in the United States, as in England, persons confined under judicial process can be released from that confinement only by judicial process. In neither country, as the undersigned supposes, can the arm of the executive power interfere, directly or forcibly, to release or deliver the prisoner. His discharge must be sought in a manner conformable to the principles of law, and the proceedings of courts of judicature. If an indictment, like that which has been found against Alexander McLeod, and under circumstances like those which belong to his case, were pending against an individual in one of the courts of England, there is no doubt that the law officer of the crown might enter a nolle prosequi; or that the prisoner might cause himself to be brought up on habeas corpus, and discharged, if his ground of discharge should be adjudged sufficient; or that he might prove the same facts and insist on the same defence or exemption on his trial.

All these are legal modes of proceeding, well known to the laws and practice of both countries. But the undersigned does not suppose that, if such a case were to arise in England, the power of the executive government could be exerted in any more direct manner. Even in the case of ambassadors, and other public ministers whose right of exemption from arrest is personal, requiring no fact to be ascertained but the mere fact of diplomatic character, and to arrest whom is sometimes made a highly penal offence, if the arrest be actually made, it can only be discharged by application to the courts of law.

It is understood that Alexander McLeod is holden as well on civil as on criminal process, for acts alleged to have been done by him in the attack on the "Caroline"; and his defence, or ground of acquittal, must be the same in both cases. And this strongly illustrates, as the undersigned conceives, the propriety of the foregoing observations; since it is quite clear that the executive government cannot interfere to arrest a civil suit between private parties in any stage of its progress; but that such suit must go on to its regular judicial termination. If, therefore, any course different from such as have been now mentioned was in contemplation of her Majesty's government, something would seem to have been expected from the government of the United States as little conformable to the laws and usages of the English government as to those of the United States, and to which this government cannot accede.

The government of the United States, therefore, acting upon the presumption, which it readily adopted, that nothing extraordinary or unusual was expected or requested of it, decided, on the reception of Mr. Fox's note, to take such measures as the occasion and its own duty appeared to require.

In his note to Mr. Fox of the 26th of December last, Mr. Forsyth, the Secretary of State of the United States, observes, that, "if the destruction of the Caroline' was a public act of persons in her Majesty's service, obeying the order of their su perior authorities, this fact has not been before communicated to the government of the United States by a person authorized to make the admission; and it will be for the court which has taken cognizance of the offence with which Mr. McLeod is charged to decide upon its validity when legally established before it." And he adds: "The President deems this to be a proper occasion to remind the government of her Britannic Majesty, that the case of the 'Caroline' has been long since brought to the attention of her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who up to this day has not communicated its decision thereupon. It is hoped that the government of her Majesty will perceive the importance of no longer leaving the government of the United States uninformed of its views and intentions upon a subject which has naturally produced much exasperation, and which has led to such grave consequences."

The communication of the fact, that the destruction of the "Caroline" was an act of public force by the British authorities, being formally made to the government of the United States by Mr. Fox's note, the case assumes a decided aspect.

The government of the United States entertains no doubt, that, after this avowal of the transaction as a public transaction, authorized and undertaken by the British authorities, individuals concerned in it ought not, by the principles of public law and the general usage of civilized states, to be holden personally responsible in the ordinary tribunals of law for their participation in it. And the President presumes that it can hardly be necessary to say that the American people, not distrustful of their ability to redress public wrongs by public means, cannot desire the punishment of individuals when the act complained of is declared to have been an act of the government itself.

Soon after the date of Mr. Fox's note, an instruction was given to the Attorney-General of the United States from this department, by direction of the President, which fully sets forth the opinions of this government on the subject of McLeod's imprisonment, a copy of which instruction the undersigned has the honor herewith to inclose.

The indictment against McLeod is pending in a State court; but his rights, whatever they may be, are no less safe, it is to be presumed, than if he were holden to answer in one of the courts of this government.

He demands immunity from personal responsibility by virtue of the law of nations, and that law in civilized states is to be respected in all courts. None is either so high or so low as to escape from its authority in cases to which its rules and principles apply.

