ships, despatches addressed by official authorities of foreign countries to other official authorities of their own countries.

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,.

LYONS.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, October 14, 1861.

SIR: Her Majesty's government were much concerned to find that two British subjects, Mr. Patrick and Mr. Rahming, had been subjected to arbitrary arrest; and although they had learnt from a telegraphic despatch from me that Mr. Patrick had been released, they could not but regard the matter as one requiring their very serious consideration.

Her Majesty's government perceive that when British subjects as well as American citizens are arrested they are immediately transferred to a military prison, and that the military authorities refuse to pay obedience to a writ of habeas corpus.

Her Majesty's government conceive that this practice is directly opposed to the maxim of the Constitution of the United States "that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Her Majesty's government are willing, however, to make every allowance for the hard necessities of a time of internal trouble; and they would not have been surprised if the ordinary securities of personal liberty had been temporarily suspended, nor would they have complained if British subjects falling under suspicion had suffered from the consequences of that suspension.

But it does not appear that Congress has sanctioned in this respect any departure from the due course of law; and it is in these circumstances that the law officers of the crown have advised her Majesty's government that the arbitrary arrests of British subjects are illegal.

So far as appears to her Majesty's government, the Secretary of State of the United States exercises, upon the reports of spies and informers, the power of depriving British subjects of their liberty, of retaining them in prison, or liberating them, by his own will and pleasure.

Her Majesty's government cannot but regard this despotic and arbitrary power as inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, as at variance with the treaties of amity subsisting between the two nations, and as tending to prevent the resort of British subjects to the United States for the purposes of trade and industry.

Her Majesty's government have therefore felt bound to instruct me to remonstrate against such irregular proceedings, and to say that, in their opinion, the authority of Congress is necessary in order to justify the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of British subjects.

I have the honor to be, sir, with the highest consideration, your most obedient, numble servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c.

LYONS.

Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Washington, October 14, 1861. MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge your lordship's note of the present date.

In that paper you inform me that the British government is much concerned to find that two British subjects, Mr. Patrick and Mr. Rahming, have been brought under arbitrary arrest, and that although her Majesty's ministers have been advised by you of the release of Mr. Patrick, yet they cannot but regard the matter as requiring the very serious consideration of this government.

You further inform me that her Majesty's government perceive that when British subjects, as well as American citizens, are arrested, they are transferred to a military prison, and that the military authorities refuse to pay obedience to a writ of habeas corpus.

You add that her Majesty's government conceive that this practice is directly opposed to the maxim of the Constitution of the United States that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. You then observe that her Majesty's government are nevertheless willing to make every allowance for the hard necessities of a time of internal trouble, and they would not have been surprised if the ordinary securities of personal liberty had been temporarily suspended, nor would they have complained if British subjects, falling under suspicion, had suffered from the consequences of that suspension. But that it does not appear that Congress has sanctioned, in this respect, any departure from the due course of law, and it is in these circumstances that the law officers of the crown have advised her Majesty's government that the arrests of British subjects are illegal.

You remark further, that, so far as appears to her Majesty's government, the Secretary of State for the United States examines upon the reports of spies, and assumes the power of depriving British subjects of their liberty or liberating them by his own will and pleasure; and you inform me that her Majesty's government cannot but regard this despotic and arbitrary power as inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, as at variance with the treaties of amity subsisting between the two nations, and as tending to prevent the resort of British subjects to the United States for purposes of trade and industry. You conclude with informing me that upon these grounds her Majesty's government have felt bound to instruct you to remonstrate against such irregular proceedings, and to say that, in their opinion, the authority of Congress is necessary in order to justify the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of British subjects.

