The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-05 00:00:00

MR. SEWARD TO LORD LYONS.

DEpAILTMENT OF STATE, Washington, Oct. 14, 1861. I
My Lord,—l have the honour to acknowledge your lord-
ship's note of the present date.
In that paper you inform me that the British Government
is much concerned to find that two British subjects, Mr.
Patrick and Mr. Rahming, havo been brought under arbi-
trary arrest, and that although her Majesty's Ministers have
been advised by you of the release of Mr. Patrick, yet they
cannot but regard the matter as requiring the very serious
consideration of this Government.

You further inform me that her Majesty's Government
perceive that when British subjects, as. well as American
citizens, are arrested, they are transferred to a military pri-
son, and that the military authorities refuse to pay obedi
ence to a writ of habeas corpus.
You add that her Majesty's Government conceive that this
practice is directly opposed to the maxim of the constitution
of the United States, that no person shall be deprived of life
liberty, or property without due process of law. You then
observe that her Majesty's Government are nevertheless
willing to make every allowance for the hard necessities of
a time of internal trouble, and they would not have been
surprised if the ordinary securities of personal liberty had
been temporarily suspended, nor would they have complained
if British subjects, falling under suspicion, had suffered from
the consequences of that suspension. But that it does not
appear that Congress has sanctioned in this respect any de-
parture from .the due course of law, and it is in those cir-
cumstances that the law officers of the Crown have advised
her Majesty's Government that the arrests of British sub-
jects arc illegal.
You remark, further, that, so far as appears to her
Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State for the United
States examines upon the reports of spies, and assumes the
power of depriving British subjects of their liberty, or
liberating them by his own will and pleasure ; and you in-
form me that her Majesty's Government cannot but regard
this despotic and arbitrary power as inconsistent with the
constitution of tho United States, as at variance with the
treaties of amity subsisting between the two nations, as
tending to prevent the resort of British subjects to the
United States for purposes of trade and industry. You
conclude with informing me that upon these grounds her
Majesty's Government have felt bound to instruct you to
remonstrate against such irregular proceedings, and to say
that, in their opinion, the authority of Congress is neces-
sary in order to justify the arbitrary arrest and imprison-
ment of British subjects.

The facts in regard to the two persons named in your
note are as follows :

Communications from the regular police of the country
to the Executive at Washington showed that disloyal per-
sons in the State of Alabama were conducting treasonable
correspondence with Confederates, British subjects and
American citizens in Europe, aimed at the overthrow of
the Federal Union by armed forces actually in the field
and besieging the capital of the United States. A portion
of this correspondence, which was intercepted, was ad-
dressed to the firm of Smith and Patrick, brokers, long
established and doing business in the city of New York. It
appeared that this firm had a branch at Mobile, that the
partner, Smith, is a disloyal citizen of the United States,
and that he was in Europe when the treasonable papers
were sent from Mobile, addressed through the house of
Smith and Patrick, in New York. On receiving this infor-
mation, Wm. Patrick was arrested and committed into mili-
tary custody at Fort Lafayette by an order of the Secretary
of War of the United States, addressed to the police of the
city of New York. These proceedings took place on the 28th
Aug. last. _ _

Representations were thereupon made to the Secretary of
State by friends of Mr. Patrick, to the effect that notwith-
standing his associations he was personally loyal to this
Government, and that ho was ignorant of the treasonable
nature of the correspondence which was being carried on
through the mercantile house of which he was a member.
Directions were thereupon given by the Secretary of State
to a proper agent to inquire into the correctness of the facts
thus presented, and this inquiry resulted in the establish-
ment of their truth. Mr. William Patrick was thereupon
promptly released from custody by direction of the Secre-
tary of State. This release occurred on the 13th of Septem-
ber last.

On the 2d day of September the Superintendent of Police,
in the city of New York, informed the Secretary of State,
by telegraph, that he had under arrest J. C. Rahming, who
had just arrived from Nassau, where he had attempted to
induce the owners of the schooner Arctic to take cannon to
Wilmington, in North Carolina, for the use of the rebels,
and inquired what should he do with the prisoner. J. C.
Rahming was thereupon committed into military custody
at Fort Lafayette, under a mandate from the Secretary of
State, This commitment was made on the 2d of September.
On the 17th of that month this prisoner, after due inquiry,
-.leased from custody, on his executing a bond in the
penalty of 2,bUu U
4—eondition that he should there-
after bear true allegiance to theo4„. and do no
acthostile or injurious to them while remaining under their
protection.