This department has been regularly informed by his Excellency, the Governor of the State of New York, that the Chief Justice of that State was assigned to preside at the hearing and trial of McLeod's case, but that, owing to some error or mistake in the process of summoning the jury, the hearing was necessarily deferred. The President regrets this occurrence, as he has a desire for a speedy disposition of the subject. The counsel for McLeod have requested authentic evidence of the avowal by the British government of the attack on and the destruction of the "Caroline," as acts done under its authority, and such evidence will be furnished to them by this department.

It is understood that the indictment has been removed into the Supreme Court of the State by the proper proceeding for that purpose, and that it is now competent for McLeod, by the ordinary process of habeas corpus, to bring his case for hearing before that tribunal.

The undersigned hardly needs to assure Mr. Fox, that a tribunal so eminently distinguished for ability and learning as the Supreme Court of the State of New York may be safely relied upon for the just and impartial administration of the law in this as well as in other cases; and the undersigned repeats the expression of the desire of this government, that no delay may be suffered to take place in these proceedings which can be avoided. Of this desire Mr. Fox will see evidence in the instructions above referred to.

The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox, that the government of the United States has not changed the opinion which it has heretofore expressed to her Majesty's government of the character of the act of destroying the "Caroline."

It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any reasonable application or construction of the right of self-defence under the laws of nations. It is admitted that a just right of self-defence attaches always to nations as well as to individuals, and is equally necessary for the preservation of both. But the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by the circumstances of each particular case; and when its alleged exercise has led to the commission of hostile acts within the territory of a power at peace, nothing less than a clear and absolute necessity can afford ground of justification. Not having up to this time been made acquainted with the views and reasons at length which have led her Majesty's government to think the destruction of the "Caroline" justifiable as an act of self-defence, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remonstrance of this government against the transaction, abstains for the present from any extended discussion of the question. But it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to omit to take some notice of the general grounds of justification stated by her Majes ty's government in their instruction to Mr. Fox.

Her Majesty's government have instructed Mr. Fox to say, that they are of opinion that the transaction which terminated in the destruction of the "Caroline" was a justifiable employ. ment of force for the purpose of defending the British territory from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and American pirates, who, having been "permitted" to arm and organize themselves within the territory of the United States, had actually invaded a portion of the territory of her Majesty.

The President cannot suppose that her Majesty's govern ment, by the use of these terms, meant to be understood as intimating that those acts, violating the laws of the United States and disturbing the peace of the British territories, were done under any degree of countenance from this government, or were regarded by it with indifference, or that, under the circumstances of the case, they could have been prevented by the ordinary course of proceeding. Although he regrets that, by using the term "permitted," a possible inference of that kind

might be raised; yet such an inference, the President is willing to believe, would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British government.

That on a line of frontier such as separates the United States from her Britannic Majesty's North American Provinces, a line long enough to divide the whole of Europe into halves, irregu larities, violences, and conflicts should sometimes occur, equally against the will of both governments, is certainly easily to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in regard to the United States, without any reproach to their government, since their institutions entirely discourage the keeping up of large standing armies in time of peace, and their situation happily exempts them from the necessity of maintaining such expensive and dangerous establishments. All that can be expected from either government, in these cases, is good faith, a sincere desire to preserve peace and do justice, the use of all proper means of prevention, and that, if offences cannot, nevertheless, be always prevented, the offenders shall still be justly punished. In all these respects, this government acknowledges no delinquency in the performance of its duties.

Her Majesty's government are pleased, also, to speak of those American citizens who took part with persons in Canada, engaged in an insurrection against the British government, as "American pirates." The undersigned does not admit the propriety or justice of this designation. If citizens of the United States fitted out, or were engaged in fitting out, a military expedition from the United States, intended to act against the British government in Canada, they were clearly violating the laws of their own country, and exposing themselves to the just consequences which might be inflicted on them, if taken within the British dominions. But, notwithstanding this, they were certainly not pirates, nor does the undersigned think that it can advance the purpose of fair and friendly discussion, or hasten the accommodation of national difficulties, so to denominate them. Their offence, whatever it was, had no analogy to cases of piracy. Supposing all that is alleged against them to be true, they were taking a part in what they regarded as a civil war, and they were taking a part on the side of the rebels. Surely England herself has not regarded persons thus engaged as deserving the appellation which her Majesty's government bestows on these citizens of the United States.