countries, which I cannot disguise to be delicate, I am sensible of the great importance of every word that falls from the lips of persons in authority on either side. Hence, it has been under a painful sense of duty that I have marked to your lordship these errors, doubtless of inadvertence, committed by so eminent an officer of the Crown, which may, nevertheless, excite much comment among my countrymen, and aggravate the resentmeat for injustice suffered, already, unfortunately, much too prevalent with them. I pray your lordship to accept, &c., &c., &c. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Right Honorable the EARL OF CLARENDON, &c., &c., &c. No. 1163.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: There is some little dissatisfaction among a certain class of political men with the sluggishness manifested by the government in making representations and remonstrances touching the Fenian organization in the United States. Not fully conscious of the awkwardness of a movement in this direction, in the face of all that has happened here during the war, there is much soreness and irritation engendered by the knowledge that both men and money are steadily pouring into the kingdom with a view to keep alive the agitation which is paralyzing the energies of Ireland, if it does not absolutely threaten its peace. Meanwhile the process of summary arrests of all persons having the slightest appearance of Americans is steadily carried on in that island. As yet the efforts made by the consuls to relieve such of them as have a claim to protection as citizens of the United States have been successful only so far as to establish communication with them to verify their statements. No answer has yet been given by the authorities to the requests for reasons to justify their confinement. Neither has any distinction been attempted between native Americans and naturalized Irishmen. Whilst this delay lasts, no reason arises for my own interference. I presume, however, that it cannot be extended a great while longer. I shall report to you so soon as it becomes necessary for me to confer with Lord Clarendon on the subject. Since the above was written, I have received from Mr. West a letter enclosing the final answer of the authorities in regard to naturalized citizens, which goes the whole length of claiming their allegiance. I have desired him to transmit to you copies of the whole of his correspondence. I shall now request a conference with Lord Clarendon, in order to place you fully in possession of the views of the government on the subject, as well as to obtain the instructions of the President. This cannot be done in time for this week's steamer. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 15th of February, No. 1151. I have taken pains to recur to the despatch in the Blue Book of Lord Clarendon to Sir Frederick Bruce, to which you have now referred me. 1 find that in that publication it bears the date of December 26, not December 28, as you have described it. Either Sir Frederick has, in the exercise of his discretion, refrained altogether from bringing the despatch to my notice, or else he has done so only in so purely a conversational and informal manner as to leave no real impression upon my mind. Whatever I may have said upon the matter to him has been in exactly the same terms in which I treated the same suggestion now found in the assumed despatch when it was presented by you in your confidential note. I see now no reason for apprehending that we shall at any time or under any circumstances be willing to negotiate for future contingences without having first due regard paid to our past injuries and damages. I shall make Sir Frederick Bruce acquainted with the contents of this paper. He is frank and honorable, while he is discreet and devoted to his gov ernment. I will not anticipate the possibility of extreme suggestions by other maritime powers for consultation. Such proceedings have a certain attraction for minds of a doctrinal character. The idea of a congress of the maritime powers held a considerable preoccupation of a portion of the press last summer, but exhausted itself then, and has not since revived. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c, Sr. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1164.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the department numbered from 1687 to 1690, inclusive, likewise of 1684, reported as missing last week, and lastly of a bound set of the Diplomatic Correspondence of 1864. On the evening of the day on which I last wrote, another debate took place in the House of Commons on questions of maritime law, a report of which, in the London Times, I have the honor to transmit. It appears that the attorney general seized the opportunity to make the necessary corrections of his speech the week before. The only point he failed to make quite clear was the alleged effect of the answer of our government in producing the decision of the ministry here not to propose any modification of the enlistment law. The fact that this decision was reached irrespective of and prior to the communication of that answer is made so clear on the very face of the correspondence that in common candor the truth should have been frankly recognized. Although the course of this debate gives an appearance of preponderance in sentiment in one direction, it must not be inferred that that indicates the prevalence of that sentiment among the members generally. The truth is, the subject as it now stands is felt to be so full of difficulties that much the greater number decline to commit themselves upon it in any way. This is particularly the case with the opposition, most of whom, including some of the leading men, absented themselves from the discussion altogether. Meanwhile there are domestic questions coming up which will, probably, absorb the attention of the body for some time to come. The government bill for the extension of the franchise is announced for introduction on Monday. If this be successful, which is much doubted, it will be followed by the question of Jamaica, and lastly that of Ireland, both of which can scarcely fail to elicit serious differences of opinion. Hence, it appears unlikely, unless some unexpected event should revive them, that any one of the international questions raised by the late war will receive during the rest of this session more than an accidental passing notice. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. No. 1165.