The Sun. — London, England, 1862-01-13 00:00:00

AMERICA. THE TREN r AFFAIR. SOUTHAMPTON, JAN. 12. The Hamburg and American Company's steamer Teutonia, from New York at 10 a.m. on Dec. 29, arrived off Cowes last night. She brings 37 pas- Bengers and 237,925 dole. in specie, of which 182,000 are fer England, and the remainder for Havre. The Teutonia spoke the following ships :—On Dec. 30 the Borussia, 280 miles east of Sandy Hook, and on Jan. 3 a large screw steamer, bound west, in lat. 47 N., long, 51 W. The following is the full text of the diplomatic correspondence between the British and Federal Governments on the Trent affair No. 186. MR. SEWARD TO MR. ADAMS. (Extract.) Department of State,Washin gton, Nov. 30, 1861. Sir,—Your confidential note of the 15th of Nov., not marked as a despatch, has been submitted to the President, and I hasten to reply to it in time for the Wednesday's mail. No Minister ever spoke or acted more wisely in a crisis which excited deep public solicitude than you did on the occasion of the Lord Mayor's dinner. We are impressed very favourably by Lord Pal merston's conversation with you. You spoke the simple fact when you told him that the life of this insurrection is sustained by its hopes of recognition in Great Britain and France. It would perish in 90 days if those hopes should cease. I have never for a moment believed that such a recognition could take place without producing immediately a war between the United States and all the recognising Powers. I have not supposed it possible that the British Government could fail to see this, and at the same time I have sincerely believed the British Govern ment must, in its inmost heart, be as averse to such a war as I know this Government is. I am sure that this Government has carefully avoided giving any cause of offence or irritation to Great Britain. But it has seemed to me that the British Government has been inattentive to the cur rents that seemed to be bringing the two countries into collision. I infer from Lord Palmerston's remarks that tho British Government is now awake to the import ance of averting possible conflict, and disposed to confer, and act with earnestness to that end. If so, we are disposed to meet them in the same spirit, as a nation chiefly of British lineage, sentiments, and sympathies, a civilised and humane nation, a Chris tian people, Since that conversation was held Capt. Wilkes, in the steamer San Jacinto, has boarded a British colonial steamer, and taken from her deck two in surgents who were• proceeding to Europe on an errand of treason against their own country. This is a new incident, unknown to and unforeseen, at least in its circumstances, by Lord Palmerston. It is to be met and disposed of by the two Governments, if possible, in the spirit to which I have adverted. Lord Lyons has prudently refrained from open ing the subject to me, as I presume, waiting instruc tions from home. We hale done nothing on the sub ject to anticipate the discussion, and we have not furnished you with any explanations. We adhere to that course now, because we think it more pru dent that the ground taken by the British Govern ment should he first made known to us here, and that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be had here. It is proper, however, that you should know one fact in the case, without indicating that we attach importance to it, viz., that in the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board a British vessel, Captain Wilkes having acted without any instructions from the Government, the subject is therefore free from the embarrassment which mig'it have resulted if the act had been specially directed by us. I trust that the. British Government will consider the subject in a friendly temper, and it may expect the bst disposition on the part of this Government. Although this is a confidential note, I shall not object to your reading it to Earl Russell and Lord Palmerston, if you deem it expedient. am, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Charles Francis Adams, Esq. &c. EARL RUSSELL TO LORD LYONS-THE DEMAND OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. Foreign-office, Nov. 30, 1361. My Lord,—lntelligence of a very grave nature has reached her Majesty's Government. This intelligence was conveyed officially to the knowledge of the Admiralty by Commander Wit• liams, agent for mails on board the contract steamer Trent. It appears from the letter of Commander Wil liams, dated " Royal Mail contract packet Trent, at sea, November 9," that the Trent left Havannah on the ith inst. with her Majesty's mails for Eng land, having on board numerous passengers. Commander Williams states that shortly after noon on the Bth a steamer having the appearance of a man-of-war, but not showing colours, was observk d ahead. On nearing her, at a quarter past one p.m. she fired a round shot from her pivot gun across the Trent and showed Ame rican colours. While the Trent was approaching her slowly the American vessel discharged a shell across the bows of the Trent, exploding half a cable's length ahead of her. The Trent then stopped, and an officer with a large armed guard of marines boarded her. The officer demanded a list of the pas sengers, and, compliance with this demand being refused, the officer said he had orders to arrest Messrs. Mason, Slidell, M'Farland, and Eustis, and that he had sure information of their being passen gers in the Trent. While some parley was going on upon this matter Mr. Slidell stepped forward and told the American officer that the four persons he had named were then standing before him. The commander of the Trent and Commander - Williams protested against the act of taking by force out of the Trent these four passengers, then under the protection of the British flag. But the Sin Jacinto was at that time only 200 yards from the Trent, her ship's company at quarters, her ports open, and tompions out. Resistance was therefore out of the question, and the four gentlemen before named were forcibly taken out of the ship. A further demand was made that the Commander of the Trent should proceed on board the San Jacinto, but he said he would not go unless forcibly compelled like wise, and this demand was not insisted upon. It thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral Power, while such vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage—an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law. „ . Her Majesty's Government having in mind the friendly relations which have long subsisted between Great Britain and the United States, are willing to believe that the United States' naval officer who committed this aggression was not acting in compli ai:ce with any authority from his Government, or that, if he conceived himself to be authorized, he greatly misunderstood the instructions which he had received. For the Government of the United States must be fully aware that the British Government could not allow such an affront to the national honour to pass without full reparation, and her Majesty's Govern ment are unwilling to believe that it could be the deliberate intention of the Government of the United States unnecessarily to force into discussion between t h e two Governments a question of so grave a cha racter, and with regard to whi2h the whole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, trust that when the matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the Government of the United States that Government will, of its own accord, offer to the British Government such redress as alone could satisfy the British nation—namely, The liberation of the tour gentlemen, and their delivery to your Lordship, in order that they may again be Owed under British protection, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed. Should these terms not be offered by Mr. Feward you will propose them to him. You are at liberty to read this despa'eh to the Secretary of State, and, if he shall &ire it, you will give him a copy of it —I am, &c., RUSSELL. To the Lord Lyons, K.C.8., &e. MR. SEWARD TO LORD LYONS. Department of State, Washington, Dee, 26,1861. My Lord,—Earl Russell's despatch of the 30th of November, a copy of which you have left with me at my request, is of the following effect — namely :—That a letter of Commander Williams, dated Royal mail contract boat Trent, at sea, Nov. 9, states that that vessel left Havannah on the 7th of November with her Majesty's mails for England, Mtving on board numerous passengers. Shortly after noon, on the Bth of November, the United States' war steamer San Jacinto, Captain Wilkes, not showing colours, was observed ahead. The steamer, on being neared by the Trent, at 1 15 in the afternoon, fired a round shot from a pivot gun across her bows and showed American colours. While the Trent was approaching slowly towards the San Jacinto, she discharged a shell across the Trent's bows, which exploded at half a cable's length before her. The Trent then stopped, and an officer with a large armed guard of Marines boarded her. The officer said he had orders to arrest Messrs. Mason, Slidell, M'Farland, and Eustis, and had sure information that they were passengers in the Trent. While some parley was going on upon this matter, Mr, Slidell stepped forward and said to the American officer that the four persons he had named were standing before him, The commander of the Trent and Commander Williams pro tested against the act of taking these four passengers out of the Trent, they then being under the protection of the British flag. But the San Jacinto was at this time only 200 yards distant, her ship's company at quarters, her ports open and tompions out, and so resistance was out of the question. The four persons beforenamed were then forcibly taken out of the ship. A farther demand was made that the commander of the Trent should proceed on board the San Jacinto, but he said he would not go unless forcibly compelled likewise, and this demand was not insisted upon. Upon this statement Earl Russell remarks that it thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral Power—while that vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage—an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag, and a violation of international law. Earl Russell next says that her Majesty's Go vernment, bearing in mind the friendly relations which have long subsisted between Great Britain and the United States, are willing to believe that the naval officer who committed this aggression was not acting in compliance with any authority from his Government, or that if he conceived him self to be so authorised he greatly misunderstood the instructions which he received. Earl Russell argues that the United States must be fully aware that the British Government could not allow such an affront on the national honour to pass without full reparation, and they are willing to believe that it could not be the deliberate inten tion of the Government of the United States unne• cessarily to force into discussion between the two Governments a question of so grave a character, and with regard to which the whole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. Earl Russell, resting upon the statement and the argument which I have thus recited, closes with saying that her Majesty's Government trust that when this matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the Government of the United States it will, of its own accord, offer to the British Government such redress as alone could satisfy the British nation—namely, the liberation of the four prisoners taken from the Trent, and their delivery to your lordship, in order that they again be placed under British pro tection, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed. Earl Russell finally instructs you to propose these terms to me, if I should not first offer them on the part of the Government. The despatch has been submitted to the President. The British Government has rightly conjectured, what it is my duty to state, that Capt. Wilkes, in conceiving and executing the proceeding in ques tion, acted upon his own suggestions of duty, with out any direction, or instruction, or even foreknow ledge of it, on the part of this Government. No directions had been given to him, or any other naval officer, to arrest the four persons named, or any of them, on the Trent, or any other British vessel, at the place where it occurred or elsewhere. The British Government will justly infer from these facts that the United States not only have had no purpose, but even no thought, of forcing into dis cussion the question which has arisen, or any other which could affect in any way the SE nsibilities of the British nation. It is true that a round shot was fired by the San Jacinto from her pivot gun w hen the Trent was ap proaching ; but as the facts have been reported to this Government, the shot was, nevertheless, inten tionally fired in a direction so obviously divergent from the course of the Trent as to be quite as harm less as a blanY. shot, while it should be regarded as a signal. So also we learn that the Trent was not approaching the San Jacinto slowly when the shell was fired across her bows, but, on the contrary, the Trent was, or seemed to be, moving under a full head of steam, as if with a purpose to pass the San Jacinto. We are informed also that the boarding officer (Lieut. Fairfax) did not board the Trent with a large armed guard, but he left his Marines in his boat when he entered the Trent. He stated his in structions from Captain Wilkes to search for the four persons named, in a respectful and courteous, though decided manner, and he asked the captain of the Trent to show his passenger list, which was re fused. The lieutenant,"as we are informed, did not employ absolute force in transferring the passen gers, but he used just so much as was necessary to satisfy the parties concerned that refusal or resist ance would be unavailing. So, also, we are informed, that the captain of the Trent was not any time, or in any way, required to go on board the San Jacinto. These modifications of the case, as presented by Commander Williams, are based upon our official reports. I have now to remind your Lordship of some facts which doubtlessly were omitted by Earl Rus sell with the very proper and becoming motive of allowing them to be brought into the case on the part of the United States in the way most satisfac tory to this Government. These facts are that at the time the transaction occurred an insurrection was existing in the United States, which this Government was engaged in suppressing by the employment of land and naval forces ; that in regard to this domestic strife the United States considered Great Britain as a friendly Power, while she has assumed