the San Jacinto was at this time only two hundred yards distant, her ship's company at quarters, her ports open and tompions out, and so resistance was out of the question. The four persons before named were then forcibly taken out of the ship. A further demand was made that the commander of the Trent should proceed on board the San Jacinto, but he said he would not go unless forcibly compelled likewise, and this demand was not insisted upon. Upon this statement Earl Russell remarks that it thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board & British vessel, the ship of a neutral power, while that vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage-an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law. Earl Russell next says that her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind the friendly relations which have long subsisted between Great Britian and the United States, are willing to believe that the naval officer who committed this aggression was not acting in compliance with any authority from his Government, or that, if he conceived himself to be so authorized, he greatly misunderstood the instructions which he had received. Earl Russell argues that the United States must be fully aware that the British Government could not allow such an affront to the national honor to pass without full reparation, and they are willing to believe that it could not be the deliberate intention of the Government of the United States unnecessarily to force into discussion between the two Governments a question of so grave a character, and with regard to which the whole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. Earl Russell, resting upon the statement and the argument which I have thus recited, closes with saying that her Majesty's government trust that when this matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the Government of the United States, it will, of its own accord, off r to the British Government such redress as alone could satisfy the British nation, namely, the liberation of the four prisoners taken from the Trent, and their delivery to your lordship, in order that they may again be placed under British protection, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed. Earl Russell fina ly instructs you to propose those terms to me, if I should not first offer them on the part of the Government. This despatch has been submitted to the President. The British government has rightly conjectured, what it is now my duty to state, that Captain Wilkes, in conceiving and executing the proceeding in question, acted upon his own suggestions of duty, without any direction or instruction, or even foreknowledge of it, on the part of this Government. No directions had been given to him, or any other naval officer, to arrest the four persons named, or any of them, on the Trent or any other British vessel, or on any other neutral vessel, at the place where it occurred or elsewhere. The British government will justly infer from these facts that the United States not only have had no purpose, but even no thought, of forcing into discussion the question which has arisen, or any other which could affect in any way the sensibilities of the British nation. was engaged in suppressing by the employment of land and naval forces; that in regard to this domestic strife the United States considered Great Britain as a friendly power, while she had assumed for herself the attitude of a neu tral; and that Spain was considered in the same light, and had assumed the same attitude as Great Britain. It had been settled by correspondence that the United States and Great Britain mutually recognized as applicable to this local strife these two articls of the declaration made by the Congress of Paris in 1856, namely, that the neutral or friendly flag should cover enemy's goods not contraband of war, and that neutral goods not contraband of war are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. These exceptions of contraband from favor were a negative acceptance by the parties of the rule hitherto every where recognized as a part of the law of nations, that whatever is contraband is liable to capture and confiscation in all cases. James M. Mason and E. J. McFarland are citizens of the United States and residents of Virginia. John Slidell and George Eustis are citizens of the United States and resi these parties embarked in the Trent that James M. Mason was proceeding to England in the affected character of a minister plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James, under a pretended commission from Jefferson Davis, who had assumed to be president of the insurrectionary party in the United States, and E. J. McFarland was going with him in a like unreal character of secretary of legation to the pretended mission. John Slidell, in similar circumstances, was going to Paris as a pretended minister to the Emperor of the French, and George Eustis was the chosen secretary of legation for that simulated mission. The fact that these persons had assumed such characters has been since avowed by the same Jefferson Davis in a pretended message to an unlawful and insurrectionary Congress. It was, we think, rightly presumed that these ministers bore pretended credentials and instructions, and such papers are in the law known as despatches. We are informed by our consul at Paris that these desp.tches, having escaped the search of the Trent, were actually conveyed and delivered to emissaries of the insurrection in England. Although it is not essential, yet it is proper to state, as I do also upon information and belief, that the owner and agent, and all the officers of the Trent, including Commander Williams, had knowledge of the assumed characters and purposes of the persons before named when they embarked on that vessel. dents of Louisiana. It was well known at Havana when Your lordship will now perceive that the case before us, instead of presenting a merely flagrant act of violence on the part of Captain Wilkes, as might well be inferred from the incomplete statement of it that went up to the British government, was undertaken as a simple egn tomary belligerent proceeding by Captain W..acs waltest and capture a neutral vessel engaged in carrying contra band of war for the use and benefit of the insurgents. The question before us is, whether this proceeding was authorized by and conducted according to the law of nations. It involves the following inquiries: 1st. Were the persons named and their supposed despatches contraband of war? It is true that a round shot was fired by the San Jacinto from her pivot-gun when the Trent was distantly approach- 21. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and search the ing. But, as the facts have been reported to this govern-Trent for these contraband persons and despatches? ment, the shot was nevertheless intentionally fired in a direction so obviously divergent from the course of the Trent as to be quite as harmless as a blank shot, while it should be regarded as a signal. So also we learn that the Trent was not approaching the San Jacinto slowly when the shell was fired across her bows, but, on the contrary, the Trent was, or seemed to be, moving under a full head of steam, as if with a purpose to pass the San Jacinto. We are informed also that the boarding officer, (Lieutenant Fairfax,) did not board the Trent with a large armed guard, but he left his marines in his boat when he entered the Trent. He stated his instructions from Captain Wilkes to search for the four persons named, in a respectful and courteous, though decided manner, and he asked the captain of the Trent to show his passenger list, which was refused. The lieutenant, as we are informed, did not employ absolute force in transferring the passengers, but he used just so much as was necessary to satisfy the parties concerned that refusal or resistance would be unavailing. So, also, we are informed that the captain of the Trent was not at any time or in any way required to go on board the San Jacinto, 3d. Did he exercise that right in a lawful and proper manner? 4th. Having found the contraband persons on board and in presumed possession of the contraband dispatches, had he a right to capture the persons? 5th. Did he exercise that right of capture in the manner allowed and recognized by the laws of nations? If all these inquires shall be resolved in the affirmative the British government will have no claim for reparation. I address myself to the first inquiry, namely, were the four persons mentioned, and their supposed despatches, contraband? Maritime law so generally deals, as its professors say, in rem, that is with property, and so seldom with persons, that it seems a straining of the term contraband to apply it to them. But persons, as well as property, may become contraband, since the word means broadly "contrary to proc lamation, prohibited, illegal, unlawful.” All writers and judges pronounce naval or military persons in the service of the enemy contraband. Vattel says war allows us to cut off from an enemy all his resources, and to hinder him from sending ministers to solicit assistance. And Sir William Scott says you may stop the ambas These modifications of the case, as presented by Com-sador of your enemy on his passage. Despatches are not mander Williams, are based upon our official reports. less clearly contraband, and the bearers or couriers who undertake to carry them fall under the same condemnation. I have now to remind your lordship of some facts which doubtlessly were omitted by Earl Russell, with the very proper and becoming motive of allowing them to be brought into the case, on the part of the United States, in the way most satisfactory to this Government. These facts are, that at the time the transaction occurred an insurrection was existing in the United States which this Government A subtlety might be raised whether pretended ministers of a usurping power, not recognized as legal by either the belligerent or the neutral, could be held to be contraband. But it would disappear on being subjected to what is the true test in all cases-namely, the spirit of the law. Sir William Scott, speaking of civil magistrates who are arrested and detained as contraband, says: only courts of admiralty have jurisdiction in maritime cases, and these courts have formulas to try only claims to "It appears to me on principle to be but reasonable that contraband chattels, but none to try claims concerning when it is of sufficient importance to the enemy that such contraband persous. The courts can entertain no proceedpersons shall be sent out on the public service at the pub-ings and render no judgment in favor of or against the allic expense, it should afford equal ground of forfeiture leged contraband men. against the vessel that may be let out for a purpose so intimately connected with the hostile operations." I trust that I have shown that the four persons who were taken from the Trent by Captain Wilkes, and their des patches, were contraband of war. The second inquiry is, whether Captain Wilkes had a right by the law of nations to detain and search the Trent. The Trent, though she carried mails, was a contract or merchant vessel-a common carrier for hire. Maritime law knows only three classes of vessels-vessels of war, revenue vessels, and merchant vessels. The Trent falls within the latter class. Whatever disputes have existed concerning a right of visitation or search in time of peace, none, it is supposed, has existed in modern times about the right of a belligerent in time of war to capture contraband in neutral and even friendly merchant vessels, and of the right of visitation and search, in order to determine whether they are neutral, and are documented as such according to the law of nations. I assume in the present case what, as I read British authorities, is regarded by Great Britain herself as true maritime law: That the circumstances that the Trent was procceding from a neutral port to another neutral port does not modify the right of the belligerent captor. The