' ' - '., '' ' BY MYID OVER. THE MASON AND SEIDELL CASE. X.etlers of live English Minister and Secretary Seward. Below will be found the correspondence be tween the British Minister and Secretary Sew- | ard from which it may bo inferred that the ! difficulty between this country and England are amicably settled:— EARL RUSSELL TO LORD LYONS. FOREIGN OFFICE, NOV. 30,1861. The Lord Lyons, K. C. 8., Sfc., Sfc., Sfc. Afy Lord —lntelligence of a very gravetsa* ture has reached her Majesty's Government: This intelligence was conveyed officially to the knowledge of the Admiralty by Comman der Williams, agent for mails on board the Contract steamer Trent. It appears from the letter of Commander Williams, dated ♦'Royal Mail Contract Backet Trent, at Sei, November 9," that the Trent left Havana oo the 7th inst, with her Majes ty's mails for England, having ca board nu merous passeDgere. Commander Williams states that shortly after noon on the Bth a btoiiuer having the appearance of a mm of wir, but not (bowing colors, was observed ahead. On Keating iter at 1. 15 P. M. she fired a round shoe froui hor pivot gnu across the faovfs of tho Treat, and showed American colors. While the Trent was approaching her slowly the American vessel discharged a shell across the bows of the Trent, exploding •half a cable's length ahead. The Trent then stopped, and an effieer with a large armed guard of marines boarded her. 'ibe effi'er demanded a ht of tho passengers; and, com pliance with this demo.od being refu-ec!, the officer sail he hid orders to arr-s: Messrs. Mi* ecu, Slide!l, Maefarland and Eustia, and that he had sure ioforaiatiou of their beiog pas sengers in the Treat. While soai parley was going on upon this matter Mr. Siideli stepped forwird and told tba American ofH:er that the four persons be had named wete then standing before him. The ComrnaaJbr of the Trent aud Commander Williams protested against the act of taking by force out of tha Trent these four passengers, then under the protec tion of tho iji jtiah flag. But the San Jacin to was a'f that tme only- two feu ad i J yaro.s from the Trent, her ship's company at qnar* ters, her ports open, and torepions out. Re sistance was therefore out of tho question, aad the four gentlemen before Darned were forci* bly taken out of tuc ship. A further demand was tuMe tbf.t the Commander rf the Trent should proceed on board tbo Ban Jaciuto, but he said he would uot go uoiess forcibly coin palled likewise, and this demand was cot in n-ted upon. It tha? appears that certain individuals have teen forcibly takru from on beard a British V- sso 11 tba ship of a neutral I'o.wer, while such vessel was pursuing a lawful an l inno cent voyage—aa set of violence which wss au affr nt to ibe British flag and a violation of international law. Iter M-j sty's Government, bearing in mind the friendly relators which have long subsist ed between Great Britain and the United States, are willing to believe tint the United Stites Laval officer who committed the aggres° siou was not acting in compliance with an au thority from Lis Government, or that if ha conceived himself to be so authorized, he great ly misunderstood the instructions which he had received. For the Government of the United Stalcg uust, be fully aware that tho British Government could not allow such an affroot to the national honor to pass without full reparation, and Her Majesty's Govern ment are unwilling to believe that it could be the deliberate iDtedtion of the Government of the United States unnecessarily to force into discu-sion, between the two Governments, • •question of so grave a character, and with re gard to which the whole British nation would be sure to eutertain such unanimity of feel ing. Her Maj'ety's Government, therefore, trust that when this matter shall have been brought under tb consideration of the Government of toe Uuiicd Statas that Government will, of its own accord, offer to the British Government such redress as alone oould satisfy tho British aatiou, namely, tho liberation of the four gen tlemen and their delivery to your Lordship, tn order that they may agaiu be placed under British protection, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed. Should these terms not be offered by Mr. Seward yoa will propose them to htm. You arc at liberty to read this dispatch to the Secretary of State, ami, if bo shall desire .it, you will give Liur a copy of it. iam, &c., IlcssiLL. .MIL SEWARD TO LORD LYONS. DEJMBTMJSHT o# STATS, 3 WASHINGTON, Dec. 25,1861. j The rtg&f honorable Lord Lyons, Ac., Src^Ac. MY Lor J— Earl Russell's despatch of No vember the 30th, a copy of which you have left with me at my request, ia of the following effect, namely: That a letter of Commander Williams, da-, ted Royal Mail Contract Packet boat Trent, at w. November 9th, states tint that vessel left Havana on the 7th of November, with Her Majesty's mails fur England, having on board auuierows