Her Majesty's government having, since the date of my dispatch, fully considered the terms of Mr. Seward's dispatch, I will no longer delay acquainting you, for communication to that minister, with the impression which it has made upon them. Her Majesty's government observe that the President of the United States considers the terms used in my dispatch with reference to the so-called Alabama claims to be at once comprehensive and sufficiently precise to include all the claims of American citizens for depredations upon their commerce during the late rebellion, which have been the subject of complaint upon the part of the government of the United States; those terms being, to quote the precise words of my dispatch of the 24th of May, applicable to this class of claims, and which, in substance, repeats those used by me in my dispatch of the 9th of March, that the question on which Great Britain was ready to go to arbitration was, "whether in the matters connected with the vessels out of whose depredations the claims of American citizens have arisen, the course pursued by the British government and by those who acted upon its authority was such as would involve a moral responsibility on the part of the British government to make good, either in whole or in part, the losses of American citizens." In the same and in previous dispatches it will be found that, whilst agreeing to this limited reference as regards the so-called Alabama claims, I have repeatedly stated that her Majesty's government could not consent to refer to a foreign power to determine whether the policy of her Majesty's government in recognizing the Confederate States as belligerents was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the negotiation took place. After referring, however, to the terms of my dispatch of the 24th of May, Mr. Seward goes on to say that, in the view taken by the United States government, that government would deem itself at liberty to insist before the arbiter that the actual proceedings and relations of the British government, its officers, agents, and subjects, towards the United States in regard to the rebellion and the rebels as they occurred during that rebellion, are among the matters which are connected with the vessels whose depredations are complained of; just as, in the case of the general claims alluded to by me, the actual proceedings and relations of her Majesty's government, its officers, agents, and subjects, in regard to the United States in regard to the rebellion and the rebels, are necessarily connected with the transactions out of which those general claims arise. The language thus used by Mr. Seward appears to her Majesty's government to be open to the construction that it is the desire of the United States government that any tribunal to be agreed upon in dealing either with the so-called Alabama claims or with the "general claims" might enter into the question whether the act of policy of her Majesty's government in recognizing the Confederate States as a belligerent power was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the recognition was made; a construction which, after the distinct and repeated avowal of her Majesty's government that they could not consent to a reference of such a question, her Majesty's government can hardly suppose that it was intended by Mr. Seward that the passage in his dispatch should bear. But to prevent any misapprehension on this subject, her Majesty's government think it necessary distinctly to say, both as regards the so-called Alabama claims brought forward by citizens of the United States and as regards the general claims, that they cannot depart, directly or indirectly, from their refusal to "refer to a foreign power to determine whether the policy of recognizing the Confederate States as a belligerent power was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the negotiation was made." As regards the so-called Alabama claims, the only point which her Majesty's government can consent to refer to the decision of an arbiter is the question of the moral responsibility of her Majesty's government, on the assumption that an actual state of war existed between the government of the United States and the Confederate States; and on that assumption it would be for the arbiter to determine whether there had been any such failure on the part of the British government as a neutral in the observance, legally or morally, of any duties or relations towards the government of the United States as could be deemed to involve a moral responsibility on the part of the British government to make good losses of American citizens caused by the Alabama and other Vessels of the same class. As regards the general claims, the question of moral responsibility on the part of her Majesty's government does not, and cannot, come into dispute at all. Mr. Seward rightly supposes that her Majesty's government contemplated two tribubals for the adjudication, one of the Alabama claims, the other of the general claims; the one being, in the first instance, at all events, the tribunal of an arbiter, who would be called upon to pronounce on the principles of the moral responsibility of the British government, and on the nature of whose decision would depend the question of the appointment of a mixed commision for the examination in detail of the several claims of citizens of the United States to which that decision applied, namely, those arising out of the depredations of the Alabama and other similar vessels, and the adjudication of the sums payable in each case; the other, in its commencement