Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 29, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 27th instant, announcing to me that you had communicated to Earl Russell a copy of my note of the 8th ultimo, relative to the reported organization at Cape Vincent for the purpose of marauding upon Canadian territory. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient ser vant, J. Hume BurnLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, April 1, 1865. SIR: With reference to your note of the 14th of January, and to my reply of the 17th of January, relative to the movements of the Sea King, or Shenandoah, and also to your note of the 14th of February, relative to the movements of the Ajax, a copy of which latter note I communicated to the lieutenant governor of Bermuda, I have the honor to transmit to you a copy of a despatch which I have received from his excellency. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, F. O. ADAMS, For Mr. BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Hawley to Mr. Burnley. BERMUDA, March 14, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of despatches from you dated the 17th of January, 1865, and the 16th of February, 1865, both with enclosures from the State Department at Washington, and both warning me of suspected intentions on the part of the Confederate States to use British ports for belligerent purposes. In reply, I can only state that every vigilance will be used to prevent or punish a breach of the law should it be attempted or take place. Without convincing evidence it is of course impossible to set the law in action, and the government of the United States must be aware that the information furnished me, through you, even if it could be substantiated here, is not of such a character as would justify legal interference. I have, &c J. H. BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. W. G. HAWLEY. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, April 3, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to call your attention to the enclosed copy of a despatch which I have received from her Majesty's consul at New York, relative to the imprisonment of Ernest W. Pratt and Robert Green, who appear to be British subjects. The facts of the case are so fully stated in this despatch, that I have little to add to its contents. I wish, however, to draw your attention at the present moment to two points. In the first place, although these men own that they served on board of a ship which did indeed convey arms and ammunition to a vessel under Danish colors, which appears to have been fitted out for hostile acts against the United States, they declare that they shipped for an ordinary voyage to the West Indies; that they were ignorant of the intention to employ the City of Richmond in the manner above mentioned; and that when, on passing the island of Ushant, they first became aware of the change of destination of the vessel, they could not, without being guilty of mutiny, resist the orders of the captain. In the second place, with regard to the alleged conduct of the United States consul at Nassau, the men declare that this gentleman, instead of granting passports to them, indorsed on the back of their discharges from the City of Richmond, certificates which he assured them would serve as passports, and would entitle them to return to England through the United States, and that it was upon the faith of the assurance of this United States official that they were induced to come to New York on their way to England. I have the honor to request that you will have the goodness to inform me of the precise grounds upon which Pratt and Green are detained as prisoners, and of the nature of the evidence against them. At the same time I beg that, if there is no reasonable ground for detaining them, they may now be discharged, on condition of their pursuing their voyage to England without delay. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Archibald to Mr. Burnley. J. HUME BURNLEY. BRITISH CONSULATE, New York, March 27, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to report to you that Ernest W. Pratt and Robert Green, two British subjects, who arrived at this port from Nassau by the Corsica, were arrested on board that vessel on the morning of the 18th instant, by the revenue officers, for not having sufficient passports, and were brought to General Dix's headquarters, and from thence sent to the county jail, where they are now detained. On Monday, the 20th, I received a communication from Mr. Pratt, requesting an interview; and after communicating with the United States marshal, and subsequently with General Dix, who applied by telegraph to Washington for instructions, I was finally permitted to have an interview with the prisoners this morning at General Dix's headquarters, in the presence of Major Ludlow, in compliance with instructions from the Secretary of State, that any such interview should take place in the presence of an officer of the United States. General Dix had communicated to me on Wednesday last that the examination of the prisoners presented an aggravated case of violation of neutrality; and Major Ludlow this morning showed me a copy of his report on the case, from which, and from questions put by me to the prisoners, I elicited the following facts: Ernest W. Pratt, a native of London, aged 25 years, and Robert Green, a native of Northampton, aged 29 years, both British subjects, were, the former chief officer and the latter chief steward of the steamship City of Richmond, of London, which vessel cleared from London on the 3d of January last, with provisions and coals, dropped down the river to Greenhithe, and there took on board between sixty and seventy passengers, and a number of cases believed to have contained small-arms, together with about 150 barrels of gunpowder. The steamer then proceeded to a place about five