Rowland H. Crosby, master-sailed from Dundee September 10, 1863, laden with coals, and bound for Calcutta; was captured October 9, 1863, about latitude 19° north, longitude 20° 35' west, pillaged and burned. The owners of fifteen-sixteenths of the ship claim, for the value of their interest. $50,625 00 The Washington Insurance Company of Boston, as insurers of Grace Batson, on ship.... The Sun Mutual Insurance Company of New York, as insurers of the ship and freight... 3,000 00 7,000 00 The Columbian Insurance Company of New York, as insurers upon ship.... 16,000 00 The ship Dictator, of 1,293 tons_burden, registered at New York, whereof Charles R. Given was sole owner, sailed from Liverpool April 6, 1863, bound to Hong Kong, China; was captured and burned April 25, 1863, in latitude 25° north, longitude 21° 50' west. The owner claims, for value of ship and outfit.. $90,390 00 16, 180 00 Good Hope.-Jasigi Goddard & Co., of Boston, claim, for destruction of bark Good Hope, the value of the vessel, outfit and cargo, and damages for breaking up of voyage, $110,000 00. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1269.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, September 14, 1866. SIR Little has happened this week to vary the ordinary dullness of this season of the year in this city. The only event has been the complete execution of the project of telegraphic communication between the two continents by the recovery of the cable lost last year, and its successful extension to the destined terminus in Newfoundland. This must be recorded as one of the greatest triumphs of naval science and inventive skill yet achieved. As opening the prospect of ultimately sounding the greatest depths of the ocean, it may lead to later developments of ingenuity of which man has never before dreamed, in connection with the relative position of members of the human race. 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 Mr. Seward. [Extract.] No. 1270.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, * * * SIR: In my despatch No. 1267 I mentioned that in order to save time I had been preparing a note to Lord Stanley, founded on the instructions in your No. 1835, in anticipation of the reception of the summary which was expected by the next steamer, and which it was supposed it would require more time to copy. But finding on its coming to hand that both it and the despatch were in print, I lost not a moment in transmitting one of the two copies to Lord Stanley, with a brief formal note. At the same time, however, I asked and obtained an interview with his lordship, in order to learn something as to the prospect of receiving an answer at an early day. The result was pretty much what I expected. His lordship said that the subject was one involving such large considerations that he could not assume the responsibility of acting upon it without much reflection and the aid of the deliberation of his colleagues in the government. At this season of the year they were so much dispersed that it would be difficult to call them together. The Earl of Derby, his father, was either at or on his way to Balmoral, to be in attendance on the Queen, from whence it would not be convenient for him to come to town just now. It was not the practice to resume cabinet meetings until towards the latter end of next month. Hence, if it were not regarded by me as a case of absolute necessity, he should be glad to postpone any response to the paper until that time. I replied that I had already apprised you of these facts, substantially as his lordship had stated them; for the rest I did not myself presume that an immediate reply was expected. The main purpose was, I suppose, to reopen the subject which had been so abruptly closed by Lord Russell. I trusted that the present government might consider themselves as not foreclosed from doing so, and that thus some result could ultimately be arrived at which would put at rest all further necessity of agitation. I could only express the opinion that on the part of my government there was a disposition to meet any suggestions looking to an adjustment in the most amicable spirit. His lordship, whilst keeping himself carefully uncommitted, at the same time left upon my mind an impression that he regarded the ministry as not precluded by anything that had gone before from giving the matter careful and anxious reconsideration. Under these circumstances, and as there is no other business of material consequence in the legation, I have concluded upon taking advantage of the permission kindly granted to me by the President in your despatch No. 1797, of the 7th of July, to spend some weeks in an excursion on the continent. I am the more induced to this by the circumstance that the health of my wife, which has been suffering from the fatigue of the last season, is considered by her medical advisers as absolutely requiring change of air and scene. I purpose to leave this on Tuesday next, the 25th instant, and to remain in Germany or France until about the period when the reply to your despatch may be expected. I do not intend, however, to be at any moment in such a situation as to be out of the reach of early notice, and of the power of prompt return in case of emergency. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. No. 3.] Mr. Moran to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: With respect to your despatch No. 1812, of the 24th of July, and Mr. Adams's Nos. 1253 and 1259, I have the honor to inform you that Mr. Heap, the consul at Belfast, whose attention was called to the subject immediately on his arrival at his post, has reported to this legation, under date of the 25th instant, that Mr. Patrick Hasson, who was arrested in Belfast in February last, and imprisoned there on suspicion of being a Fenian, was discharged from custody on the 25th of July, on his stipulating to leave Ireland for America. It appears that he was seen on board ship at that date by the constabulary, with the object of complying with this condition. I have the honor further to report that there is now no case before this legation of a proved American citizen being in custody in Ireland on suspicion of being concerned in treasonable practices there. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. BENJAMIN MORAN. No. 4.] Mr. Moran to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In the early part of the present week an important meeting was held in Manchester, under the auspices of the Reform League. This organization is but a few months' old, but it possesses much power, and is destined to exert an influence in effecting the political enfranchisement of the lower classes of England, but little less powerful than that wielded by the Anti-Corn Law League twenty years ago, in advancing the principles of free trade. Its growth has been rapid, and the interest it has created in the mind of the masses in favor of an extension of the suffrage is regarded by prominent persons as too serious to be treated with indifference. Indeed, judging from the tone of the opposition or conservative press, there is manifest alarm in the ranks of that party about its success. The pretended feeling of contempt entertained towards it about the time of the Hyde Park riots, has given way to respect. And several of the London newspapers, heretofore disposed to indulge in denunciations of its objects, have assumed a conciliatory style of remark. They are trimming their sails to catch the popular breeze; for but few members of the political parties of the time believe that any public business of importance can be transacted in the next session of Parliament until this question of reform shall have received due consideration. In fact it is pretty generally conceded that an extension of the franchise must be granted. The meeting at Manchester on Monday is considered as simply the forerunner of others of equal consequence in the northern counties of this kingdom. It is believed that in the beginning of the year there will be an expression of the popular sentiment from almost all the large towns in that section of England, as well as from those of Scotland. And this movement on the part of the non-voting masses cannot wisely be opposed. Edinburg will no doubt continue to adhere to her past convictions; but the rest of the country north of the Tweed, and particularly those portions influenced by the great towns of Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, are thought to be almost certain to take decided ground in favor of the popular movement. There is considerable democratic feeling in Scotland, and this is powerfully encouraged by the preachers. I transmit copies of several London newspapers containing reports of Mr. Bright's speech at Manchester, as well as editorial comments thereon. These, while tacitly admitting the justice of the popular demand, differ only as to the character of the measure that may ultimately be adopted. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. BENJAMIN MORAN. Mr. Moran to Mr. Seward. No. 7.] LEGATION of the United States, SIR: The dulness of the season has been broken this week by the proceedings at the dinner given at Liverpool to the layers of the Atlantic telegraph cables, and also by a few rather unimportant extra parliamentary speeches, and the assembling of the Social Science Congress at Manchester. The speeches at Liverpool were, as a rule, common-place. That of Lord Stanley is decidedly the best. While it is quite friendly to the United States, it bears traces of careful preparation, and exhibits his lordship's usual caution. But he is remarkably prudent on all occasions, and seldom says anything in public he has reason to recall. I transmit a copy of his speech, as well as one of Lord Derby's letter, announcing the names of those connected with the enterprise upon whom the Queen has been pleased to confer marks of honor. Touching the claims of the government of the United States upon that of Great Britain for compensation for the damages caused to American commerce by the No. 290 and her kindred ships, I have the honor to call your attention to a leading article in The Times of the 4th instant, a copy of which is herewith enclosed. Although I have no evidence to sustain the conjecture, the appearance of this editorial so soon after Mr. Adams had communicated a copy of your No. 1835 to Lord Stanley, all knowledge of which paper seems to have been concealed from the public, would appear to indicate that the writer at that time was not ignorant of that document, and that he had been inspired by some one in authority. The public mind is daily being brought to the propriety of taking some step in the direction of an honorable settlement of this difficulty, and it is not improbable that an avowal on the part of the government to adopt such a course would meet with a favorable reception from the nation. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, BENJAMIN MORAN. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. [From the London Times, October 4, 1866.] The speech of Lord Stanley at the Liverpool banquet was calculated, and, perhaps, designed, to satisfy us that our relations with the United States are safe in his hands. Those who may have been inclined to distrust the friendly disposition of a conservative foreign secretary towards the American people must have been reassured by the cordial and respectful tone in which he spoke of them, and the earnestness with which he deprecated the "hasty, partial, and passionate criticism" of their institutions which Americans attribute to English conservatives. Lord Stanley is entitled to full credit for sincerity in the expression of these sentiments, for, whatever may be said of his party, no man weighs his words more carefully or betrays less of aristocratic or national prejudice in his comments on foreign affairs. It is with some confidence, therefore, that we invite his attention, as well as that of the public, to a difference of long standing between England and the United States, which, intractable as it seems, may, we are persuaded, be set at rest, if the necessary temper and judgment be brought to bear upon it. A year has now almost elapsed since the correspondence between Lord Russell and Mr. Adams respecting the so-called "Alabama claims" was laid before the public. It was continued by Lord Clarendon, but soon closed by mutual consent, and the two governments have tacitly agreed to differ about a point which does not admit of being settled by any established principles of international law. Great Britain having declined to refer to arbitration her alleged liability for captures made by the Alabama and other confederate cruisers, and the United States having rejected the counter proposal of a joint commission for the adjustment of other outstanding claims on both sides, the matter remains in abeyance. The American government has not withdrawn its demand, the British government has not receded from its position, yet the friendly intercourse between them has not been interrupted. When the Fenians menaced the Canadian frontier, the neutrality laws were enforced against them with a vigor which does President Johnson the highest honor, and if the prosecutions then instituted against some of the leaders have since been abandoned, we have been quite content to assume that good reasons could be given for his forbearance. On the other hand, it is vain to indulge the belief that our supposed infractions of neutrality during the war have been condoned by the American public. They may or may not support the President in putting down an open defiance of their foreign enlistment act, but they still cherish a sense of injury