tic and internal affairs of the United States, and derogated from the authority of their government. Reference to the events of the time will show that she misunderstood entirely the actual situation. The President's first proclamation against the insurrection was issued on the 15th of April. He described the condition of affairs as one in which the laws of the United States were opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. He called out the militia for a short term of service, to suppress those combinations, and to cause the laws of the land to be duly executed. He expressly declared that the first service assigned to the militia forces would probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which had been seized from the Union; and that, in every event, the utmost care would be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens of any part of the country; and he commanded the forces composing the combinations before mentioned to disperse, and to return to their respective abodes within twenty days. He at the same time convoked Congress for the 4th day of July, to consider the state of the Union. So also in the President's second or supplemental proclamation of the blockade, he defined its necessity as arising from an insurrection which had broken out in the States therein named, by means whereof the uniform laws of the United States for the collection of revenue could not be effectually executed. He recited, further, that a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection had threatened to grant pretended letters of marque. He declared, further, that he had required the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, and had called out the militia to restore order and the supremacy of the laws. All these declarations, recitals, warnings, and commands are the especial features of gov ernmental proclamations, designed to suppress local insurrections without suffering them to attain the form and dimensions of civil war. It was the absolute right of this government to treat the insurrection in this manner; and, in our opinion, it was not a right of Great Britain, by any recognition of the insurgents, either as sovereign or as belligerent, to defeat the wise and humane measures of the President in that respect. It will be found, we think, that all nations which have desired to practice justice and friendship towards a state temporarily disturbed by insurrection, have forborne from conceding belligerent privileges to the insurgents, in anticipation of their concession by the disturbed state itself. A nation which departs from this duty always practically commits itself as an ally to the insurgents, and may justly be held to the responsibilities of that relation. I pass, without comment, Lord Russell's justification of the Queen's proclamation, assimilating the situation here in 1861 to that of the Greeks rising against their Turkish oppressors in 1825. It could hardly be expected that this government would be convinced by an argument that assimilates them to the Ottoman power in its decline, and the slave-holding insurgents to the Christian descendants of heroic Greece, in their reascent to civilization. Lord Stanley thinks that the Queen's proclamation could have no tendency to encourage and create into a civil war a political convulsion which otherwise would have remained a mere local insurrection. If it were true that an insurrection acquires no new powers, faculties, and attributes, when it receives from its own or a foreign government the baptismal name of civil war, the point which Lord Stanley raises might require grave consideration. Such, however, is not generally the case; and certainly it was not the case in the late contest here. Provisions and treasures, arms, ordnance, and munitions of war, and even ships of war, began to pour forth from the British shores in support of the insurgent cause, so soon as the Queen's recognition of it as a belligerent was proclaimed; and they coutinually increased, until it was finally suppressed by the vigor and energy of this government. The commercial losses of the United States, which are the immediate subject of the present spondence, are only a small part of the damage which this country has sustained at the hands of British abettors of the insurgents. But will Lord Stanley please to refer to the table in which these special losses are presented, showing ninety-five merchant vessels, with ten millions of property, destroyed by the cruisers, which practically were sent forth from the British shores, and say whether he believes it possible that such destructive proceedings could have occurred if Great Britain had not conceded belligerent rights to the insurgents. Nor is it to be overlooked, that foreign moral sanction and sympathy are of more value to a local insurrection than even fleets and armies. Lord Stanley presents the considerations which induced the issue of the Queen's proclamation. He says that her Majesty's government had to provide. at a distance for the loss and interests of British subjects in or near the seat of war. But who required British subjects to be there? Who obliged them to remain in a place of danger? If they persisted in remaining there, had they not all the protection that citizens of the United States enjoyed. Were they entitled to more? Moreover does the jurisdiction of Great Britain extend into our country to protect its citizens sojourning here from accidents and casualties to which our own citizens are equally exposed? Lord Stanley continues, her Majesty's government had to consider the rapidity with which events were succeeding one another on the American continent, and the delay which must elapse before intelligence of those events could reach them, and the pressing necessity for definite instructions to the authorities in their colonies and ou their naval stations near the scene of the conflict. On the contrary, it seems to us that prudence and friendship, had they been deliberately consulted, would have suggested to her Majesty's government to wait for the development of events and definitive action of the United States. Lord Stanley repeats from Earl Russell, and reaffirms that "her Majesty's government had but two courses open to them on receiving intelligence of the President's proclamation, namely, either that of acknowledging the blockade. and