words for the 16th article, which, however, does not seem to have been agreeable to his colleagues, who proposed an amendment which the French consul general appears to have objected to. This counter proposition is presumed to be contained in the paper of which a copy is enclosed; and it appears to her Majesty's government that if the article were altered in accordance with the spirit of this paper no further objection need be made to it; and they would be equally satisfied if the French government should admit that the article is to be interpreted in harmony with it.

The most satisfactory course would indeed be that as set forth in the paper which is enclosed. The French government should admit that they make no claim of right to interfere with the regular warrants issued by the competent authority of the other treaty powers, the latter agreeing, as a matter of courtesy, to have their warrants sanctioned by the French authorities; but her Majesty's government will be prepared to accept the arrangement proposed by the French government on the distinct understanding that its acceptance does not involve an admission by her Majesty's government of any right on the part of the French authorities to interfere with regular warrants issued by competent authorities of the British government or any admission of territorial right in France to the French settlement at Shanghae.

Your excellency will communicate a copy of this despatch to the Marquis de Moustier, and her Majesty's H. M. R. R. at Washington and at Berlin will be instructed to make a similar communication to the government to which they are accredited.

I am, &c.,

His Excellency the EARL COWLEY, G. C. B., &c., &c., &c.

STANLEY.

Papers accompanying copy of Lord Stanley's despatch No. 156, of April 22, 1867, to Earl Cowley, copies of which must be in the American State Department:

1. French consul general Viscount Brénier de Montmorand to Messrs. Seward and Winchester, Shanghae, September 17, 1866, (see the following No. 2.)

2. Hon. W. H. Seward to Mr. Burlingame, State Department, Washington, March 25, 1867.

3. Baron V. Gerolt to Mr. Seward, Prussian legation, Washington, March 11, 1867. 4. Mr. Seward to Baron V: Gerolt, State Department, Washington, March 25, 1867.

[Memorandum.]

Projet Seward and Winchester.

The consul general of France agrees to withdraw Article XVI of the réglement pending the approval of his government, and it being admitted that there is no claim of right to interfere with the execution of regular warrants issued by the competent authorities of the other treaty powers, the consuls of the United States. Prussia and England are willing, in view of the foregoing, as matters of courtesy and convenience, either to send their warrants to the French consulate general to be countersealed, or to direct the officer charged with their execution to exhibit the same to the superintendent of police in all cases where the doing so shall be possible without defeating the execution of the warrant.

I have read, according to your wish, the despatch of M. Drouyn de Lhuys with reference to the organization of a municipal system in the French concession, and also the rules which have been published under which that system is to be inaugurated. I agree with the French minister in thinking that a fusion of the two settlements is impracticable, and I am not surprised that the French government should decline to sanction the suggestion.

Whatever may have been expedient and practicable years ago in the infancy of the settlement, when the Chinese first set apart the three sites for the residence of French English, and American, it is out of the question now to expect the French, after years of separate organization, to merge themselves and nationality; for that would be the result in any such cosmopolitan scheme. Practically and on a small scale it is asking them to commit quoad Shanghae an act of political suicide. But apart from the reasons so clearly and frankly given by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, in which I entirely concur, I think that the ideas of the people of the two countries upon questions of judicial and executive administration are so essentially different that any attempt to include them under one system would end in failure, and in failure the more to be regretted because it would be the result of jealousy and wounded susceptibilities.

I have also read the "réglemens." They seem to me, without exception, unobjectionable, and although they will require elaboration, yet, if they are acted upon, and the details of adminis tration which will be necessary are devised in the spirit of and in accordance with the views expressed by M. Drouyn de Lhuys in the despatch to which I have referred, I do not think that exception ought to be taken to them either by those foreigners who have for their own purposes thought fit to buy property or to reside within the limits of the French concession, or by their national authorities.

The 16th article, however, is objectionable. It assumes to limit the action of foreign authorities over their own subjects on what is, by the clear statement of the French minister himself, Chinese soil. If, as cannot be doubted, the proper authorities of all the treaty powers have full power according to their own laws to summon, arrest, or otherwise put in force their consular or judicial sentences against their own subjects anywhere in China without asking for or requiring the permission of the Chinese authorities, it certainly does not lie within the province of any foreign authority to limit the exercise of this power. The assumption of such a right by a foreign power involves an idea which M. Drouyn de Lhuys distinctly repudiates of territorial sovereignty. It says in fact, "no other power shall exercise authority over any one on this particular bit of soil, and if it seeks to do so it must first get the permission of the French authority."

