opinions, but simply naked facts. I pray your lordship's pardon if I briefly recapitulate the conflicting statements. I understand the attorney general substantially to affirm: 1. That her Majesty's government had voluntarily initiated a proposition to the government which I have the honor to represent, to amend and improve the provisions of the British enlistment law, for the benefit of the United States. 2. That her Majesty's government had been deterred from prosecuting this friendly purpose entirely by the cold and repulsive manner in which that proposition had been met by the United States. The necessary inference from these propositions, if well founded in the facts, is, that the whole responsibility for any failure of her Majesty's government in securing from Parliament greater safeguards against the abuse of neutrality in this kingdom devolves on the United States. In behalf of my government, I have only respectfully to repeat my counter statement, to the following effect: 1. That her Majesty's government, so far as any knowledge of their proceedings was com municated to me, never initiated any proposition to the United States to improve the legisla tion against abuses of neutrality in this kingdom. 2. That the only thing done was a suggestion of an intention to make such a proposal, and that was elicited by a demand of the United States that something or other should be done. But even this was made conditional upon their consent to reciprocate whatever might be subsequently proposed by the British, and concurred in by the United States government. 3. That that intention was definitely abandoned before any reply from the United States came to the knowledge of her Majesty's government. So far as the statement made by her Majesty's attorney general may be construed to corroborate the preceding averment of facts, I take great pleasure in expressing my satisfaction with it. So far as it may fall short of admitting them, I must submit that the way to prove the truth and to convict me of error is still open, not through reasoning so much as by an appeal to living testimony. I shall be prepared at all times, very cheerfully, to correct any misapprehension I may have myself fallen into of these facts, so far as they may involve the course of other parties, provided it shall be made plain to me from the proper authority. Meanwhile, I must take the liberty to insist that my government must be considered as wholly free from every shadow of responsibility for the decision of her Majesty's government to abide by the existing legisiation as a sufficient prevention of all abuses of the neutrality of the realm. I pray your lordship to accept, &c., &c. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Right Honorable the EARL OF CLARENDON, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1172.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In compliance with a desire expressed in a private note to me, I called to see Lord Clarendon on Tuesday, the 13th instant, when he announced himself prepared to resume the conversation held on the 5th instant, a report of which I made to you in my despatch No. 1165. The substance of his observations, drawn from an examination of the papers in the Home Office, was to the effect that the government, whilst obliged to take every measure which the aggravated nature of the circumstances demanded to secure the public safety in Ireland, was yet ready to do whatever was possi ble not to make it press upon persons, especially aliens, who might have become involved in suspicion, without absolute proof. He referred to the claims made by Mr. West, the consul, in behalf of certain individuals as native Amerieans, and expressed a doubt from contrary evidence in their hands whether, at least in some of the cases, the fact was made out. He spoke with some sensibility of the very friendly manner in which the correspondence had been conducted, and assured me that it would be fully met in the same spirit. With regard to the claims made in behalf of naturalized Irishmen, he said that there was here an opposition in the law between the two countries which was not to be reconciled. He intimated that the process of naturalization was susceptible of abuse in America, which might, if it were recognized as valid, have the effect of paralyzing all their measures to suppress the disaffection. As it was, what remained of it was clearly traceable to the support it got from money and men sent from the other side. Hence, it would be very difficult to make concessions in these cases. I replied to this by explaining to him the nature of the obstacles existing in America to that facility of naturalization to which he had alluded. There might be some abuse of the process and even some fraud, but after all, the law required certain previous conditions of time from the date of the preliminary declaration, which were generally fulfilled. I did not, therefore, think that there was so much danger of abuse as he imagined. For the rest, I had no disposition to encourage false claims. To that end I had directed Mr. West to take every precaution in verifying, so far as he could, the allegation of nativity by requiring details of time, place, and circumstance. Furthermore, in regard to naturalization, I had also required satisfactory evidence, which, as Mr. West had written to me, had been furnished him only in a very small number of cases. Hence, I infer that most of the persons arrested must remain outside of my limit of interference. But even in all the admitted cases, if the government had in its hands the proofs of complicity with designs to overthrow the established law, I should feel myself obliged, on the production of them to me, to desist from urgency in regard to them. We had experienced so much annoyance from action of the same kind by the subjects of foreign states, who sympathized with and aided the rebellion, and whom we had been compelled to arrest and detain in the same way, that I was not inclined to give any sanction to such conduct anywhere. My efforts would be confined to those cases in which there was mere suspicion, or at most feeble