his visit to Dublin in the year 1867; that he remembers the night of the 5th day of March in the said year 1867, when it was alleged that an attack was made by a body of "Fenians" on a certain police barracks at a place called Stepaside, in the county of Dublin; that he has been informed and believes that on the trial of said Halpin in Dublin, it was proven by the prosecution that the said Halpin was present at and directed the said alleged attack on said police barracks at Stepaside, which is said to have constituled an overt act of "treason-felony," and of which the said Halpin was convicted and is now undergoing sentence of penal servitude in England. And this deponent does solemnly swear and declare that of his own knowledge the said Halpin was not at Stepaside on the day or night of the 5th of March, 1867, as above named, when said alleged attack on the police barrack was said to have been made, but was in the company of this deponent and some other friends in Dublin. And this deponent further says, that he was in the city of New York at the time of the trial of said Halpin in Dublin, and therefore could not testify to such fact as above stated, as he certainly would have offered to do had he been in Dublin during the trial of said Halpin; that about the month of April, 1867, this deponent emigrated from Ireland to the United States, and now resides in the city of New York. MICHAEL ANDERSON. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 25th day of June, 1868. [SEAL] JAMES M. SHEEHAN, Notary Public, City and County of New York. Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, clerk of the court of common pleas within and for the county of Hamilton aforesaid, William G. Halpin, a native of Ireland, aged about twenty-eight years, bearing allegiance to the Queen of England, who emigrated from Liverpool on the 28th day of August, 1847, and arrived at New York on the 28th day of October, 1847, and who intends to reside within the jurisdiction and under the government of the United States, to wit, Cincinnati, Ohio; and makes report of himself for naturalization, and declares on oath that it is his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States, of America and to forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, and sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. WILLIAM G. HALPIN. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 10th day of April, 1850. E. C. ROLL, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio. I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original record. In witness whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the seal of said court, at Cincinnati, this 15th day of April, 1868. [SEAL.I A. D. DISERENS, Deputy. T. BISHOP DISNEY, Clerk Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of Ohio, Hamilton County, 88. Be it remembered, that on the 13th day of November, in the term of November, 1852, of the court of common pleas, holden within the county of Hamilton aforesaid, personally came William G. Halpin, a native of Ireland, and produced a certificate under seal, that on the 10th day of April, A. D. 1850, he declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States of America, before the clerk of the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, Ohio, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and proved his residence and character by the oath of Andrew McKeown, and being admitted to citizenship by this court, took the oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America; and that he then did absolutely and entirely forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is therefore to certify that the said William G. Halpin, having complied with the laws of the United States in such case made and provided, was therefore admitted a citizen of the United States, as appears from the journal of said court. (Criminal Minutes, vol. 2, page 304.) In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my name, and affixed the seal of our said court, at Cincinnati, this 15th day of April, A. D. 1868. [SEAL] A. D. DISERENS, Deputy. T. BISHOP DISNEY, Clerk. Copy of W. G. Halpin's army discharge. To all whom it may concern: Know ye, that William G. Halpin, a lieutenant colonel, company, 15th regiment of Kentucky infantry volunteers, who was enrolled on the 9th day of February, 1864, to serve three years or during the war, is hereby discharged from the service of the United States this 14th day of January, 1865, at Louisville, Kentucky, by reason of expiration of term of service, (no objection to his being re-enlisted is known to exist.) Said William G. Halpin was born in Meath, in the state of Ireland; is forty years of age, five feet seven inches high, florid complexion, gray eyes, dark hair, and is by occupation when enrolled a civil engineer. Given at Louisville, Kentucky, this 14th day of January, 1865. CHAS. H. DETCHER, Captain 1st U. S. Infantry, Mustering Officer, (A. G. O., No. 99.) JUNE 26, 1868. A true copy. Mr. Moran to Mr. Seward. P. O'BEIRNE, 195 Broadway, New York. No. 75.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, July 18, 1868. SIR: I transmit herewith a copy of the Times of yesterday, containing a report of the remarks of Mr. Forster and Lord Stanley in the House of Commons on Thursday evening, on the subject of naturalization and expatriation. Of late there have been some indications of uneasiness on this question in the public mind, and I infer, from circumstances that have come to my notice, that Mr. Forster's inquiry was intended to afford his lordship an opportunity of making the nation acquainted with the views of the government on the subject, and with its reasons for not negotiating a treaty now. It will be observed that his lordship refers to a dispatch of his to Mr. Thornton touching the question, not yet published, but which he has promised to lay before the house. I shall not fail to forward copies of this paper as soon as I can procure them, although it is probable that Mr. Thornton has already communicated it to you. Mr. Mill, the same evening, put a question to Lord Mayo respecting the cases of Messrs. Warren and Costello. I have the honor to forward herewith a report of his lordship's reply. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. [From the London Times, July 17, 1869.] NATURALIZATION AND EXPATRIATION. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, July 16. Mr. W. E. Forster asked the secretary of state for foreign affairs whether there had been any recent correspondence between her Majesty's government and the government of the United States on the question of naturalization and expatriation, and, if so, whether he was willing to lay such correspondence upon the table of the house. Lord STANLEY. The house will probably have seen in some English newspapers the dispatch from the United States government upon this subject, to which the question of the honorable members refers. That dispatch was placed in my hands a few days ago, and it appears to have been made public in America before it reached this country. Before it came into my hands, I had written to the British minister at Washington upon the subject-a dispatch which must have crossed that of Mr. Seward on its way to this country. In that dispatch I explained the views of her Majesty's government upon the question of naturalization as it now stands. In answer to the honorable member's question I may say that I have no objection to lay that dispatch, as well as that of Mr. Seward, upon the table. I may also repeat, what I have already stated in answer to a question put to me in this house, that her Majesty's government are quite prepared to accept in principle the views of the naturalization question for which the United States government contend, and, therefore, I do not apprehend that any misunderstanding can arise out of it. We have declined, however, to enter into any treaty upon the subject just at present, for two reasons-firstly, because some legal details have to be arranged, and are now being considered by the commission appointed for that purpose; and next, because even if we were to act irrespectively of the report of that commission, such a treaty would be perfectly useless until an act of Parliament is passed to bring it into operation. I need not say that in the state of business, not only as it is now but as it has been for the past month, it would have been useless to attempt to bring in so large and important a measure. If it should be my fortune to have any share in the government next year, I shall be ready to introduce a bill upon the subject in the new Parliament. [Hear, hear.] THE CREW OF THE JACMEL. Mr. Mill asked the chief secretary for Ireland whether her Majesty's government would take into favorable consideration the question whether the time had arrived when the very heavy sentences passed on Warren and Costello, the only two persons of the crew of the Jackmel who had not been released, might be remitted or mitigated. The Earl of Mayo said some misapprehension appeared to exist upon this subject. The prisoners were convicted of coming to Ireland in an armed vessel and cruising along the coast, with intent to effect a landing of men and arms in order to raise an insurrection against the Queen. The only evidence given against them of their proceedings in the United States was that of their being members of the Fenian brotherhood previous to March, 1867, being the date of the overt acts in which their brother conspirators were engaged. This evidence was necessary to connect them with the Fenian society, and, in accordance with the provisions of the treason-felony act, to bring them within the jurisdiction of the court. The case, therefore, did not really differ in any way from the great bulk of the Fenian prisoners, and he was afraid that the time had not yet come when any general consideration of the sentences passed on Fenian prisoners could yet be undertaken. No. 2.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Johnson. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: It is a truism that commercial and industrial interests continually exert a powerful influence in favor of peace and friendship between the government and people of the United States and Great Britain. Intimate consanguinity, together with a nearly entire community of language and a very considerable community of political and religious principles, ideas, and sentiments, work in the same direction. On all occasions when the moral sentiment of mankind is moved in favor of national regeneration or other political reform in any part of the world, a very cordial sympathy and regard to such 'advances in civilization is found to exist between the two countries. This mutual, friendly disposition between the two nations manifests itself more strongly now than at any former period. Nevertheless, there are some controversies which have heretofore unavoidably arisen out of difference of administration in the two governments-controversies which are of lasting importance, and which have become ehronic in their character. An urgent necessity exists for the settlement of one or more of them. A reference to the records of the legation in London will disclose them, and explain the circumstances which have hitherto prevented their adjustment, notwithstanding the great zeal and efficiency with which your distinguished predecessor, Mr. Adams, has carried out the instructions of this department. The so-called naturalization question is the one which first and most urgently requires attention. The political institutions of the United States may in one sense be said to have for their foundation the principle of the right of individual men in any country, who are neither accused nor convicted of crime, to change their homes and allegiance according to the dictates of their own judgments and consciences and the inspiration of their individual desires for liberty and happiness. On the contrary, the British government have always held in theory, and still adhere to the principle, that