The facts in regard to the two persons named in your note are as follows: Communications from the regular police of the country to the Executive at Washington showed that disloyal persons in the State of Alabama were conducting treasonable correspondence with confederates, British subjects and American citizens, in Europe, aimed at the overthrow of the federal Union by armed forces actually in the field, and besieging the capital of the United States. A portion of this correspondence which was intercepted was addressed to the firm of Smith & Patrick, brokers, long established and doing business in the city of New York. It appeared that this firm had a branch at Mobile; that the partner, Smith, is a disloyal citizen of the United States, and that he was in Europe when the treasonable papers were sent from Mobile, addressed through the house of Smith & Patrick, in New York. On receiving this information William Patrick was arrested and committed

into military custody at Fort Lafayette by an order of the Secretary of War of the United States, addressed to the police of the city of New York. These proceedings took place on the 28th of August last.

Representations were thereupon made to the Secretary of State by friends of Mr. Patrick to the effect that notwithstanding his associations he was personally loyal to this government, and that he was ignorant of the treasonable nature of the correspondence which was being carried on through the mercantile house of which he was a member. Directions were thereupon given by the Secretary of State to a proper agent to inquire into the correctness of the facts thus presented, and this inquiry resulted in the establishment of their truth. Mr. William Patrick was thereupon promptly released from custody by direction of the Secretary of State. This release occurred on the thirteenth day of September last.

On the second day of September the superintendent of police in the city of New York informed the Secretary of State, by telegraph, that he had under arrest J. C. Rahming, who had just arrived from Nassau, where he had attempted to induce the owners of the schooner "Arctic" to take cannon to Wilmington, in North Carolina, for the use of the rebels, and inquired what should he do with the prisoner. J. C. Rahming was thereupon committed into military custody at Fort Lafayette under a mandate from the Secretary of State. This commitment was made on the second day of September. On the 17th day of that month this prisoner, after due inquiry, was released from custody on his executing a bond in the penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars, with a condition that he should thereafter bear true allegiance to the United States, and do no act hostile or injurious to them while remaining under their protection.

I have to regret that, after so long an official intercourse between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, it should be necessary now to inform her Majesty's ministers that all executive proceedings, whether of the Secretary of War or of the Secretary of State, are, unless disavowed or revoked by the President, proceedings of the President of the United States.

Certainly it is not necessary to announce to the British government now that an insurrection, attended by civil and even social war, was existing in the United States when the proceedings which I have thus related took place. But it does seem necessary to state, for the information of that government, that Congress is, by the Constitution, invested with no executive power or responsibility whatever; and, on the contrary, that the President of the United States is, by the Constitution and laws, invested with the whole executive power of the government, and charged with the supreme direction of all municipal or ministerial civil agents, as well as of the whole land and naval forces of the Union; and that, invested with those ample powers, he is charged by the Constitution and laws with the absolute duty of suppressing insurrection as well as of preventing and repelling invasion; and that for these purposes he constitutionally exercises the right of suspending the writ of habeas corpus whenever and wheresoever and in whatsoever extent the public safety, endangered by treason or invasion in arms, in his judg ment requires.

The proceedings of which the British government complain were taken upon information conveyed to the President by legal police authorities of the country, and they were not instituted until after he had suspended the great writ of freedom in just the extent that, in view of the perils of the State, he deemed necessary. For the exercise of that discretion he, as well as his advisers, among whom are the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State, is responsible by law before the highest judicial tribunal of the republic, and amenable also to the judgment of his countrymen and the enlightened opinion of the civilized world.

A candid admission contained in your letter relieves me of any necessity for showing that the two persons named therein were neither known nor supposed to be British subjects when the proceedings occurred, and that in every case subjects of her Majesty residing in the United States, and under their protection, are treated during the present troubles in the same manner and with no greater or less rigor than American citizens.

