the House of Representatives, that for some time past active negotiations have been carried on between the two governments. These negotiations have been conducted in a spirit of entire friendship, and it affords the Secretary of State pleasure to acquaint the President that on the 2d instant information was received by the Department of State that all the American citizens held as prisoners in Ireland had been released except three, and that since that date the further information has reached him that O'Connor, Hart, Walsh, Dalton, and White are not now in prison. The negotiations are still being conducted with a view to the release of the remaining prisoners, and the hope is entertained that a result will be reached satisfactory and honorable alike to both governments. Respectfully submitted. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FREDK. T FRELINGHUYSEN. No. 51. Mr. West to Earl Granville. WASHINGTON, April 8, 1882. (Received April 24.) My LORD: I have the honor to transmit to your Lordship herewith articles from the New York Tribune on the proceedings taken with regard to the Irish-American suspects. The tone of these articles is, on the whole, satisfactory, and would seem to indicate the general opinion that an unnecessary importance had been attached to a matter which was capable of an amicable arrangement. I have, &c., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. [Inclosure 1 in No. 51.-Extract from the New York Tribune of April 5, 1882.] THE IRISH AMERICAN SUSPECTS.-The mass meeting at Cooper Institute calls upon the President to demand forthwith the prompt release of American citizens now unjustly deprived of liberty by the British Government. It bases its action upon section 2001 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, namely: "Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appear to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall, as soon as practicable, be communicated by the President to Congress." Now, in the case of the Irish-American suspects, this statute-one of the most irrational acts ever passed by an incoherent Congress-is practically inoperative. These men have been legally arrested, whatever may be said as to the justice or injustice of the charges. They have been imprisoned under the coercion acts, which are now the public law of Ireland. Legally arrested, they have not been tried; and accordingly there has been no judicial investigation which would enable the President to determine whether they have been justly or unjustly deprived of their liberty. It is utterly impossible for the President to decide whether the arrest of these suspects has been "wrongful" and in "violation of the rights of American citizenship," and consequently he cannot den and their release. Congress never has given and never can give the Executive the right to demand the unconditional release of an American citizen, naturalized or native-born, who has been legally arrested in another civilized State. If he has been illegally arrested, or if his innocence has been established after a judicial investigation, his release may be demanded, but not otherwise. What, then, is it in the province of the Executive to demand in the case of the IrishAmerican suspects? Let their naturalization be assumed, and they must be held by Great Britain to be entitled to all the rights which have been guaranteed to citizens of the United States under the naturalization treaty. A fair and impartial trial in accordance with the local law that has been violated is one of those rights, and the Executive is justified in demanding it, for the suspects have been in prison many months. But in the proclaimed districts of Ireland the local law has been suspended. The government does not grant to its own subjects the privilege of a jury trial in those districts; and, indeed, a jury trial would not be a judicial process under the circumstances, for each and every suspect would be acquitted without regard to the facts of the case. A fair and impartial trial, by which the innocence or guilt of the accused can be ascertained, is simply out of the question. That is the one demand which our government is competent to make and it is one with which the British Government think it impossible to comply. They might as well discharge the American suspects outright. Mr. Lowell, who has been denounced by Mr. Randall for his "sickening sycophancy to English influence," has treated this matter not as an English, Irish, or American question, but purely as a point of international law. He has had no sympathy with the coercion legislation, and has even taken pains to characterize it as exceptional and arbitrary. In his letter to the suspects who applied for his intervention, he says: "The chief object of these measures is to enable the authorities to arrest persons whom they suspect of illegal conduct, without being obliged to produce any proof of their guilt. Its very substance and main purpose are to deprive suspected persons of the speedy trial they desire. This law is, of course, contrary to the spirit and foundation principles of both English and American jurisprudence. But it is the law of the land, and it controls all persons domiciled in the proclaimed districts of Ireland, whether they are British subjects or not; and it is manifestly futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the United