invoice was made out, with one exception. I had asked him to have a lot of rifles, and one day he came to me in a hurry and said he would take the lot, but I must give him credit till Saturday. I think this was on Thursday. At first I demurred to this, but we had become rather intimate since I first met him, and I had taken a liking to him from his agreeable manner. He is a particularly agreeable fellow; so, after some talk, I said I would run the risk, and let him have them. The price was 21s. 6d. each, and they came to £698 18. 6d. The entry in my book is dated the 28th of December. I think that is the correct day. There were other goods ordered the same day, but they were paid for at the time. He was to have come to my office to pay for them on the Saturday, but he did not come. On Sunday, feeling rather uneasy at having this £700 floating about, I rode into town and called upon him at the King's Head Hotel in Worcester street, where he was staying. He said he was very glad to see me to pay me the money. I said I was equally glad to see him. He paid me the money. The rifles were packed in cases of 20, and the revolvers were loose, without any cases at all. The revolvers were delivered at his place in George street, to his man Mallidy. The witness bere perceiving that the prisoner Casey was watching him with a somewhat peculiar smile, or rather grin, on his countenance, exclaimed, "I believe that is Mallidy. Now I see him laugh, I believe it is the man."

After a pause, during which the witness contemplated intently the no longer laughing face of Casey amidst the most profound silence,

Dr. Kenealy said this was a most serious matter, and he hoped the witness would be

careful.

In answer to questions from Mr. Poland and Sir Thomas Henry, the witness added: I could not swear to him, as I took so little notice of him there. It is one of the men I saw at Winslow's, if it is not Mallidy, but I think it is he. There was an inscription over the door, "C. E. Winslow & Co., merchants and commission agents," I think. I am not quite sure about the "merchants." Winslow never told me he could make any composition. I have heard him speak about a sort of fire. When some stuff was seized at Liverpool I said "That must be the stuff that Winslow was always talking about," and that was the reason I first suspected that he was a Fenian. I don't recollect any conversations. I only remember his talking about it; not what he said. It was called "Greek fire." I think he said he knew how it was made. After he left Birmingham I received from him the two letters produced:

"JANUARY 29, 1866.

"DEAR SIR: I do deeply regret that I can't give you some orders. My messenger has returned from London and brought me no definite satisfaction. In short, I shall be compelled to go there and attend to matters personally. My health is improved, so that I think I may come straight soon. I am, however, positive on the subject of continued trade with you. Please present to Mrs. Kylock my best wishes for welfare of self and little Ellen, and receive the assurance of continued business activity, though postponed, and of personal friendship.

"E. C. WINSLOW.”

"LONDON, February 5, 1866.

"DEAR SIR: I would have written ere this, but certain business here and in Glasgow kept me constantly occupied, added to which I may plead an illness of six weeks. I hope yourself, your lady, and little Ellen are quite well. Please present to Mrs. Kylock my most sincere wishes for welfare and happiness. I want a full quotation of prices embracing Enfields, Whitworths, carbines, pistols, revolvers, size and quality, and of all the accompanying materials, as I expect to do a fair business with you very soon, and want to be posted up. How is Hill? Has he ever got over that interesting difference of opinion which existed between you? I don't quite forget that pistol you promised me. By Jove! I must have that when I see you next. I am going down to Woolwich, and will be back in three or four days' time. I want you to write me by return of post. I will stop at the International Hotel, near the Southeastern Railway station, London bridge, and will expect to find a note from you when I return. Pardon haste. Kind regards to Ruberry.

"E. C. WINSLOW, "(The man of many apologies.")"

The witness also produced a pressed copy of a letter from himself to the prisoner, replying in equally friendly terms, and inclosing the required quotations. The Mr. Ruberry referred to was a private friend of witness.

Mr. WILLIAM JAMES HILL, of 9 St. Mary's row, Birminghan, gun and pistol maker, stated: At the end of 1865 Mr. Kylock came to my place with the prisoner, who said his name was Winslow, and asked what quantity of revolvers I had got, and what were the lowest prices. I told him the prices, and he asked if that would be the lowest if he took a large quantity, and what I considered a large order. I said "one or two

hundred." He replied, "I don't consider that a large order; I can give you a far larger order than that." He then asked what quantity I could supply by the following Wednesday. I told him, and he desired me to send them. He said he could take any quantity I could supply for eight or nine months. I said I could let him have 100 a week. The prisoner examined a portion of the stock. On Wednesday I sent the quantity agreed upon to Mr. Kylock's office. They were to be paid for by Mr. Kylock. I saw the prisoner a great many times, The quantities supplied by me to Mr. Kylock for the prisoner were on the 27th of December, 135; on the 29th of December, 40; on the 4th of January, 49; and on the 7th of January, 23. I made a pistol for Mr. Kylock, for a gift, for which I charged him £5 10s. That was the cost price, or thereabout. I made a larger quantity of revolvers for the prisoner, but did not supply them, in consequence of a misunderstanding between me and Mr. Kylock. I did not know what Winslow wanted the arms for, but having heard him say something about the southern confederacy, I thought it was for that.