for herself the atti tude of a neutral ; and that Spain was considered in the same light, and had assumed the same atti tude as Great Britain. It has been settled by correspondence that the United States and Great Britain nautuAlly recog nised as applicable to this local strife these two articles of the declaration made by the Congress of Paris in 1856 —namely, that the neutral or friendly flag should cover enemy's goods not contraband of war, and that neutral goods, not contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. These exceptions of contraband from favour were a negative acceptance by the parties of the rule hitherto everywhere recognised as a part of the law of nations, that whatever is contraband is liable to capture and confiscation in all cases. James M. Mason and MTarland are citizens of the United States and residents of Virginia. John Slidell and George Eustis are citizens of the United States and residents of Louisiana. It was well known at Havannah, when these parties embarked on the Trent, that James M. Mason was proceeding to England in the affected character of a Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. Junes, and®r pretended =lanais. sion from Jefferson Davis, who had assumed to be President of the insurrectionary 'party in the United States ; and M?Farland was going with him in a like unreal character of Secretary of Legation to the pretended mission. John Slidell, in similar circumstances, was going to Paris as a pretended Minister to the Emperor of the French, and George Eustis was the chosen Sec retary of Legation for that stimulated mission. The fact that these persons had assumed such characters has been since avowed by the same Jeffer son Davis in a pretended message to an unlawful and insurrectionary Congress. It was, as we think, rightly presued that these Ministers bore pretended credentials and instructions, and such papers are, in the law, knows as despatches. We are informed by our Consul at Paris that these despatches, having escaped the search of the Trent, were actually con veyed and delivered to emissaries of the insurrec , tion in England. Although it is not essential, yet it is proper to state, as I do also upon information and belief, that the owner and agent, and all the officers of the Trent, including the commander Williams, had knowledge of the assumed characters and purposes of the persons before named when they embarked on that vessel. Your lordship will now perceive that the case before us, instead of presenting a merely flagrant act of violence on the part of Captain Wilkes, as might well be inferred from the incomplete state ment of it that went up to the British Government, was undertaken as a simple, legal, customary, and belligerent proceeding by Captain Wilkes to arrest and capture a neutral vessel engaged in carrying contraband of war for the use and benefit of the in surgents. The question before us is whether this proceeding was authorised by and conducted according to the law of nations. It involves the following inquiries :- Ist. Were the persons named and their supposed despatches contraband of war ? 2d. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and search the Trent for these contraband persons and despatches ? 3d. Did he exercise that right in a lawful and proper manner ? 4th. Having found the contraband persons on board and in presumed possession of the contraband despatches, had he a right to capture the persons? sth. Did he exercise that right of capture in the manner allowed and recognised by the law of nations ? If all these inquiries shall be resolved in the affirmative, the British Government will have no claim for reparation. I address myself to the first inquiry, namely;— Were the four persons mentioned and their sup posed despatches contraband ? Maritime law so generally deals, as its professors say, in rem, that is, with property, and so seldom with persons, that it seems a straining of the term contraband to apply it to them. Bat persons as well as property may become contraband, since the word means broadly, " contrary to proclamation, pro hibited, illegal, unlawful." All writers and judges pronounce naval or military persons in the service of the enemy contraband. Vattel says, " War allows us to cut off from an enemy all his resources and to hinder him from sending Ministers to solicit assistance." And Sir - William Scott says, " You may stop the Ambas- sador of your enemy on his passage." Despatches are not less clearly contraband, and the bearers or couriers who undertake to carry them fall under the same condemnation. A subtlety might be raised, whether pretended Ministers of an usurping Power, not recognised as legal by either the belligerent or the neutral, could be held to be contraband. Bat it would disappear on being subjected to what is the true test in all cases—namely, the spirit of the law. Sir William Scott, speaking of civil magistrates who were arrested and detained as contraband, says— " It appears to me, on principle, to be but reason - able that when it is of sufficient importance to the enemy that such persons should be sent out on the public service, at the public expense, it should afford equal ground of forfeiture against the vessel that may be let out for a purpose so intimately connected with hostile operations." I trust that I have shown that the four persons who were taken from the Tient by Captain Wilkes, and their despatches, were contraband of war. The second inquiry is, whether Captain Wilkes had a right by the law of nations to detain and search the Trent. The Trent, though she carried mails, was a con tract or merchant vessel, a common carrier; for here maritime law knows only three classes of ves sels—vessels of war, revenue vessels, and merchant vessels. The Trent falls within the latter class. Whatever disputes have existed about a right of visitation or search in time of peace, none, it is sup posed, has existed in modern times about the rights of a belligerent in time of war to capture contra band in neutral and even friendly merchant vessels, and of the right of visitation and search, in order to determine whether they are neutral and are documented as such according to the law of nations. I assume in the present case what, as I read in the British authorities, is regarded by Great Britain herself as true maritime law, that the circumstance that the Trent was proceeding from a neutral port to another neutral port does not modify the right s of the belligerent Power. The third question is whether Captain Wilkes exercised the right of search in a lawful and proper manner. If any doubt hung over this point, as the case was presented in the statement of it adopted by the British Government, I think it must have al ready passed away before the modifications of that statement which I have already submitted. I proceed to the fourth inquiry —namely, having found the suspected contraband of war on board the Trent, had Captain Wilkes a right to capture the same ? Such a capture is the chief, if not the only recognised object of the permitted visitation and search. The principle of the law is that the belli gerent exposed to danger may prevent the contra band persons or things from applyingkthemselves or being applied to the hostile uses or purposes designed. The law is so very liberal in this respect that when contraband is found on board a neutral