third question is whether Captain Wilkes exercised the right of search in a lawful and proper manner. If any doubt hung over this point, as the case was presented in the statement of it adopted by the British Government, I think it must have already passed away before the modifications of that statement which I have already submitted. I proceed to the fourth inquiry, namely: Having found the suspected contraband of war on board the Trent, had Captain Wilkes a right to capture the same? Such a capture is the chief, if not the only recognized, object of the permitted visitation and search. The principle of the law is, that the belligerent exposed to danger may prevent the contraband persons or things from applying themselves or being applied to the hostile uses or purposes designed. The law is so very liberal in this respect that when contraband is found on board a neutral vessel not only is the contraband forfeited, but the vessel which is the vehicle of its passage or transportation, being tainted, also becomes contraband, and is subjected to capture and confiscation. Only the fifth question remains, namely: Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right of capturing the contraband in conformity with the law of nations? It is just here that the difficulties of the case begin. What is the manner which the law of nations prescribes for disposing of the contraband when you have found and seized it on board of the neutral vessel? The answer would be easily found if the question were what you shall do with the contraband vessel. You must take or send her into a convenient port, and subject her to a judicial prosecution there in admiralty, which will try and decide the questions of belligerency, neutrality, contraband, and capture. So, again, you would promptly find the same answer if the question were, What is the manner of proceeding prescribed by the law of nations in regard to the contraband, if it be property or things of material or pecuniary value? But the question here concerns the mode of procedure in regard, not to the vessel that was carrying the contraband, nor yet to contraband things which worked the forfeiture of the vessel, but to contraband persons. It was replied all this was true; but you can reach in those courts a decision which will have the moral weight of a judicial one by a circuitous proceeding. Convey the suspected men, together with the suspected vessel, into port, and try there the question whether the vessel is contraband. You can prove it to be so by proying the suspected men to be contraband, and the court must then determine the vessel to be contraband. If the men are not contraband the vessel will escape condemnation. Still, there is no judgment for or against the captured persons. But it was assumed that there would result from the determination of the court concerning the vessel a legal certainty concerning the character of the men. This course of proceeding seemed open to many objections. It elevates the incidental inferior private interest into the proper place of the main paramount public one, and possibly it may make the fortunes, the safety, or the existence of a nation depend on the accidents of a merely personal and pecuniary litigation. Moreover, when the judgment of the prize court upon the lawfulness of the cap ture of the vessel is rendered, it really concludes nothing, and binds neither the belligerent State nor the neutral upon the great question of the disposition to be made of the captured contraband persons. That question is still to be really determined, if at all, by diplomatic arrangement or by war. One may well express his surprise when told that the law of nations has furnished no more reasonable, practical, and perfect mode than this of determining questions of such grave import between sovereign powers. The regret we may feel on the occasion is nevertheless modified by the reflection that the difficulty is not altogether anomalous. Similar and equal deficiencies are found in every system of municipal law, especially in the system which exists in the greater portions of Great Britain and the United States. The title to personal property can hardly ever be resolved by a court without resorting to the fiction that the claimant has lost and the possessor has found it, and the title to real es tate is disputed by real litigants under the names of imaginary persons. It must be confessed, however, that while all aggrieved nations demand, and all impartial ones con cede, the need of some form of judicial process in determining the characters of contraband persons, no other form than the illogical and circuitous one thus described exists, nor has any other yet been suggested. Practically, there fore, the choice is between that judicial remedy or no judicial remedy whatever. If there be no judicial remedy, the result is that the ques tion must be determined by the captor himself, on the deck of the prize vessel. Very grave objections arise against such a course. The captor is armed, the neutral is unarmed. The captor is interested, prejudiced, and perhaps violent; the neutral, if truly neutral, is disinterested, subdued, and helpless. The tribunal is irresponsible, while its judgment is carried into instant execution. The captured party is compelled to submit, though bound by no legal, moral, or treaty obligation to acquiesce. Reparation is distant and problematical, and depends at last on the justice, magnanimity, or weakness of the State in whese behalf and by whose authority the capture was made. Out of these disputes reprisals and wars necessarily arise, and these are so frequent and destructive that it may well be doubted whether this form of remedy is not a greater social evil than all that could follow if the belligerent right of search were universally renounced and abolished forever. But carry the The books of law are dumb. Yet the question is as im- case one step further. What if the State that has made the portant as it is difficult. First, the belligerent captor has a capture unreasonably