American "citizens," foreign states should be placed in possession of that which the American Attorney General admits himself unable to supply, viz, a definition of what constitutes American citizenship.

I have thus endeavored, as far as space permits, to examine the existing condition of this question in England, upon the continent of Europe, and in America. I think the facts of the case will lead us to the conclusion that an amendment of the existing rules is highly desirable, but that of all countries there is none which is bound to address itself to this difficult discussion with more modesty and moderation than the United States. I am bound to say that the most eminent persons among them have always taken this view, and I trust they will continue to do so, in spite of intemperate speeches and electioneering intrigues.

This letter has extended to too great a length to admit of my now attempting further to discuss the principles on which a new system might be framed. There are, however, some general conclusions which may be safely drawn. First, the right of expatriation generally should be admitted; secondly, that right should be limited by certain conditions; thirdly, it belongs as much to the native state to prescribe the conditions of severance as it does to the state of adoption to prescribe the conditions of naturalization; fourthly, it would be highly desirable that the conditions on which one state confers and the other severs the tie of citizenship should be regulated by special convention, as in the case of extradition. This would be best accomplished by a general agreement; but if this be impracticable, then it should be made the subject of separate treaties.

SIR: Your dispatch of the 24th of December, No. 1503, has been received. You were quite right in saying to Lord Stanley that the negotiation in regard to the so-called Alabama claims is now considered by this government to have been closed without a prospect of its being reopened. With reference to the conversation which occurred between yourself and his lordship on the subject of a recent despatch of Mr. Ford, in which Mr. Ford gave an account of a conversation which he had with me, it would perhaps be sufficient to say that Mr. Ford submitted no report of that conversation, nor did he inform me what he proposed to write to Lord Stanley. I may add that either Mr. Ford or Lord Stanley, or both, have misapprehended the full scope of what is reported by Mr. Ford as a suggestion on my part.

Both of these gentlemen seem to have understood me as referring only to mutual pecuniary war claims of citizens and subjects of the two. countries, which have lately been extensively discussed. Lord Stanley seems to have resolved that the so-called Alabama claims shall be treated so exclusively as a pecuniary commercial claim as to insist on altogether excluding the proceedings of her Majesty's government in regard to the war from consideration in the arbitration which he proposed. On the other hand, I have been singularly unfortunate in my correspondence if I have not given it to be clearly understood that a violation of neutrality by the Queen's proclamation and kindred proceedings of the British government is regarded as a national wrong and injury to the United States; and that the lowest form of satisfaction for that national injury that the United States could accept would be found in an indemnity, without reservation or compromise, by the British government to those citizens of the United States who had suffered individual injury and damages by the vessels of war unlawfully built, equipped, manned, fitted out, or entertained and protected in the British ports and harbors in consequence of a failure of the British government to preserve its neutrality.

Besides this question there exist also other open questions. There is a divided occupation of the island of San Juan, in the Pacific, which ought to be settled soon; there is the assumption of Great Britain to hold naturalized citizens of the United States, if they were born in Great Britain, amenable for offenses under laws and before tribunals which are not and cannot be applied to native-born citizens of the United States.

A grave question arose during the recent rebellion upon the treaty arrangements between the two countries for extradition of criminals. There is a deferred question between the two countries in regard to the fisheries in the north Atlantic waters.

Any one of these questions may at any moment become a subject of exciting controversy. The naturalization question is already working in that way.

It was in view of all these existing sources of controversy that the thought occurred to me that her Majesty's government, if desirous to lay a broad foundation for friendly and satisfactory relations, might possibly think it expedient to suggest a conference, in which all the matters referred to might be considered together, and so a comprehensive settlement might be attempted without exciting the sensibilities which are understood to have caused that government to insist upon a limited arbitration in the case of the Alabama claims.

These explanations may be given informally, if you think proper, to Lord Stanley, but with the distinct understanding that the United States are not to be assumed as proposing to open a new negotiation in regard to the questions referred to, or any of them.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 2119.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 13, 1868.

SIR: Your dispatch of the 24th of December, No. 1502, has been received and laid before the President.

I thank you for the very interesting account you have given of the condition of panic which recent events, connected nearly or remotely with the disturbance in Ireland, have produced throughout the British realm. The ferocious and felonious character of the proceedings which attended the rescue at Manchester, and the attempt to destroy the prison at Clerkenwell by explosion, are clearly perceived in the United States, and have had some influence in checking the course of public sentiment in regard to the great political question in which large masses of Irishmen at home and abroad are arrayed against the government of Great Britain. Notwithstanding this modifying influence, however, it is plainly to be observed that the sympathies of the people of the United States are every day more profoundly moved and more generally moved in behalf of Ireland. I have continually endeavored to impress upon the British government the importance of eliminating from the so-called Fenian excitement, as far as possible, certain legitimate causes of irritation and jealousy between the people of the United States and the people of Great Britain. I have had less success than I hoped, and less, I am sure, than

would have been conducive to the interests of both countries. The pretense of the judge on the trial of John Warren, not disavowed by her Majesty's government, that although a duly naturalized citizen of the United States, he still remains a subject of the Queen of Great Britain, amenable in that country to laws which are invalid there against nativeborn citizens of the United States, has awakened a general feeling of resentment and deeply wounded our pride of sovereignty. The people are appealing to this government throughout the whole country, from Portland to San Francisco and from St. Paul to Pensacola. This sense of injustice works harmoniously together with a sore remembrance that the British government in the late rebellion favored the overthrow of the United States by illegitimate processes, even at the cost of perpetuation of human slavery.

