solicitude for an honorable termination of the present contest between the Government and the seceding States.

The audience was strictly private, no person but His Majesty and myself being present, and the interview was therefore of a less formal character than is usual with royal receptions. It is, perhaps, proper to add that the communication was conducted in French, which is the usual language of oral intercourse between foreign Ministers and the Sovereign or the heads of departments at this Court.

With Baron Ricasoli, the new head of the Ministry and Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have had several interviews, as well before as since my reception by the King, and I therefore am not aware that the public interests have sustained any detriment by the delay of my official reception. In all these interviews American polities have formed a leading topic of conversation, and, though Baron Ricasoli speaks with proper caution, the tenour of his remarks leaves no room for doubt that his personal sympathies, as well as those of his Government, are entirely on the side of the President and the constituted authorities of the Union in their great struggle.

The first point which I brought to the notice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was the prevention of movements hostile to The United States in the territories of the King of Italy. I stated that I had been led to fear that some attempts were making at Genoa to fit out vessels or purchase arms for the service of the rebels, and begged that the attention of the local authorities at Genoa might be drawn to the subject. Baron Ricasoli replied that the Government would not knowingly permit any such purchases to be made, and that he would request the Minister of the Interior to direct that the police of Genoa should be watchful to detect and prevent any negotiations for that purpose.

The suggestions I made to Baron Ricasoli on this subject were founded partly on a letter from Mr. H. S. Sanford and partly on vague rumours circulating here, which I have been unable to trace to any certain foundation, though I have made inquiry in all quarters known to me which seemed to be probable sources of information. In the course of the last week I employed an Italian gentleman, then about to proceed to Genoa, and whom I believe to be entirely trustworthy, to investigate the subject on the spot. He is still absent, and as he has not written to me since arriving at Genoa I infer that he has made no discoveries.

I have communicated to Baron Ricasoli the substance of my instructions with regard to the proposed convention for the suppression of privateering and the exemption of private property from capture by national ships of war in certain cases. He replied that the Italian Government had not yet become a party to the Conven

tion of 1856, and added that the pressure of business on his department would prevent his giving immediate attention to the subject; but he expressed no objection to a negotiation on the basis proposed in your instructions of the 24th of April, 1861, or even on the broader ground of the total exemption of all private property not contraband of war from capture at sea by ships of war in all cases.

The Italian Parliament is now in session, and will probably not adjourn before the 15th or 20th of July. The Cabinet Ministers are members, as in England, and regularly attend the sessions, which occupy a large part of the day. Many important topics are under discussion in Parliament, and still more weighty questions of domestic and foreign policy are making large demands on the time and absorbing the thoughts of the administration. It is, therefore not probable, as Baron Ricasoli intimated, that he will be able to consider the subject of the Convention until the adjournment of the national legislature shall leave him more at leisure. In the meantime the negotiations with the English and French Governments on the same subject will probably be brought to a close, and the final decision of the Italian Government will be much influenced by that of England and France.

The death of Count Cavour, after an illness of a week's duration, and which, for the first few days, was not of a threatening character, was a great shock to the friends of constitutional liberty and progress, and an occasion of much ill-suppressed exultation among the advocates of temporal and spiritual despotism throughout Europe, and especially in Italy. To me, personally, it is a source of profound regret, both for less selfish reasons and because I had special grounds for expecting, more from his often expressed high regard for the President and yourself than from any other cause, agreeable private and official relations with this great statesman.

The successor of Count Cavour-and I may apply the same remark to most if not all of the members of the Cabinet-is a man of a high order of talent, of great devotion to the interests of his country, of the same general doctrines of national policy as his predecessor, and of sincere attachment to the principles of civil and religious liberty. The remarkable unanimity with which the new Cabinet is sustained by the Parliament is a favourable omen, so far as respects the domestic success of the Government; and there is some reason to think that the death of a Prime Minister, who was regarded with so much personal ill-will by the reactionary party in Italy and elsewhere in Europe, may tend to diminish the asperity with which this policy has been hitherto opposed by that party.

GEO. P. MARSH.

(Extracts.)

Mr. Marsh to Mr. Seward.

Turin, July 6, 1861. HAVING heard a report that Mr. Patterson, Consul of The United States at Genoa, expects a commission from the Southern Confederacy to act as Consul of the rebel States at that port, I called on Baron Ricasoli yesterday morning, and protested against the recognition of Mr. Patterson, or of any other person, as a Consular Agent of the Confederacy.

Baron Ricasoli assured me that, under present circumstances, at least, no such agent would be recognized at any Italian port, and he took occasion to repeat, in strong language, the expression of his own warm sympathy with the Federal Government of The United States, and his earnest hope that the present contest between the Government and the seceding States would end in the re-establishment of the lawful authority of the Union, and be settled on terms which would secure the triumph of the principles of freedom, and the ultimate extinction of human slavery. He added that, in these expressions he was speaking the sentiments of His Majesty and of the entire Government of which he was a member.

