Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-ninth Congress

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward

Washington, January 3, 1865.

Sir: Her Majesty’s government have taken into their most serious consideration the various occurrences which have taken place in connexion with the recent attack on St. Alban’s, Vermont, and I am now commanded to communicate to you the general tenor of the instructions addressed to the governor-general of Canada by her Majesty’s secretary of state for the colonial department, as laid down in a despatch forwarded to his excellency on the 3d ultimo, which I do myself the honor of enclosing.

With regard to the depositions taken in the case of the late attack and referred to the law officers of the Grown, Viscount Monck has been instructed, under date of the 9th and 16th ultimo, to be guided by the decision of the proper legal authorities in Canada whether the persons in custody ought or ought not to be delivered up under the treaty of extradition. If that decision shall have been that they ought, her Majesty’s government would entirely approve of Viscount Monck’s acting upon this decision; but if, on the contrary, the decision shall have been that they ought not, her Majesty’s government consider that the opinion of Viscount Monck’s legal advisers should be taken, whether, upon the evidence and other information in the possession of the Canadian government, these persons may not properly be put upon their trial on a charge of misprisi on and violation of the royal perogative by levying war from her Majesty’s dominions against a friendly power.

Unless the Canadian law officers should see reason to the contrary, her Majesty’s government direct that Viscount Monck should, in the case supposed, retain the prisoners in custody and bring them to trial for that offence.

Her Majesty’s government further consider that such a decision of the legal authorities of Canada would furnish a strong argument for the expediency of arming the Canadian government as promptly as possible with such additional legal powers as are referred to in the despatch of the 3d ultimo.

Throughout the whole of these unfortunate occurrences Viscount Monck’s conduct has been entirely approved of, and her Majesty’s government rely with confidence on his having used and continuing to use all the powers at his disposal to prevent the successful execution of whatever schemes may be planned against the neighboring friendly soil of the United States.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY.

Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Cardwell to Viscount Monck

Downing Street, December 3, 1864.

My Lord: The attention of her Majesty’s government has been directed to the violations of British neutrality, of which certain persons have been guilty who profess to hold commissions from, or to act in aid of, the so-called Confederate States, and who make the soil of Canada the scene of their hostile preparations against the United States.

These violations of neutrality are a great offence against the British Crown, and her Majesty’s government are of opinion that the government of the United States have a clear right to expect that the Canadian law shall be found in practice generally sufficient not merely for the punishment, but also for the suppression and prevention of these border raids.

The Secretary of State of the United States has reminded Earl Russell of the act which was passed by Congress in the year 1838 for the suppression and prevention of hostile attempts prepared in the territory of the United States and directed against the government of her Majesty in Canada. The circumstances of the two cases are not the same, and it does not appear to her Majesty’s government to follow that precisely the same enactment which the Congress passed in 1838 is necessarily suited to the present case. They have observed with pleasure the promptitude and vigor with which you have put in force the existing law, but would wish you to consult your advisers and obtain the opinion of your law officers whether that law places in your hands sufficient available powers for the effectual suppression and prevention of these raids, or whether it is necessary for you to apply to your legislature for increased powers. In this latter case, any power for which your lordship should apply might naturally be limited, as the powers of the act of Congress were limited to a definite term with a view to meeting the immediate exigency only.

I have, &.

E. CARDWELL.

His Excellency Viscount Monck, &c., &c., &c.