Perhaps after this popular protest shall have found earnest expression in both houses of Congress, British statesmen may perceive that a restoration of cordial and friendly relations and sympathies between the two countries is impossible while the causes of irritation to which I have referred are allowed to endure.

You are not charged to communicate this dispatch; but you need affect no special reserve in regard to the facts herein considered.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 1521.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, January 15, 1868.

SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of dispatch from the department numbered 2116, of the 28th ultimo, on the subject of allegiance and expatriation.

Much discussion is going on in the London newspapers upon the subject. Concurring with you in the opinion that this is not a favorable time to negotiate, I yet feel very sure that the only opening to any prospect of a future peaceful settlement of the question with this country must be found in the gradual indoctrination of the British mind to the expediency of surrendering the ancient theory.

The panic occasioned by the Clerkenwell affair is gradually abating, although the enrollment of special constables is going on very extensively over a large part of the kingdom.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[From the London Daily News, January 14, 1868.]

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, January 13.

Sittings in Banco-(Before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Blackburn and Lush.)

THE QUEEN 18. BURKE—THE LATE CASE OF ALLEGED TREASON-FELONY.

Mr. Coleridge, Q. C., with whom was Mr. W. P. Macdonald, applied, under the 19th and 20th Vic., chap. 16, sec. 3, for a rule nisi to remove the trial of Burke for treasonfelony from Warwick to the central criminal court.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. You only ask for a rule nisi?

Mr. COLERIDGE. Yes. For a rule nisi to show cause why a certiorari should not issue to remove the trial to London. Your lordships judicially know nothing about the charge against Burke, but I will assume you are sufficiently aware that he has recently been committed.

Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. For treason-felony. That is sufficient to make us aware what the case is.

Mr. COLERIDGE. I move on an affidavit for a rule to show cause why a certiorari should not issue to bring Burke back to London for trial. The case was heard at considerable length by Sir Thomas Henry at Bow street, and amongst other parts of the case an important part was that Burke was said to have been connected with the purchase of fire-arms at Birmingham, which were to have been sent to Ireland to be used against the government. No doubt that is one of a series of overt acts which make up the events for which he is to be tried. The prisoner's counsel strongly urged before Sir Thomas Henry that Burke should be committed for trial at the Old Bailey, but it was opposed by Mr. Giffard, Q. C., who appeared for the Crown, and who as strongly urged that it should take place at Warwick, the overt act with reference to the purchase of fire-arms having taken place at Birmingham. And so far as I am aware Sir Thomas Henry, chiefly on that ground, committed Burke for trial at Warwick, and he has been accordingly taken to Warwick castle. I have no wish to say one word more than is material to the question. The affidavit on which I now move states that it is extremely desirable, so far as Burke is concerned and for the interests of justice, that he should be tried in London, and on the following three short grounds: First, it is stated that Warwickshire, as we all know, has recently been rather conspicuous for religious heats and disturbances, especially as connected with Irishmen and with persons more or less supposed to be mixed up

Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. But surely the charge against Burke is in no way connected with Roman Catholicism. We are all aware that Fenianism, instead of being connected with Mr. Murphy or the Romish church, has in fact been excommunicated by the latter, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. COLERIDGE. That may or may not be. At all events, there might be persons in Warwickshire unlike your lordship, unable to discriminate between one Irishman and another, or between a Roman Catholic Irishman or a Fenian Irishman. Whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, without wishing to say anything disrespectful of any one likely to take part in the trial, (if it takes place at Warwick,) they might not possess your lordship's education and judicial mind, and it is not an unfair observation to make, that in a county which has been a great deal distinguished of late for what might be called Irish riots, to state that it is a fair ground for Burke to say that it is not for the interests of justice to be tried where the jurors might come from that part of Warwickshire where this religious feeling had existed. The second ground upon which the motion is made is this: Mr. Merriman, the prisoner's attorney, is a London solicitor of large practice, and he states that he has been for months conducting Burke's defense, and as such he is able to state that Burke is almost entirely without funds; and he further states that it will be extremely difficult for him to conduct Burke's defense at Warwick instead of London. Burke was arrested in London, all the proceedings had been taken in London, and the conspiracy, if any, was to a great extent in London, and it is suggested that it is a harsh proceeding to take him from London and try him in Warwickshire. The words of the statute are in the largest possible form.

Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. The words appear to have been purposely selected, so as to give us as absolute a discretion as possible.