ELIZA LAMBERT, 7 Tavistock street, Bedford square, identified the prisoner Burke and the witness Massey as having lodged there in January or February, 1866, under the names of Wallis and Cleburne. Wallis (the prisoner Burke) left first. She could not tell the date. Had no rent book. Never kept one against them. They had the front room on the third floor, for which they paid 108. a week rent. About a fortnight after they left, Inspector Clark, of the detective force, called upon her. Mr. Poland here applied for a further remand.

Dr. Kenealy hoped the prisoners would not be remanded from week to week. The prosecution had had one week already, and surely the case might be closed at the next examination.

Sir Thomas Henry said that after the evidence which had been given that day the prosecution could hardly be accused of wasting time.

Mr. Poland said the police were still engaged in inquiries, from which further results were being obtained, and he certainly could not pledge himself to complete the case on the next occasion.

Dr. Kenealy hoped Casey would be admitted to bail.

Sir Thomas Henry could not consent to that after the recognition of Casey by Mr. Kylock.

Dr. KENEALY. But did you observe the manner in which that evidence was given? Sir THOMAS HENRY. I did, and do not take the view of it which you would suggest. Both prisoners were again remanded.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 2106.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 9, 1867. SIR: Your dispatch of 22d of November, No. 1484, was duly received. It is an occasion for large satisfaction that in accordance with the instructions of this department you made a representation to her Majesty's government in behalf of the prisoner McCondon, otherwise known as Shore, and that he was reprieved. It appears that, on the most careful reflection which you could give to the matter, you came to the painful conclusion that to interpose in the same manner in behalf of the prisoner Gould would be to do more harm than good.

It is not difficult to understand the great embarrassment which surrounded that case. The crime was that of murder, and the conviction and sentence were in conformity with the municipal law. On the other hand, this offense against municipal law is very generally regarded by those who, within and without the British realm, are agitating for a change in Ireland, as an incident in a meritorious political movement. Similar conflicts of sentiment occur in every political disturbance. The judgment of mankind is that in revolutionary movements which are carried on by large masses, and which appeal to popular sympathy, capital executions of individuals who fall within the power of the government are unwise and often unjust. Such severity, when practiced upon a citizen of a foreign state, excites a new sympathy by enlisting feelings of nationality and patriotism. The fellow-citizens at home of

the sufferer in a foreign country naturally incline to believe that the just and generous principle to which I have referred is violated in his case The soundness of this principle is quite easily understood after the revolutionary movement is ended, although it is difficult to accept the truth in the midst of revolutionary terror or violence. When the President of the United States dismissed the prosecutions in the United States courts of the so-called Fenians who attempted au unlawful and forbidden invasion of Canada, and returned them to their homes at the expense of the government, and at the same time obtained, through the wise counsels of Sir Frederick Bruce and the governor general of Canada, a mitigation of the capital punishments adjudged against those who were convicted in the Canadian courts, the President adopted proceedings which have practically assured the continuance of peace upon the Canadian border. It was believed here that similar clemency could be practiced in the Manchester case with benign results. Your dispatch leads us to believe that her Majesty's government was so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of pursuing a different course in that case that further interposition than that which you adopted would have been unavailing and injurious to citizens of the United States. Certainly it belonged to the British government to decide whether the principle which we invoked could be wisely applied in the Manchester case.