passengers. Shortly after noon, oo the 3th of November, the United States war steamer San Jacinto, Captain Wilkes, not sbowiog oolors, was observed j abchd. That Steamer, on being neared by the Trent, at one o'clock fifteen minutes in the afternoon, fired a round a pivot gun tcross her bows, tad showed American colors. A Weekly Papei Devoted to Literature, Politics, the Arts, Sciences, Agriculture, &c., &c*—'Terms: Que, Dollar and Fifty Cento in Advance. While the Trent was approaching slowly to- , wards the San Jacinto she discharged a shell t across the" Trent's bows, which exploded at' half a cable's length before her. The Trent then stopped, and an officer with a large armed : guard of ruariucs boarded her. The officer; said he had orders to arrest Messrs. Mason, ! Slidell, Miofarland and Eustia, and had sure information that they were passengers in the Trent. While seine parley was going on up on this matter, Mr. Slidell stepped forward : said to the American effioer that the four per- ; sens he bad named were standing before bttn. ! The Commander of the Trent uuJ Uomtumd- ; er Williams protested against the act of t*k- ! rug those four passengers, out of r&e Treat, they theo being uuder tiie protection of the ; BritLh fhg. But the San Jacinto was at this time ouly two hnndred yards distant, her ship's company ut quarters, her ports opra and tooipiocs out, and so resistance was out oi tire question. The four persons before named were then forcibly taken out of the ship. A further demand was muio that tbo Oounuand er of the Trent ahoiild proceed on board the San Jacinto, lust he said he would not go un less forcibly compelled likewise, and this Ue-. 1 maud was uot insisted upon. Upon this statement Burl Russel romtibs that it thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken froui on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral power, VYiiite that vessel was pursuing a lawful and in nocent voyage, an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law. Earl Kussel next says that Her M ijesty'e Government, bearing in imod the friendly re lations ahieh have esiated between Great Bru { lain aD(I the United States, are filling to be lievo that ths bavat i laser who commitied this a-grcssiou was not acting in compliance with any authority from b"s Government, or that, if ho onneeived Littotlf to be so authorized, ho greatly,misunderstood tho instructions which he had received. Earl Rusiell argues that the United States must be fully aware that tho Urifirh Govern-J uient coui'l not allow such an affront to thel national honor to pass without full reparatiojp and they are willing to believe that it not bo the deliberate iuoction of the Govern ment of the United States unnecessarily to lojeo into discussion between tho two Govern ments a question of so grave a cbiraeter, end with regard to which the whole British natiou would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. Earl Russell, resting upon tho statement and tho argument which i have thns recited, closes with saying that Her Mijesty's Govern ment trusts that when this matter shall have beea brought under the consideration cf the United States it wilt, of its owu accord, offer to tho British Government such redress as al .ue could satisfy tho British nation, namely, tho liberation of tho four piisoners taken from tho Trent, ami their delivery to your Lordship, in order that they may agaiu ho placed under British protection, and a suitable policy for the aggression which has been committed. Eitl Russell il.uliy instructs you lo {repose (hso terms to me, if 1 should nut fiitt off.r tficu: on the part of the Government. This despatch has been tutmit'ed to the President The British Government has rightly conjec tured, what it is uow my duty to state, that Capt. Willies, in conceiving and executing tho proceeding in question, acted upon his owo suggestions of duty, without ai.y direction or instruction, or even foreknowledge of it on the part i f ibis Government. No directions had oeeu given to him or UDJ other naval officer, to arrest tho four persons named, or any of them, on theT'reut, cr on any other British vessel, or I oa any other neutral vessel, at tho phce where is occurred or elsewhere. Tho British Govern ment will justly iufcr from those iacts that the United btales not mly bad no purpose, but even no thought of forcing into di cussion the question which has srisrn, or any which could affect in any way the sensibilities cf the British nation. It is true that a round shot was fired by the San Jacinto from her pivot guu when the Trent was cut mtly approaching. But, as the facts Lave been reported to this Government, the shot was nevertheless intentionally firod in a direction eo obviously divergent from the oourse of the Trent as to be quite as harmless a a blank shot, while it should bo regarded as a signal. So ulso we learn that the Trent was not sp preaching tho San Jaciuto