native allegiance to the British Crown is indefeasible without the express consent of the sovereign. A practical application of this ancient theory in cases of belligerent right of search was, as you are well aware, one of the principal causes of the war of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain. Without reaching a formal decision in the treaty of peace, the question was suf fered to fall into abeyance, and, until quite recently, it seemed to have become obsolete. Chronic political disaffection in Ireland has survived all the pacifying efforts of administration in Great Britain, of whatever kind. It frequently manifests itself there in turbulence and insurrection. Recently those discontents have been so great that Parliament has made new penal enactments, and has kept the habeas corpus suspended in Ireland for a period which has now reached the duration of two years and five months. On the other hand, a great and continuous emigration, which has removed large masses of its population to the United States, has seemed to abate the forces of popular resistance to the authority of Great Britain in that country. The large masses of population thus received into the United States from Ireland, with their descendants, constitute no inconsiderable part of our own population in every State and Territory of the American republic. Most of the Irish immigrants and their descendants have availed themselves of our naturalization laws, and have thus become citizens. While the new interests which they have thus acquired as citizens of the United States are paramount, they retain strong feelings and sentiments of attachment to their native country, or at least of sympathy in its interest and welfare-so true it is that those who remove from one country to another do not, with a change of skies, altogether change their native dispositions. It happens, therefore, that every considerable surge of popular discontent that disturbs the peace of Great Britain affects that portion of our people who have derived their descent from Ireland, and this emotion, in no inconsider. able degree, affects by sympathy the whole population of the United States. Great Britain is understood to acknowledge that this government maintains its neutrality in this trial with due decision and energy. The maintenance of this neutrality, however, is attended with so much difficulty and inconvenience as to entitle us to the exercise of a corresponding justice and liberality on the part of Great Britain. As naturalized citizens of the United States, Irishmen and their descendants have a right to visit Great Britain, and to be safe in their persons and property there so long as they practice due submission to the authority of Great Britain, the same as native citizens of the United States. When, however, a naturalized citizen of Irish birth or descent, transiently visiting Great Britain, is arrested or questioned under the acts suspending the habeas corpus, or by warrant or other form of complaint in judicial proceedings, and thereupon claims the rights of citizens of the United States, he is met in the courts of that country with a denial of the validity of his naturalization, and with the assertion that his allegiance to the sovereign of Great Britain continues unbroken. This theory is especially maintained in judicial tribunals in that country, first, as a ground for denying to the naturalized citizen of Irish birth or extraction a trial by jury de mediatate linguæ, which is extended by statute to all foreigners; and also by the pretense that he is especially amenable in British courts for political opinions and conduct maintained or pursued while in the United States, the land of his adoption. It ought not to have been at any time a matter of surprise to her Majesty's government that these invidious discriminations in British tribunals between two classes of citizens of the United States, who stand upon one common platform under our own laws, continually engenders suspicion of predjudice and injustice. If these suspicions are suffered to continue and increase with the progress of political agitation in Great Britain, it must sooner or later result in an extensive and profound aleniation of the two countries. The President has frequently and urgently appealed to the British government to remove the cause of embarrassment which I have described -an embarrassment which, on the one hand, is productive of no conceivable benefit to the British nation, while, on the other, it hinders all attempts to retain in the United States sentiments of cordiality and friendship towards Great Britain. The British government announces to us that it is disposed to remove this embarrassment by accepting the principle of the validity of our laws of naturalization in regard to British subjects. This announcement is gratifying to the United States; but the delay which the British government makes in carrying the purpose into effect leaves our relations even in a worse condition than before. It is manifest that the purpose can be carried into effect only by some act of Parliament or by a negotiation between the two countries. Parliament does not enact the necessary law, nor has the executive government, on the other hand, thus far been willing to negotiate the necessary treaty. Her Majesty's government is understood to be diligently engaged in examining the subject, with a view to determine the proper details for an enactment or treaty. While the United States cannot object that such an examination is necessary, they are embarrassed by the procrastination with which it is conducted. You will address yourself to this as the most important question requiring attention on your arrival in London. You will frankly state to Lord Stanley that, until this difficulty shall be removed, it is believed by the President that any attempt to settle any of the existing controversies between the two countries would be unavailing, and therefore inexpedient. If her Majesty's government should conclude to negotiate a naturali |
