Our consuls in London and Liverpool can furnish you with all the nformation you will require. I am, sir, your obedient servant, SIR: In obedience to the instructions contained in your despatch No. 184, of the 14th of February, I have addressed a note to Lord Russell in regard to the conduct of the master of the British steamer General Miramon, a copy of which is herewith transmitted. It will be perceived that I have ventured to introduce another and a dif ferent cause of complaint, which suggested itself to me in the perusal of the report of the discussion in both houses of Parliament on the blockade. I have done so, not in the expectation of effecting any purpose of checking the notorious tendency of the commercial classes, but rather to put on record on the part of the government of the United States the consciousness of its existence; for the time may come when there will be attempts to deny it. There are people in England who still pretend that the complaints which brought on the war of 1812 were ill founded. But for the evidence perpetuated by the official records of the government of the United States this story might become the established faith of the nation. And so it may be in the event of a restoration of our affairs. It will probably be affirmed here that there was a rigid abstinence throughout our time of trial from all attempts to do us injury. In opposition to this, it may be as well to have it in our power to show that, outside of the lines of the rebel States, nearly all the active sympathy and positive assistance has come from the subjects of Great Britain. At this very moment the means which the insurgents have to carry on the war are derived from them, and vessels are fitting out or actually on the way to supply them continually with more. I transmit a copy of a note just received from Lord Russell, in acknowledgment of mine. It will probably be followed by explanations. * * * * * * * * You will scarcely have failed to observe in the course of the late discussion in both houses of Parliament the nature of the animus that pervades the greater number of members towards the United States. It consists not so much of partiality for one side over the other as of disinclination to both and desire that their political power should be diminished by a permanent separation. Even Lord Russell himself, though perhaps not conscious of the influence that prompts it, distinctly betrays the tendency in his remarks on the blockade. I am told by one of the members that the feelings of the House of Commons were perceptibly with Mr. Gregory in his speech, at the same time that they would not dispute the soundness of the policy of the ministry. It is advisable that the government of the United States should clearly understand this distinction, for upon its adaptation of a system to the emergency will greatly depend the chance of preserving the present position of the two countries towards each other. The successes of the campaign have done much for us. I trust they may continue. But they must not be made to depend merely upon good fortune. The stake is too great here to be risked on the passions of ignorant or inexperienced men at home. If we do not mean to give to the evil-inclined of this hemisphere the opportunity to turn the scale in favor of our enemies in the other, we must take care to adhere to a policy which will, by its ultimate success, prove at once our own capacity to guide the country through its perils and the fallacy of the predictions of failure so confidently paraded by those whose wish is father to the thought. We now anxiously await the news by every steamer, but not for the same reasons as before. The pressure for interference here has disappeared. It will arise again only in the event of some very decided reverse. Hence we look more for the evidence of sensible and gradual progress than for an immediate triumph. On many accounts this last result would scarcely seem to be desirable, and especially if the attempt to attain it might lead to the possibility of a corresponding reverse. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, MY LORD: It is with much regret that I am constrained to lay before you the copy of a letter addressed to the Department of State by the consul general of the United States at Havana, containing a serious complaint against the conduct of the master of the British steamer General Miramon, off the port of Mobile, in the month of May last. It would appear from the statements therein made, if in accordance with the facts, that Captain Golding took advantage of a privilege granted to him to enter the port of Mobile, upon his profession of a desire to perform an act of humanity, to abuse the confidence thus placed in him, by discharging one cargo of merchandise, and taking off another, in violation of the blockade known to be established at that place. It is almost needless to remind your lordship how much the disposition to relieve to neutral nations the inconveniences inevitably attending a blockade must be affected by the misconduct of such of their citizens as prove to have no respect for moral obligations. It is not without regret that I am compelled to add that this is by no means the only instance which has come within my observation of a desire of British citizens to interfere with the blockade in every manner possible. Not only have the newspapers in Great Britain contained advertisements of vessels about to depart with the declared intention of violating it, but I have reason to believe that respectable assurance companies in London have gone so far as to establish a specific rate of premium at which they are prepared to guarantee the property engaged in such unlawful ventures. The effect of such conduct, in weakening the confidence which my countrymen desire to feel in the friendly disposition of the people of Great Britain, is easily to be conceived. It is no part of my intention in making this representation to imply the existence of any desire on the part of her Majesty's ministers or of the British nation at large to give the smallest countenance to such hostile demonstrations. My purpose is rather to solicit such action, if it be within the power of the government as may, by putting the seal of public reprobation upon a single well-authenticated act of dishonesty,, serve to deter other evil-minded persons from pursuing the same path in future. Praying your lordship to accept the assurances of my highest consideration, I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, Right Hon. EARL RUSSELL, &c., §x., &c. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. FOREIGN OFFICE, March 13, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, calling attention to the conduct of the captain of the British steamer General Miramon, as reported to your government by the United States consul at the Havana, in discharging a cargo of merchandise and taking off another at Mobile; the captain of the General Miramon having been allowed to enter that port while under blockade, in consequence of his having stated to the commander of the blockading squadron that his object in going to Mobile was to perform an act of humanity. You also call my attention to the number of vessels lading cargoes in this country with the evident intention of running the blockade, and you request that her Majesty's government will take such action in the matter as may be within their power. I have the honor, in reply, to state that, if the facts as alleged against the captain of the General Miramon are not susceptible of a satisfactory explanation, her Majesty's government would much regret that a British shipmaster should have abused the confidence of the commander of the United States blockading squadron; and, as regards the second point to which you call my attention, I have to assure you that the matter shall have the due consideration of her Majesty's government. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. RUSSELL. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 209.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 15, 1862. SIR: Your despatch of February 28, No. 124, has been received. The information which it brings of the improved condition of public opinion in Great Britain in regard to our domestic affairs is highly gratifying. Since the date of my last despatch the Union forces have gained decided advantages. The financial and moral, as well as the physical elements of the insurrection seem to be rapidly approaching exhaustion. Now, when we so clearly see how much of its strength was derived from the hope of foreign aid, we are brought to lament anew the precipitancy with which foreign powers so unnecessarily conceded to it belligerent rights. The President trusts that you are sparing no efforts to convince Earl Russell that the time has come when that concession can be revoked with safety to Great Britain and advantage to the great material interests of that country. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 210.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 17, 1862. SIR: Your despatch of February 27, No. 123, has been received. I have communicated to the navy the information it gives concerning the Oreto. The occupation of so many of the southern ports having been effected by our forces, and all of the others being now effectually invested, I apprehend that the illicit traffic which has been so flagrantly carried on from British ports will come to an end. It is difficult for us to understand here why the maritime powers in Europe do not at once rescind their decisions concerning belligerent rights to insurgents who cannot send forth or receive one single vessel either for purposes of war or of commerce. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. [Circular. No. 9.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 17, 1862. SIR: I am directed to inform you that the regulation of the department of the 19th of August, 1861, by which "no person was allowed to go abroad from a port of the United States without a passport either from this department or countersigned by the Secretary of State, nor any person allowed to land in the United States without a passport from a minister or consul of the United States, or, if a foreigner, from his own government, countersigned by such minister or consul;" also, the regulation requiring the "loyalty of all Americans applying for passports or visas to be tested under oath," are hereby rescinded; the causes which required the issue of the above regulations having, it is to be hoped, ceased to exist.. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. (Same to all of the diplomatic and consular agents of the United States.) No. 132.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Late last evening I received despatches from the department numbered from 194 to 198, both inclusive. Several of them are highly important, and I shall seize the earliest opportunity to act upon the suggestions they contain in my communications with her Majesty's government. Indeed, you will before this have received my despatch, No. 131, of the 13th instant, which covered a copy of a note of mine to Lord Russell on the case of the General Miramon, drawn up in the sense conveyed in your No. 184, of the 14th of February. As the efforts of disaffected parties here grow more and more desperate in proportion to the increase of the necessities on the other side of the water, I shall find occasion to renew the subject with additional means of illustration. I take it for granted that even in the midst of your engrossing occupations you find sufficient time to glance at the report of the debates in Parliament on subjects of interest to the United States, and more especially on international questions of rights on the ocean and of blockade in time of war. The most marked indication to be observed is the general sense of uneasiness at the change operated in the position of Great Britain as a maritime power by the enlargement gradually making of the privileges of neutral nations. Whilst on the opposition side you perceive a distinct disapproval of the agreement made in 1856 at Paris, there is equally perceptible among the ministers a disposition to seize the first opportunity to annul the obligations which it has been thought to impose. The remarks of Sir George Cornwall Lewis upon the effect of war upon the measure, regarded merely as a treaty and not as new rules incorporated into the international law, are full of significance. Lord Palmerston has been not inappropriately reminded of the difference between the tone of his speech at Liverpool in 1856 and that in the late debate, whilst even Lord Russell is quoted as having expressed the opinion that some modification of the declaration of Paris would seem to be almost indispensable. Such are the immediate effects of that which, at first blush, appeared to these enlightened gentlemen a great triumph in the case of the Trent. Such are the consequences of refusing to accept the adhesion of the United States to the declaration of Paris from an over-zealous desire to escape the effect of a precipitate admission of belligerent rights. Both these events have brought vividly to their observation the consideration of the position of Great Britain in the contingency of a war on the ocean. Like the dog in the fable, in snatching at the shadow, they find they have lost the solid meat. A conflict with the United States would, as things are now, at once transfer the whole carrying trade of Great Britain into the hands of the neutral nations of the continent of Europe. It is now becoming plain that, without the additional provision first suggested by Mr. Maury, English interests on the sea are in great jeopardy in time of war, and yet that, with the admission of it, the control of the ocean is forever lost. Whichever way they look there is difficulty. Self-interest being the cardinal point of the policy they seek to pursue, it is plain that the adoption of the declaration of Paris is a sacrifice of which they are beginning to repent. Not the least remarkable among the admissions made in this debate is that which specifies the danger of a war with the United States in the event of a persistence in their former doctrine respecting the cargoes of neutral ships, at the time of the contest with Russia, as having been the main cause that prompted the concessions in that declaration. Thus it would seem that the idea of the growing power of the United States as one nation is everywhere. present to their imaginations as the great obstacle in the way of their continued domination of the sea. Can it be wondered at if, under these circumstances, the notion of a permanent separation of this power into two parts, one of which can be played off against the other, were not altogether unwelcome to their hearts? To considerations of a similar kind are we indebted for the security that has been afforded to us in our present contest against interference with the |