and to its close a purely mixed commission, for the examination of the general claims of the subjects and citizens of both countries arising out of the war, and the adjudication of the sums payable by either country in each case. The distinction between the two classes of claims is clear: the one may never come before a mixed commission, and therefore may not require the assistance of an arbiter to decide differences of detail arising between the commissioners; the other, though originally brought before a mixed commission, may possibly require the intervention of an arbiter in case of a difference of opinion among the members of the commission which could not be otherwise reconciled, and for which case provision would be made in the ordinary way in the convention for the settlement of the mixed claims by the insertion of articles in regard to the selection of an arbiter. The functions of such an arbiter, as well as of an arbiter for a like purpose in the other mixed commission, for which provision would have to be made to meet the contingency of the so-called Alabama claims coming eventually under the cognizance of a mixed commission, would have nothing in common with the functions of the arbiter, to whom the question of principle involved in the last-mentioned class of claims would be referred. Her Majesty's government cannot but apprehend that, if Mr. Seward really requires unrestricted arbitration as applicable to both classes of claims, and that the tribunal in both classes of cases should proceed upon the same principles and be clothed with the same powers, he has not fully considered the wide and inevitable distinction which exists between the classes; and in directing you to submit to the consideration of Mr. Seward the explanations and observations contained in this dispatch, I have to instruct you to express the earnest hope of her Majesty's government that the government of the United States will, on further reflection, accept without hesitation the proposal made in my dispatches to Sir F. Bruce of the 9th of March, and of the 24th of May, both of this year, namely, "limited reference to arbitration in regard to the so-called Alabama claims," and "adjudication by means of a mixed commission of general claims." You will furnish Mr. Seward with a copy of this dispatch. I am, &c., Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. STANLEY. No. 1489.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I obtained an interview on Tuesday last with Lord Stanley for the purpose of renewing the representations as directed in your dispatch No. 2087, of the 5th of November, respecting the difficulties growing out of the state of things in Ireland. I explained the precise nature of the question as applicable to naturalized American citizens. I read to him the chief passages of your dispatch, and concluded by asking him to reconsider the former decision of the government so far as it relates to supplying better security to our citizens in that island. His lordship asked me if I had any special measure to suggest. I said, nothing beyond that already specified in your dispatch No. 2049, of August last, and the later one already referred to. He said that passports had long since proved to be of little avail. Unless the descriptions were very accurate, they were easily transferred from hand to hand; besides which, they had become rather obsolete here. At any rate, it seemed to him that whatever evidence was necessary to identify citizens was a thing to be supplied in America, and therefore should be suggested from there. He asked me some questions about the forms of naturalization. I said that they always involved the issue of formal certificates in the last stage of the process. Why, he asked, would not that do? I said it might, in most cases, provided it was given to be understood that they were essential as a protection. But, in course of time, many were lost by neglect to preserve them, or other accident, and it was a long process from here to procure official copies. There was also a class of cases of children under age at the time of naturalization who grew up and claimed citizenship by virtue of the act of their father, without need of any legal process for themselves. That claim was recognized with us. Some cases of this kind had occurred since I had been here. There had been much trouble in consequence, and some hardship. His lordship said he was at a loss to perceive what they could do, but he would take the matter into further consideration and consult with Lord Mayo about it. I said that, so far as I knew, there was no case left of arrest and detention without assigned cause and provision made for trial. The question was, therefore, at present, only one of a prospective character. His lordship said he believed this state of things would not ⚫ last much longer. I gently reminded him of the fact that this had been announced very formally last year; yet, here we were. He admitted the truth of it, but rested on the discouragement incident to the failure of all the schemes. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1490.