It is expected that this debate will ultimately draw out much of the leading ability of the House. I transmit a copy of the Times, containing a report so far as it has yet gone. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. No. 1552.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I incline to the opinion that this government would be glad to relieve itself of the burden of most of the remaining persons taken in the Jacmel. Already they have liberated three on condition that they would leave the kingdom. Unluckily they were wholly destitute of funds to defray their passage. Under these circumstances the consul at Dublin wrote to me to know whether he should advance the means on the part of the government. Having no instructions to justify me in undertaking the experiment, I nevertheless concluded to authorize the expenditure on my own responsibility in case the government should decline to assume the expense. This materially reduces the number of citizens of the United States remaining in prison awaiting trial. A person calling himself Robert Mackay is now on trial at Cork for the murder of a policeman. He has made no application, so far as I know, to the consul at that place, nor to me, for protection as a citizen of the United States. I suspect there may be some desire for concealment which has prompted this course, as he is affirmed by some of his friends to be a native American. I received a letter from one of these persons in Cork urging that the expense of his defense should be assumed by me for the United States. The offense charged being that of murder, the case did not seem to me one in which interference with the ordinary course of law was justifiable on my part, even if I had authority, and he were proved to be a citizen, native or adopted. The truth is that the course taken in the cases at Dublin has led to a belief that any man arrested for crime is entitled to be defended by the government. The urgency comes now not so much from the parties themselves as from their Irish friends here, who are obliged to tax themselves heavily if they fail to throw the burden on the United States. It is perfectly natural that they should seek this mode of relief. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1556.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: On Saturday last I received, at my house, a small number of representatives of the British branch of the International League for Peace, who had expressed a wish to present to me an address on my ap proaching departure. It had been the wish of the parties at first to make a very large deputation, and to give to the affair an aspect of political as well as of official importance. But mindful of your instructions as conveyed to me in your dispatch No. 1216, of the 31st December, 1864, I insisted upon regarding it as a private communication made to me personally, and answering it in that sense. The proceedings, however, got into the newspapers, and you have doubtless seen a report of them before this time. I ought, perhaps, to mention that overtures have been made to me from several sources, independent of each other, to accept some public entertainment prior to my quitting this post. This is a step so unusual in the case of a foreign minister, and so likely to be embarrassing as a precedent in possible future cases, that I very promptly but respectfully signified my reluctance to have the matter in any way agitated. The propriety of this course seemed to be ultimately admitted even by those who urged it. It is certainly in the highest degree gratifying to me, as I trust it will not be unwelcome to the government, to find my labors for a considerable period appreciated here among all classes in so unprecedented a degree, particularly when it has been a chief part of them to reiterate complaints and maintain conflicts of a most critical nature to the pacific relations of the two countries. I have endeavored to impress upon the public mind the fact that in whatever of action they are disposed to give me so much credit for, I have never been in any other than a subordinate position, and that without the full authority and cordial approbation of my government my efforts could have been of little avail. I trust that the effect of this may be to lay the foundations in the future of a better understanding between the countries than has ever yet existed. Their relations can never fail to be very close, and their interests, though often rival, are in substance the same. If I have done anything to open the way to a firmer mutual conviction of this truth, I shall hope for my mission that it will not have been wholly without benefit to the world. 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. 1557.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to transmit a copy of the London Times of this morning containing a report of a debate in the House of Commons last evening on the question of citizenship and naturalization. The observations made by Lord Stanley seem to have been received with general approbation. It is now tolerably clear that a road is open to a full consideration of this difficult subject in all its bearings upon the quickened state of international intercourse in the present day. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. [From the London Times, March 21, 1868.] HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 20. On the motion for going into committee of supply, Mr. W. E. Forster rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the house to the effect of the law regulating the allegiance of subjects of the Queen who have emigrated to foreign countries, and especially to the United States of America, and of asking the secretary of state for foreign affairs whether he did not think that the time was opportune for attempting to arrive at a mutual understanding between her Majesty's government and the government of the United States respecting the right of expatriation. He believed that the claims made by this country in connection with this subject had operated greatly to our disadvantage in our intercourse with foreign nations, and the time had now arrived when we might properly inquire whether it would not be for our interest to modify those claims to some extent. In order to bring the subject fully before the house it would be necessary for him to refer briefly to the law upon this question as it stood at present. As far as he could make out there appeared to be two classes of British subjects-those who were so by the common law and those who were so by the statute law. By the common law all persons born within the dominions of the Queen were British subjects, notwithstanding the fact that their parents might be foreigners who were within those dominions merely on a visit. There were two ways by which persons might become British subjects under the statute law-firstly, by being naturalized under certain conditions mentioned in the act of parliament, and secondly, under the provisions of the act of George II, which enacted that all children of British subjects who might be born out of her Majesty's dominion were entitled to the privileges of British subjects. The latter act was supplemented by the act of George III, which extended those privileges to the grandchildren as