in obtaining permits for supplies, and the high prices at Memphis, nearly absorb the value of the products raised. The supervising agent at Memphis demands of me the same surrender of the products of my plantation as those who have hired no freedmen, and have been guilty of acts of hostility to the United States government. To many of this class, who have not even hired their labor from the government, said agent has given permits to transport their cotton to New York without turning it over to the government. Moreover, he has given private speculators permits to ship cotton purchased from the confederate tax collector at one point on the river; to ship the cotton so purchased on their own account to New York. Among the cotton thus purchased and shipped was cotton pressed from me by this collector of customs or tenths of the confederates. If these speculators should ship without hindrance cotton unjustly pressed from me by the confederates, ought not I to be permitted to ship mine, who raised it under contract with the acting officer of the government, and in furtherance of the proclamation of the President? It may be objected, first, that my plantation is not inside the federal lines; second, that my land should be leased from the government. The answer to my first would be that my plantation is on the banks of the Mississippi river, under cover of the gunboats of the federal navy, and embraced in the order of Major General Canby, commanding the whole department. Moreover, were it not considered inside their lines they would not hire to me freedmen to work on my plantation. With regard to the second objection, that the lands should be leased from the government, I beg to say that no mention is made in the act of July. This act merely excepts products raised by freedmen's labor, and defines that such products should be permitted to be forwarded to market on the applicant making affidavit that it was raised by the labor of freedmen, and that he is a loyal United States citizen. When I was offered a permit on signing that affidavit, I refused, and now, when this clause in the affidavit has been dispensed with, Mr. Orme inconsistently denies me the permit he first offered. If it should be set forth that copies of contracts with freedmen should be filed with Mr. Miller, I should say that this rule has been enunciated neither by proclamation nor by act of Congress. W. E. SCANLAN. JAMES H. BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, of Canada West, SIR: I have the honor to enclose, for the information of the proper authorities of her Majesty's government, extracts from a communication of the 12th instant, addressed to the Secretary of War by Mr. in regard to alleged projected raid from Canada into the United States. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., sx. Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 20, 1865. MY DEAR LORD LYONS: I accept your farewell with sincere sorrow, but I reconcile myself to it because it is a condition of restoration of your health. All of my family command me to tender you assurances of sympathy. I have never desponded of my country, of emancipation of her slaves, and of her resumption of her position as an agent of peace, progress, and civilization, interests which I never fail to believe are common with all branches of the British family. So I have had no doubt that, when this dreadful war shall be ended, the United States and Great Britain would be reconciled and become better friends than ever. I have thought that you are entitled to share in these great successes, as you have borne so great a part of the trials of the war. But God disposes. I feel now that if I never find leisure to go abroad again, that you with renewed health will come here to see the reign of peace and order; so I shall not dwell upon our parting as a final one. Faithfully your friend, The Right Hon. LORD LYONS. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 20, 1865. : SIR I have carefully considered the communication concerning the society called by the name of the Fenian Brotherhood, which, by order of her Majesty's government, you addressed to me on the 14th of March instant. In that paper you have denounced the aforesaid society as an extensive conspiracy carried on in the United States, having for its object to promote rebellion in Ireland, and to forward from the United States assistance to the rebels in money, men, and arms. You have further stated that the accounts given in the public papers of what passed in public meetings held in the United States for their avowed objects, coupled with allusions to the means by which they are to be carried out, must surely have attracted the attention of the government of the United States, and her Majesty's government might reasonably have expected that while the government of the United States so loudly protests against the proceedings of confederate agents in Great Britain, which are conducted with the utmost secrecy, and while it imputes blame to the British government for not having put a stop to practices of which they have had no previous knowledge, and for not exerting powers of repression beyond the law, the United States should at least have signified their disapprobation of such hostile declarations against the peace and security of the Queen's dominions. Pursuing the same line of argument, you have observed, that on the contrary of what in your judgment might thus have been expected, it is notorious that an officer of the army of the Potomac, Colonel J. H. Gleason, formerly of the Irish brigade, was recently allowed to absent himself from his military duties for a period of twenty days, by the Secretary of War, in order that he might have time to attend one of the meetings of the Fenian Brotherhood appointed to be held at Chicago; and still more recently, at New Orleans, Attorney General Lynch attended a local Fenian meeting on the 28th of January and took an active part in its