Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
Sir: The consul at Dublin, Mr. West, I take it for granted, forwards to you so fully his account of his proceedings and copies of the correspondence which [Page 76] he conducts with the Irish authorities, that I deem it not necessary to do more than comment on the results.
It is thus far made clear that the government claims the right of dealing as it pleases with native Irishmen, no regard whatever being paid to the fact of their naturalization in the United States.
The course it intends to take with native Americans held under arrest upon the call made to assign reasons for their detention has not yet been declared. No intelligence has been thus far received of any response to Mr. West’s appeal on that subject.
Meanwhile I executed the intention I expressed in my No. 1163, of the 2d instant, of asking an interview with Lord Clarendon, for the purpose of talking freely upon the whole subject. He appointed Monday, the 5th, at which time I saw him.
After mentioning the various steps which had been already taken by my direction in Ireland, and the position in which affairs now stand there, I pointed out to him as briefly as I could the nature of the questions that must spring out of the attitude taken by the British government. In the first place, native Americans had been arrested without reasons given, or charges made. Of course, as they appealed to me, I should feel it my duty to ask for reasons, and if none could be given beyond mere suspicion, to request their release. In this connection I reminded him of the fact how freely Lord Lyons had exercised this right during the war, and in how many very doubtful cases he had obtained a release.
But the second question was of a still graver character. It grew out of the conflicting theories of allegiance which had so long been a fruitful source of dissension between the two countries. On the one side all the powers of Europe claimed that the allegiance of native subjects could not be divested by any act of their own. On the other the right of expatriation was asserted to its fullest extent. In the present instance, several Irishmen, who had proved their naturalization in the United States, had claimed protection from arrest and imprisonment, as they alleged unjustly; and on the other hand the authorities in Ireland, in answer to a representation made by the consul, had claimed an absolute right to deal with them as British subjects, without accountability to any foreign authority. I admitted that this was in accordance with the English law, at the same time that I felt that I could pot, on the part of my government acquiesce in it. This question had raised us many difficulties heretofore, and especially had conduced to the rupture between the two countries in 1812. I saw no practical way out of it, if both parties persisted in a rigid adherence to their particular views. The better course would seem to be, if possible, to avoid a collision, by endeavoring so far as was practicable to eyade making the issue. If the men in dispute could be released, as many were in the United States, on condition of their good behavior, or of their quitting the country, I thought the difficulty might be removed.
Here Lord Clarendon interposed with some general remarks upon the “wheel within a wheel” of an organization in the United States, having for its object the overthrow of all authority in a country under a foreign jurisdiction, and upon the voluntary abnegation of the British government of every desire to remonstrate or interpose any claim for protection. Under these circumstances, when people came from the United States in such numbers, and were found in Ireland with money and arms, plotting against the government, he trusted that I would not attempt to hold over them the shelter of my diplomatic mantle.
To which I replied that his lordship had overrulooked an important distinction, which should have been kept in view. Since the suspension of the habeas corpus, numbers of people had been swept up together and lodged in the prisons, without a single reason given, or the allegation of any offence. Previously to that event, whenever any person claiming to be an American had [Page 77] been arrested, the course had been to consult at once with the prosecuting officers to learn the nature of the charges against him, and upon that prima facie evidence, either to ask a release on the ground of insufficiency, or to let the law take its course. With this understanding everything had gone on smoothly enough. Several persons had been released; others had been tried, and their offences very fully proved. The whole case was now changed. All those arrested since the suspension of the habeas corpus were detained without reason given or charges made. This course as applied to such persons as might be innocent was a hardship, which I did not think citizens of a foreign state ought to be subjected to. I had been applied to by many who stoutly averred their innocence. It was in their behalf I thought I had a right to claim a release, and in regard to all citizens of the United States, it seemed to me that, at least, the grounds of detention should be assigned to me. For it should be understood that I had no wish to spread my diplomatic mantle over such as could be shown to be at least fairly suspected of designs subversive of established authority; although I believed many such had been released at the request of Lord Lyons. I should confine myself as matter of right only to those against whom no real charges could be brought. It was in the cases of such as might be innocent that I held it of the utmost importance to a good understanding between the countries that they should be promptly relieved. Even a single person, if innocent, and subjected to serious injury by confinement, might go to America afterwards, and become or be made a subject of popular sympathy, more or less just, which would materially increase the irritation, already quite great enough, and perhaps add a strong American element to the Fenian combination which thus far it had not possessed. With regard to that organization, and his lordship’s observations on it, I incidentally recalled to his mind the fact that that had not been without its parallel in this country during the late war. I had somewhere among my papers a long list of aristocratic names, appended to what was called a southern aid association, the declared object of which was to effect a disruption of the United States. At the head of it had been Lord Wharncliffe, aided by many other noblemen.
His lordship affected to make very light of this association, as containing no name of real influence in England, to which I replied in the same terms as it regarded the Fenians in America. The parallel seemed to me sufficiently exact. But I had not been instructed to remonstrate against the southern association.
As to the substance of my representation, his lordship said that had he been made aware beforehand that I was about to offer it, he should have been more fully prepared by a knowledge of the actual facts to talk with me. It would be necessary for him to communicate with Sir George Grey, of the home office, in whose department were the papers connected with the Irish troubles. He should ask a brief delay, and would then give me notice of a time when he might renew the subject.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.