well as the children of British subjects born abroad. There was, however, this difference between the natural-born subject and the children and grandchildren of British subjects born abroad, that allegiance was claimed from the former alone. It had been stated by a very able writer in the Times, who wrote under the name of "Historicus," that it was a question whether we did not claim allegiance from the children and grandchildren of British-born subjects, even although their parents had been all their lives abroad; and it was important to look closely into this point, as it concerned a large number of the present population of the United States. A similar opinion as to the extent of our claims appeared to be prevalent in America, and a portion of the excitement in that country was doubtless owing to that notion. That, however, was an erroneous opinion, as the statutes appeared to him to be enabling rather than compulsory. The law, however, upon the point was far from clear, and it would be well for parliament to define the extent of our claims, so that there could be no doubt upon this branch of the subject. The law respecting the British-born subject was, however, perfectly clear, and it asserted that by no act of his own could the British-born subject get rid of his allegiance to the Crown. Upon this point Blackstone, in defining the conditions of allegiance, said: "National allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the sovereign's dominions immediately upon their birth, and cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered by any chance of time, place, or circumstance, nor anything but the united concurrence of legislature; and an Englishman who removes to France or to China owes the same allegiance to the King of England there as at home, and 20 years hence as well as now; for it is a principle of universal law that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own-no, not by swearing allegiance to another-put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former; nemo potest exuere patriam." It was rather remarkable that this was the only country which carried its claims to allegiance to this extent. On the continent they treated the matter not so much as the claim of the sovereign to the allegiance of the subject, which never could be broken, but rather as the right of the citizen to assistance and to privileges which, under certain circumstances, he might forfeit. Thus, the Code Napoleon, cap. 1, laid down "that the quality of a Frenchman is lost by naturalization in a foreign country," the French principle being that "personne ne peut avoir deux patrics;" although it was true that Napoleon in 1811 declared that all Frenchmen who should change their nationality without the consent of the state should be liable to certain penalties. Prussia went almost as far in the other direction as we stopped short of it, and adopted a principle which he trusted would never be accepted in a commercial country like this-that a citizen lost his privileges by residing 10 years in a foreign country. But the matter was set upon what he regarded as the proper footing by the Italian code, which was said to be the newest and the best edition of the Code Napoleon. By that code the rights of citizenship were lost by declaration made before a civil authority and by subsequent emigration, by accepting employment from a foreign government, or in entering into its military service, or, finally, by becoming naturalized in a foreign country. The doctrine which was upheld by this country was upheld by ourselves alone, and this was the more astonishing inasmuch as no country furnished such a number of emigrants to all parts of the world. But there was also this remarkable fact, that we had been compelled to give up the principle on which it was founded. Originally that principle was that while we claimed the allegiance of all British subjects we in return afforded them protection. Blackstone distinctly stated in his Commentaries that such was the case: "Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien or stranger born for so long a time as he continues within the King's dominions and protection, and it ceases the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is perpetual; local allegiance is only temporary, and for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government, that allegiance is a debt due from the subject upon an implied contract with the Prince that so long as the one affords protection, so long will the other demean himself faithfully." But we had found it impossible to carry out that principle, and a curious proof of the fact was furnished during the course of the late American civil war. Thousands upon thousands of English and Irish emigrants in America endeavored to claim exemption from the conscription and from enrollment during that war, but we found it impossible to assert their right to exemption after they had taken any step toward renouncing their allegiance to the English crown. Consequently we gave up all idea of affording them protection, but we still claimed to regard them as subjects of the Queen. Now, by the United States census of 1860 it appeared that one-seventh of the population of the United States were born abroad. Of these about 2,450,000 were subjects of the Queen, no less than 1,600,000 of them having been born in Ireland. Yet most of these persons were citizens of the United States; nearly all intended to be. The house was, perhaps, aware of the oath that was taken by an alien desiring to become a citizen of the United States. It ran as follows: "I, A. B., do declare on oath that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I do entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, particularly (here came the name of the sovereign of the country in which the person was born) to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland." That oath could not be taken before the person had resided in America five years. But there still remained another oath: "I do declare my intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to every," &c. Those were the oaths that were taken by a vast number of emigrants; and it would be useless to attempt to disguise the fact that in the case of a great number of the emigrants the oaths were taken with a full cognizance of their meaning, with a full intention of keeping them and never returning to our shores, and that a large number were Tery glad to have the opportunity of renouncing their allegiance to the Queen of England. But our law defied the right of the United States to protect its citizens. What had been the result of this conflict in the laws of England and the United States! There were many persons in America who undoubtedly wished to make it work as badly as possible, and they were somewhat encouraged in this by the way in which the law had worked in times past, for it was this conflict of allegiance that gave rise to the war between ourselves and the United States in 1812. That that was really the ground was evident from the Prince Regent's declaration in reply to the President's proclamation of war: "There is no right more clearly established than the right which a sovereign has to the allegiance of his subjects, more especially in time of war. Their