The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-14 00:00:00

37 139
[O3 105

92 H

Lll 113
[O9 111
1 lipm

100 102
08 100
i dis par

dis par
22 23

(Signed)

THIRD EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

THE TRENT AFFAIR (OFFICIAL
CORRES.POADENCE).

(From the London Gazette of this Evening.)
EARL RUSSELL TO LORD LYONS.

Foreign Office, December 19, 1861.
My Lord,—Mr. Adams came to me to-day, at the Foreign
Office, at 3 o'clock. He said he came to ask two questions
which concerned himself personally,
I interrupted him to ask whether what he was going to
say was by order of his Government, or from his own sense
of what he ought to do.
Mr. Adams answered that the proceeding was entirely his
own, but that he had with him a despatch from Mr. Seward
which he was authorised to read to me if he should think fit
to do so. It appeared, he said, from that despatch, that the
Government of Washington had not authorized the capture
of the two insurgents, Mason and Slidell, and that the
United States' Government stood quite uncommitted at the
time of sending the despatch.

I said that if the despatch did not enter into any contro-
versy with regard to the case of Messrs. Mason and Slidell
I should be glad to hear it read. _ _ _

Mr. Adams then proceeded to read the despatch. I
commenced by referring with approbation to a speech made
by Mr. Adams at the Mansion House, and prcceeded to
notice with gratification the sentiments which had been
expressed by Lord Palmerston in a conversation ho had held
with Mr. Adams in reference to the " James Adger."
Mrr Seward then proceeds to declare that the American
Government value highly the friendship of Great Britain,
and lament that certain causes of difference have arisen,
owing, as Mr. Seward imagines, to the want of attention
on the part of the British Government to the perform-
ance of the duties incumbent on a friendly Power dur-
ing the struggle in which the United States are engaged.
Mr. Seward gives as instances the case of communication
to the Confederate authorities by Mr. Bunch; the admis-
sion of the " Sumter," privateer, to purchase coal and pro-
visions at Trinidad, in distinction, as he said, to the con-
duct of every European State; and the arrival in the
Southern States of vessels laden with arms and ammunition
from England.

Mr. Seward then proceeds to the case of the "Trent,'
from which ship the two insurgents had been taken. He
affirms that no instructions were given to Captain Wilkes
which authcrised him to act in the manner he had done.
Neither had the United States Government committed
itself with regard to any decision upon the character of that
act. The Government would wait for any representation
the British Government might make before coming to any
positive decision. He desires that, if Mr. Adams shall
think it desirable, this despatch shall be read to me, and
also to Lord Palmerston.

In answer to Mr. Adams, I touched upon most of the
points treated of in the despatch. I did not think it neces-
sary, however, to recur to the ease of Mr. Bunch.
With regard to the Confederate privateer, I said that I
could not see that our conduct had been different from that
of France and Holland, or of Spain. The Sumter had been
refused coal from the Government stores at Trinidad, but
had been allowed to get coal and provisions from private
merchants. The same thing had taken place at Martinique
and at Curacoa. I did not find that the rule of twenty-four
hours had been observed in practice, but there would be
little difficulty in coming to an agreement on this point.
In regard to the export of arms and ammunition to the
Confederate States, I had lately read the opinion of the
Attorney-General, and believe it was in entire conformity
with the provisions of the Foreign [Enlistment Act
—warlike equipment of a vessel was prohibited ;
the loading a vessel with arms and ammunition
was not prohibited. But in point of fact, a much greater
amount of arms and ammunition had been sent to
the Federal States, where there was no obstacle to the
export or the import, than to the ports of the Confederate
States which were blockaded. Mr. Adams admitted this to
be the fact, and said he had refrained from pressing a more
rigorous compliance with the Foreign Enlistment Act for
this reason.

I then stated to Mr. Adams the substance of the two de-
spatches I had written to Lord Lyons on the subject of the
Trent.

I told him that in a private letter I had directed Lord
Lyons to talk the matter over with Mr. Seward two days
before reading to him the despatch. Mr. Adams asked
whether the direction to Lord Lyons to leave Wasington
in seven days was in the despatch to be read- I said i 7 was
not, and that in case Mr. Seward should ask what would
be the consequence of a refusal on his part to comply
with our conditions, Lord Lyons was to decline to answer
that question, in order not to have the appearance of a
threat. 1 said that I thought the explanation that the Go •
vernment had not authorised the seizure would stand in
the place of an apology.