The French Emperor could say no more with reference to France, but as the French concession is no more France than the English concession is England, such a power ought not to be assumed. It trenches on the rights secured to other nations by treaty. It limits the privileges conferred by treaties and excepts a certain portion of Chinese soil quoad French subjects resident upon or resorting to it, from the exclusive jurisdiction which in China the authorities of every treaty power have over their own subjects. This I submit it is not competent for a foreign power to do. But while I object to the insertion of such an article in any edict, code or regulation by which one power seeks to provide for the government of its own subjects in China, as for the maintenance of good order within the limits set apart by the Chinese government for the residence of such subjects, I recognize fully the value of a mutual understanding between the executive officers of the different treaty powers that they should agree to act in accordance with the spirit of this article. But there is a great difference between a mutual agreement, come to in the practical interests of good order and to prevent collision between subordinate authorities, and the enunciation of a law by one power affecting the rights and privileges of other powers; and I would therefore suggest that the French government should be asked to alter this article to something like a direction to the French consul general "to arrange with the authorities of the treaty powers for the execution of all warrants of arrest for the seizure of goods or the enforcement of judgments and sentences against their respective subjects resident within the limits of the French concession, such arrangements to be reciprocal and in the sole interests of good order, and for the purpose of avoiding all possibility of collision between the subordinate officers of the different authorities." Each warrant might be simply countersealed with the seal of the French or English cousulate, as the case might be; but the actual execution of the warrant should be left to the officers of the authority issuing it. With this exception I see no objection to the réglemens. They seem to me to be formed in a spirit of fairness to foreign subjects, who it must be borne in mind have voluntarily located themselves within the French concession, or, to use another form of expression, on that portion of the soil of China upon which the French government have implicitly undertaken (in consideration of the privileges conferred by treaties) to preserve order and good government. This order and good government is to be maintained according to French ideas of what they both consist in, and no foreigner has any right, in my humble judgment, to question their propriety. If the French infringe on the rights of the sovereign of China, it is for him to remonstrate, and, except as such infringement may affect ourselves or our rights, not for us. Moreover neither the French nor the English nor the American governments, (?) looking at the practical interpretation which necessity, expediency and events have obliged each of them to give to the treaties with China, are in a position to take up the quarrel, if indeed any exists or is likely to exist on the part of the Emperor of China; for each one of them has more or less and from pure necessity infringed his strict rights and assumed powers never directly conferred or naturally arising out of treaty stipulations. In this respect the mote in the eye of our French friends is not so very much larger than the beam in our own eye.

NAGASAKI, August 14, 1866.

E. HORNBY.

Lord Stanley to Sir F. Bruce.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 24, 1867. SIR: I abstained in my despatch, No. 99, of the 2d instant, from making any observations on the communication from Mr. Adams, to which that despatch referred, in the expectation that I might receive from you some further explanation as given to you by Mr. Seward of the views of the American government on the subject.

Not having heard from you, I must conclude that Mr. Seward has not made you acquainted with the nature o his reply, sent through Mr. Adams, to your

communication to him of my despatch, No. 54, of the 9th of March. I have nothing, therefore, beyond the brief statement made to me by Mr. Adams to guide me in dealing with Mr. Seward's reply. In that reply Mr. Seward says clearly enough that the government of the United States cannot consent to a special and peculiar limitation of arbitration in regard to the Alabama claims, such as her Majesty's government suggests; but from his next observation it might be inferred that the offer, as regards arbitration, made by her Majesty's government in my despatch of the 9th of March, was understood to have applied only to claims arising out of the proceedings of the Alabama, to the exclusion. of those arising out of the like proceedings of the Florida, Shenandoah, and Georgia.

It is important to clear up this point, and you will therefore state to Mr. Seward that the offer to go to arbitration was not restricted to the claims arising out of the proceedings of the Alabama, but applied equally to those arising out of the like proceedings of the other vessels that I have named. In the words of my despatch of the 9th of March, the matter at issue between the two governments 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."

It is most desirable that there should be no misunderstanding on this point, but inasmuch as Mr. Seward says that the government of the United States cannot give any preference to the Alabama claims over others in regard to the form of arbitrament suggested, you may inform 'Mr. Seward that there was no intention on the part of her Majesty's government to give any such preference to the Alabama claims over claims in the like category.

That some such misapprehension exists on the part of Mr. Seward may, indeed, be further deduced from his statement, that while the government of the United States agree that all mutual claims which arose during the civil war between citizens and subjects of the two countries ought to be amicably and speedily adjusted, they must insist that they be adjusted by one and the same tribunal, with like and the same forms, and on principles common to all.

Now, the question of disposing of general claims in contradistinction to the specific claims arising out of the proceedings of the Alabama, and vessels of that class, has not hitherto been matter of controversy between the two governments, but has been mooted in its present shape by her Majesty's government alone; and there is no such similarity between the two classes of claims as would admit of their being dealt with by the same process.