allegiance is no optional duty which they can decline and resume at pleasure. It is a call which they are bound to obey; it began with their birth and can only terminate with their existence." That certainly appeared to be an argument that we were still asserting abroad. We were now in this difficulty: some of the returned Irish emigrants had, upon being arrested, claimed the rights of American citizens, and those rights were, as was properly the case under the present state of the law, refused to them, because by law they were British subjects. The house was doubtless aware of two or three cases where the difficulty had recently arisen. There were, for instance, the cases of Captain Jacknell and of Warren, in the latter of which Chief Baron Pigott said: "According to the law of England-a law which has been administered without any variation or doubt from the very earliest times-he who once is under the allegiance of the English sovereign remains so forever." The result of this claim had led to considerable excitement in America. Meetings had been held, and the matter had been brought before Congress. He was perfectly aware that the excitement had been increased by interested parties, by agents of the Ferian conspiracy, and that there had been great exaggeration. It had been stated that American citizens had been arrested in England on account of acts committed in America, and other statements equally devoid of foundation had been spread abroad. Stil the excitement had been considerable. One doctrine, among others, that had been brought forward in the American House of Representatives, but brought forward, he was glad to say, only to be denounced by all present who possessed any influence, was that if we persisted in our claims our action should be met by reprisals. It was only due to America to say that though such a doctrine had been mooted, it had found no favor. [Hear, hear.] But to show what the feeling of the Americans on the subject really was, he did not think he could do better than read the letter written by Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton in 1842: "A question of such serious importance ought now to be put to rest. If the United States give shelter and protection to those whom the policy of England annually casts upon their shores; if by the benign influences of their government and institutions, and by the happy condition of the country, those emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in the enjoyment of all civil rights; if all this may be done, (and all this is done under the countenance and encouragement of England herself,) is it not high time, my lord, that, yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent with the present state of society, and especially with the intercourse and relations subsisting between the Old World and the New, England should at length formally disclaim all right to the services of such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct?" Proceeding to discuss the probable disadvantages which would arise if we gave up this right, he considered, in the first place, whether we should be in a worse position than we now are in dealing with the Fenian conspiracy. He thought not. [Hear.] It was true that if the Fenians were treated as aliens they would have the power under the existing law to demand a mixed jury; but the question immediately arose whether it was wise to continue in operation a law which had been passed centuries ago to meet the necessities of a totally different state of society from the present; nations were not now separated as in former times, and less cause for fear existed that foreigners in any country would be treated with injustice. This law could at least be dispensed with as far as America was concerned; no such law existed in the United States, though, of course, American citizens were justified in applying for a mixed jury in England as long as the law was in operation. It was also true that if Fenians were regarded as aliens they would have the right of claiming the protection of the minister representing the country from which they had come; but although no minister would refuse to entertain a demand for protection by any of his country's subjects, it was quite open for him to refuse to respond to that demand on making sufficient inquiry. Still, it should also be remembered as an element in the calculations that all foreign ambassadors did not possess so remarkable mixture of prudence and moderation, coupled with a just estimate of the rights of his own country, as distinguished the present United States minister. [Hear.] A remarkable distinction was drawn by our law between British subjects and aliens, and that was that a British subject could be tried in England for treasonable practices committed abroad, and an alien could not; but in both cases acts committed abroad might be alleged in our courts as evidence of intent regarding treason at home, for which either might be tried. Of course, if Fenians were treated as aliens this right would be given up; they could not be tried here for treason committed in the United States. But he presumed no government would think of prosecuting a man in England for treasonable speeches made in New York. The feeling which would be excited in the States by such a proceeding might easily be estimated by imagining our own feelings if the Russian government prosecuted a Pole for speeches in London against the conquerors of his country. "Historicus" recommended that we should enlarge the principle of our law and make agreements with foreign countries to try aliens as well as subjects for all illegal acts, including treason, whether committed at home or abroad; but he was sure our foreign minister would be sorry to have the settlement of the complications which would arise if this suggestion were adopted. Another objection which it was necessary to meet had originally presented itself to him with some force, and that was the necessity we were under to be careful not to shake the principle on which patriotism was founded. But on examining this question more closely he found that it formed a strong argument the other way. To allow a man to play fast and loose with the country, to permit him to go to the United States and commit acts offensive alike to our sovereign and our country, and then to return here and claim the rights of a British citizen, was sapping the very foundation of patriotism. Those persons who, in swearing allegiance to a foreign state, renounced their allegiance to our Queen, deserved no consideration; those only who desired to owe temporary allegiance to a foreign state with the full and honest intention of returning to this country at a future time, should have an opportunity of again obtaining the rights and privileges of a British subject. The case of these persons might be met by some such agreement as that come to on the 2ľ of February last between Prussia, as representing the North German Confederation, and the United States, the terms of which he believed to be as follows: "1. Every subject of the North German Confederation naturalized in the United States of America, and having resided there during five years, shall be considered by the North German Confederation as an American subject, and treated as such." |