refuse to hear the complaint of the right to prevent the contraband officer, soldier, sailor, min-neutral or to redress it? In that case, the very act of capister, messenger, or courier from proceeding in his unlawture would be an act of war-of war begun without notice, ful voyage and reaching the destined scene of his injurious service. But, on the other hand, the person captured may I think all unprejudiced minds will agree that, imperfect be innocent that is, he may not be contraband. He, as the existing judicial remedy may be supposed to be, it therefore, has a right to a fair trial of the accusation against would be, as a general practice, better to follow it than to him. The neutral State that has taken him under its flag is adopt the summary one of leaving the decision with the bound to protect him if he is not contraband, and is there captor, and relying upon diplomatic debates to review his fore entitled to be satisfied upon that important question. decision. Practically, it is a question of choice between law, The faith of that State is pledged to his safety, if innocent, with its imperfections and delays, and war, with its evils as its justice is pledged for his surrender if he is really con- and desolations. Nor is it ever to be forgotten that neutraltraband. Here are conflicting claims, involving personality, honestly and justly preserved, is always the harbinger liberty, life, horor, and duty. Here are conflicting national of peace, and therefore is the common interest of nations, claims, involving welfare, safety, honor, and empire. They which is only saying that it is the interest of humanity require a tribunal and a trial. The captors and the crp- itself. tured are equals; the neutral and the belligerent State are equals. and possibly entirely without provocation. At the same time it is not to be denied that it may some times happen that the judicial remedy will become imposWhile the law authorities were found silent, it was sug-sible, as by the shipwreck of the prize vessel, or other cir gested at an early day by this Government that you should cumstances which excuse the captor from sending or taking take the captured persons into a convenient port, and insti- her into port for confiscation. In such a case the right of tute judicial proceedings there to try the controversy. But the captor to the custody of the captured persons, and to dispose of them, if they are really contraband, so as to defeat their unlawful purposes, cannot reasonably be denied. What rule shall be applied in such a case? Clearly, the captor ought to be required to show that the failure of the judicial remedy results from circumstances beyond his control, and without his fault. Otherwise, he would be allowed to derive advantage from a wrongful act of his own. In the present caso, Captain Wilkes, after capturing the contraband persons and making prize of the Trent in what seems to be a perfectly lawful manner, instead of sending her into port, released her from the capture, and permitted her to proceed with her whole cargo upon her voyage. He thus effectually prevented the judicial examination which might otherwise have occurred. If, now, the capture of the contraband persons and the capture of the contraband vessel are to be regarded, not as two separate or distinct transactions under the law of nations, but as one transaction, one capture only, then it follows at the capture in this case was left unfinished, or was abandoned. Whether the United States have a right to retain the chief public benefits of it, namely, the custody of the captured persons on proving them to be contraband, will depend upon the preliminary question whether the leaving of the transaction unfinished was necessary, or whether it was unnecessary, and therefore voluntary. If it was necessary, Great Britain, as we suppose, must, of course, waive the defect, and the consequent failure of the judicial remedy. On the other hand, it is not seen how the United States can insist upon her waiver of that judicial remedy, if the defect of the capture resulted from an act of Captain Wilkes, which would be a fault on their own side. Captain Wilkes has presented to this Government his reasons for releasing the Trent. "I forebore to seize her," he says, "in consequence of my being so reduced in ofiicers and crew, and the derangement it would cause innocent persons, there being a large number of passengers who would have been put to great loss and inconvenience, as well as disappointment, from the interruption it would have caused them in not being able to join the steamer from St. Thomas to Europe. I therefore concluded to sacrifice the interest of my officers and crew in the prize, and suffered her to proceed after the detention necessary to effect the transfer of those commissioners, considering I had obtained the important end I had in view, and which affected the Interest of our country and interrupted the action of that of the confederates." I shall consider, first, how these reasons ought to affect the action of this Government; and secondly, how they ought to be expected to affect the action of Great Britain. The reasons are satisfactory to this Government, so far as Captain Wilkes is concerned. It could not desire that the San Jacinto, her officers and crew, should be exposed to danger and loss by weakening their number to detach a prize crew to go on board the Trent. Still less could it disavow the humane motive of preventing inconveniences, losses, and perhaps disasters, to the several hundred innocent passengers found on board the prize vessel. Nor could this Government perceive any ground for questioning the fact that these reasons, though apparently incongruous, did operate in the mind of Captain Wilkes and determine him to release the Trent. Human actions generally proceed upon mingled, and sometimes conflicting motives. He measured the sacrifices which this decision would cost. It manifestly, however, did not occur to him that beyond the Bacrifice of the private interests (as he calls