inclosing Lord Stanley's dispatches of the 30th of November. Lord Stanley, in his first dispatch, recounts the history of the Sumtër, Florida, Alabama, and Shenandoah, and defends their reception in British ports. He then justifies the recognition of rebel belligerency on the ground of the President's proclamation of blockade, and quotes a Supreme Court decision in support of his position. The foreign enlistment act, he claims, was identical with that of the United States. Its evasion by the Alabama could not have been prevented, and sufficient evidence was lacking to have detained the other vessels. The British government, however, proposed an alteration in the laws of both countries, and the United States replied that their law was believed to be sufficient. The provisions contained in the latter law, which are not to be found in that of Great Britain, would have been ineffectual if adopted. The case of the prompt suppression of the Fenians could not fairly be cited, as their movements were all public and evidence against them easily procured. In his second dispatch of November 30, Lord Stanley proposes to submit the question of the Alabama claims to arbitration, excluding the question of premature recognition, and all other claims to a

mixed commission. Mr. Seward to Jan. 12 Acknowledges the receipt of his note, cover 654 Sir F. Bruce.

ing copy of Lord Stanley's dispatch, and

has replied through Mr. Adams. 1906 Mr. Seward to Jan. 12 Has received from Sir Frederick Bruce Lord | 655 1 Mr. Adams.

Stanley's review of his No. 1835. Mr. Seward renews his argument based on the reception and sale of the Sumter in British ports, and the outfit of the Alabama and other vessels, the several parts of which were completed in England, although joined together outside of British jurisdiction. Their character was essentially British. In regard to recognition of belligerency, the decision of the Supreme Court referred to does not admit that the proclamation of blockade recognized the existence of a civil war. The recognition was premature and unnecessary. Mr. Seward gives a history of the blockade proclamation, and the recognition of belligerency by Great Britain, and says that the latter proceeding and not the

claims cannot be accepted. Has had an interview with Lord Stanley, for | 671

the purpose of having a definiteunderstanding of the difficulties in the way of the settlement of existing questions. On learning, however, that the latter's proposal of March 9 had not yet been submitted to Mr. Seward, Mr. Adams refrained from pressing immediate action. Mr. Adams doubts the expediency of insisting that the ques

tion of the Alabama claims. 1971 ...... do........ May 2 Has received No. 1355. The President sees 673

no prospect of coming to an agreement
with the British government on the claims
question. The people still retain their
sense of the injuries following the un-
friendly recognition of rebel belligerency,
and would not permit that question to be

waived in the settlement of their claims. 1361 | Mr. Adams to | May 2 Has received No. 1965, and communicated its 674 Mr. Seward.

contents to Lord Stanley. The latter agreed that the government having consented to arbitration for the Alabama claims, might easily submit the less important claims to the same tribunal ; but the difficulty would be to find an umpire willing to decide upon so many unimportant questions. As Mr. Seward in his dispatch had not noticed Lord Stanley's exception of the recognition question from consideration, Mr. Adams alluded to it as making an essential point in Lord Stan· ley's reply. Mr. Adams thought itinexpe

dient to print the recent correspondence. Lord Stanley to | May 2 | Communicates the substance of Mr. Seward's 676 Sir F. Bruce.

reply to his dispatch of March 9, just re

ceived from Mr. Adams. 1986 | Mr. Seward to | May 20 | Has received No. 1361. No limitation upon 676 Mr. Adams.

the arbitration of the Alabama claims can

be consented to.
Lord Stanley to May 24 The term “Alabama claims” in the proposal 677
Sir F. Bruce.

for arbitration was meant to cover claims
arising from the depredations of the Ala-
bama, Florida, Georgia, and Shenandoah.
These claims depend upon the solution of
an abstract question of responsibility, and
are proper subjects for arbitration, while
the general claims are diversified in their
nature, and their decision by an arbiter
would be impracticable. Her Majesty's
government would be glad to learn that
the question of premature recognition was

waived by the United States.
Mr. Seward to July 27 | Will take the President's directions and | 678
Sir F. Bruce.

reply to Lord Stanley's letter upon his re

turn to Washington. 2037 Mr. Seward to Aug. 12 In reply to Lord Stanley's dispatch of May 679 Mr. Adams.

24, the United States understand the Ala-
bama claims to include all those arising
from the depredations of the Alabama or
similar vessels, but would consider itself
at liberty to urge the actual proceedings
and relations of Great Britain, her officers
and subjects, toward the United States in
regard to the rebellion, as affecting the
question of her moral responsibility for
that class of claims. The United States

wished to consider its terms before an-
swering definitely, and said that some
limit must be applied to the arbitration,
or no umpire could be found. Lord Stan-
ley suggested either of the German powers,
and expressed strong hopes of the speedy

settlement of the difficulties. 2060 Mr. Seward to Sept. 25 Has received No. 1447. Lord Stanley's sen- | 682 Mr. Adams.

timents coincide with his own. 1474 | Mr. Adams to Nov. 2 Has had a conference with Lord Stanley, in 682 Mr. Seward.

which the latter expressed his opinion
that a settlement of the claims question
could be reached without much difficulty,
but that the point of pride about the right
of recognition was so great, even with our
best friends in England, that it could not

be submitted to arbitration. 2093 | Mr. Seward to Nov. 16 The sentiment of the American people is 683 Mr. Adams.

equally as unanimous as that of the Eng-
lish, and would not permit the question of

premature recognition to be waived.
Lord Stanley to | Nov. 16 In answer to Mr. Seward's letter of August ( 683
Mr. Ford.

12, her Majesty's government cannot refer
to arbitration the justice of their proceed-
ings in recognizing the rebels as belliger-
ents. The only point for arbitration in
regard to the Alabama claims is the moral
responsibility of Great Britain for viola-
tion of its neutrality, on the assumption
that war actually existed between the
United States and the insurgents. This
question is entirely different from those
involved in the general claims, and should
be submitted to a different tribunal. Lord
Stanley hopes that the United States will
accept his previous proposition of "limited
reference to arbitration of the Alabama
claims, and adjudication, by a inixed com-

mission, of general claims." 2102 | Mr. Seward to | Nov. 29 Has received from Mr. Ford Lord Stanley's 685 Mr. Adams.'

proposal of November 16, and, as it in-
volves the abandoning of our position in
regard to premature recognition, it cannot

be entertained. 2103 ...... do ......... Dec. 2 Directs Mr, Adams to give Lord Stanley a | 686

copy of No. 2102. 1488 | Mr. Adams to | Dec. 4 Transmits published correspondence between 686 Mr. Seward.

himself and Lord Stanley in reference to
claims. Has received No. 2093, and, from

relation to questions at issue between the
United States and Great Britain. The
failure of negotiations is regretted, and
Parliament is prepared to submit tlie

claims to decision of a commission. 2144 | Mr. Seward to Mar. 23 Has received No. 1549. The change in Brit 691 Mr. Adams.

ish opinion is gratifying. Has suggested
to Mr. Thornton plans for settling the
naturalization and San Juan questions
preparatory to touching the claims ques-

tion. 2 Nir. Seward to July 20 Instructs Mr. Johnson to attempt a settle 692 Mr. Johnson.

ment of the naturalization and San Juan

CU.