I haveto regret that, after so long between the Governments of the United States and Great
Britain, it should be necessary now to inform her Majesty's
ministers that all executive proceedings, whether of Ihe
an official intercourse
Secretary of War or of the Secretary of .State, are, unless
disavowed or revoked by
President of the United S tat the President, proceedings of the
es.
Certainly it is not necessary to announce to the British
Government now that an insurrection, attended by civil and
VTOI4 social war, was existing in the -United Stated when, the

The British Government have candidly conceded, in the
remonstrances before me, ttat oven in this country, so re-
markable for so long an enjoyment by its people of the
highest immunities of personal freedom, war, and especially
civil war, cannot be conducted exclusively in the forms and
with the dilatory remedies provided by municipal laws,
which are adequate to thepreservation of public order in
time of peace. Treason always operates, if possible, by sur-
prise, and prudence and humanity therefore equally require
that violence concocted in secret shall be prevented, if prac-
ticable, by unusual and vigorous precaution. lam fully
aware of the inconveniences which result from the practice
of such precaution, embarrassing communities in social life,
and affecting, perhaps, trad3 and intercourse with foreign
nations. But the American people, after having tried in
every way to avert civil wer, have accepted it at last as a
stern necessity. The chiefinterest, while it lasts, is not the
enjoyments of society, or th 3 profits of trade, but the saving
of the national life. That ife saved, all the other blessings
which attend it will speedilj return, with greater assurance
of continuance than ever before. The safety of the whole
people has become, in the 'resent emergency, the supreme
law ; and so long as the tenger shall exist, all classes of
society equally, the denizen and the cititen, cheerfully ac-
,quiesce in the measures which that law prescribes. •
This Government does tot question the learning of the
legal advisers of the Braise. Crown, or the justice of the
deference which her Majesty pays to them. Nevertheless,
the British Government will hardly expect that the President
will accept their explanatnns of the Constitution of the
United States, especially when the Constitution thus ex-
pounded woßlieave upon Aim the sole executive responsi-
bility of suppressing the existing insurrection, while it would
transfer to Congress the mist material and indispensable
power to be employed for tiat purpose. Moreover, these
explanations find no real support in the letter, much less in
the spirit of the Constitution itself. must bo allowed,
therefore, to prefer to be governed by the view of our organic
national law which, while it will enable him to execute his
great trust with complete suxess, receives the sanction of the
highest authorities of our own country, and is sustained by
the general consent of the people for whom alone that Con-
stitution was established.

I avail myself of this opportunity to offer to your lordship
a renewed assurance of my very high consideration,

The Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c.

WM. H. SEWARD.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 4.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Justices
Wightman and Blackburn.)

THE QUEEN V. CHARLESWORTH, M.P.-THE WAKE.

FIELD ELECTION.

Mr. Mellish, Q,C., with whom was Mr. Maule,
said this was an indiotment for bribery, tried before
Mr. Baron Martin, at York, when the defendant
was found guilty on the first count of the indict-
ment only and acquitted on the others. He applied
for a rule calling upon the Attorney-General to show
cause why there should not be a new trial had, on
the ground of misdirection by the learned judge.
The first count charged the defendant with having
paid money with intent that it should be expended
in bribery ; and the other counts charged that he
had bribed certain individuals. In fact the jury
had not found Mr. Charlesworth guilty either of
bribing certain electors or of paying any money
with intent to bribe them, but under the direction
of the learned judge they found him guilty of pay-
ing money with intent that it should be expended
in procuring non-electors to hold up their hands
for him at the nomination. The act did not state
what was bribery, and the question for the consi-
deration of the Court was whether paying money
to non-electors to induce them to attend the nomi-
nation for such a purpose was bribery within the
meaning of the act.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn asked if the
jury found on the trial that the money was to be
given to non-electors.
Mr. Mellish said there was no evidence that the
money was to be paid to the electors. Mr. Fer-
nandez and Mr. Barff Charlesworth both swore that

it was given to the non-electors. The learned judge
who tried the case made no distinction between
electors
uld
disagreed as to their being
won
oatn o and
didn non electors,
t oa ud
any intent to bribe the electors.
Mr. Justice Wightman asked how the jury ex-
pressed themselves in their verdict.
Mr. Mellish—They said they could not agree.

The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—What, about
the bribery of individuals ?
Mr. Mellish—No. But whether Mr. Charles-
worth had any intention to expend money in brib-
ing the electors.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—Then why
was he found guilty on the first count ?
Mr. Mellish—Because Mr. Baron Martin thought
that the holding up of the hands of non-electors
proved bribery within the meaning of the act, as it
bad a tendency to influence the election. Previous
to the election Mr. Barff Charlesworth told the de
fendant a sum of from £1,200 to £1,500 for preli-
minary expenses would be required. The defendant
asked what they were, and Mr. Barff Charlesworth
said Fernandez had told him the money would be
required for runners, watchers, and the procuring
of the show of hands. The defendant considered
the matter, and on the following day gave his
cousin a railway debenture of considerable amount,
and a note to Messrs. Beckett to induce them to
open an account for him, but with strict injunction
that the money should not be spent in bribery.
The £1,500 was drawn out and handed over to Mr.
Fernandez, who expended it in the manner pro-
posed. The men were brought from Mr. Charles-
worth's works, and they procured the show of
hands.

The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—Did it appear
that these men were non-electors ?
Mi. Mellish said it did ncrt turn so much upon
what they were, but what the defendant intended
them to be.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—An election
may be determined by the show of hands.
Mr. Mellish—He will be mistaken at Wakefield.
(Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—At all events
it gives him a good start, or is considered to do so,
over his opponent.
Mr. Mellish—The "Man in the Moon" (Mr. Gil-
bert) in his evidence treats the show of hands with
contempt.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—l imagine the payment
of the money is for something beyond the show of
hands.

Mr. Mellish—l submit that is for the jury to con-
sider, and not your lordship. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—l think it is a
question that requires further consideration. You
had better take a rule.
co.rttaarl