The military prison which was used for the temporary detention of the suspected parties is a fort constructed and garrisoned for the public defence. The military officer charged with their custody las declined to pay obedience to the writ of habeas corpus, but the refusal was made in obedience to an express direction of the President, in the exercise of his functions as commander-in-chief of all the land and naval forces of the United States. Although it is not very important, it certainly is not entirely irrelevant to add that, so far as I am informed, no writ of habeas corpus was attempted to be served, or was even sued out or applied for in behalf of either of the persons named; although in a case not dissimilar the writ of habeas corpus was issued out in favor of another British subject, and was disobeyed by direction of the President.

The British government have candidly conceded, in the remonstrance before me, that even in this country, so remarkable for so long an enjoyment, by its people of the highest immunities of personal freedom, war, and especially civil war, cannot be conducted exclusively in the forms and with the dilatory remedies provided by municipal laws which are adequate to the preservation of public order in a time of peace. Treason always operates, if possible, by surprise, and prudence and humanity therefore equally require that violence concocted in secret shall be prevented if practicable by unu sual and vigorous precaution. I am fully aware of the inconveniences which result from the practice of such precaution, embarrassing communities in social life, and affecting perhaps trade and intercourse with foreign nations. But the American people, after having tried in every way to avert civil war, have accepted it at last as a stern necessity. Their chief interest, while it lasts, is not the enjoyments of society, or the profits of trade, but the saving of the national life. That life saved, all the other blessings which attach to it will speedily return, with greater assurance of continuance than ever before. The safety of the whole people has become, in the present emergency, the supreme law, and so long as the danger shall exist, all classes of society equally, the denizen and the citizen, cheerfully acquiesce in the measures which that law prescribes.

This government does not question the learning of the legal advisers of the British crown or the justice of the deference which her Majesty's gov ernment pays to them. Nevertheless the British government will hardly expect that the President will accept their explanations of the Constitution of the United States, especially when the Constitution, thus expounded, would leave upon him the sole executive responsibility of suppressing the existing insurrection, while it would transfer to Congress the most material and indispensable power to be employed for that purpose. Moreover, these explanations find no real support in the letter, much less in the spirit, of the Constitution itself. He must be allowed, therefore, to prefer and be gov erned by the view of our organic national law, which, while it will enable him to execute his great trust with complete success, receives the sanction of the highest authorities of our own country, and is sustained by the gen eral consent of the people, for whom alone that Constitution was established I avail myself of this opportunity to offer to your lordship a renewed as surance of my very high consideration.

The Right Hon. Lord LYONS, &c.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 14, 1861.

MY LORD: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 12th instant, in answer to mine of the 4th, relative to the carriage of passengers and private letters in vessels of war of foreign powers to and from ports of the United States under blockade.

In reply, I have the honor to acquaint you that no complaint has been made to this department that any British vessel had indulged in this practice; but insomuch as such a proceeding, if acquiesced in at all by this government, would defeat the objects of the blockade, it was deemed advisable to address a circular upon the subject to the representatives here of the principal maritime powers. No objection is entertained to the transmission, through the channel of vessels of war of friendly powers, of any official correspondence with the agents of those powers in blockaded ports.

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your lordship a renewed assurance of my high consideration.

The Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.

CIRCULAR.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 16, 1861.

MY LORD: The judge of the court of the United States for the southern district of New York having recently decided, after elaborate argument of counsel, that the law of blockade does not permit a vessel in a blockaded port to take on board cargo after the commencement of the blockade, with a view to avoid any future misunderstanding upon this subject, you are informed that the law, as thus interpreted by the judge, will be expected to be strictly observed by all vessels in ports of insurgent States during their blockade by the naval forces of the United States.

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your lordship a renewed assurance of my high consideration.

The Right Hon. Lord LYONS, &c., &c., &c.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, October 17, 1861.

SIR: I beg to offer you my thanks for the note dated the 14th instant, which you have done me the honor to write to me in answer to that dated the 12th instant, which I addressed to you on the subject of transmitting official correspondence by her Majesty's ships of war to the blockaded ports. It is with reluctance that I importune you further in this matter. But as I am very anxious to avoid all risk of misapprehending your wishes, I venture