them) of his officers and crew, there might also possibly be a sacrifice even of the chief and public object of his capture, namely, the right of his Government to the custody and disposition of the captured persons. This Government cannot censure him for this oversight. It confessess that the whole subject came unforeseen upon the Government, as doubtless it did upon him. Its present convictions on the point in question are the result of delib rate examination and deduction now made, and not of any impressions previously formed. Nevertheless, the question now is, not whether Captain Wilkes is justified to his Government in what he did, but what is the present view of the Government as to the effect of what he has done. Assuming now, for argument's sake only, that the release of the Trent, if voluntary, involved a waiver of the claim of the Government to hold the captured persons, the United States could in that case have no hesitation in saying that the act which bas thus already been approved by the Government must be allowed to draw its legal consequence after it. It is of the very nature of a gift or a charity that the giver cannot, after the exercise of his benevolence is past, recall or modify its benefits. 341 not the duty of a captor to hazard his own vessel in or der to secure a judicial examination to the captured party. No large prize crew, however is legally necessary, for it is the duty of the captured party to acquiesce, and go willingly before the tribunal to whose jurisdiction it appeals. If the captured party indicate purposes to employ means to himself overcome, he may properly leave the vessel to go of resistance which the captor cannot with probable safety forward; and neither she nor the State she represents can ever afterwards justly object that the captor deprived her of the judicial remedy to which she was entitled. leasing the Trent differs from the first. At best, therefore, But the second reason assigned by Captain Wilkes for reself, acted from combined sentiments of prudence and genit must be held that Captain Wilkes, as he explains himerosity, and so that the release of the prize vessel was not strictly necessary or involuntary. Captain Wilkes of his reasons for leaving the capture inSecondly. How ought we to expect these explanations by complete to affect the action of the British government? Captain Wilkes's explanations were not made to the authorThe observation upon this point which first occurs is, that ities of the captured vessel. If made known to them, they might have approved and taken the release upon the condition of waiving a judicial investigation of the whole transaction, or they might have refused to accept the release upon that condition. government. If we claim that Great Britain ought not to But the case is one not with them, but with the British insist that a judicial trial has been lost because we volunher innocent passengers, I do not see how she is to be bound tarily released the offending vessel out of consideration for without necessity on our part, and without knowledge of to acquiesce in the decision which was thus made by us conditions or consent on her own. The question between Great Britain and ourselves thus stated would be a ques her to us in return for favors shown by us to her, of the value of which favors on both sides we ourselves shall be tion not of right and of law, but of favor to be conceded by the judge. Of course the United States could have no thought of raising such a question in any case. Government, by a very simple and natural statement of the I trust that I have shown to the satisfaction of the British facts, and analysis of the law applicable to them, that this Government has neither meditated, nor practiced, nor apthey have called its attention; and, on the contrary, that what has happened has been simply an inadvertency, conproved any deliberate wrong in the transaction to which wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and sisting in a departure, by the naval officer, free from any probably by the several parties concerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. For this error the Britthat we, as an independent State, should expect from Great ish Government has a right to expect the same reparation Britain or from any other friendly nation in a similar case. I have fallen into an argument for what seems to be the I have not been unaware that, in examining this question, British side of it against my own country. But I am relieved from all embarrassment on that subject. I had hardly fallen into that line of argument when I discovered that I was really defending and maintaining, not an exclusively British interest, but an old, honored, and cherished Amerithat constitute a large portion of the distinctive policy by can cause, not upon British authorities, but upon principles continent, and thus becoming a considerable maritime which the United States have developed the resources of a power, have won the respect and confidence of many nations. These principles were laid down for us in 1804, by James Madison, when Secretary of State, in the administraMonroe, our Minister to England. Although the case before tion of Thomas Jefferson, in instructions given to James him concerned a description of persons different from those who are incidentally the subjects of the present discussion, the ground he assumed then was the same I now occupy, have been an inspiration to me in preparing this reply. and the arguments by which he sustained himself upon it is supposed to be liable on any ground to capture and con"Whenever," he says, "property found in a neutral vessel demnation, the rule in all cases is, that the question shall tribunal, where a regular trial may be had, and where the not be decided by the captor, but be carried before a legal captor himself is liable to damages for an abuse of his power. Can it be reasonable, then, or just, that a belligerent commander who is thus restricted, and thus responsible in ted, without recurring to any tribunal whatever, to