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: A person passing under the name of Berry, or Bowry, was arrested a few days ago in the streets of this city and brought before one of the magistrates on a charge of being concerned in the Fenian conspiracy against this government. In the course of the examination it was sufficiently proved that his real name was Ricord O. S. Burke. The evidence was thought sufficient to justify his solicitor in counting upon his being held for trial at the central criminal court. I have the honor to transmit a copy of the London Times, containing the report of the preliminary proceedings. The relatives of Mr. Burke have engaged legal assistance in his behalf. But the solicitor, Mr. Norton, writes to me that he has no funds with which to pay for it, and forwards an application from him for assistance at the public expense. I have written in reply to the effect that I have no funds to dispose of for that purpose, and no authority to make any engagement without instructions from the government. To this answer the solicitor has responded by requesting me, on Mr. Burke's behalf, to apply to you for the requisite authority. On examination of the Army Register of the United States, it appears that one Ricord O. S. Burke, whom I presume to be the same person, served in the 15th regiment of New York engineers, first as a second lieutenant and afterwards as captain, during a portion of the war. On the 6th of December, 1865, he applied to this legation for advice and protection, he having been subjected to arrest and examination on his arrival at Liverpool on suspicion of treasonable designs, which he entirely disavowed." He denied that he was a Fenian, although his sympathies were with them. He had been released, and reported himself to be then in lodgings at No. 4 Suffolk Place, Bermondsey, London, a distant portion of the town, on the south side of the river. A passport was supplied to him, and he was cautioned to be prudent at that period of excitement, and, in case of its increasing, he was advised to withdraw at least for a season to the other side of the channel. Since that date, nothing has been heard of him until the moment of his arrest and present application. I have stated these circumstances in full, for the purpose of providing you with all the information in my power to enable you to judge of the should you propriety of his application. I am, moreover, informed that the trial will probably come on before the end of the month. Hence, if have instructions to give, it may be advisable to forward them by telegraph. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. [From the London Times, December 2, 1867.] THE FENIAN CONSPIRACY. ADJOURNED EXAMINATION OF BURKE AND CASEY. On Saturday Sir Thomas Henry sat specially at Bow street police court for the further investigation of the charge of treason-felony preferred against Ricord Burke, a colonel in the so-called Fenian army, alias Bowry, alias Berry, alias Winslow, and the minor charge of assaulting Inspector Thompson, of the detective force, in the execution of his duty, preferred against the above-mentioned prisoner and Joseph Theobald Casey, conjointly. Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. Pollard, of the treasury solicitor's office, appeared, as before, for the prosecution. With regard to the defense a difficulty arose, as two learned counsel were in attendance-Dr. Kenealy, who informed the magistrate that he was instructed for both prisoners by Mr. Norton, and Mr. Griffiths, instructed by Mr. Ring for the prisoner Burke. Considerable discussion arose on this point. Sir Thomas Henry pointed out that the prisoner was to elect which gentleman he considered to be his solicitor, Mr. Ring or Mr. Norton. Burke had some difficulty in making the selection. He had certainly seen Mr. Ring, but had become uneasy at that gentleman not keeping an appointment. That, however, might be no ground of blame against Mr. Ring, who might have been engaged elsewhere in his interests. Mr. Norton said he had been instructed by Casey's brother. The prisoner expressed a wish to see Mr. Ring before deciding. Mr. Ring, however, was absent, though Mr. Abrams, of Bow street, appeared to represent him, assisted by Mr. Ring's managing clerk, who said that Mr. Ring was under examination as a witness at the lord mayor's court, but would probably arrive Mr. Griffiths said that he had in his hand papers submitted to him by Mr. very soon. Ring, including notes in the colonel's handwriting. Burke requested to have them returned before he formed his decision, but Sir Thomas Henry thought the learned counsel could not be called upon to give up the documents to any one but the solicitor from whom he had received them. Both learned counsel and also Mr. Norton expressed their readiness to abide by "the colonel's choice." [It was noticed that Burke did not Burke observed demur to'being repeatedly called "the colonel" or "Colonel Burke," but seemed rather to acquiesce in it, replying without hesitation when so addressed.] that he could find work for both gentlemen, and, as he could come to no decision till he had seen Mr. Ring, expressed his readiness to proceed, if they would act conjointly until Mr. Ring arrived. Dr. Kenealy, however, objected to this. He was quite ready to proceed as the colonel's counsel, if it was distinctly understood that the solicitor by whom he was instructed was recognized as the defendant's attorney. Otherwise he must withdraw. The decision must be made at once. Colonel Burke said he would elect that Mr. Norton should be his solicitor, temporarily at all events, but he should wish to see Mr. Ring at the earliest opportunity. Sir Thomas Henry said every opportunity would be afforded him. [In the course of the day Mr. Ring attended, and it was arranged that he should have a private interview with Burke at the close of the proceedings.] Colonel Burke then requested that all the witnesses should be ordered out of court. Dr. Kenealy as his counsel he must leave his defense in the hands of that