miles distant from Belle Isle, where she fell in with the ram Olinde, then under Danish colors; the passengers taken on board at Greenhithe, who are said to have been officers and seamen, were transferred to the Olinde, with the cases and ammunition taken on board at Greenhithe. The City of Richmond then proceeded to Bermuda, remained a week there for some refitting, and went to Nassau, where the officers and crew were discharged and paid off-the vessel being placed, as it is asserted, under the command of a fresh master appointed to her by one Cranshaw, a citizen of the United States, belonging to one of the insurrectionary States, who, it is said, was the real owner of the City of Richmond all the while, although she was nominally registered as a British vessel. The officers and crew of the City of Richmond were regularly shipped in London for a voyage to Bermuda and West Indies, or any port of British North America-the voyage not to exceed four months. On being discharged at Nassau they insisted on, and after some difficulty and dispute with the agents of the owners succeeded in obtaining, payment for the stipulated time of four mouths. Regular written discharges were issued to them, and Pratt, the chief officer, and Green, the steward, having determined to return to England by way of New York, went to the United States consul at Nassau to obtain passports. The consul, instead of granting passports, indorsed on the back of their discharges from the City of Richmond a certificate which he assured them would serve for a passport, and would entitle them to pass through the United States to England. They relied on this assurance and came on to New York. The case of these prisoners is peculiar. That they served on board a vessel which conveyed arms and ammunition, as well as men, to a vessel which is reported to have been fitted out and intended to be used hostilely towards the United States, is admitted by themselves. All that is known of their connexion with the transaction has been gathered from their examination, unless, indeed, the United States consul at Nassau may have communicated to his government information on the subject. The answer which both Pratt and Green make to the charge of a breach of neutrality is, that they shipped for an ordinary voyage to the West Indies; that they were ignorant of the intention to employ the City of Richmond in any illegal voyage; that they believed they were to bring to Bermuda and Nassau the passengers and effects shipped at Greenhithe, and that it was not until after the City of Richmond had passed the island of Ushalt that they were aware of the change of destination; and that it was not in their power to resist or prevent the commander from navigating the ship in whatever direction he thought fit, and transshipping the men and munitions of war on board the Olinde. They complain also, and with some reason, that a passport, or what was intended to serve as a passport, should have been granted to them by the United States consul at Nassau, apparently only to serve as the means of entrapping them on their arrival here, and allege that had they felt they were liable for the acts of others over whom they had no control, they would never have presumed to return to England by way of the United States. In Major Ludlow's report it is stated (as reported to him) that Pratt and Green secreted themselves on the Corsica's arrival here. They both most positively deny the truth of this statement. Pratt states that he was arrested at 6 o'clock in the morning, while he was in his berth in the captain's cabin, where he had slept all the way from Nassau; and Green denies that he was in any manner secreted, or that he intended to secrete himself. I have the honor to submit the foregoing statement of circumstances for your consideration, and for such action thereon as you may think proper. Her Majesty's government, I am well assured, would in no manner afford its protection to parties who had committed a wilful breach of neutrality. In this case, however, the evidence, so far as I am aware, consists of the statements of the prisoners themselves, who assert that, so far as they are considered to be implicated, they were involuntary agents; that they were engaged for and sailed on a lawful voyage, and were unable, without being guilty of mutiny, to resist the orders of the commander of the ship. I have, &c., J. H. BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &e., &c. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. E. M. ARCHIBALD. WASHINGTON, April 3, 1865. MY DEAR SIR: Viscount Monck informs me by telegraph that the Canadian courts had decided that the St. Albans raiders could not be surrendered, and they were consequently discharged. It appears, however, that the governor general directed their immediate rearrest on a charge of violating the Queen's neutrality. Believe me to remain, my dear sir, yours, very faithfully, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &., &c., &c. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, April 3, 1865. SIR: I communicated to the governor general of Canada copies of your note of the 20th ultimo, and of its enclosure, relative to the information conveyed by Mr. with respect to raids which are alleged to be projected from Canada into the United States, and I have now the honor to transmit a copy of his excellency's reply, stating that that information had been already communicated to the Canadian government. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. Viscount Monck to Mr. Burnley. QUEBEC, March 28, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 22d instant, and its enclosures, containing information given by Mr. of Canada West, -'s letters had relative to alleged projected raids from Canada into the United States. In reply, I have the honor to state that the information contained in Mr. already been communicated to the Canadian government, and that a special agent had been sent to Ampréor to investigate the truth of his statements. I have not yet received his report, but I shall not fail to communicate it to you should any grounds appear to exist for attaching credit to Mr. I have, &c., J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. -'s allegations. MONCK. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, April 5, 1865. SIR: Since I had the honor of addressing you on the 27th of February, respecting that portion of the cotton captured at Savannah which is said to be the property of British subjects, her Majesty's government have had under their consideration the further correspondence which has been forwarded to them from time to time, and now instruct me to express to you their confident hope that no obstacle will be interposed to prevent her Majesty's subjects from establishing their just claims to their own property. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. Department of State, Washington, April 5, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 3d instant, and of its accompaniment, relative to the information received from Mr. respecting the raids intended to be made from Canada into the United States. I will thank you to convey to the governor general of Canada an expression of my appreciation of his proceedings. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient ser vant, J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., §., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, April 7, 1865. SIR: With reference to the note which you did me the honor to address to me on the 14th of March, relative to the position of the United States consul at Halifax, in which you advert to the alleged support given to the so-called confederate cruisers by the inhabitants of Nova Scotia, I have the honor to enclose a copy of a despatch which I have received from the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia, bearing on the subject. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. Lieutenant Governor Macdonald to Mr. Burnley. GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 16th March, covering a communication from Mr. Seward, of the 14th instant, addressed to you on the position of the United States consul at Halifax. Whatever be the usage of the United States government, I was not aware that any practice existing here, or in any other colony, precluded consuls of foreign powers from communicating through the provincial secretary with her Majesty's representative. On the contrary, it has always been supposed that a principal object in stationing consuls in foreign possessions was to facilitate and insure speedy and correct means of communication, in the absence of any higher diplomatic officer, between the local authorities and consular representatives of foreign powers in matters wherein the latter might be locally interested. I am gratified to learn that Mr. Seward recognizes the just neutrality which I have hitherto maintained, but regret his observations on the conduct of the people of this province and the citizens of Halifax. I cannot suppose Mr. Seward seriously to suggest that this government can prevent its post offices being used for the transmission of letters from Richmond or any other place, any more than I can suppose that he expects the executive here to interfere with the rights of neutral citizens to clear from the port of Halifax with such cargoes as they may think most profitable. Their right to do so was affirmed by the greatest legal authorities in the United States, and does not override the right of United States cruisers to seize them if attempting to break a legitimate blockade. 5. If on reconsideration by the great powers of such conflicting rights any alteration in existing international usages be agreed to, and I be instructed accordingly, Mr. Seward may rely on my giving a hearty and complete effect thereto. In the mean time I can assure Mr. Seward that Halifax is not a rendezvous for "piratical cruisers" engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States on the high seas, and no officer of the Queen has any sympathy with pirates, or could retain his office a day if he countenanced them. Mr. Seward cannot but know that this government must deal with belligerent cruisers of the southern States as they are dealt with by his own government-that is, as being completely protected from treatment as pirates by the commissions of their commanders, in the same way as southern generals and officers are, for the same reason, treated by Mr. Seward's government-not as banditti, but as regular combatants. 6. It is very unfortunate, therefore, that prejudices arising from imperfect information should encourage the adoption of measures by the United States government unfavorable to the trade and intercourse of Nova Scotia with a kindred race whose enterprise and commercial spirit, no less than their geographical position, constitute them our most natural friends and most valuable neighbors. I regret it the more, as no action of this government can possibly change the unquestioned neutral right which international usage has established. 7. It is clear, however, that Mr. Seward is not well informed as to the general feeling here; and it is wholly inconsistent with fact that, except for a trade, legitimate according to the practice of United States citizens and the decisions of their courts, this port is resorted to by any sympathizers with the Confederate States, or that the latter procure here either arms or other munitions of war. *. If I had been clothed twice over with all the extrao; diay powers recently given le Love.no, general, which Mr. Seward so highly approves, I am not aware of a single caso, since my arrival here last June, in which it would have been my duty to exert them. 9. My only reason for adverting to these subjects is, that Mr. Seward apparently assumes |