Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1861-10-19

THB CORREsPONDENCE BETWEEN The SECRE-
IART OF STATE AND LORD LYONS Lord Lyons,
me bI1tsh Minister, In letter to Mr.. Seward
dated Oct 18th, 1851, says:
her Majestys Government Were much con.
cerned to fnd that two British subjects Mr. Pat
rick and Mr. Raining, had been subjected to
arbitrary arcs; and although they had learnt
that Mr. Patrick had been released, they could
not but regard the matter as one recurring their
very serious consideration - They perceive that
when British subjects as well as American ri :
zens are arrestsdstIey immediately transferred
to military prison, and that the military author
lnes refuse to pay obedience to writ Of habea
corpus" and " Her Majcsty's Government con-
ceive not only that this practice Is directly on
posed to the maxim of the Constitution Of the
United states that no person shall he deprived Of
life, Liberty, OF property without due process of
law but 1t does not appear that Congress has
sanctioned in this respect any departure from the
due course Of law; and the arbitrary arrests OF
ITitsh subjects are illegal, and at variance with
the treaties II amity snbssting between the two
nations. Her Msjesty,s Government have there
fore instructed him to demonstrate against such
Irregular Proceedings, and to say that in their
opinion, the authority OF Congress is necessary in
order to justify the arbitrary arrest and imprson.
ment Of British subjects "
The Secretary Of state, In his reply dated the
same day, recapiulates the causes FOR the arrests
OF MIR. Patrick aud Mr.. Rahming, and the ground.
Tor their release-Mr Patrick on the I3th day of
S"ptemter, and MIR Raining on the 18th day Of
September. He reminds Lord LYONS that all ex
scnuVe proceedings, whether of the Secretary of
war or OF the Secretary of State, are, unless dis
avowed or revoked by the President proceed mos
Of the President of the United States: that an m
surrection, attended by civil and even social war
was existing in the United States when the pro
cerdings took place; and that Congress In by the
Constitution invested with 40 executive uowsr or
Iespons billy whatever, and on the contrary that
the President OF the United States Is by the Con-
stltuton and laws, invested with the whole
executive power Of the Government He saws
mat The two persons named We're neither known
nor supposed Ia be- British sui Iects when the pro
cetdlngs occurred, and that the military officer
charged with the custody Of suspected parties has
declined To pay obedience to the writ of hgb.aS
eoTPkS In obedience To press direction OF the
PRESIDENT; end that no writ Of aabeas cCypKs was
attempted TO served In behalf Of the persons
named, although IN care not dissimilar the writ
OF hnbsdS corpus was issued out in favor of an
DINER British subject, and was dsobeyed by di.
rection of the President.
He argues at length that the American people
nave accepted civil war a stern necessity and
that II cannot b. conducted exclusively In the
terms and with the diatory remedies provided
oy municipal laws which are adequat to the
preservation Of public order in a time Of peace
IN conclusion, he says that the British g. yern.
ment Will hardly expect that the President win
accept their explanations Of the Consti, tuition of
Ihe united States, and must be allowed there
lore, TO prefer and be govsrned by the view of
our organic national law, which, while Il will
enable him to execute bis great trust with conn
piee success, receives the sanction of the highest
autnorlties OF our own country, and is sustai ned
oy the general consent Of the people, for whom
alone that Constitution was established