Under these circumstances it is necessary to acquiesce in the decision to which you arrived in the matter, after exercising a discretion which in no instance, during your long public service; has failed to command the approval and commendation of this government.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 1492.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, December 11, 1867.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit a copy of the London Times of this morning, containing a communication from Mr. Vernon Harcourt, who is well known under the signature of Historicus, and also a leading article in the editorial columns on the subject of the law of expatriation. The mode in which this difficult matter is treated by both writers affords encouragement to the belief that something may be done to harmonize the rule as well here as at home into one system. In my opinion nothing is more desirable, in order to remove amicably the causes for future collision on the subject.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

SIR: I am unwilling, upon the strength of a telegraphic report, to animadvert upon the language attributed to the President of the United States. I shall say nothing,

therefore, of the tone or the method in which a matter of the most supreme consequence seems about to be introduced to our attention. Our business in any case is to understand our own situation and to take care that we, at all events, are in the right. It is quite plain that we are about to be called upon, courteously or otherwise, to consider the principles on which we found the rights and assert the claims of British citizenship. This is a subject so complicated in the double bearing of its legal and political character that I cannot attempt, in the space I could ask at your hands, to treat it in a complete and satisfactory manner. I think, however, that I shall be able in a moderate compass to satisfy your readers that there is much in the existing condition of the question which requires mature revision and fundamental reform.

And first let us ascertain who, according to the law of England, is a natural-born British subject, owing allegiance and entitled to the protection of the British Crown. I. Every man born within the dominions of the Crown is born within the legiance of the Crown and is a British subject, and that whether the parents are British subjects or aliens.

This was the simple doctrine of the common law. A child born of foreign parents in England was an Englishman. A child born of English parents abroad was a foreigner. (I state the matter broadly, without reference to the limitations of the statute of Edward III, which in some respects may be considered as in affirmance of the common law, and was an enabling, not a compulsory statute.) In the reign of Charles II, a special statute was passed to naturalize the children born abroad to Englishmen who had fled to foreign parts in the Commonwealth.

II. By a statute of George II, (substantially re-enacting a statute of Anne,) all children of natural-born British subjects born abroad were made natural-born subjects, (4th of George II, cap. 21, A. D. 1731:)

All children born, or which shall hereafter be born, out of the legiance of the Crown of Great Britain, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the Crown, are hereby declared to be natural-born subjects of the Crown to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.

The quality of citizenship was carried on to the next generation by a statute of George III. The preamble is so remarkable that I think it right to call special attention to it, (13th of George III, cap. 21, A. D. 1773.) After reciting that divers naturalborn subjects of Great Britain have for lawful causes, especially for carrying on com‐ merce, been obliged to reside abroad, the preamble proceeds: "And whereas it is equally just and expedient that the kingdom should not be deprived of such subjects, nor lose the benefit of the wealth which they have acquired, and therefore that not only the children of such natural-born subjects but their children also should continue under the allegiance of his Majesty;" then enacts that the children of fathers made British subjects by the act of George II (i. e., the grandchildren of a natural-born British father) “are hereby declared to be natural-born British subjects to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever."

Now, the character and effect of these statutes is singular in the extreme. The persons with whom they deal are persons who, but for those statutes, would be foreigners. Yet, by a municipal law of this country, with which they have nothing to do, we impose upon them, without any option on their part, a citizenship which they very possibly do not at all desire. If the statutes had been of an enabling character alone, or which conferred privileges without imposing liabilities, the thing would have been intelligible; but the words of the preamble I have cited and of the enactment forbid such an interpretation. I will put a case-of course an extreme one-to test the extent to which the English doctrine of citizenship and allegiance is carried. Suppose the wife of a Frenchman, (who himself has never left France,) traveling in any part of the British empire, is there delivered of a child—that child, though it is conveyed the next day to France, and never revisits British soil, is forever a British subject, and by our law owes an indelible allegiance to the British Crown. But that is not all; by the statute of George II this man's children are all likewise created natural-born British subjects, and by the statute of George III his grandchildren likewise. Thus it will be seen that the accident of a premature delivery will have created, it may be, 50 naturalborn British subjects, who will have all the rights and all the liabilities of English citizenship, though they may have less than nothing in common with the interests of the English empire. Now, suppose one of these 50 grandchildren to be taken in arms in a war between France and England, and to be indicted here for treason against the British Crown. I know no means by which, in the face of these statutes, he could plead that he was not a natural-born British subject. It may be said that no such indictment would ever be preferred, and that is certainly true. But is it not a good argument against the continuance of a law that it is one which you would never venture to enforce? It may be remarked, however, that at this moment a gentleman holds his seat as a natural-born British subject in the House of Commons whose citizenship was affirmed by the decision of an election committee to rest on the very same foundation as that of the grandchildren I have supposed. So much for the quantity of British citizenship, which I think it will, on reflection, be admitted is scattered broadcast by

our present law in a somewhat profuse and inconsiderate degree. Such citizens may well ask, "What have we to do with England?" and England may well ask, "What have I to do with such citizens?"

ance.