proclaiming the neutrality of her Majesty, or that of refusing to acknowledge the blockade and insisting upon the right of her Majesty's subjects to trade with the ports of the south where the government of the United States could exercise no fiscal control at that time." With due respect I must demur to this statement. The disturbance being, at the time referred to, officially and legally held by the government of the United States to be a local insurrection, this government had a right to close the ports in the States within the scene of the insurrection, by municipal law, and to forbid strangers from all intercourse therewith, and to use the armed and naval forces for that purpose. A blockade was legitimately declared to that end; and, until the state of civil war should actually have developed, the existence of a blockade would have conferred no belligerent rights upon the insurgents. In choosing the blockade as a form of remedy less oppressive than the closing of the ports by statute, the United States might perhaps have come under an obligation to respect any just rights and interests of aliens which might have been infringed. There was, however, no just ground of apprehension on that subject, for the history of the time shows that those rights were in all cases inviolately respected. Again, the blockade could have been suitably acknowledged by her Majesty's government without a proclamation conceding belligerent rights to the insurgents. Certainly forbearance from foreign strife can be practiced, like every other national virtue, without public proclamation. There is hardly a nation in any part of the world which has not been disturbed by both internal and external wars since the United States became an independent maritime power. I find, however, in our records that the United States have accorded a recognition of belligerent rights only in one case, namely, in the case of the flagrant war between France and the allied European powers in 1793. In all other cases we have either disallowed belligerent rights or preserved silence. Lord Stanley says that "if Mr. Seward means to base the present claims on the ground that the British government should, while acknowledging the blockade, have awaited the arrival of a confederate ship of war in British ports before admitting the possession by the Confederate States' of a ship of war, and, therefore, their right to be treated on the high seas as a belligerent power, a reference to dates will show that the question would have been raised on the arrival of the Sumter at Trinidad, and of the Nashville at Southampton, some months before Mr. Adams laid his complaints against the vessels mentioned in the summary of claims." To this argument it is deemed a sufficient reply that neither of the two ves sels named in fact appeared in a British port or upon the high seas until after the Queen's proclamation, which tendered hospitalities and assistance to them, was issued. I do not deem it necessary to reply at large to the reflections which Lord Stanley makes upon the conduct of this government in regard to the proceedings of the so-called Fenians. The Fenian movement neither begins nor ends in the United States; the movers in those proceedings are not native citizens of the United States; but they are natives of Great Britain, though some of them have assumed naturalization in the United States. Their quarrel with Great Britain is not an American, but a British one, as old, I sincerely hope it may not be as lasting, as the union of the United Kingdom. Their aim is not American, but British revolution. In seeking to make the territory of the United States a base for the organization of a republic in Ireland, and of military and naval operations for its establishment there, they allege that they have followed as an example proceedings of British subjects in regard to our civil war, allowed by her Majesty's government. The policy and proceedings of the two governments in regard to those parallel movements have not assimilated. The United States government has not recognized the Irish republic as a belligerent, and has disarmed its forces when found within our territories aud waters. With regard to the manner in which this protracted controversy shall be brought to an end, we agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by Lord Stanley. We should even think it better that it be brought to an end, which might, perhaps, in some degree disappoint the parties, than that it should continue to alienate the two nations, each of which is powerful enough to injure the other deeply, while their maintenance of conflicting principles in regard to intervention would be a calamity to all nations. The United States think it not only easier and more desirable that Great Britain should acknowledge and satisfy the claims for indemnity which we have submitted, than it would be to find an equal and wise arbitrator who would consent to adjudicate them. If, how ever, her Majesty's government, for reasons satisfactory to them, should prefer the remedy of arbitration, the United States would not object. The United States, in that case, would expect to refer the whole controversy just as it is found in the correspondence which has taken place between the two governments, with such further evidence and arguments as either party may desire, without imposing restrictions, conditions, or limitations upon the umpire, and without waving any principle or argument on either side. They cannot consent to wave any question upon the consideration that it involves a point of national honor; and, on the other hand, they will not require that any question of national pride or honor shall be expressly ruled and determined as such.. If her Majesty's government shall concur in these views, the President will be ready to treat concerning the choice of an umpire. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 1907.] • Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 28th of December, No. 1293 It gives me your views of the present condition of the litigation in her Majesty's court of chancery between the United States and Prioleau, Fraser, Trenholm & Co., and suggests the expediency of being prepared, on the part of this government, to effect a reasonable settlement of that litigation. The suggestion is the manifest result of a careful exploration of the ground before you, and is appreciated. Mr. Redfield, who is understood to be a very judicious person, will proceed to Liverpool on the 16th, as you have been already advised. His instructions have been prepared by the Treasury Department, with the assistance of counsel, and I presume will be ample. On the general matter of this litigation I have sympathized with you in a want of confidence in the British tribunals where the American nation is brought down to contend with rebels, or British abettors of rebels. I trust that the government is not unprepared to meet a failure of justice. I shall, however, not be found amongst those who may be disposed to acquiesce, if the courts of Great Britain continue, as they have done heretofore, to pronounce with partiality in favor of enemies of the United States. The British nation owes us a large measure of reparation for the past. Failing to get this, I think we shall at least insist upon justice and equity in the future. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 1910.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 15, 1867. SIR: The honorable Godlove S. Orth, of the House of Representatives, has brought to the notice of this department the case of Captain Charles Underwood O'Connell, a citizen of the United States, who was arrested in September, 865, on board the steamer City of New York, at Queenstown, on a charge of complicity with the Fenian movement. In December following he was placed on trial at Cork, convicted for having on his person some Fenian papers, and sentenced to ten years' penal servitude in the quarries at Portland, England. It appears that his clothing, arms, private family papers, and his commission as captain in the United States army, were taken from him by the police authorities, in whose possession they are still supposed to remain. I will thank you, in making the case known to her Majesty's government, to use your good offices in behalf of Captain O'Connell, with a view either to effect his release or to obtain a mitigation of the sentence he is now undergoing. I am, sir, your obedien servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c, &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. O'Connell to Mr. Seward. LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, November 10, 1866. HONORED SIR: I most respectfully beg leave to state for your information that my son, Captain Charles Underwood O'Connell, a citizen of the United States, and who voted for Mr. Lincoln, was arrested in September, 1865, tried at Cork the following December, and convicted by a packed jury for having on his person some Fenian papers, and then sentenced to ten years' penal servitude, the galling and heartrending horrors of which he is now undergoing as a political prisoner at Portland, England, in the quarries, in company with murderers. Honored sir, at the time of his arrest on board the City of New York, in the harbor of Queenstown, Cork, his military clothes, arms, private family papers, as also his commission as captain, signed by the American Secretary of War, were all taken by the police and never since given up. He is the only military officer who was convicted, and is still detained, suffering most acutely all sorts of privations and persecution. I further beg to state that Mr. Orth, at the request of a highly respectable and influential supporter of his, says he in July last, as also in September, laid the case of my son before you, and never received any reply. As a firm supporter of the President's judicious policy I have apprehensions about this. The great affliction I am suffering in consequence of the death of my poor wife, and the continued incarceration of my son, will, I confidently trust, plead an excuse for my trespassing on your important and valuable time. Confidently trusting in your great and all-powerful influence to secure the release of my son, I have the honor to be, honored sir, with the greatest respect, your very humble servant, JOHN O'CONNELL. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. Mr. Orth to Mr. Seward. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1867. DEAR SIR: I enclose you a letter from Mr. O'Connell, one of my constituents, in reference to the imprisonment of his son, Charles Underwood O'Connell, formerly a captain in our army, and a citizen of the United States, now imprisoned in Great Britain on charge of complicity with the Fenian movement. Also a letter from honorable George Clifton, governor of Portland prison, &c. I desire to submit these letters to your department, with the suggestion that probably the friendly interposition of our government in Captain O'Connell's behalf might result in restoring to his family a gallant soldier of the republic, who may have been guilty of an indiscre tion against the government of Great Britain; or if of crime, that it is already sufficiently expiated. Respectfully, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, GODLOVE S. ORTH. Secretary of State. Mr. O'Connell to Mr. Orth. LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, January 5, 1867.. HON. SIR: Enclosed you have the governor's letter you expressed a wish to see. I also send a newspaper in which Mr. Pope Hennessy, a member of the English Parliament, allude to the sufferings and treatment those convicted for political offences are receiving. May the Great Lord bless you-and take the earliest opportunity of seeing Mr. Seward, as my poor son cannot much longer exist, under such cruel and merciless treatment. Regretting much being so very troublesome, and hoping to hear from you after seeing Mr. Seward, I have the honor to be, honorable sir, with great respect, your inflexible supporter, JOHN O'CONNELL. GODLOVE S. ORTH, Esq., M. C. Governor Clifton to Mr. Scullin. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, PORTLAND PRISON, SIR: Prisoner 5,368, Charles Underwood O'Connell, desires me to communicate with yon, and inform you that he is much troubted at not hearing from his family since he left the United States. He would feel more at ease were his anxiety respecting them relieved; and wants to hear whether all are alive and in good health. He entreats his friends not to fret, or by any means trouble about him, but to remember him in their prayers. He sends his love to his father, brother-in-law Mr. Scullin, his sisters Margaret, Anna, and |