which found expression in the bill for modifying the provisions of that act, and would make it very difficult to check lawless reprisals on our commerce if Great Britain were unhappily involved in a war. While this state of feeling exists among the American people the diplomatic entente cordiale may be imperilled at any moment. The exigencies of party warfare have always influenced the foreign policy of the United States. They are just now peculiarly urgent; the "Irish vote" will probably turn the autumn elections, and the same motives which have apparently led Mr. Seward to wink at the transport of warlike stores to Mexico may possibly tempt and almost force him on some future occasion to revive the dormant Alabama claims. In the mean time, it is admitted on all hands that the obligations of neutral powers in respect of breaches of neutrality which they may have failed to prevent have never been clearly ascertained, while no one ventures to maintain that either our own or the American foreign enlistment act is in all respects satisfactory. Is it, then, inconsistent with our national dignity, or rather is it not at once the most dignified and the most politic course, to reconsider dispassionately the questions arising out of the Alabama case, and the best means of providing against their recurrence? Would such a course be the less honorable or statesmanlike because it might tend to conciliate public opinion in America, and to remove incidentally any grudge which may still be entertained against this country? We venture to submit that it would not, and to suggest, moreover, that no better time could be selected for this attempt than the present, when the grievances of which Mr. Adams complained are neither obsolete nor too recent, when no other source of misunderstanding exists to disturb the fair discussion of them, and when the foreign affairs of this country have lately passed into the hands of a new minister. The controversy conducted by Lord Russell and Mr. Adams on behalf of their respective governments really turned on a very few and very simple issues. The latter contended that a neutral state is not only bound to prohibit the participation of its own subjects in acts of hostility against either of the belligerents, but responsible for any damage which may result from its neglect or inability to do so. He took his stand on the fact that certain vessels of war in the confederate service had been constructed in British dock-yards, equipped from, if not in, the same ports, manned chiefly by British sailors, and commissioned at sea without having acquired any new character by entering a confederate port. Hence he argued either that our laws were inadequate to restrain abuses of our neutrality, or that they were not properly enforced; and, in either case, he insisted that Great Britain was liable for the consequences. Lord Russell virtually, if not expressly, denied that a neutral state has any duty towards a belligerent except the strict and honest execution of its own municipal laws. He maintained, however, that our foreign enlistment act is sufficient for its purpose, and had been enforced with due diligence as well as in perfect good faith by our government, attributing the unfortunate escape of the Alabama to the want of evidence to justify her detention. To Mr. Adams's tender of arbitration Lord Russell replied that an arbitrator's decision must be founded on a consideration of two questions, neither of which Great Britain could submit to any independent tribunal-the question whether the law officers of the Crown had correctly interpreted a British statute, and the question whether the British government had bona fide availed themselves of the powers therein intrusted to them. On these grounds he objected to any judicial investigation of the Alabama claims, either by an arbitrator or even by a joint commission; though he expressed his readiness to concur in the appointment of such commission to deal with compensation cases of a different class. The United States were naturally unwilling to accept an arrangement which would have left open the very point in dispute, and so the controversy ended. Now, without going further into the argument than this, or criticising any one of the historical precedents so copiously adduced in support of either conclusion, we see no insuperable obstacle to a solution which has something in common with Mr. Adams's proposal, and something with that of Lord Russell. Let a joint commission be appointed, not to adjudicate upon the claims preferred against Great Britain by American ship-owners, or to review the transactions connected with the equipment of the Alabama and her consorts, but to deliberate on the rights and duties of neutrals in time of war, as hitherto determined by international law or usage, and to devise, if possible, a set of rules which all maritime nations should he invited to adopt, and to carry out by legisla tive measures. A commission of this kind should not be exclusively composed of British and American subjects, but should include eminent continental jurists, and should be invested with the amplest possible liberty of recommendation. If, upon a perusal of their report, her Majesty's government shall be of opinion that, under the circumstances, some reparation is due, either in international law or in international equity, to the United States in respect of the ravages of the Alabama, it will not be too late to make it, and no false pride should prevent our doing so with a good grace. If it be said that Lord Stanley cannot allow these claims to be reopened, even indirectly, without reflecting injuriously on the conduct of his predecessor, the answer is obvious. Mr. Adams's representation to Lord Russell was in the nature of a legal demand, and it was properly met by a legal demurrer. It was practically granted that our law had been violated in the equipment of the Alabama, and that the commercial marine of the United States had suffered grievous injury thereby; but the doubt was whether, in the absence of culpable neglect on the part of our government, there was any remedy against us. This Lord Russell denied, and we have yet to learn that he was wrong in his exposition of the law, while he was certainly right if the precedent of the Portuguese claims on the United States is to be followed. On the other hand, as every one knows, the Alabama would never have got to sea but for the most inopportune illness of the Queen's advocate, and this consideration, though it may clear the government from the charge of neglect, does in some degree affect the moral aspect of the case. The loss sustained by American commerce in consequence may be damnum sine injuria, and therefore no ground of a legal action; and yet it may be a wise act of courtesy to waive the benefit of this plea. The time has come when such a |