proceedings. You have further remarked, that whatever may be thought of the public meetings thus referred to as an unmistakable sign on the part of those who attend of hostility to Great Britain, it might, perhaps, be difficult, under the Constitution of the United States, to prevent or to interfere with such meetings. But the attendance of persons in the military or civil employment of the general government of the United States, or of the government of any particular State in the Union, would seem to show that the government itself participates in their feelings of hostility to Great Britain. Standing upon this argument, you have informed me that her Majesty's government trust that the attendance of military and civil officers in the employment of the United States government and of the State governments at the meetings of the Fenian Brotherhood will be disapproved by the government, and will not in future be permitted. The task of replying to these representations is rendered easy by the admission contained in them, in regard to the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution does guarantee to the people the right of assembling peace fully to discuss all questions, political as well as social, foreign as well as domestic. That right has only one limitation. The popular assembly must not disturb the public peace or violate the laws of the land or the law of nations. It has not appeared, and it is not represented in your communication, that any corpus delicti has been produced against the Fenian Brotherhood. Whatever be their purpose, it is not alleged or even understood that they have instigated any insurrection in Ireland, or sent out from the United States, for such a purpose, to that country or elsewhere, any money, men, or arms, or that any sedition or rebellion actually exists in Ireland. Should they attempt to violate the neutrality laws in regard to Great Britain, the laws of the United States, and regulations already sanctioned by the President, are ample to prevent the commission of that crime. It is thus seen that a case has not arisen in which this government could with right, or ought to, interfere with the meetings of the Fenian Brotherhood. I may properly add that this government has no sufficient grounds to apprehend that any such case will occur, unless renewed and systematic aggressions from the British ports and provinces should defeat all the efforts of this government to maintain and preserve peace with Great Britain. Under these circumstances, any attempt to visit the Fenian Brotherhood with official censures is unnecessary, and therefore, in the belief of this government, would be as unwise as it would be manifestly unconstitutional. The attorney general of the State of Louisiana is responsible to the State government and the people of that State, exclusively of this government. Colonel Gleason did, indeed, have leave of absence from the army for twenty days, but that leave was granted in the ordinary course of administration, without any knowledge by the War Department, or any other department of this government, that he was to attend a meeting of the Fenian Brotherhood. In the present view of the case, while this government has no hesitation in assuring the government of Great Britain that no hostilities will be allowed to be committed against any portion of that country, it does not think that the interests of international peace require any special proceedings in that direction. I must be excused for leaving unnoticed the allusions which your note contains in regard to an assumed hostility of this government towards Great Britain, and I pass over in the same manner the allusion which you have made to the many well-founded complaints which this government has heretofore presented of aggressions committed by British subjects against the peace and sovereignty of the United States. This government could not consent to weaken those complaints by entering, although even more directly invited, into an argument of recrimination. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 20, 1865. SIR: I recur to your note of the 15th of March, which relates to Bennett G Burley. The honorable the Attorney General informs me that it is his purpose to bring the offender to trial in the courts of the States of Ohio and Michigan, for the. crimes committed by him against the municipal laws of those States, namely, robbery and assault, with intent to commit murder. He was delivered up by the Canadian authorities upon a requisition which was based upon charges of those crimes, and also upon a charge of piracy, which is triable not by State courts, but by the courts of the United States. I am not prepared to admit the principle claimed in the protest of her Majesty's government, namely, that the offender could not lawfully be tried for the crime of piracy under the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, the question raised upon it has become an abstraction, as it is at present the purpose of the government to bring him to trial for the crimes against municipal law only. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant, J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, March 20, 1865, SIR: The present position of British subjects at Charleston, as reported to me by her Majesty's acting consul at that port, causes me very great anxiety. You will perceive by the enclosed copies of despatches from Mr. Walker, and of his correspondence with Colonel Woodford, the dilemma in which they are placed, by having either to take an oath of allegiance to the United States before they can resume their peaceable occupations, or leave the place altogether. Mr. Walker encloses an analysis of the register, for the purpose of showing the occupations of the several persons registered, and estimates the whole British population at fifteen hundred. To require that all these people, some, of course, without the means of leaving the place, should summarily depart or take the oath required, seems to me unnecessary, making every allowance for the difficulties on a first occupation of the town, and I would venture to suggest, whether some intermediate measurǝ might not be adopted which might allow those who are peaceably and friendly disposed to pursue their avocations, without the necessity of expulsion. Such a measure would show that the United States government was not actuated by any peculiar animus against British subjects, but are acting merely from a desire to discriminate between the friend and the foe.. Requesting the original affidavits to be returned to me, 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. Walker to Mr. Burnley. BRITISH CONSULATE, Charleston, March 7, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to report the adoption of a regulation by the military authorities now holding this city, which bears with cruel hardship upon many of her Majesty's subjects. The regulation is that no one shall be permitted to conduct any kind of business here without first taking out a license for the purpose, and that licenses shall only be granted to those who will swear allegiance to the government of the United States. I had previously become aware of the fixed determination of the commandant to take this step, but the fact was first formally brought to my notice by John Fitzgerald, a copy of whose statement, under oath, I herewith enclose. I transmit also a copy of an affidavit to the same effect, taken from William F. Paddon, corroborated by the oaths of George Dowie and William McComb, all British subjects. In consequence of Fitzgerald's complaint, I addressed a despatch to the commandant of the city, pointing out that the general adoption of the regulation referred to would preclude every British subject from practicing his calling. That to expect British subjects to be so regardless of their duty to her Majesty as to take any oath of allegiance to a foreign government was not reasonable. Although, during the necessity for martial law, to expect the granting of privileges to those whose perfect amity had not been tested might also be regarded as wanting the force of reason, while the refusal of such privileges would, undoubtedly, bring upon her Majesty's subjects much distress and suffering, and therefore I inquired of him whether an option might not be allowed to her Majesty's subjects to return to her Majesty's dominions by (taking passage upon) the vessels which would be constantly leaving this port, and as to the regulations he might adopt on the subject. I have the honor to enclose a copy of my despatch. I have this day received Colonel Woodford's reply, whereby he consents to grant papers to British subjects who have done no act affecting their neutrality, allowing them to proceed to other ports in the United States by vessels leaving this port, in order to return to her Majesty's dominions. A copy of Colonel Woodford's reply is also enclosed herewith. I have, &c., The SECRETARY of her Majesty's Legation at Washington, D. C. H. P. WALKER. Mr. Walker to Colonel Woodford. BRITISH CONSULATE, Charleston, March 3, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to make an inquiry of you in reference to a statement made to me to-day by John Fitzgerald, one of her Britannic Majesty's subjects. This person informs me that being a mariner, and depending for subsistence upon his labor on the water, he made an application for a license to fish and gather oysters; that he made known the fact of his being one of her Britannic Majesty's subjects, but was, nevertheless, informed that such license could not be granted to him, unless he subscribed an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States. If this is so, the principle adopted, if generally carried out, will preclude every British subject from practicing his calling. To expect British subjects to be so regardless of their duty to her Majesty as to take an oath of allegiance to a foreign government is not reasonable, although during the necessity for martial law to expect the granting of privileges to those whose perfect amity may not have been tested may also be regarded as wanting the force of reason; while, again, the refusal of such privileges will undoubtedly bring upon her Majesty's subjects much distress and suffering. Therefore it is that with much regret I beg to inquire of you whether an option may not be allowed to her Majesty's subjects to return to her Majesty's dominions by the vessels which will be constantly leaving this port? And what may be the regulations, if any, that you may think proper to adopt on the subject. I beg to add that those of her Majesty's subjects on whose behalf I have the honor to address you are those who had their residence in this section of the country anterior to the establishment of the blockade, and who have been prevented by it from removing. H. PINCKNEY WALKER, I have, &c., Colonel WOODFORD, United States Army. Her Majesty's Acting Consul. Colonel Woodford to Mr. Walker. HEADQUARTERS, City of Charleston, S. C., March 6, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 3d instant, in which, after referring to the matter of granting trade permits by the military authority now holding the city of Charleston under martial law, you inquire of me whether her Britannic Majesty's subjects may not be allowed to return to her Majesty's dominions by the vessels leaving this port. In reply, I would state that while no vessels are leaving here for British ports, I can see no objection to granting papers to British subjects who have done no act affecting their neutrality, allowing them to proceed to other places in the United States for which vessels may be leaving, from which they may be able to return to her Majesty's dominions, provided the granting of such papers does not, at the time, interfere with the use of our transports for. military purposes. I am, &c., H. PINCKNEY WALKER, &c., &c., &c. STEWART L. WOODFORD, |