examine a case of mere property of trivial amount, should be permitWe are thus brought directly to the question whether we of their respective allegiances, and to carry that decision into the crew of a neutral vessel, to decide the important question are entitled to regard the release of the Trent as involun-execution by forcing every individual he may choose into a tary, or whether we are obliged to consider that it was vol- service abhorrent to his feelings, cutting him off from his untary. Clearly the release would have been involuntary most tender connexions, exposing his mind and his person had it been made solely upon the first ground assigned for it by Captain Wilkes, namely, a want of a sufficient force greatest danger. Reason, justice, and humanity unite in to the most humiliating discipline, and his life itself to the to send the prize vessel into port for adjudication. It is protesting against so extravagant a proceeding." If I decide this case in favor of my own Government, I | must disavow its most cherished principles, and reverse and forever abandon its essential policy. The country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain those principles, and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the case itself. It will be seen, there ore, that this Government could not deny the justice of the claim preseuted to us in this respect upon its merits. We are asked to do the British nation just what we have always insisted all nations ought to do to us. The claim of the British government is not made in a discourteous manner. This Government. since its first organization, has never used more guarded language in a similar case. In coming to my conclusion I have not forgotten that, if the safety of this Union required the detention of the captured persons, it would be the right and duty of this Government to detain them. But the effectual check and waning proportions of the existing insurrection, as well as the comparative unimportance of the captured persons themselves, when dispassionately weighed, happily forbid me from resorting to that delence. Nor am I unaware that American citizens are not in any case to be unnecessarily surrendered for any purpose into the keeping of a foreign State Only the captured persons, however, or others who are interested in them, could justly raise a question on that ground. Nor have I been tempted at all by the suggestions that cases might be found in history where Great Britian refused to yield to other nations, and even to ourselves, claims like that which is now before us. Those cases occurred when Great Britain, as well as the United States, was the home of generations, which, with all their peculiar interests and passions, have passed away. She could in no other way so effectually disavow any such injury as we think she does by assuming now as her own the ground upon which we then stood. It would tell little for our own claims to the character of a just and magnanimous people if we should so far consent to be guided by the law of retaliation as to lift up buried injuries from their graves to oppose against what national consistency and the national conscience compel us to regard as a claim intrinsically right. Putting behind me all suggestions of this kind, I prefer to express my satisfaction that, by the adjustment of the present case upon principles confessedly American, and yet, as I trust, mutually satisfactory to both of the nations concerned, a question is finally and rightly settled between them, which, heretofore exhausting not only all forms of peaceful discussion, but also the arbitrament of war itself, for more than a half a century alienated the two countries from each other, and perplexed with fears and apprehen sions all other nations. The four persons in question are now held in military custody at Fort Warren, in the State of Massachusetts. They will be cheerfully liberated. Your lordship will please indicate a time and place for receiving them. EARL RUSSELL TO LORD LYONS. JANUARY 10, 1862. MY LORD In my despatch to you of the 30th of November, after informing you of the circumstances which had occurred in relation to the capture of the four persons taken from on board the Trent, I stated to you that it thus appeared that certain individuals had been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral power, while such vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage; an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag, and a violation of international law. I concluded by directing you, in case the reparation which her Majesty's government expected to receive should not be offered by Mr. Seward, to propose to that minister to make such redress as alone would satisfy the British nation, namely: first, the liberation of the four gentlemen taken from on board the Trent, and their delivery to your lordship, in order that they might again be placed under British protection; and, secondly, a suitable apology for the aggression which had been committed. I received yesterday your lordship's despatch of the 27th ultimo, enclosing a note to you from Mr. Seward, which is in substance the answer to my despatch of the 30th of November. Proceeding at once to the main points in discussion between us, her Majesty's government have carefully examined how far Mr. Seward's note, and the conduct it announces, comply substantially with the two proposa s I have recited. With regard to the first, viz: the liberation of the prisoners with a view to their being again placed under British protection, I find that the note concludes by stating that the prisoners will be cheerfully liberated, and by calling upon your lordship to indicate a time and place for receiving them. No condition of any kind is coupled with the liberation of the prisoners. With regard to the suitable apology which the British government had a right to expect, I find that the Government of the United States distinctly and unequivocally declares that no directions had been given to Captain Wilkes, or to any