vessel, not only is the contraband forfeited, but the vessel which is the vehicle of its passage or transportation, being tainted, also becomes contraband, and is subjected to capture and confiscation. Only the fifth question remains—namely, Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right of capturing the contraband in conformity with the law of nations ? It is just here that the difficulties of the case begin. What is the manner which the law of nations pre scribes for disposing of the contraband when you havo found and seized it on board of the neutral vessel ? The answer would be easily found if the question were, What shall you do with the contraband ves sel ? You must take or send her into a convenient port and subject her to a judicial prosecution there in admiralty, which will try and decide the ques tions of belligerency, neutrality, contraband, and capture. So again, you will promptly find the same answer if the question were, What is the manner of proceeding prescribed by the law of nations in regard to the contraband if it be property or things of material or pecuniary value ? But the question - .here concerns the mode of pro cedure in regard not to the vessel that was carrying the contraband, nor yet to the contraband things which worked the forfeiture of the vessel, but to contraband persons, The books of law are dumb; yet the question is as important as it is difficult. First, the belligerent captor has a right to prevent the contraband officer, soldier, sailor, minister, messenger, or carrier from proceeding on his unlawful voyage and reaching the destined scene of his injurious service. But, on the other hand, the person captured may be inno cent—that is, he may not be contraband. He therefore has a right to a fair trial of the ac cusation against him. The neutral State that has taken him under its flag is bound to protect him if he is not contraband, and is therefore entitled to be satisfied upon that important question. The faith of that State is pledged to his safety if inno cent, as its justice is pledged to his surrender if he is really contraband. H er e Are coatlicting claims, inTolTing iperaonal SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY j 3 ,1 1862. liberty, life, honour, and duty. Here are conflicting national claims, involving welfare, safety, honour, and empire. They require a tribunal and a trial. The captors and the captured are equals; the neu trals and the belligerent State are equals. While the law authorities were found silent it was suggested at an early day by this Government that you should take the captured persons into a convenient port and institute judicial proceedings there to try the controversy. But only Courts of Admiralty have jurisdiction in maritime cases, and these Courts have formulas to try only claims to contraband chattels, but none to try claims con cerning contraband persons. The Courts can enter tain no proceedings and render no judgment in few:Mr or against the alleged contraband men, It was replied, all this is true; but you can reach in these courts a decision which will have the moral weight of a judicial one, by a circuitous proceed ing. Convey the snspected men together with the suspected vessel, into port, and try there the ques tion where the vessel is contraband. Yon can prove it to be so by proving the suspected men to be con traband, and the Court must then determine the vessel to be contraband. If the men are not contraband the vessel will escape condemnation. Still there is no judgment for or against the captured persons. But it was assumed that there would result from the determination of the Court concerning the vessel a legal certainty concerning the character of the men. This course of proceeding seemed opened to many objections. It elevates the incidental inferior private interests into the proper place of the main paramount public one, and possibly it may make the fortunes, the safety, or the existence of a nation depend on the accident of a merely personal and pecuniary litigation. Moreover, when the judgment of the Prize Court upon the lawfulness of the capture of the vessels is rendered it really concludes nothing, and binds neither the belligerent State nor the neutral upon the great question of the disposition to be made of the captured contraband persons. That question is still to be really determined, if at all, by diplomatic arrangement or by war. One may well express his surprise when told that the law of nations has furnished no more reasonable, practical, and perfect mode than this of determining questions of such grave import between Sovereign Powers. The regret we may feel on the occasion is, nevertheless, modified by the reflection that the difficulty is not altogether anomalous. Similar and equal deficiencies are found in every system of municipal law, especially in the system which exists in the greater portions of Great Bri tain and the United States. The title to personal property can hardly ever be resolved by a Court without resorting to the fiction that the claimant has lost and the possessor has found it ; and the title of real estate is disputed by real litigants under the names of imaginary persons. It must be confessed, however, that while all aggrieved nations demand and all impartial ones concede the need of some form of judicial process in determining the characters of contraband per sons, no form but the illogical and circuitous one thus described exists, nor has any other yet been suggested. Practically, therefore, the choice is between that judicial remedy or no judicial remedy whatever. If there be no judicial remedy, the result is that the question must be determined by the captor himself on the deck of the prize vessel. Very grave objections are against such a course. The captor is armed, the neutral is unarmed. The captor is inte rested, prejudiced, and perhaps violent; the neutral, if truly neutral, is disinterested, subdued, and helpless. _ _ Thf tribunal is irresponsible, while its judgment is carried into instant execution. The captured party is compelled to submit, though bound by no legal, moral, or treaty obligation to acquiesce. Re paration is distant and problematical, and depends at lust on the justice, magnanimity, or weakness of the State in whose behalf and by whose authority the capture was made. Out of these disputes reprisals and wars neces sarily arise, and these are so frequent and destruc tive that it may well be doubted whether this form of remedy is not a greater social evil than all that could follow if the belligerent right of search were universally renounced and abolished for ever. But carry the case one step further. What if the State that has made the capture un reasonably refuses to hear the complaint of the neu tral or to redress it ? In that case the very act of capture would be an act of war, of war begun with out notice, and possibly entirely without provoca tion. I think all unprejudiced minds will agree that, imperfect as the existing judicial remedy may be supposed to be, it would be, as a general practice, better to follow it than to adopt the summary one of leaving the decision with the captor, and rely ing upon diplomatic debates to review his decision. Practically it is a question of choice between law, with its imperfections and delays, and war, with its evils and desolations. Nor is it ever to be forgotten that