States should be exempted from its operation." That law legalized the arrest of the suspects in districts where the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended, and where the natives were not allowed the privilege of a jury trial. To have demanded their unconditional release, when no discrimination had been made between them and the natives, would have been an open affront to a friendly power. What Mr. Lowell did was to follow the best precedents of criminal jurisdiction in international cases, several of which had been established during the American civil war, when British subjects, were arbitrarily arrested and denied the privilege of trial. At the same time, he has conducted the negotiations with the Foreign Office with so much tact and decision that we are inclined to expect a speedy clearance of the Irish jails from suspects whose citizenship in the United States is authenticated. Whatever may be the privileges of the natives, the British Government are not likely to incur the odium of imprisoning foreigners for indefinite terms without trial. They will be glad to release them, if they can be assured that their naturalization papers shall not be used as a safe-conduct for conspiracy in the proclaimed districts of Ireland. [Inclosure 2 in No. 51.-Extract from the New York Tribune of April 6, 1882.] Mr. LOWELL'S SUCCESS.-Mr. Lowell's negotiations for the release of the IrishAmerican suspects have been crowned with partial success. Before the mass meeting at Cooper Institute disgraced itself by heaping reproaches upon him, the Department of State had received official information that all but three of these prisoners had been set at liberty in response to the request of the United States minister. The three suspects who have not been released are McSweeney, McEnery, and O'Mahoney. Two of these are undoubtedly naturalized citizens, and as such are entitled to a fair and impartial trial. The British Government is either unable or unwilling to order a judicial investigation, but it will not incur the odium of imprisoning the citizens of another State for an indefinite period. The leading English journals concedes that any suspect whose naturalization in the United States can be established will be released if he agrees to leave the country; and the State Department has every reason to expect that this action will be speedily taken in these two cases. There is some doubt as to the validity of O'Mahoney's naturalization, but the chances are in favor of his release, as the British Foreign Office does not seem to be disposed to make an exception in his case on technical grounds if he will promise to leave Ireland as soon as he is released. Mr. Frelinghuysen reports that the negotiations have been carried on between the two governments for some time "in a spirit of entire friendship." This result has been promoted by the cordial relations existing between Lord Granville and Mr. Lowell. The fact that our government has been represented in these negotiations by one of our foremost men of letters has been a most fortunate circumstance. Mr. Lowell had won the respect and admiration of the best men in English public life, and when he came to plead for these suspects his personal character and popularity were of direct service to them. Bluster and bad manners would have prolonged their imprisonment and disturbed the relations of the two countries. Mr. Lowell made, as our special cable dispatches have stated, every effort consistent with diplomatic usage, and at the same time performed a most delicate duty with such consummate tact as to remove all sources of irritation. The result has been that as soon as the formalities of proving the naturalization of the suspects have been complied with, all but three of them have been released, and the liberation of the remaining prisoners is confidently expected by the State Department. The delicacy of Mr. Lowell's task will be better appreciated if the fact be borne in mind that the British Government is struggling hand over hand with a formidable conspiracy which has been directly promoted by the Irish citizens of the United States. The passage of the land act would have paralyzed the League if the Parnellites had not been forced by pressure from this side of the ocean to denounce it and to proclaim the repudiation of rent-paying. It has been moral and pecuniary support from the American base of supplies which has enabled the agitators to defy the Liberal Government and to prolong indefinitely a blustering period of lawlessness and anarchy in Ireland. Not a week passes but there are cowardly assassinations and revolting crimes committed in every quarter of the island. Tenants whose sole offense is a disposition to pay their debts and to live in peace with their landlords are murdered in cold blood. Land agents are fired at from hedges, and innocent women are butchered in the high roads." We do not say that the Land League organization and its American contributors are responsible for the shocking crimes; but it cannot be denied that they have delayed the pacification of the island which might have been effected under the beneficent clauses of the land act, and by prolonging the agitation have multiplied opportunities for agrarian horrors. Is it to be wondered at that the British Government should have hesitated before releasing suspects whose only claim for