Mr. COLERIDGE. That is so; and it is as much for the interest of the prisoner as for the prosecutor that the right discharge of the criminal law should be vindicated.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. We must see there is some substantial justice connected with his interest to bring him back. You appeal to us from the magistrate who committed him to remove Burke from the jurisdiction he had been committed to to that of the central criminal court.

Mr. COLERIDGE. I do not complain in a sense that Sir Thomas Henry is wrong, or suggest anything of the sort, because it was hardly an act of discretion. Certain overt acts were proved to have been committed, or spoken of as having taken place, in Warwickshire, and Sir Thomas Henry has done what any one else would have done under the circumstances. It is hardly an appeal against the discretion of the magistrate. Mr. JUSTICE LUSH. You mention the name of Burke only. You do not appear for any one else?

Mr. COLERIDGE. No. Only for Burke.

Mr. JUSTICE LUSH. Are not two others committed with him?

Mr. COLERIDGE. No doubt there are, and I am informed that Mr. Fitzjames Stephen will make an application on their behalf to the court.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. They might prefer to be tried at Warwick. In that case

it will be a ground of objection to your application.

Mr. COLERIDGE. Yes, if it should turn out so. It may be the Crown might have no

objection to the removal of the trial. I only apply for a rule nisi. It is surely a matter for the consideration of the court-the position in which Burke is placed with reference to his London solicitor. The third ground upon which I move is, that Burke wishes to have a larger selection-in fact, from the whole bar-than would be open to him for his defense if he is confined to the Midland circuit. It is not for me to say that the Midland circuit has not more than enough members of the bar belonging to it from which Burke might select an advocate; but he wishes to be unfettered in his selection in a matter of so much import. Sir Thomas Henry proceeded in this matter, so far as I can make out, chiefly on the ground that some of the overt acts were said to have been committed in Warwickshire, and also that a number of the witnesses live in Birmingham. Now, it appears that 35 witnesses were examined before Sir Thomas Henry, of whom 14 only reside in Warwickshire, and the remainder in London, Liverpool, and Ireland, chiefly in the first two places. The least expensive mode of trial, so far as the prisoner is concerned, if he calls witnesses, will be to be tried in London. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. But he does not say he has any witnesses to call.

Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. If he has, and he summons them under the new act, he will have a chance of the expenses being allowed by the Crown.

Mr. JUSTICE LUSH. There is this to be considered. The indictment must be found in Warwickshire, because it is only after the indictment has been found that it can be removed. So that all the witnesses must go to Warwick to go before the grand jury. Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. The expense of the trial is a matter for the prosecution and not for the prisoner to consider. So far as his calling witnesses from Liverpool and Ireland, it is a matter of indifference where the trial takes place. The question is, the number of Warwickshire witnesses as contrasted with those of London.

Mr. COLERIDGE. That is so. I can only state what I find in my instructions. Mr. JUSTICE LUSH. It seems that an order may be made for the removal of the trial before the indictment is found, but it cannot take effect until after the indictment has been found.

Mr. COLERIDGE. Yes; and enough witnesses must go down to find the bill. Mr. Merriman, in his affidavit, states that Burke is a naturalized American subject, and that he has held a commission as captain in the United States army, and my third ground for the removal of the trial is that it might raise a question as to the jury. Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. What question can it raise?

Mr. COLERIDGE. It may be that he is entitled to be tried by a jury of foreigners. Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. He has no more pretense for saying that than any other Englishman accused of any other crime. No possible point can be raised on it.

Mr. COLERIDGE. If it is impossible I have nothing more to say. Your lordship appears to have already decided the point without hearing me.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. Only one member of the court has expressed an opinion on the point. I have not done so.

Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. Can you say that a British-born subject can claim such a privilege?

Mr. COLERIDGE. I am not arguing the question; I am only stating the facts upon which I move.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. But the state of the law upon the point ought to be con-sidered. There can be no doubt a British-born subject cannot throw off his allegiance.. Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. And that question can be as well raised at Warwick as in. London.

Mr. COLERIDGE. But on any question of importance all reasonable indulgence should be given to persons accused of crimes of this sort, which are not viewed by every one as your lordship and I might be inclined to view them. But I will not say anything. farther on it.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. We cannot make a distinction between the particular nature and character of the offense charged from any other crime. A great inconvenience will no doubt arise in all the witnesses having to go to Warwick, but it seems. indispensable, in order that the indictment should be preferred before a Warwickshire grand jury, and that only after that can it be removed into the central criminal court,. and bring them back to London again.

Mr. COLERIDGE. No doubt it is so, but it arises from the case having been sent there. It is not my business to pass judgment on what has been done, but I cannot help saying it is to be regretted the prisoners have been committed to Warwick. It is substantially a metropolitan offense, and only an incident in the train of circumstances, buying arms in Birmingham. Apart from what was to be done with them, and the other matters which make it a criminal charge, the purchase of fire-arms in itself is a perfectly legitimate thing.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. Have you had any communication with the attorney general upon the subject?

Mr. COLERIDGE. No.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. If there is no objection on the part of the Crown, then the court my possibly assent.