I then referred to apprehensions which had been expressed in America of the fitting out of privateers in remote Italian ports under the Confederate flag. He replied that the government officers would endeavour to prevent such violations of the laws, but that it would be difficult to exercise a vigilant supervision over all the remote and unfrequented ports of the peninsula and islands, and he advised the appointment of American Consuls at points favourable for observation along the coasts, as a good means of detecting and preventing such movements.

I had on the same day, an audience of the Prince of Carignano, who expressed opinions and feelings similar to those of Baron Ricasoli with respect to our present national difficulties, and I may add that every member of the Government, and almost every gentleman in public life, with whom I have conversed at Turin, coincides in these sentiments.

The favourable sentiments with which the present administration of the Federal Government is regarded by most continental statesmen, are founded (independently of the high personal regard felt for the President and his constitutional advisers) partly on the opinion that it is sustaining the cause of constitutional authority, of the entirety of nationalities, and of established order against causeless rebellion, violent disruption of a commonwealth essentially a unit, and disorganizing and lawless misrule; but still more, I think, on the belief that the struggle in which it is now involved is virtually a contest between the propagandists of domestic slavery and the advocates of emancipation and universal freedom. If the civil war

be protracted, I am convinced that our hold upon the sympathy and goodwill of the Governments, and still more of the people of Europe, will depend upon the distinctness with which this issue is kept before them, and if it were now proposed by the Federal Government to purchase the submission of the South by any concession to their demands on this subject, or by assuming any attitude but that of, at least, moral hostility to slavery, I have no doubt that the dissolution of the Union would be both desired and promoted by a vast majority of those who now hope for its perpetuation.

GEORGE P. MARSH.

Mr. Marsh to Mr. Seward.

SIB,

Turin, September 2, 1861.

I HAVE the honour to enclose herewith a copy of a note addressed by me to Baron Ricasoli on the 26th ultimo, in relation to the proposed Convention for the accession of The United States to the declaration of the Congress of Paris in 1856.

By my instructions, under date of April 24, 1861, I am directed as follows:-"To ascertain whether it (the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy) is disposed to enter into negotiations for the accession of The United States to the declaration of the Paris Congress, with the conditions annexed by that body to the same; and if you shall find the Government so disposed, you will then enter into a convention to that effect, substantially in the form of a project for that purpose herewith transmitted to you."

The project transmitted with the instructions makes no mention of the important conditions referred to in the instructions, and therefore, in drawing up the note, I thought it best not to notice the conditions specifically, but to make the proposal in general terms, leaving that point to be arranged, if suggested by the Italian Government, as I shall be instructed hereafter.

I have, &c.

GEORGE P. MARSH.

(Inclosure.)-Mr. Marsh to Baron Ricasoli.

Turin, August 26, 1861.

THE Undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of The United States of America, as he had the honour to state in one of his first interviews with his Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is instructed to propose the negotiation between the Government of The United States and the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy for defining the rights of belligerents and neutrals in maritime warfare, in accordance with the principles adopted by the Congress of Paris in the year 1856.

Similar instructions have been given by the President to the American Ministers at the courts of the other maritime Powers, and negotiations to that effect are now in progress with all the Governments represented at the Congress of Paris.

It will be remembered by his Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs that in the year 1854 the President of The United States submitted to the several maritime nations two propositions, to which he solicited their assent as permanent principles of international law.

These were:

1. Free ships make free goods-that is to say, that the effects or goods belonging to subjects or citizens of a power or state at war are free from capture or confiscation when found on board of neutral vessels, with the exception of articles contraband of war.

2. That the property of neutrals on board an enemy's vessel is not subject to confiscation, unless the same be contraband of war.

These propositions were favourably entertained by most of the Governments to which they were submitted, but no formal Convention for their recognition was negotiated between them and The United States.

The Congress of Paris, at which most of the European Powers were represented, adopted, upon the 16th of April, 1856, an agreement embracing substantially these principles, with two additional propositions; all of which were embodied in a declaration composed of four Articles, namely:

ART. I. Privateering is and remains abolished.

II. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war.

III. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag.

IV. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective-that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

The Congress further agreed to invite the maritime States not represented in that body to accede to these propositions, and the assent of the Government of The United States was asked to them accordingly.

The then President of The United States, Franklin Pierce, did not accede to the stipulations of the Convention, but proposed an amendment to the first Article, which should exempt the private property of individuals, though belonging to belligerent states, from seizure or confiscation by national vessels in maritime war; and the ministers of The United States at Paris and London were instructed to inform the Governments to which they were accredited that the United States would accede to the four points above recited, pro