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, March 8, 1866. SIR: The consul at Dublin, Mr. West, I take it for granted, forwards to you so fully his account of his proceedings and copies of the correspondence which . he conducts with the Irish authorities, that I deem it not necessary to do more than comment on the results. It is thus far made clear that the government claims the right of dealing as it pleases with native Irishmen, no regard whatever being paid to the fact of their naturalization in the United States. The course it intends to take with native Americans held under arrest upon the call made to assign reasons for their detention has not yet been declared. No intelligence has been thus far received of any response to Mr. West's appeal on that subject. Meanwhile I executed the intention I expressed in my No. 1163, of the 2d instant, of asking an interview with Lord Clarendon, for the purpose of talking freely upon the whole subject. He appointed Monday, the 5th, at which time I saw him. After mentioning the various steps which had been already taken by my direction in Ireland, and the position in which affairs now stand there, I pointed out to him as briefly as I could the nature of the questions that must spring out of the attitude taken by the British government. In the first place, native Americans had been arrested without reasons given, or charges made. Of course, as they appealed to me, I should feel it my duty to ask for reasons, and if none could be given beyond mere suspicion, to request their release. In this connection I reminded him of the fact how freely Lord Lyons had exercised this right during the war, and in how many very doubtful cases he had obtained a release. But the second question was of a still graver character. It grew out of the conflicting theories of allegiance which had so long been a fruitful source of dissension between the two countries. On the one side all the powers of Europe claimed that the allegiance of native subjects could not be divested by any act of their own. On the other the right of expatriation was asserted to its fullest extent. In the present instance, several Irishmen, who had proved their naturalization in the United States, had claimed protection from arrest and imprisonment, as they alleged unjustly; and on the other hand the authorities in Ireland, in answer to a representation made by the consul, had claimed an absolute right to deal with them as British subjects, without accountability to any foreign authority. I admitted that this was in accordance with the English law, at the same time that I felt that I could not, on the part of my government acquiesce in it. This question had raised us many difficulties heretofore, and especially had conduced to the rupture between the two countries in 1812. I saw no practical way out of it, if both parties persisted in a rigid adherence to their particular views. The better course would seem to be, if possible, to avoid a collision, by endeavoring so far as was practicable to evade making the issue. If the men in dispute could be released, as many were in the United States, on condition of their good behavior, or of their quitting the country, I thought the difficulty might be removed. Here Lord Clarendon interposed with some general remarks upon the "wheel within a wheel" of an organization in the United States, having for its object the overthrow of all authority in a country under a foreign jurisdiction, and upon the voluntary abnegation of the British government of every desire to remonstrate or interpose any claim for protection. Under these circumstances, when people came from the United States in such numbers, and were found in Ireland with money and arms, plotting against the government, he trusted that I would not attempt to hold over them the shelter of my diplomatic mantle. To which I replied that his lordship had overrulooked an important distinction, which should have been kept in view. Since the suspension of the habeas corpus, numbers of people had been swept up together and lodged in the prisons, without a single reason given, or the allegation of any offence. Previously to that event, whenever any person claiming to be an American had been arrested, the course had been to consult at once with the prosecuting officers to learn the nature of the charges against him, and upon that prima facie evidence, either to ask a release on the ground of insufficiency, or to let the law take its course. With this understanding everything had gone on smoothly enough. Several persons had been released; others had been tried, and their offences very fully proved. The whole case was now changed. All those arrested since the suspension of the habeas corpus were detained without reason given or charges made. This course as applied to such persons as might be innocent was a hardship, which I did not think citizens of a foreign state ought to be subjected to. I had been applied to by many who stoutly averred their innocence. It was in their behalf I thought I had a right to claim a release, and in regard to all citizens of the United States, it seemed to me that, at least, the grounds of detention should be assigned to me. For it should be understood that I had no wish to spread my diplomatic mantle over such as could be shown to be at least fairly suspected of designs subversive of established authority; although I believed many such had been released at the request of Lord Lyons. I should confine myself as matter of right only to those against whom no real charges could be brought. It was in the cases of such as might be innocent that I held it of the utmost importance to a good understanding between the countries that they should be promptly relieved. Even a single person, if innocent, and subjected to serious injury by confinement, might go to America afterwards, and become or be made a subject of popular sympathy, more or less just, which would materially increase the irritation, already quite great enough, and perhaps add a strong American element to the Fenian combination which thus far it had not possessed. With regard to that organization, and his lordship's observations on it, I incidentally recalled to his mind the fact that that had not been without its parallel in this country during the late war. I had somewhere among my papers a long list of aristocratic names, appended to what was called a southern aid association, the declared object of which was to effect a disruption of the United States. At the head of it had been Lord Wharncliffe, aided by many other noblemen. His lordship affected to make very light of this association, as containing no name of real influence in England, to which I replied in the same terms as it regarded the Fenians in America. The parallel seemed to me sufficiently exact. But I had not been instructed to remonstrate against the southern association. As to the substance of my representation, his lordship said that had he been made aware beforehand that I was about to offer it, he should have been more fully prepared by a knowledge of the actual facts to talk with me. It would be necessary for him to communicate with Sir George Grey, of the home office, in whose department were the papers connected with the Irish troubles. He should ask a brief delay, and would then give me notice of a time when he might renew the subject. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. No. 1709, confidential.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT of State, Washington, March 10, 1866. SIR: I lose no time in acknowledging the receipt of your despatch of the 22d of February, No. 1158, which brings us official information of the suspension of |