other naval officer, to arrest the four persons named or any of them, on the Trent, or on any other British vessel, or on any other neutral vessel, at the place where it occurred or elsewhere. I find further that the Secretary of State expressly for bears to justify the particular act of which her Majesty's government complained. If the United States Government had alleged that, although Captain Wilkes had no previous instructions for that purpose, he was right in capturing the persons of the four prisoners, and in removing them from the Trent on board his own vessel, to be afterwards carried into a port of the United States, the Government which had thus sanctioned the proceeding of Captain Wilkes would have become responsible for the original violence and insults of the act. But Mr. Seward contents himself with stating that what has happened has been simply an inadvertency, consisting in a departure by a naval officer, free from any wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and probably by the several parties concerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. The Secre tary of State goes on to affirm that for this error the British government has a right to expect the same reparation which the United States as an independent State should expect from Great Britain or from any other friendly nation in a similar case. Her Majesty's government having carefully taken into their consideration the liberation of the prisoners, the delivery of them into your hands, and the explanations to which I have just referred, have arrived at the conclusion that they constitute the reparation which her Majesty and the British nation has a right to expect. It gives her Majesty's government great satisfaction to be enabled to arrive at a conclusion favorable to the maintenance of the most friendly relations between the two nations. I need not discuss the modifications in my statement of facts which Mr. Seward says he has derived from the reports of officers of his Government. I cannot conclude, however, without adverting shortly to the discussions which Mr. Seward has raised upon points not prominently brought into question in my despatch of the 30th of November. I there objected, on the part of her Majesty's government, to that which Captain Wilkes had done. Mr. Seward, in his answer, points out what he conceives Captain Wilkes might have done without violating the law of nations. It is not necessary that I should here discuss in detail the five questions ably argued by the Secretary of State. But it is necessary that I should say that her Majesty's government differ from Mr. Seward in some of the conclusions at which he has arrived; and it may lead to a better understanding between the two nations on several points of international law which may, during the present contest, or at some future time be brought into question, that I should state to you, for communication to the Secretary of State, wherein those differences consist. I hope to do so in a few days. In the meantime, it will be desirable that the commanders of the United States cruisers should be instructed not to repeat acts for which the British government will have to ask for redress, and which the United States Government cannot undertake to justify. You will read and give a copy of this despatch to the Secretary of State. COMMENT OF THE LONDON TIMES. The London Times of January 11, 1863, commenting on the proper reception to be given these visitors, remarked: So we do sincerely hope that our countrymen will not give these fellows anything in the shape of an ovation. The civility that is due to a foe in distress is all that they can claim. We have returned them good for evil, and, sooth to say, we should be exceedingly sorry that they should ever be in a situation to choose what return they will make for the good we have now done them. They are here for their own interest, in order, if possible, to drag ns into their own quarrel, and, but for the unpleasant contingencies of a prison, rather disappointed perhaps that their detention has not provoked a new war. When they stepped on board the Trent they did not trouble themselves with the thought of the mischief they might be doing an unoffending neutral; and if now, by any less perilous device, they could entangle us in the war, no doubt they would be only too happy. We trust there is no chance of their doing this, for, impartial as the British pnl lic is in the matter, it certainly has no prejudice in favor of slavery, which, if any thing, these gentlemen represent. What they and their secretaries are to do here passes our conjecture. They are personally nothing to us. They must not suppose, because OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. We we have gone to the very verge of a great war to rescue them, that therefore they are precious in our eyes. should have done just as much to rescue two of their own negroes; and, had that been the object of the rescue, the swarthy Pompey and Cæsar would have had just the same right to triumphal arches and municipal addresses as Messrs. Mason and Slidell. So, please, British public, lot's have none of these things. Let the commissioners come up quietly to town, and have their say with anybody who may have time to listen to them. For our part, we cannot see how anything they have to tell can turn the scale of British | There have been so many cases of duty and deliberation. peoples and nations establishing an actual independence, and compelling the recognition of the world, that all we have to do is what we have done before, up to the very last Our year. This is now a simple matter of precedent. statesmen and lawyers know quite as much on the subject as Messrs. Mason and Slidell, and are in no need of their information or advice. ACTION OF CONGRESS. 