thise with him when the refusal by England of his last proposition was announced, and the alacrity with which he closed his correspondence (whose reopening it is whispered he is now seeking to avoid) all suggest a doubt whether Congress would not have overruled his plan had this country accepted it. It certainly is remarkable that this tremendous grievance of the recognition by the Queen's Government of Southern belligerency has thus far been passed over with a silence almost profound by the principal journals of America and by Congressional orators.

Whatever may be thought of Lord Stanley's decision that the terms of Mr. Seward's proposition were inadmissible, the public sentiment of this country cannot be satisfied that the controversy should remain in its present phase. It is certain that there is in America a widespread feeling of unfriendliness, rapidly becoming animosity, toward England. The charge against England is, substantially, ill-will toward the United States. It dates from the Trent affair. Although public opinion in America gradually came to approve the surrender of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, the imperious and almost fierce tone in which Earl Russell demanded 'redress and apology' has never ceased to rankle in the American mind. It is the general conviction that in that case England reversed its own principles-the principles for which it burned the American Capitol in 1814—from a desire to injure the United States. 'It was bitterly felt,' says Mr. Greeley in his History of the American Conflict, that her demand would at least have been more courteously and considerately made but for the gigantic war in which we were already inextricably involved by the Slaveholders' Rebellion.' The subsequent sympathy of the most prominent English journals with the Confederacy, and

6

the sneers at both the aims and the efforts of the North, from many eminent statesmen, whose 'kindest words,' says Mr. Lincoln, were uttered in accents of pity that we were too blind to surrender a hopeless cause,' kept alive this feeling and nursed it, until at last it was given coherence and purpose by the Alabama. To this day the actual animus of England towards the American Republic is to its people represented by that ship, and the determination in America that its depredations shall in some way be paid for is so universal and strong that the claims arising from them are traded in. This feeling prevalent in the United States has at length become naturally reflected in the anxiety of the English people that the whole matter should be honestly and thoroughly probed, and a better feeling between the countries secured if possible, or at any rate a real and complete understanding. At present the ordinary relation of amity between them is felt to be virtually suspended. And not only is this generally felt in England to be inconsistent with the normal and natural kindliness that should animate the relations of the two nations, but it is also felt to be the result of some miserable miscarriage of diplomacy which, unless corrected, must steadily lead to the most cruel consequences.

Already indeed some of the calamitous results of this suspension of amity between America and this country have appeared. One of the saddest aspects of Fenianism is the evidence it gives of the hostility to England which alone could permit it to plot openly in American cities. It is impossible to think that a similar freedom would be allowed there to conspiracies against any other nation than this. The absence of direct or real sympathy for Fenianism in America is notorious; Mr. George Francis Train

is its most eminent native American champion; and yet it finds encouragement and support in the utter absence of any disposition in the country to restrain its operations. On this one point all authorities and all parties seem agreed. That this license, if carried far enough, may fulfil the highest Fenian hope, and lead to a collision between the two countries, is painfully obvious. The tone of the American press toward Fenianism seems indeed to imply that the insurrection in Ireland only needs greater success to win for it substantial recognition and favour, and a Fenian Alabama is by no means an impossible contingency of the future. All this is far less sad in its bearings upon the relations of England to Ireland, than as indicating the unhappy and false condition of feeling between England and the United States.

Before stating the steps that we have to submit as those which should be taken by the English Government for remedying this remedying this state of affairs, we propose to consider one other question, which promises to be the subject of important and immediate negotiations between the United States and this country. We allude to the question of alienation and citizenship. The position of the United States as a nation, made up, to a great extent, by immigration from other countries, has forced upon it the question of the protection to be accorded those who by their oath of naturalisation are compelled to renounce all allegiance to other countries. The American Government has repeatedly had the subject pressed upon its consideration, but has hesitated to assume any decided position in relation to it. During the agitation that has arisen there in response to the appeals of IrishAmerican Fenians in England for

protection as citizens of the United States, many flaming speeches have been made, showing that it is a popular impression that the war of 1812 between England and the United States was fought with reference to this question.