consideration was a questionable citizenship in the United States? The money contributed for the cause could not be intercepted; the patriotic sympathy and moral support could not be counteracted; but those who came from America to instigate revolution and crime must share the risks with native conspirators. This being the English view of the case, diplomatic intervention in behalf of the suspects was extremely likely to excite intense irritation. If, therefore, Mr. Lowell has dispatched the business, rescued the prisoners, and asserted the rights of American citizenship, without causing bitterness or estrangement between the two governments, he is entitled to the gratitude of Americans and Englishmen alike. If his intellectual attainments, his graces of manner, and his personal friendships in English society have contributed to that end, it was not a mistake to send to the court of St. James an American gentleman. No. 52. Mr. West to Earl Granville. WASHINGTON, April 11, 1882. (Received April 24.) My LORD: With reference to my dispatch of the 28th ultimo, I have the honor to inclose herewith to your lordship copy of a further note which I have received from the Secretary of State respecting the imprisonment of William Lane. From the correspondence inclosed in your lordship's dispatch of the 29th ultimo, it would seem that Mr. Frelinghuysen, in his communications with Mr. Lowell, sought to connect this case with the question of the release of the Irish-American suspects, as I anticipated he might do, as reported to your lordship in my above-mentioued dispatch. I have, &c., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. [Inclosure in No. 52 ] Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. West. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Referring to my reply of the 28th ultimo to your note of the 24th of that month, in relation to the imprisonment of a British subject named William Lane, at Detroit, Michigan, I now have the honor to inform you that I have received a letter from the attorney-general of Michigan, in which that officer states that the prisoner in question has been convicted of an assault with intent to murder. I have, &c., F. T. FRELINGHUYSEN. APPENDIX. No. 1. The Earl of Clarendon to Sir F. Bruce. FOREIGN OFFICE, April 14, 1866. SIR: Mr. Adams called upon me three days ago and read to me a confidential dispatch from Mr. Seward respecting the Fenian agitation. Mr. Seward said that he did not think that either time or occasion had arrived for making any communication on the subject to Her Majesty's Government, but in view of the news which had arrived of the suspension of the act of habeas corpus in Ireland, Mr. Seward thought Mr. Adams ought to be informed of the sentiments of the President in regard to Fenianism. The Fenian excitement in the United States was, Mr. Seward said, a political question, exclusively affecting Ireland as one of the United Kingdoms. Those engaged in the agitation were, as a general rule, native Irishmen, of whom some had, while others had not, become naturalized in the United States. In moving, controlling, and directing the Fenian agitation these persons were influenced by feeling, sentiments, and views which they cherish as Irishmen, notwithstanding their change of domicile or place of residence or citizenship. In a word, the Fenian was a British, and not an American movement. The only question for the United States Government, Mr. Seward said, was not whether the motives or designs of these agitations in regard to Ireland were just, wise beneficent, and humane, or the reverse, but whether, in seeking to promote their designs, they commit any violation of the laws of the United States which have been adopted to prevent military or naval aggression against nations with whom the United States are at peace. Thus far, Mr. Seward said, no such violation of the law had been brought to the knowledge of the United States Government, either by its own agents or by the British Legation, and it did not appear to the United States Government to be wise to denounce the proceedings of the agitators so long as they were confined within those limits of moral agitation recognized equally by the United States and Great Britain as legitimate. It was not unreasonable to suppose that any unlawful enterprises against Ireland and the Colonies contrived in the United States would prove abortive and even absurd unless the movement had some connection with an uprising in the country to be invaded. It was not for the United States Government to pronounce upon the improbability or otherwise of such an uprising in Ireland. It was, however, reasonable to suppose that if anything of the sort was contemplated, the suspension of the act of habeas corpus would bring matters to a crisis, and if no uprising had taken place, it might be supposed either that such a movement had not been meditated, or that it had been averted. In either case it was not to be apprehended that a violation of United States neutrality would now be committed. On the other hand, if any insurrection should have already broken out in Ireland, it would be by no means the purpose or policy of the United States to suffer their own laws to be violated, and their dignity and honor to be compromised. Mr. Seward further said that it might be expected that some Irish-born but naturalized American citizens who might