evidence, of actual evil intent. Surely, in such instances it was no object for her Majesty's government to persevere in holding them, especially if the parties should prove willing, in the event of liberation, to pass without the limits of the jurisdiction. Of course, I could make no guarantee as to what they would or would not do in that event. The choice might, however, be left to them, if the case should seem to require it. His lordship, without absolutely committing himself in words, gave me generally to understand that the government would cheerfully co-operate in every effort to facilitate an arrangement of all such cases. He asked me whether I desired to have the subject now put in writing between us, or I should prefer to wait a little while, letting things go on as at present. I replied that I was not yet quite prepared for the former course. The consul was still busy getting up his evidence in the respective cases Whenever the report I expected from him should arrive, I would then make a representation in writing. To this his lordship would probably consent to give me a reply. After the receipt of that I should make the proper official report to my government, with a view to obtaining full instructions as to the future. Thus far it was to be understood that I had been acting upon the spur of the moment, without being possessed of the views of my government. So soon as they should be communicated to me I should take an early opportunity to let him know what they were. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. No. 1711.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 20, 1866. SIR: I have received and attentively read your interesting despatch of the 2d in stant, No. 1163. You relate to me therein the opinions entertained by a certain class concerning the growth of Fenianism in this country and the proceedings of the government of Great Britain to check its progress in Ireland. My attention is attracted to the distinction which is made by officers engaged in suppressing the movement between American citizens and her Majesty's Irish subjects, but before treating of the contents of your communication I shall await the arrival of more information of the proceedings in Ireland referred to. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 1712.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 20, 1866. SIR: I have received your despatch of the 1st instant, No. 1161, and its accompaniments. It informs me of the proceeding which you adopted to remove any erroneous impression which might arise from the statement made by Sir Roundell Palmer in the House of Commons in regard to the disposition of the United States to accede to a proposition for the revisal of their foreign enlistment act. It may be satisfactory to you to know that you have performed promptly and with ability an important duty in correcting the misstatement of the attorney general, and it is hardly necessary for me to add further remark in approval of your thoughtfulness in the matter. I am, sir, your obedient servant, SIR: For your information, I enclose a copy of a letter of the 17th instant, from Mr. Charles Haffner, in regard to the complicity of Mr. David Partridge, of Woolwich Steam Factory, in the Rappahannock affair. The letter sufficiently explains itself, and seems to call for no comment from this department. I have placed it in your hands in order that you may make use of its contents, should occasion require. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., Sr., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Haffner to Mr. Seward. NAVY YARD, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, HONORED SIR: It is with much reluctance that I presume to trespass upon your attention, and will be as brief as possible. From the petulant manner that the Earl of Clarendon has closed the correspondence respecting United States claims for depredations by the Alabama with Mr. Adams, I would humbly call your attention to one important item connected with the Rappahannock affair, in Sheerness dock-yard, which, in my humble judgment, should be urged against the English government. It is a well-known fact, (for I traced it out myself,) that David Partridge, the assistant chief engineer of Woolwich Steam Factory, came down to Sheerness dock-yard, on the afternoon of the 24th of November, 1863, and steamed the Rappahannock out of Sheerness harbor, at eleven o'clock at night, as far as the Nore, and then returned in the tug that towed her out. I minutely sent this statement, with the names of the witnessing parties, to Mr. Morse, the consul in London, who had it formally sent to the admiralty solicitor at Chatham, who duly forwarded it in the depositions to the chief solicitor at the admiralty in London, but (would you believe it?) had it expunged, thus stifling a very important piece of evidence against Rumble and the dock-yard officials at Sheerness. I hope, honored sir, you will see just cause to complain of the manner the United States was trifled with. In a collateral point of view, I would just call your attention to another fact. Rumble had two effective scouts in Sheerness dock-yard, named Jacob Parkes, and Alfred Oysten, the former a leading man in the fitting shop, the latter a draughtsman in said department. It is matter of record, in the hands of Mr. Morse, the game that these vile men played in stultifying witnesses, &c., &c., who were to give evidence against Rumble. Well, after Rumble's acquittal, these men got promoted to higher situations, Parkes being promoted to Malta, and Öysten to a foreman's situation in Sheerness Steam Factory—doubtless as rewards for their zeal in Rumble's defence. And now, honored sir, Mr. Morse can supply you with corroborations of what I have stated to you, respecting the share that David Partridge, the assistant chief engineer of Woolwich Steam Factory took in the Rappahannock affair, and chief admiralty solicitor at Whitehall expunging such damaging evidence from the depositions. My only apology for thus intruding upon you is simply because I am grieved at the summary manner Earl Clarendon has disposed of