We thought, [said an influential judge in one of the Western States,] we had crushed the monstrous idea when we whipped them the first time, while we were feeble and insignificant. But they tried it again in 1812, when they thought their increased power would enable them to arrest men on our own vessels, and compel them to fight against us. Our Congress, then led by the great statesman Henry Clay, declared then, as we declare now, that American citizens, native or naturalised, are citizens of this country, and that the country was bound to protect them. We went into that war, and the result was that Americans came off, as usual, vic

torious.

Great cheers are reported to have followed this sentence, which shows that Americans of the present day are much better satisfied with the result of that war than their fathers who engaged in it. But setting that aside, it is important to the history of the subject that it should be remembered that, although much was said at the time about 'American citizenship,' the war of 1812 related primarily to the right of searching private vessels at sea, suspected of carrying on hostile designs under neutral colours. It involved the right of search for property or men justly and legally seizable by another government elsewhere, admittedly, than on ships -a right which the United States never renounced in its own be-1 half, except inferentially, as shall have occasion to remark more particularly in the case of the Trent. The question, in the form that it took in the war of 1812, was settled by a compromise. The doctrine common to the United States and England' was for the first time challenged during the Irish insur

we

rection, twenty years ago, by Mr. George Bancroft, then American Minister in England, on the occasion of the arrest of Irish-Americans in Ireland. In that case he claimed for naturalised foreigners the same rights with native American citizens, and obtained the release of the prisoners. At the same time Lord Palmerston proved conclusively that the American was identical with the English law on the subject, quoting the highest American authority, Chief Justice Story, for the doctrine that 'every nation has hitherto assumed that its laws extend to and bind natural-born subjects at all times and at all places.' But Lord Palmerston, asserting one doctrine and acting upon another, very fairly represented the transitional state of this whole subject, and the position which, with reference to the emigrants in America, every nation must necessarily occupy. At the same time, the American Government showed no disposition to revise its municipal or other laws on the subject, or to press the matter beyond the practical point in which it was successful.

The difficulty concerning Koszta between the American Government and Austria, which occurred under the presidency of Franklin Pierce, was the first collision that the United States has had involving in any degree the question of expatriation; and in that case the circumstances were such as to lead to a compromise instead of a settle

ment on the main point. Martin Koszta was an Austrian, and a political offender against his native country, who, having fled to America, took out the first papers of naturalisation, and then went to Smyrna, where, in common with other powers, Austria was allowed by the Turkish Government a jurisdiction over its own subjects. Koszta, it is now supposed, desired to make mischief; and at any rate he exposed himself to the arrest which took place. He was put on board an Austrian brig of war. Captain Ingraham, who at the time commanded an American ship in the neighbourhood, by advice of the United States Minister, demanded Koszta, threatening, if he was not delivered, to take him by force. By a compromise, Koszta was placed in the hands of the French consul, subject to the order of the Austrian and American consuls, and was ultimately returned to the United States. The correspondence that ensued between Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, and M. Hulsemann, Austrian Minister at Washington, ended in the instructions issued from Washington that passports should thereafter be given only to those who had become full citizens, and not to such as, like Koszta, had only declared their intention of becoming such, and taken the first steps thereto. It may be well to add that the general disgust in America with Koszta made his case a bad one on which to raise a general issue.

Thus, so far as the Washington Government is concerned, the matter remained until it was brought before Mr. Seward just before the civil war, by an allegation that certain naturalised Americans in Prussia had been impressed for military service in that country, from which they had emigrated. Mr. Seward refused to take notice of these complaints, having reason to suspect that the persons in question were evading military service in America. It may be naturally supposed also that he was unwilling, in the threatening aspect of American affairs, to assume any principle which would enable Americans to transfer their citizenship for the purpose of evading such service at home.1 In the summer of 1865, however, when there was no apprehension of this kind, the matter was made the subject of an important correspondence between the Governments of Berlin and Washington, on the complaint of two Prussians naturalised in America,

of whom the authorities of their

native country had demanded the ordinary military duties. One of these, Mr. O. F. Von Rhein, was the son of a captain in the royal army of Prussia. He left Berlin in 1853, taking with him a passport entitling him to be absent one year. He was then sixteen years of age. Having remained in New York five years, and having been naturalised, he returned to Berlin to visit his mother. Believing that steps were being taken to force him into the army, he called on the American Minister at Berlin, Mr. Wright, who

declared that he had no power to protect him, notwithstanding his passport, and advised him to leave Berlin as soon as possible, which he did. In the October of the same year (1865) the matter was renewed on the case of Jacob Carl Breiger, who applied for permission to return to Prussia to settle his family affairs. It appears that Breiger had left Prussia when a child 13 years of age, in charge of his brother, and that after he had gone, the circuit court of Neustadt had condemned him (February 10, 1858) to a month's imprisonment, or a fine of fifty thalers, 'for having left the country with the intention of avoiding the performance of military service.' In reply to his request, forwarded through the American Minister at Berlin, Baron Thile answered:

In consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Government will permit the said Breiger a short stay in Prussia, upon condition that he submits to and he pays besides the costs. the judgment which was passed upon him,

Soon after this Mr. Wright had an interview with Count Bismark on the subject which he reported to Mr. Seward, under date of November 15, 1865, in the following words:

The minister's attention was called to the case of Jacob Carl Breiger. It was evident he had no knowledge of this case, it being acted upon during his absence. This brought up the whole subject of Prussian laws as connected with military service, and the difficulties in the way of adjusting the same with the United States. He said it would be almost impossible to change by legislation the Prussian laws, in view of the prejudice among the German peasants,

6

that, as all Prussians are subject to military duty, the returning adopted citizens would be exempt. After some conversation, during which the count exhibited the most earnest desire to adjust the whole subject admitting it was becoming more formidable and complicated every year, as the numbers returning from the United States were increasing he agreed with me that not one in fifty liable under the Prussian laws were brought into the army, and, to use his own language, There was no desire on the part of his Majesty's Government to arrest any American citizen returning to his native land on business; but when a case was presented to the Government by the police authorities, giving the name, place of birth, age, &c., the law was imperative, and the Government compelled to act.' He remarked, 'The subject could only be adjusted by some treaty arrangement with the United States; at least, in his opinion, this would be the proper way to commence its adjustment, and if it was successful, no doubt the principles agreed upon would be carried out by the legislative authorities of both countries.' My anxiety was to hear his plan for settlement of this vexed question in detail. It was substantially this: 'Exemption to all Prussian subjects returning to their native land who had left before their seventeenth year, and exemption also to all other persons who were not in the army, or notified to enter at the time of leaving, and who shall have been out of the country for ten years.'

At the conclusion of the conversation thus reported, Count Bismark spoke of the importance to Prussia of a more effectual system of arrest and extradition in America which the altered condition of affairs, since the treaty of 1828 between the two countries, rendered necessary. And the understanding with which the two parted was that the Berlin Government would propose this latter subject to the United States, and the latter would in reply urge modifications of the military laws of Prussia. Count Bismark promised to look into the case of Breiger, and, though the exact mode of the adjustment of that and several other cases which occurred about the same time has not been officially announced, it is understood that the Prussian Government, reserving the principle involved, dealt with them

in a manner satisfactory to the United States.

It was at the conclusion of these negotiations that the American Government for the first time took up something like a definite position on the general principle involved. This was in a letter from Mr. Seward to the American Minister at Berlin, written December 2, 1865, in which he said:

I have now the honour to give you the President's views in regard to the proceedings in Prussia, by which natives of Prussia, who have voluntarily exchanged allegiance from that Government for the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, and have been duly naturalised as such, are nevertheless arrested and held liable to perform military service on occasions of their transient visits to their native country. The question involved in these proceedings is an old one, and was the subject of elaborate discussion between the two countries before our late civil war. Considerations of ease and policy prevailed with this department to allow the subject to rest during the continuance of the war. We became even less anxious upon the subject. when it was seen that worthless naturalised citizens fled before the requirement of military service by their adopted country here, and not only took refuge from such service in their native land, but impertinently demanded that the United States should interpose to procure their exemption from military service exacted there. Those circumstances, however, have passed away, and the question presents itself in its original form. The United States have accepted and established a government upon the principle of the rights of men who have committed no crime to choose the State in which they will live, and to incorporate themselves as members of that State, and to enjoy henceforth its privileges and benefits, among which is included protection. This principle is recommended by sentiments of humanity and abstract justice. It is a principle which we cannot waive. It is not believed that the military service which can be procured by any foreign State in denial of this principle can be important or even useful to that State.

The Secretary, it will be observed, did not see fit to make any response to Count Bismark's practical suggestions for a modification of the existing law, but contented himself witha statement of his Government's