neutrality, honestly and justly preserved, is always the har binger of peace, and is therefore the common inte rest of nations, which is only saying that it is the interest of humanity itself. At the same time it is not to be denied that it may sometimes happen that the judicial remedy will become impossible—as by the shipwreck of the prize vessel, or other circumstances, which excuse the captor from sending or taking her into port for confiscation. In such a case the right of the captor to the custody of the captured persons, and to dispose of them, if they are really contra band, so as to defeat their unlawful purposes, can not reasonably be denied. What rule shall be applied in such a case ? Clearly the captor ought to be required to show that the failure of the judicial remedy results from circum stances beyond his control and without his fault. Otherwise he would be allowed to derive advantage from a wrongful set of his own. In the present case, Captain Wilkes, after captur ing the contraband persons and making prize of the Trent in what seems to ns a perfectly lawful man ner, instead of sending her into port, released her from the capture, and permitted her to proceed with her whole cargo upon her voyage. Ile thus effectually prevented the judicial exami nation which might otherwise have occurred. If now the capture of the contraband persons and the capture of the contraband vessel are to be regarded, not as two separable or distinct transactions under' the law of nations, but as one transaction, one cap ture only, then it follows that the capture in this case was left unfinished or was abandoned. Whether the United States have a right to retain the chief public benefits of it—namely, the custody of the captured persons, on proving them to be con traband, will depend upon the preliminary question whether the leaving of the transaction unfinished was necessary, or whether it was unnecessary, and, therefore, voluntary. If it was necessary, Great Britain, as we supp )se, must of course waive the defect, and the consequent failure of the judiAal remedy. On the other hand, it is not seen how the United States can insist upon her waiver of that judicial remedy, if the defect of the capture resulted from an act of Captain Wilkes, which would be a fault on their owu side. Captain Wilkes has presented to this Govern ment his reasons for releasing the Trent. " I forbore to seize her," he says, "in conse quence of my being so reduced in officers and crew, and the derangement it would cause innocent per sons, there being a large number of passengers who would have been put to great loss and inconve nience, as well as disappointment from the in ter ruption it would have caused them in not being able to join the steamer from St. Thomas to Europe. _ _ _ " I therefore concluded to sacrifice the interests of my officers and crew in the prize, and suffered her to proceed, after the detention necessary to effect the transfer of those Commissioners, consider ing I had obtained the important end I had in view, and which affected the interests of our country and interrupted the action of that of the Confederates." I shall consider, first, how theso reasons ought to affect the action of this Government, and, secondly, how they ought to be expected to affect the action of Great Britain. The reasons are satisfactory to Chic Uceferment, gv far Ile Captain Wilkes is een" cerned. It could not desire that the San Jacinto, her officers, and crew - should be exposed to danger and loss by weakening their number to detach a prize crew to go on board the Trent. Still less could it disavow the humane motive of preventing inconveniences, losses, and, perhaps, disaster to the several hundred innocent passengers found on board the prize vessel. Nor could this Government perceive any ground for questioning the fact that these reasons, though apparently incongruous, did operate in the mind of Captain Wilkes, and determinen him to release the Trent. Human actions generally proceed upon mingled and sometimes conflicting motives. He measured the sacrifices which this decision would cot. It manifestly, however, did not occur him that beyond the sacrifice of the pri vate interests (as he calls them) of his officers and crew, there might also possibly be a sacrifice even of the chief and public object of his capture—namely, the right of his Government to the custody and disposition of the captured persons. This Government cannot censure him for this oversight. It confesses that the whole subject came unforeseen upon the Government, as doubt less, it did upon him. Its present convictions on the point in question are the results of deliberate examination and deductions now made, and not of any impressions previously formed. Nevertheless, the question now is, not whether Captain Wilkes is justified in what he did, but what is the present view of the Government as to the effect of what he has done. Assuming now, for argument's sake only, that the release of the Trent, if voluntary, involved a waiver of the claim of the Government to hold the captured persons, the United States could in that case have no hesitation in saying that the act which has thus already been approved by the Government must be allowed to draw its legal consequences after it. It is of the very nature of a gift or a charity that the giver cannot, after the exercise of his benevo lence is past, recall or modify its benefits. We are thus brought directly to the question whether we are entitled to regard the release of the Trent as involuntary, or whether we are obliged to consider that it was voluntary. Clearly, the release would have been involuntary had it been made solely upon the first ground assigned for it by Cap tain Wilkes—namely, a want of sufficient force to send the prize vessel into port for adjudication. It is not the duty of a captor to hazard his own vessel in order to secure a judicial examination to the captured party. No large prize crew, however, is legally necessary, for it is the duty of the cap tured party to acquiesce and go willingly before the tribunal to whose jurisdiction it appeals. If the captured party indicated proposes to em ploy means of resistance which the captor cannot with probable safety to himself overcome, he may properly leave the vessel to go forward, and neither she nor the State she represents can ever afterwards justly object that the captor deprived her of the judicial remedy to which she was entitled. But the second reason assigned by Capt. Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs from the first. At best, therefore, it must be held that Capt. Wilkes, as he explains himself, acted from combined senti ments of prudence and generosity, and so that the release of the prize vessel was not strictly necessary or involuntary. Secondly. How ought we to expect these ex planations by Capt. Wilkes of his own reasons for leaving the capture incomplete to affect the action of the British Government ? The observation upon this point which first occurs is, that Capt. Wilkes's explanations were not made to the authorities of the captured vessel. If made known to them, they might have ap proved and taken the release, upon the condition of waiving a judicial investigation of' the whole trans action, or they might have refused to accept the re lease upon that condition. But the case is one not with them but with the British Government. If we c!aim that Great Bri tain ought not to insist that a judicial trial has been lost bccause we voluntarily released the offending vessel out of consideration for her innocent passen gers, I do not see how she is to be bound to acquiese in the dccision which was thus made by us without necessity on onr part, and without knowledge of conditions or consent on her own. The question between Great Britain and ourselves thus stated, would be a question, not of right and of law, but of favour to be conceded by her to us in return for favours shown by us to her, of the value of which favours on both sides we ourselves shall be the judge. Of course the United States could have no thought of raising such a question in any case. I trust I have shown to the satisfaction of the British Government, by a very simple and natural statement of the facts and analysis of the law ap plicable to them, that this Government has neither meditated, nor practised, nor approved any deli berate wrong in the transaction to which they have called its attention ; and, on the contrary, that what has happened has been simply an inadvertency, consisting in a departure by the naval officer, free from any wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and probably by the several parties concerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. For this error the British Government has a right to expect the same reparation that we, as an inde pendent State, should expect from Great Britain, or from any other friendly nation in a similar case. I have not been unaware that in examining this question I have fallen into an argument for what seems to be the British side of it against my own country. But lam relieved from all embarrass ment on that subject. I had hardly fallen into that line of argument, when I discovered that I was really defending and maintaining not an exclusive] British interest, but an old, honoured, and cherished American cause, not upon British authorities, but upon prin ciples that constitute a large port-ion of the distinc tive policy by which the United States have deve loped the resources of a continent, and thus becom ing a considerable maritime Power, have won the respect and confidence of many nations. Those principles were laid down for us in 1804, by James Madison, when Secretary of State in the Administration of Thomas Jefferson, in instruc tions given to James Monroe, our Minister to Eng land. Although the case before him concerned a descrip tion of persons different from those who are inci dentally subjects of the present discussion, the ground he assumed then is the same I now occupy, and the arguments by which he sustained himself uponit have been an inspiration to me in preparing this reply. " Wherever," he says, "property found in a neutral is supposed to be liable, on any ground, to capture and condemnation, the rule in all cases is that the question shall not be decided by the cap tor, but be carried before a legal tribunal, where a regular trial may be had, and where the captor him self is liable to damages for an abuse of his power." Can it be reasonable then, or just, that a belli gerent commander who is thus restricted and thus responsible in a case of mere property of trivial amount, should be permitted without recurring to any tribunal whatever, to examine the crew of a neutral vessel, to decide the important question of their respective allegiances, and to carry that deci sion into execution by forcing every individual he may choose into a service abhorrent to his feelings, cutting him off from his most tender connexions, ex posing his mind and his person to the most humilia ting:discipline, and his life itself to the greatest danger? Reason, justice, and humanity unite in protesting against so extravagant a proceeding. If I decide this case in favour of my own Govern ment I must disallow its most cherished principles, and reverse and abandon for ever its essential policy. The country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain those principles and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the case itself. It will be seen, therefore, that this Government could not deny the justice of the claim presented to us in this respect. We are asked to do to the British nation just what we have always insisted all nations ought to do to The claim of the British Government is not made in A discourteous manner. This goyernme at, since its first organisation, has never used more guarded language in a similar case. In coming to my conclusion, I have not forgotten that if the safety of this Union required the deten tion of the captured persons, it would be the right and duty of this Government to detain them. But the effectual check and waning proportions of the existing insurrection, as well as the comparative unimportance of the captured persons themselves, when dispassionately weighed, happily forbid me from resorting to that defence. Nor am I unaware that American citizens are not in any case to be unnecessarily surrendered for any purpose into the keeping of a foreign State. Only the captured persons, however, or others who are interested in them, could justly raise a question on that ground. Nor have I been tempted at all by suggestions that cases might be found in history where Great Britain refused to yield to other nations, and even to ourselves, claims like that which is now before us. Those cases occurred when Great Britain, as well as the United States, was the home of genera tions which, with all their peculiar interests and passions, have passed away. She could in no other way so effectually disavow any such inquiries as we think she does now, by assuming as her own the grounds upon which we stood. It would tell little for our claims to the character of a just and magnanimous people, if we should so far consent to be guided by the law of retaliation as to lift up buried injuries from their graves, to op pose against what national consistency and the national conscience compel us to regard as a claim intrinsically right. Putting behind me all suggestions of this kind, I prefer to express my satisfaction that by the adjust ment of the present case upon principles confessed by Americans, and yet, as I trust, mutually satis factory to both of the nations concerned, a question is finally and rightly settled between them which, heretofore exhausting not only all forms of peaceful discussion, but also the arbitrament of war itself, for more than half a century alienated the two coun tries from each other, and perplexed with fears and apprehensions all other nations. The four prisoners in question are now held in military custody. at Fort Warren, in the State of Massachusetts. They will be cheerfully liberated. Your lordship will please indicate a time and place for receiving them. I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your Lordship a renewed assurance of my very high consideration. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. LORD LYONS TO MR. SEWARD. Washington, Dec. 27, 1861. Sir—l have this morning received the note which you did me the honour to address to me yesterday, in answer to Earl Russell's despatch of the 30th of November last relative to the removal of Mr. Mason, Mr. Slidell, Mr. M'Farland, and Mr. Eustis, from the British mail packet Trent. I will, without any loss of time, forward to her Majesty's Government a copy of the important communication which you have made to me. I will also, without delay, do myself the honour to confer with you personally on the arrangements to be made for delivering the four gentlemen to me in order that they may again be placed under the protection of the British flag.