But the essential condition was, that Mr. Mason and Mr.
Slidell should be given up to Lord Lyons.

Mr. Adams said that if the matter was stated to Mr.
Seward in the manner I had explained, ho hoped for an
amicable termination of the difference ; he thought that if
the Government of the United States insisted on maintain-
ing the act of Captain Wilkes, the United States would be
abandoning their doctrine and adopting ours.
Mr. Adams asked me a further question, which he said I
might decline to answer; it was whether, if Lord Lyons
came away, a declaration of war would be the immediate
consequence.

I told him nothing was decided on that point ; we should
wait for the reply from America, and then decide upon our
course.

I stated to Mr. Adams the substance of M. Thouvenel's
despatch to M. Mercier as I had heard it from M. de Fla-
hault.

Mr. Adams said that the French Government had always
been very consistent in their maintenance of the rights of
neutrals. He added that ho could not pay cur Government
the same compliment.

I said I would dispense with compliments if this matter
could be amicably arranged.
We parted on very friendly terms.
I am, &c.,

RUSSELL.

EARL RUSSELL TO LORD LYONS.

Foreign-office, January 11, 1862.

My Lord,—ln my despatch to you of the 30th of Novem-
ber, after informing you of the circumstances which had
occurred in relation to the capture of the four persons
taken from on board the Trent, I stated to you that it thus
appeared that certain individuals had 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 waa an affront to the
British flag, and a violation of international law. I
concluded by directing you, it case the reparation, which
her Majesty's Government expected to receive, should
not be offered by Mr. Seward, to propose to that
minister to make such redre:s as alone would satisfy the
British nation, namely, first, the liberation of the four gen-
tlemen taken from on board the Trent, and their delivery
to your lordship, in order that they might again be placed
under British protection ; and, secondly, a suitable apology
for the aggression which had been committed.
I received, yesterday, your despatch of the 27th ultimo,
inclosing a note to you from Mr. Seward, which is in sub-
stance the answer to my despatch of the 30th of November.
Proceeding at once to the main points in discussion
between us, her Majesty's Government have carefully
examined how far Mr. Seward's note, and the conduct it
announces, complies substantially with the two proposals 1
have recited.

With regard to the first, viz., the liberation of the pri-
soners with a view to their being again placed under British
protection, I find that the note concludes by stating that
the prisoners will be cheerfully liberated, and by calling
upon your lordship to indicate a time and place for receiv-
ing them.

No condition of any kind is coupled with the liberation of
the prisoners.

With regard to the suitable apology which the British
Government had a right to expect, I find that the Govern-
ment of the United States distinctly and unequivocally de-
clares that no directions had been given to Captain Wilkes,
or to any other naval officer, to arrest the four persons
named, for any of them, on the Trent, or on any other
British vessel, or on any other neutral vessel, at the place
whore it occurred or elsewhere.

I find, further, that tha Secretary of State expressly for-
bears to justify the particular act of which her Majesty's
Government complained. If the United States Govern-
ment had alleged that although Captain Wilkes had
no previous instruction for that purpose, he was right in
capturing the persons of the four prisoners, and in remov-
ing them from the Trent on board his own vessel, to be
afterwards carried into a port of the United States, the Go-
vernment which had thus sanctioned the proceeding of
Captain Wilkes would have become responsible for the
original violence and insult of the act. But Mr. Seward
contents himself with stating that what has happened
has been simply an inadvertency, consisting in a de-
parture by a naval officer, free: from any wrongful motive,
from a rude uncertainty established, and probably by the
several parties concerned cither imperfectly understood
or entirely unknown. The Secretary of State goes on to
affirm that for this error the British Government has a right
to expect the same reparation which the United States, as
n ind ependent State, should expect from Great Britain, or
from any other friendly nation, in a similar ease.
Her Majesty's Government having carefully taken into
their consideration the liberation of the prisoners, the de-
livery of them into your hands, and the explanations to
which I have referred, have arrived at the conclusion that
they constitute the reparation which hor Majesty and the
British nation had a right to expect.
It gives her Majesty's Government great satisfaction to
be enabled to arrive at a conclusion favourable to the main-
tenance of the most friendly relations between the two
nations. I need not discuss the modifications in my state-
ment of facts which Mr. Se ward says he has derived from
the reports of officers of his Government.

I cannot conclude, however, without adverting shortly
to the discussions which Mr. Seward has raised upon points
not prominently brought into question in my despatch of