It may be, however, and her Majesty's government would gladly learn that it was the case, that the government of the United States agree to waive the question of the alleged premature recognition of belligerent rights, and are satisfied to go to arbitration on the first or Alabama class of claims, provided that all claims whatever, on either side, arising out of the events of the war, are equally submitted to arbitration, so "that they may be adjusted by one and the same form of tribunal, with like and the same forms, and on principles common to all."

This, however, from the nature of things, is impracticable. The one class on the specific claims, such as those arising out of the proceedings of the Alabama and such vessels, depends for their settlement on the solution of what may be called an abstract question, namely, "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 those who acted under 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;" the other, or general class of claims, admits of no such narrow restriction. The number of claims in this class on either side may be great, the circumstances of each more or less different, and the points involved in them complicated in their nature and bearing; and on these grounds alone it is obvious that they cannot, like those of the Alabama class, be comprised within a single proposition applicable in principle to all, and bringing all within the compass of a single division of an arbiter.

The reply which Mr. Seward will return to your communication of this despatch will, it may be hoped, clear up the obscurity which rests upon the answer received through Mr. Adams to my despatch of the 9th of March.

Her Majesty's government, you will say, abide by their proposals as set forth in that despatch. Within the limits set forth in that despatch they are prepared to go to arbitration in regard to the Alabama and such like claims, on the condition that, simultaneously with the reference of those claims to arbitration, an agreement is entered into between the two governments for the adjudication of general claims by a mixed commission.

I am, &c.,

Hon. Sir FREDERICK W. A. BRUCE, G. C. B., &c., &c., &c.

STANLEY.

Sir F. Bruce to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1867.

MY DEAR MR. SEWARD: I have just heard by telegraph from Lord Stanley that the capital sentences on Burke and McCafferty have been commuted to imprisonment for life.

Yours faithfully,

FREDERICK WRIGHT BRUCE.

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c.

Sir F. Bruce to Lord Stanley.

[Telegram per cable.]

Seward, in name of President, earnestly recommends no execution in Fenian

cases.

Mr. F. W. Seward to Sir F. Bruce.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

BRUCE.

Washington, June 8, 1867.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the recept of your communication of the 21st ultimo, submitting for the information of this department copies of the papers therein referred to relating to the new regulations for the French settlement at Shanghai, and to the modifications which her Majesty's government are desirous should be made in them.

Your excellency's communication also conveys the information that the new regulations for the British and American settlements at Shanghai are satisfactory to her Majesty's government.

I have the honor to state in reply that the general regulations are receiving

the favorable attention of this government, which is now awaiting the views of Mr. Burlingame touching the French code.

I have the honor to be with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. Sir FREDERICK WRIGHT BRUCE, &c., &c, &c.

F. W. SEWARD,

Acting Secretary.

Sir F. Bruce to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, July 3, 1867.

SIR: On the 16th of July of last year you were good enough to inform me that a proposal which I had made on the part of her Majesty's government with regard to the adoption of a code of maritime signals would receive the attention of the government of the United States. Being, however, still uninformed of the decision made in the matter by the proper authorities, I beg to recall your attention to the question, and in accordance with instructions received from her Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, I have the honor to forward three plates representing various signal flags.

With regard to plate No. 1, her Majesty's government are desirous of ascertaining whether the flags therein represented are those officially authorized by the United States government as the signal flags to be used on board American ships of war; for if not, the plate will be expunged from the English signalbook, as no longer necessary.

Plates Nos. 2 and 3 represent the signal flags authorized by the British and French governments respectively to be used by their ships of war for signalling by the commercial code.

This code, a copy of which I had the honor to forward to you in my note of the 13th of July last, has now been adopted by the principal maritime states of Europe, and several of these states have transmitted to her Majesty's government plates of the signal flags ordered to be used on board their ships of war for communicating by it, and her Majesty's government deem it important with the view of affording to all nations the means of communicating at sea by the code, both between their ships of war and merchant vessels, that the recognized flags which each nation has adopted for the purpose should be inserted in all signal books.

In requesting you to have the kindness to supply me with the information desired by her Majesty's government, as soon as you conveniently can do so, I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

FREDERICK WRIGHT BRUCE.

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, S., &c., &c.

Mr. Seward to Sir F. Bruce.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, July 8, 1867.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 3d instant, recalling the attention of this department to the questions contained in your note of the 13th of July, 1866, relative to the adoption by this government of a code of maritime signals now in use by her Majesty's government, and to inform you, in reply, that I have placed your communication and