—l have the honour to be, with the highest consideration, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant, The Hon. William H. Seward, &e. LYONS. THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT ON THE CASE. MR. SEWARD TO M. MERCIER IN REPLY TO M. THOUVENEL. Department of State, Washington, Dec. 27, 1861. Sir,—l have submitted to the President the copy you were so good as to give me of a despatch addressed to you on the 3d of Dec. inst, concerning the recent proceedings of Captain Wilkes, in arrest ing certain persons ou board of the British contract mail steamer Trent. Before receiving the paper, however, the Presi dent had decided upon the disposition to be made of the subject which has caused so much anxiety in Europe. That dispcsition of the subject, I think, renders unnecessary any discussion of it, in reply to the comments of M. Thouvenel. lam permitted, however, to say that M. Thou venel has not been in error in supposing first, that the Government of the United States has not acted in any spirit of disregard of the rights or of the sensibilities of the British nation, and that he is equally just in assuming that the United States would consistently vindicate, by their practice on this occasion, the character they have so long maintained as an advocate of the most liberal prin cirles of neutral States in maritime war. When the French Government shall come to see at large the views of this Government and those of the Government of Great Britain on the subject now in question, and to compare them with the views expressed by M. Thouvenel on the part of France, it will probably perceive that, while it must be admitted that these three powers are equally im pressed with the same desire for the establishment of principles favourable to neutral rights, there is at the same time not such an entire agreement con cerning the application of those principles as is desirable to secure that important object. The Government of the United States will be happy if the occasion which has elicited this corre spondence can be improved so as to secure a more definite agreement upon the whole subject by all maritime Powers. You will assure M. Thouvenel that this Govern ment appreciates as well the frankness of hie ex planations as the spirit of friendship and goodwill to wards the United States in which theyare expressed. It is a sincere pleasure for the United States to exchange assurances of a friendship which had its origin in associations the most sacred in the history of both countries. I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you Sir, the assurance of my high consideration. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Monsieur Henry Mercier, &c. NEW YORK, DEC. 29. (PER TEUTONJA via SOUTHAMPTON.) The decision arrived at by the Government to restore Messrs. Mason and Slidell, and their secre taries, had a very favourable effect on the public mind in this city yesterday. It removed a load of care from men's spirits, and restored a degree of elasticity which was noticeable in every department of trade. The public pulse beat more evenly than it bas done for the last five or six weeks. The Stock Exchange felt the influence, and gave evi dence of it in an advance in the price of Govern ment securities, and a general movement in stocks. Even those who held that the action of Commodore Wilkes was legal and justifiable felt gratified that the Administration entertained a somewhat diffe rent idea, and that it found a mode of postponing war without subjecting the nation to humiliation and disgrace. The New York Herald of to-day says : " All prospects of a war with England are brought to an end by the decision of the Cabinet to surrender the persons of Messrs. Mason and Slidell to the protection of the British flag, from under which they were taken by Commander Wilkes. Mr. Seward, in the masterly document he has addressed to Lord Lyons, and in the sagacious instructions he transmitted to our Minister in Lon don, on the 30th of November last, upon this sub ject, has taken so clear, comprehensive, and unob jectionable a view of the entire affair, its legal bearing and the position which this country has always assumed upon the question of neutral rights, as to leave no point open for cavil either at home or with foreign Governments. This difficulty being settled, the Government now finds itself free and unembarrassed to carry out with energy its crusade against the Southern rebellion, which Mr. Seward declares can be crushed out within ninety days after the hops of recognition by foreign Powers are extinguished. The result is looked upon in Washington with the utmost satisfaction, as depriving the rebels of much strength, which they would certainly have acquired in case of a war with England and France, and also a com plete vindication of American policy established by Madison, and since always resolutely contended for. At the dinner given yesterday by the Seere- tary of State to the diplomatic corps, the termina tion of the difficulty was the subject of universal congratulation. " There is nothing of importance to report from the army of the Potomac. General 111‘Clellan is fully restored to health. No official information was received of any action in Kentucky ; but from other sources we learn that 60,000 men, the ad vance of General Buell's command, have crossed Green River, and are within five miles of the rebel. General Hindman's advance posts. A battle is therefore looked for in a short time. " The British steamer Gladiator was at Nassau, N. P., on the 16th inst., loaded with arms for the rebels, and was lying besides the United States' gunboat Flambeau, who was watching her move ments. The Government officials there, however, had declined to furnish coal to the Flambeau, while the Gladiator was abundantly supplied. As both vessels were constantly keeping steam up, and thus consuming their fuel, it was consequently a matter of time between them whether the Gladiator would make good her escape—the odds, of course, being greatly in her favour." THE TR ei DE IN ORANGES. Oranges are imported in boxes containing from 250 and more, and in chests holding 500 to 1,000. The quantity of this fruit imported has been steadily increasing for some years past. In the three years ending with 1842 the average imports were 334,070 boxes; in thefive yearsending with 18b0 they had increased to 380,000 boxes. Since then the quantity has been computed in bushels. The average annual imports in the five years ending with 1860 were 977,440 bushels. The quantity taken for consumption has now reached upwards of 1,000,000 bushels, and, assuming each bushel to contain 650, this would give 650 millions of oranges, or about 22 for each soul of the population in the kingdom. The appended figures indicate the source of supply of this fruit to Great Britain in bushels : 1855. 1869. Portugal Azores 369,060 .... 