gentleman, who would no doubt make every application that was necessary for his protection. COLONEL BURKE. Then I wished to be placed in a position to communicate freely with my legal adviser. Mr. Norton accordingly changed his seat to one nearer to the prisoner's dock, and in such a position as rendered communication between them perfectly easy. Colonel Burke then asked for "writing materials and facilities for writing," in which respect also he was accommodated. At the request of Dr. Kenealy, the evidence of Devany, as given at the first examination, was read over by the second clerk, Mr. Humphreys. GODFREY MASSEY was then sworn: I am a native of Ireland, and went to America in 1856. I joined the American service at the time of the civil war. I held the rank of lieutenant colonel when that war ceased. In August, 1865, I joined the Fenian Brotherbood at Houston. I took no oath or pledge. I went to New York, where I arrived October, 1866. Between those times I was engaged in a commercial position at New Orleans. I kept up my influence; was a Fenian as far as my acts went, and did as much for the cause as I possibly could do. I knew James Stephens-rather well, too. I first knew him in New York. The object of the Fenian Brotherhood was the establishment of a republic in Ireland. I first saw Stephens early in October last. He had an office at 19 Chatham street, New York. He was the chief organizer of the Fenian movement. I have heard an account from him of his escape from prison and from Dublin by the assistance of friends within and without the prison. I knew Colonel Kelley in New York about this time. He was Stephens's deputy. I knew Burke in New York, at 19 Chatham street. I don't known that he held any distinct position in the brotherhood. I knew him as Captain Burke. I knew all three intimately. I knew Stephens's private residence in East Thirteenth and West Eleventh streets. I have seen the prisoner at Stephens's. I knew another person who was called Colonel Burke, (I think by courtesy,) and I gave evidence at his trial in Ireland. I knew McHafferty, Halpin, and Cluseret, who were all concerned in the movement. I gave evidence at the trial of M'Halpin. I have seen the prisoner in company with Kelly, McHafferty, and, I think, with Colonel Burke. I don't know that he was acquainted with General Cluseret. There was a meeting in New York, at which a discussion took place about the number of arms that could be obtained. It was a mixed meeting of military and non-military men. Burke was there, and said he had not nearly the number of arms he expected to have. He expected a minimum of 30,000, and only 4,000 to 5,000 had actually been obtained. They also spoke about the rising in Ireland, which was to have taken place at the next new year. That has now gone by. That meeting was held at East Thirteenth street. A day or two afterwards a purely military meeting was held, at which the same persons were present, except the non-military men. The discussion turned on the rising, and several officers volunteered to go. I can't say if the time of the rising was fixed, but the rising was determined on, and the officers volunteered to go to different parts of England. Their names were taken down by Kelly. I was one of those who volunteered, and my name was taken down with the rest, and five days after this occurrence Stephens was repudiated because he was insincere, having deceived both officers and others, and being also grossly incompetent in a military point of view. After that, Kelly acted in his place. I left New York on the 11th of January. I was not accompanied by any of the other military men. I believe Burke had sailed previously. I landed at Liverpool and proceeded to London, where I saw Burke not more than a day after my arrival. Wo Let near a public house, of which I do not recollect the name. I do not remember what conversation we had. We afterwards lived together at 7 Tavistock street, in one room on the top loft. I do not know that he told me he had lived there when he was in London before. We went there in January, and I left on the 10th or 11th of February, ho having left some days before. He went by the name of Wallis, and I by that of Clerue. While in London I met all or nearly all the officers that I had known on the ther side, and some that I had never seen before. Among others, I met Colonel Kelly, who was lodging at 5 North Crescent, Tottingham Court road. Í have been there. I ould know the landlord if I saw him, and should know his name. It was something Farrici." (Afterwards, being asked if it was "Fredorici," the witness replied, - That is it.") He was an Italian or German. Kelly was known as "Coleman," and Halpin as "Fletcher." Kelly was the chief of the Fenian body in London, and the organization and mobilization of the forces in Ireland was intrusted to my direction. I gave instructions to Burke, appointing him to Macroom, in the county of Cork. He "as to make himself acquainted with the resources of the district, and when the rising cd take place to destroy the means of communication, so as to force the regular army to march more on an equality with us. The telegraph wires were to be cut and the radways "tapped." By that expression I mean that small breaches were to be made the iron work, so as to render communication impossible, or delay it, but that the hes were not to be destroyed for any distance. There were other officers at Maroom, but Burke was the senior. He was to communicate with the "centers," of course, that being the only way he could make himself acquainted, as I directed him to do, |