be now sojourning or traveling in Ireland would be arrested upon complaints of complicity in seditious proceedings. Of these, some would probably be innocent, and others guilty. The situation would thus for a time necessarily become inconvenient and embarrassing; but Mr. Seward frankly admitted that Americans, whether native born or naturalized, owe submission to the same laws in Great Britain as British subjects while residing there and enjoying the protection of the British Government, and Mr. Seward added that the United States Government had applied the converse of that principle to British subjects who were sojourning or traveling in the United States during the late rebellion. Mr. Adams was, therefore, to give a careful examination to each complaint, dealing at all times frankly with the British Government, and asking on their part strict justice where American citizens were concerned. I told Mr. Adams that I had listened with much satisfaction to the views and opinions of Mr. Seward, as stated in the dispatch which he had just read to me, and that It rusted that both the state of Ireland and the prudence of the lord lieutenant would prevent any difference between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States upon a question involving a principle, the discussion of which, in connection with Fenianism, it would be desirable not to enter upon. I have, &c., CLARENDON. No. 2. Convention between Her Majesty and the United States of America relative to naturalization. Signed at London May 13, 1870. Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the President of the United States of America, being desirous to regulate the citizenship of British subjects who have emigrated or who may emigrate from the British dominions to the United States of America, and of citizens of the United States of America who have emigrated or who may emigrate from the United States of America to the British dominions, have resolved to conclude a convention for that purpose, and have named as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say: Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the right honorable George William Frederick, Earl of Clarendon, Baron Hyde of Hindon, a Peer of the United Kingdom, a member of Her Britannic Majesty's most honorable Privy Council, knight of the most noble Order of the Garter, knight Grand Cross of the most honorable Order of the Bath, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs; And the President of the United States of America, John Lothrop Motley, esquire, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Her Britannic Majesty; Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles: ARTICLE I. British subjects who have become, or shall become, and are naturalized according to law within the United States of America as citizens thereof, shall, subject to the provisions of Article II, be held by Great Britain to be in all respects, and for all purposes, citizens of the United States, and shall be treated as such by Great Britain. Reciprocally, citizens of the United States of America who have become, or shall become, and are naturalized according to law within the British dominions as British subjects, shall, subject to the provisions of Article II, be held by the United States to be in all respects and for all purposes British subjects, and shall be treated as such by the United States. ARTICLE II. Such British subjects, as aforesaid, who have become and are naturalized as citizens within the United States, shall be at liberty to renounce their naturalization and to resume their British nationality, provided that such renunciation be publicly declared within two years after the twelfth day of May, 1870. Such citizens of the United States as aforesaid who have become and are naturalized within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty as British subjects, shall be at liberty to renounce their naturalization, and to resume their nationality as citizens of the United States, provided that such renunciation be publicly declared within two years after the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention. The manner in which this renunciation may be made and publicly declared shall be agreed upon by the governments of the respective countries. ARTICLE III. If any such British subject as aforesaid, naturalized in the United States, should renew his residence within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, Her Majesty's Government may, on his own application and on such conditions as that government may think fit to impose, readmit him to the character and privileges of a British subject, and the United States shall not, in that case, claim him as a citizen of the United States on account of his former naturalization. In the same manner, if any such citizen of the United States, as aforesaid, natural- · ized within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, should renew his residence in the United States, the United States Government may, on his own application and on such conditions as that government may think fit to impose, readmit him to the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States, and Great Britain shall not, in that case, claim him as a British subject on account of his former naturalization. ARTICLE IV. The present convention shall be ratified by Her B.itannic Majesty and by the Presi |