627,709 Spain Sicily Other quarters 806,153 1,154,410 The Azores or Western Islands, from whence the finest, St. Michael oranges come, it will be seen furnish us with the largest supply. The imports from thence have doubled in the last five years. The expense of walling and planting an acre of orange garden is stated to be £l5 for the wall, £S for 65 trees, and £2 for labour. It yields half a crop of beans. or Indian corn during seven years, but no oranges ; from eight to eleven years half a crop of oranges is obtained. Then a full crop, which is sold for £lO to £l5. Each tree on arriving at maturity will produce annually, on an average, 12,000 to 16,000 oranges; one grower is said to have picked 26,000 from a single tree. The trees bloom in March and April, and oranges are gathered for the London market as: early as Novembe!. The Portuguese never eat them before the end of January, at which time they possess their full flavour. In the season of 1851, which produced by no means an unusully large crop, not less than 353 cargoes of oranges, containing about 200,000 large boxes, hold ing 800 oranges, were shipped from the Western Islands. Fayal formerly exported a great many oranges, but the insect pest, which appeared in 1840, in a few years killed all the trees there. Terceira annually exports about 30 cargoes, and St. Mary a few cargoes, but St. Michael is the great mart. In 1801 the value of the fruit imported from thence was but £lO,OOO ; in 1850, £65,000 ; and in 1859, £84,123. It was estimated that the produce of fruit in this island during 1859 was 252,000,000 of oranges and 40,000 lemons ; of these all the lemons and 49,000,000 Oranges were consumed on the island. The export of oranges from St. Michael was 179 379 boxes in 1852 ; 123,327 boxes in 1855-6; 100,079 in 1856 7; 179,922 in 1857-8 ; and 130,858 boxes in 1858-9. The trade has been suffering for several years from severe depression, owing to the low prices obtained for the fruit in England. In the season 1858-9 the growers obtained an average of 10s. sd. per box, which is considered a very fair remunerative price by the proprietors of orange gardens. More than half the orange crop is shipped in the months of November and December. The value of the fruit imported now reaches nearly £600,000 annually.—Gardeners' Chronicle. COUNTRY MAR.K.i. A 6. 1" - YORK- JAN. 11. We were again but scantily supplied with wheat to-day, and the attendance was not numerous. The trade ruled dull, and prices declined is per qr. Wheat, red 60s to 63s i oats.... 22s to 26s White do .64s to 68s i Beans 48,. to 503 Barley .32s to 38s f Feas ....—s to —s - - Malt, 68s to 70s per qr. ; rye, 3Gs per qr. ; flour, 475 to 49s per sack. NORWICH—JAN. 11. Wheat to-day was in fair supply, and only in middling condition, selling at is to 2s under the prices of last week. 4' A fair quantity of barley, which fully supported late rates. Flour easier to purchase. White wheat. 62s to 64s I Red wheat 58s to 62s Malting barley....3Bs to 39s I Chevalier barley 37F to 38e New d 0.......... 37s to 39s I Oats.. —Q to —l3 NORTHAMPTON-JAN. 11. At this corn-market to-day the supply of wheat was limited. The tone of the trade was dull, and the prices were at a decline of Is per qr on late rates-46s to 60s for old, and 58s to 64s for new. A firm business in barley— malting 33s to 38s, grinding 28s to 30s per qr. Oats in moderate show, at previous prices—quoted at 22s to 35s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 38s to 45s ; peas, 37s to 465. Rye, 37s to 425; malt, 708 to 74s ; flour, 40s to —s per sack. LEICESTER-JAN. 11. The supply of wheat to• day at market was improved, and the attendance of farmers and factors only moderate. Trade dull, and quotations is lower. White, 64s to 68s —red, Ms to 65s per 36 stone. Barley was in steady re quest, grinding, 30s to 325; malting, 34s to 38s per qr.; oats, 24s to 35s per 24 stone. Beans at high prices— new, 40s to 42s ; old, 43s to 48s per 38 stone. Fine flour, 46s Seconds, 448 I Thirds, 42s per 20 stone. CAMBRIDGE-JAN. 11. There was a moderate show of wheat to-day, and the trade ruled inactive—the prices being is per qr less than last week's rates—white, from 60s to 648; red, 56s to 608. Barley in steady demand—malting, 34s to 40s; grinding, 29s to 325. Oats were steady, at 21s to 28s. Beans were sold at 40s to 42s per qr. FOREIGN MAIL PACKE.; LIST. MAILS DUE. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton.. , , ... Jan. 18. via Marseilles Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. . Feb. 3. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and Sr. Helena.. feb. 1. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southarnpton.JaX 18. via Marseilles ...Jan. 12. Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Jan. 18. via Marseilles Jan. 12. India (Bombay), via Southampton via Marseilles Jan. 19. Lisbon Jan. iJ. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Jan. 10. via Marseilles Jan. 12. Newfoundland ..Feb. 22. Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet Jan. 16.. by U.S. packet by Canadian packet. Jan. 3. W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe Jan, 1.0. Bahamas, via New York ....Jan. 16. Mexico .... Jan. 28. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, 1 Jan. 13 . California, and British Columbia.. BENSON'S WATCHES AND CLOCKS.- —" Perfection of mechanism."—Morning Post. Gold watches, sto Ifo guineas; silver watches, 2 to 50 guineas. Benson's new Illustrated Pamphlet, free for two stamps, descriptive of every construc tion of watch, enables persons In any part of the world to select with the greatest certainty the watch best adapted to their use. Watches sent free and safe by post on receipt of a remittance. —J. W. Benson, 33 and 34, Ludgate-hill, 46 aed 47, Cornhill, London E.C. Established 1749. BIRTHS. ATHERLEY.—On the 9th inst., at Alderton, Wilts, the wife of the Rev. A. G. Atherley, of a daughter. BOWEN,—On the 9th inst., at 12, Barnsbury-square, Mrs. Kerby Bowen, of a son. Fox —On the 11th inst., at Park-hill House, Clapham, the Hon. Mrs. Augustus Lane Fox, of a daughter. STEUART.—On the 9th inst., at Fairated Reetory,Witham, Essex, the wife of Captain Steuart, late 84th Regiment, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. MEEK—ARCHER.—On the 9th inst., at the Priory Church, Bridlington, Mr. W. R. Meek, of 4, Regina-road, Tol lington-park, London, N,, to Sarah Jane, only daughter of the late Mr. Isaac Archer, of Scarborough. VALLANCE — DANIELL.—On the Bth inst., at St. Pancras, John Valiance, Esq., of Essex-street, Strand, to Eliza beth, second daughter of W. T. S. Daniel, Esq., QC., of 33, Mecklenburgh-square. DEATHS. AWDRY.—On the 10th inst , at Notten, Lieut. J. Awdry, 3d (Buffs) Regt., tho eldest son of Sir John Awdry, aged 27. ARMSTRONG.—On the 10th inst., the Rev. J. Armstrong, M.A., rector of Binder, and prebendary of Wells, Somerset, aged 51. HiwxEn..--6n the 7th irist., at 7, Radnor.place ' Hyde park, Lucy Hester, relict of the late General Sir Samuel Hawker, aged 71. NESBITT.—On the 10th inst., at Hill House, Epsom, Surrey, Philip Blundell Nesbitt, Esq., aged 49. NORREYS.—On the 10th inst„ the infant son of Lord Norreys, aged 15 days. POYNDER.—On the 7th inst., at Clapham-rise, Miss Sarah Poynder, aged 81. STODOBTON. — On the Bth inst., at Owlpon-park, Glouces tershire, Thomas Anthony Stoughton. Esq., aged 71. LONDON : Printed and Publisho , ? i,) MURDO YOUNG, 01 No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tn.r. St':, Office. No. 112.Strayd , in the Precinct of the Savoy in the County of MiddleSegt Monday, January 13, 1862.