1861, December 2-Mr. LOVEJOY, by unanimous consent, offered this joint resolution: That the thanks of Congess are due, and are hereby tendered, to Captain Wilkes of the United States Navy, for his brave, adroit, and patriotic conduct in the arrest and detention of the traitors James M. Mason and John Slidell. Grider, Gurley, Hale, Harding, Harrison, Hickman, Hutch- Monarchical Intrigues in Central and 1864, March 15-Mr. MCDOUGALL offered this Resolved, That the President be requested to communiterest, any correspondence or other information in posses. cate to the Senate, if not incompatible with the public insion of the Government, relating to any plan or plans now projected or being projected with a view to the establishment of monarchical governments in Central and South America. Mr. EDGERTON moved this as a substitute: That the President of the United States be requested to present to Captain Charles Wilkes a gold medal, with suit-resolution of the Senate of the 15th instant, requesting the able emblems and devices, in testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of his good conduct in promptly arresting the rebel ambassadors James M. Mason and John Slidell. Which was agreed to; and the resolution passed. 1862, February 19 -The Senate indefinitely postponed it. 1861, December 16-Mr. VALLANDIGHAM offered this resolution: Whereas the Secretary of the Navy has reported to this House that Captain Charles Wilkes, in command of the San Jacinto, an armed public vessel of the United States, did, ou the 8th of November, 1861, on the high seas, intercept the Trent, a British mail steamer, and forcibly remove therefrom James M. Mason and John Slidell-disloyal cit-" izens, leading conspirators, rebel enemies, and dangerous men"-who, with their suite, were on their way to Europe "to promote the cause of the insurrection," claiming to be ambassadors from the so-called Confederate States; and whereas the Secretary of the Navy has further reported to this House, that "the prompt and decisive action of Captain Wilkes on this occasion merited and received the emphatic approval of the Department," and moreover, in a public letter has thanked Captain Wilkes for the act; and whereas this House, on the first day of the session, did propose to tender the thanks of Congress to Captain Wilkes, for his "brave, adroit, and patriotic conduct in the arrest and detention of the traitors James M. Mason and John Slidell;" and whercas further, on the same day, this House did request the President to confine the said James M. Mason and John Slidell in the cells of convicted felons until certain military officers of the United States, captured and held by the so-called Confederate States, should be treated as prisoners of war: Therefore, Be it resolved, (as the sense of this House,) That it is the duty of the President to now firmly maintain the stand thus taken, approving and adopting the act of Captain Wilkes, in spite of any menace or demand of the British government; and that this House pledges its full support to him in upholding now the honor and vindicating the courage of the Government and people of the United States against a foreign power. Which, on motion of Mr. FENTON, was re- YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Babbitt, Joseph March 24-The PRESIDENT transmitted this paper from the Secretary of State, in reply: The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the President" to communicate to the Senate, if not incompati ble with the public interest, any correspondence or other information in possession of the Government relating to any plan or plans now projected, or being projected, with a Central and South America," has the honor to report, that view to the establishment of monarchical governments in surmises and jealousies are constantly arising on the subject to which the resolution refers, which are brought to the notice of the Department by our representatives abroad.. tion which furnishes any reliable facts showing the existBut there is no correspondence or other form of informa ence of "plans" for the accomplishment of the object mentioned. Any correspondence which might be regarded as embraced in the resolution, besides being very vague, is, in time would be incompatible with the public interest. its nature, confidential, and its publication at the present Alleged Foreign Enlistments. 1864, June 28-The PRESIDENT transmitted, in reply to a Senate resolution of 24th, these reports: FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE. WASHINGTON, June 25, 1864. The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the resolution of the Senate of the 24th instant, requesting the President to inform that body "if any authority has been given any one, either in this country or elsewhere, to obtain recruits in Ireland or Canada for our army and navy; and whether any such recruits have been obtained, or whether, to the knowledge of the Government, Irishmen or Canadians have been induced to emigrate to this country in been adopted in order to arrest such conduct," has the order to be recruited; and if so, what measures, if any, liave honor, in reply to the inquiries thus submitted, to report, that no authority has been given by the Executive of this Government, or by any executive department, to any one, either in this country or elsewhere, to obtain recruits either in Ireland, or in Canada, or in any foreign country, for the contrary, that whenever application for such authority either the army or the navy of the United States; and on has been made, it has been refused and absolutely withheld. If any such recruits have been obtained, either in the provinces named in the resolution, or in any foreign country, zens of the United States, but subjects or citizens of the they have been obtained by persons who are not even citicountry where the recruits were obtained. The persons who obtained such recruits, if any were so obtained, were answerable to the laws of the foreign province or country where their offences were committed, and at the same time they were not within the reach of our own laws and tribunals; and such persons acted without any authority or consent, and even without the knowledge of this Government. This Government has no knowledge that any such recruits |