Now let us examine a not less important point, the quality of British citizenship. Its characteristic and distinctive principle is that of indelible and indefeasible allegiThe doctrine is stated by Blackstone in all its breadth. But when he affirms that "it is a principle of universal law that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former," he lays down a proposition which cannot be maintained. I fear I shall be thought by some to intrude on sacred things when I lay profane hands on the time-honored maxim, "Nemo potest exuere patriam;" but when the soundness of the doctrine is challenged, we must see if it is capable of being sustained. Now, so far from this maxim being, as Blackstone asserts, a "principle of universal law," the principle of universal law is exactly the reverse. The doctrine of that great people who, beyond all others, had cultivated the arts of empire and perfected the science of law, is set forth in a well-known passage of Cicero:

"Ne quis invitus civitate mutetur; neve in civitate maneat invitus. Hæc sunt enim fundamenta firmissima nostræ libertatis, sui quemque juris et retinendi at dimettendi esse dominum."-Orat. pro Balbo, cap. 13.

How far from the truth it is that the restrictive principle which the English law has borrowed from the feudal system ever obtained among modern nations sufficiently appears from the following passage of Bynkershoek:

Ubi ea prohibitio non est, ut non est apud plerasque Europa gentes, subditis licebit, ut ipse quidem opinor, civitatem suam relinquere, in aliam migrare et ibi sub alio Principe militare. Si ut modo dicebam, non sit lex quæ prohibeat utiqne licet subditi conditionem exuere et civitatem ut lubet mutare. Juris publici scriptores uno ore in id consentiunt neque dissentit Grotius, apud Moschos tamen illud non licere addit ibi Grotius; non licere etiam apud Chinenses et Anglos, earum gentium sententia est, plus semel publice testata. Et ubique licet ubi civitas non carcer est.”—Q. J. P., cap. 22.

The reader will not fail to observe the covert sarcasm which is conveyed by coupling together the English and the Chinese as joint tenants of a doctrine which is said to be held by no nation where the State is not a jail.

I could, if need were, multiply authorities to any extent, from Bynkershoek down to Wheaton, to show that the maxim of indissoluble allegiance has no place in the doctrine of public law. But it is unnecessary to do so, nor no modern jurist will be found to dispute the assertion. The truth in this doctrine had its origin in a system which is obsolete, and found its application in a condition of society which has passed away. The feudal tenure, when every man held mediately of some lord, and ultimately of the king, did, in fact, convert the state into that career at which the Dutch jurist sneers. With the exception of the few persons who resided abroad for commercial objects, Englishmen in the middle ages seldom left the country for any legitimate purpose. Those who withdrew themselves from the realm were regarded as persons who sought to evade services which were due from them, and deserters from the standard to which they could at any instant be summoned. The obligations of feudal service have disappeared, and the principles which pertained to it have become antiquated. But this is not all. There has arisen a state of things in modern society to which our forefathers were strangers. That great and never-ceasing tide of emigration, in which the sons of our soil seek in other lands a fortune which the limited resources of their own country denies them, is a phenomenon for which the conceptions of the feudal law have made no provision. The consequence is that we find ourselves in the presence of political facts which are wholly irreconcilable with our legal theory. It is in vain that we proclaim the doctrine, Nemo potest exuere patriam, while year by year thousands and tens of thousands of our subjects are transferring their allegiance to other governments, and incorporating themselves in other states. These are facts which the technicality of the law may refuse to recognize, but of which an enlightened statesmanship must needs take account.

And, in fact, we have never, and do never, politically attempt to enforce the theory of our law. So long ago as the case of Æneas Macdonald, the English government shrank from carrying into execution the sentence of the law. Macdonald was a native of Great Britain, who had received his education from early infancy in France, and spent his riper years in a profitable employment in that kingdom, and had accepted a commission in the service of the French King. Having, while acting under that commission, been taken in arms-of course in a legitimate war-against the King of England, he was indicted and convicted of high treason; but he was afterwards pardoned on condition of his leaving the kingdom forever. The logical consequence of this ill-omened doctrine was the immediate cause of the unhappy war with America in 1812. In that war, acting upon this theory of citizenship, the English government threatened to punish as traitors its native subjects naturalized in the United States and taken in arms. This menace was met by the arrest of British officers as hostages, on whom the United States announced their intention to retaliate. The English gov