Mr. Adams; and again, lest you might not have known about the case of Mr. David Partridge. honored sir, with much esteem, your humble servant, I am, SIR: A despatch, No. 145, has been received from William B. West, esq., United States consul at Dublin, from which it appears that he, on the 20th of February last, opened a correspondence with her Majesty's attorney general for Ireland. In that correspondence he set forth the fact that a large number of the citizens of the United States have recently been arrested and thrown into prison in Ireland, without any information against them, or the slightest allegation of their guilt. That many alleged cases of great hardship and unjustifiable harshness have been brought before the consul, in the execution of the law by which the habeas corpus act was suddenly suspended in that country. That in other cases American citizens may be imprisoned, who, although there may be some grounds of suspicion against them, are nevertheless free from complicity in any designs against the peace and safety of the realm. Upon these statements the consul would think it his duty to report to this government all cases of arrest of American citizens, with a view that proper proceedings might be taken for an inquiry into the causes of their arrest and detention. In reply to this note, the secretary of the lord lieutenant informed the consul that he would be expected by his excellency to furnish him with the names of such American citizens as he had referred to, and to state any facts tending to establish their innocence of the treasonable designs of which they are sus pected. It was further stated by the secretary that directions have been given by the lord lieutenant for an investigation into the cases of all subjects or citizens of foreign states who have been arrested, with a view to their liberation, if the circumstances rendered it possible. On the 21st of February the consul replied to the under-secretary of the lord lieutenant that he had been refused permission to visit certain prisoners, understood to be American citizens, who were detained at Kilmainham, although he had been permitted to see others who were charged with treason and felony. On the 22d of February the same under-secretary wrote to the consul that it was impossible for the lord lieutenant to give to the consul a general permission to visit the prisoners, but no impediment would be thrown in the way of their communicating in writing. The secretary further stated that permission would be given to the consul to see any prisoner who he had good reason to believe was a citizen of the United States and not a subject of the Queen. On the 24th of February the consul wrote to the secretary that two gentlemen, named John H. Gleason and Joseph Gleason, were then prisoners in the Neuagh jail, who had documentary proof of their being citizens of the United States by naturalization. In regard to these persons the consul asked to be furnished with copies of any information that might have been sworn against them to justify their arrest. In the same letter the consul asked of the lord lieutenant permission to visit Bernard McDermott, who was a prisoner in Kilmainham jail, and who also was citizen of the United States, as appeared by documents of naturalization. On the 27th of February the consul again wrote to the secretary, begging leave to draw the attention of the lord lieutenant to the cases of Michael O'Brien and Michael Duffy, who were confined in the Kilmainham jail, and whose evidence of United States citizenship was then before the consul; and in their behalf the consul asked permission to visit them, and also to be furnished with a copy of the evidence or information upon which they were deprived of their liberty. On the 28th of February the secretary communicated to the consul the answer of the lord lieutenant, which is this: "John H. and Joseph Gleason and Bernard McDermott are Irish-born subjects of her Majesty the Queen, and, notwithstanding any course which they may have pursued in the United States of America, they still in Ireland must be regarded as ordinary subjects of her Majesty, bound by the allegiance which they owe to their sovereign, and they must be dealt with accordingly. His excellency cannot recognize any right on his part, or on the part of the consul, as consul of the United States, to interfere in respect to the prisoners intrusted to his care, on the ground of their being citizens of the United States." It is well understood that there is a conflict between the laws of Great Britain, as expounded by her legal authorities, and the laws of the United States, as understood by this government, with regard to the effect of naturalization. It is understood that the British government has not heretofore conceded that a native subject of the British realm divests himself of his allegiance by renouncing that allegiance, and transferring his allegiance under our laws to the United States. On the other hand, there has been no reservation on the part of the United States in regard to the principle that the process of naturalization in this country completely absolves the person complying with it from foreign allegiance, whoever may have been his sovereign, and invests him with the right equally with native-born citizens to such protection and care of the government of the United States as it can, in conformity with treaties and the law of nations, extend over him, wherever he may sojourn, whether in the land of his nativity or in any other foreign country. Of course the United States do not claim or hold that any such naturalized citizen, when transiently travelling or sojourning for a longer or shorter period in a foreign country, can refuse submission to the sovereign anthority and obedience to the laws in the country of his temporary residence. All citizens of the United States, when passing through or dwelling in foreign countries, owe obedience and submission to the laws of those countries. Hitherto each party has adhered to its own position in this conflict of laws; bat, through what may be deemed to have been a fortunate continuance of peace |