slowly wbeu the shell was fired acroes her bows, hut, on the contrary, tho Trent wi9, or secoici o be, mov ing under a full head of steam, as if with a purpose to pass the San Jacinto. Wc are informed also that the boarding offi cer (Lieutenmt Fairfax) did not bond the Trent with a large armed guard but he left his marines in his boat wheu ho entered the Trent, tie stated his instructions from Capt. VVtikes to search for the four persons named, ia a res pectful and courteous though decided manner, and he asked the Captain of tho Trent to show bis passenger list, which was refused. The Lieutenant, as we are informed, did not em ploy absolute force in transferring the passen gers, but he used just so much us was neces sary to satisfy the parties concerned that refu sal or resistance would be unavailing. Ua, also, we are informed that the Obtain of tba Trent was not at any time or in any way required to go on board the San Jacinto. These modifications of tho oase ne presented by Commander Williams are based upon our official reports. 1 have now to remind your Lordship of some fasts which doubtlessly were omitted by Eari Russell, with the very proper and becoming motive of allowing them to he brought into the ease, on tho part of the United States, in BEDFORD, PA. FRIDAY. JAN. 10.18G2. the way most satisfactory to this Government. These lacts are that at the time the transac tion occurred an insurrection was existing in the United States which this Government was engaged in suppressing by the employment of laud and naval forces; that in regard to this domestic strife the United States considered Great Britain as a friendly Power, while she' had assumed for herself the attitude of a neu tral; end that Spain was considered in the same light, and had assumed the same attitude as Great Britain. It has been settled by correspondence that the Uuited States and Great Britain mutually recognized as applicable to this local strife these two articles of tho declaration by the Congress of Paris in 18T6, namely, thai the neutral or frieudly flag should cover enemy's goods net contraband of war, and thai neutral goods not contraband of war are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. These excep tions cf contraband from iwvor were a negative acceptance by the parties of the rule hitherto eveiwhere recognised as a part of the law ot nations, that whatever is contraband is liable to capture and ooiifisration in ail cases. James M. Mason and E. J. MeFar!ad*are citizens of the United States, aud residents of Virginia. John Siideli .od George Eus lis are citizens of the United States and residents of Louisiana. I: was well known at Havana when these parties embarked iu the Trent that Jaus;s M. Mason was proceeding to EogUnd in the affected character of a Minister Pleni potentiary to tha Court of Bt. James, under a pretendrd commission front Jcff-rson Davis, who had assumed to be Prtsideot of the insur rectionary party in the United States, and E. J. M.eiuiUud was going with htm in a liko un real character of Secretary of legation to the preteuded mission. John SltdciJ, in simitar I oirciumtaucea, was g.iiogjp Paris as a pretend,, i ed "minister to the Emperor of the French, and j George Eustis was the chosen Secretary ofLe ; gation for that simulated mission. The faot { that these parsons bad assumed such characters Lis beea riuco avowed by tho same Jefferson ffhvis in a pretonijscl message to an unlawful Hud insurrection iry OoDgress. It was we %iiuk, rifwtly presumed that these Ministers bore credentials and instructions, and such p j pers arfia the law known 3 despatches. We are ; iufprmcf bj our Copsuf at Pariethat these hes- | patches, having escaped the search of the Trent, were aols*fnJy £oag.ejeat of it adopt ed by the British Government, I think it must Have already passed away before the utodifiea t.jps of tout statement of it adopted by the British Government, I think it most have al ready passed away before the modification* of that statement which I have already submitted- I procoed to tbe fourth inquiry, uauHy-*- iiaving touud the suspected contraband of war ou boatd the Trent, had Capt. Wilkes a right to capture the same ? Bach a capture is the chief, if not tho only reoogaized object ot a visitation and search.— Tuc principle of tho law w that a belligerent exposed to danger amy prevent the contraband potions aud things Irosu apply jug them-elveu or being applied to the bo-tile usee or purpos es designed. 'Tba law is so vory liberal in this respect that wheu a ecntrahind is found ea board a neutral vessel, no; only is the con traband forfeited, but tbo vessel, which is the vehicle of its passage or transnartattoo, being tainted, also becomes contraband, aad is sub* jeo'ed to capture end confiscation. Only tu lit.ii question remain 4, namely : Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right of cap turing tbe contraband ia conformity witu toe law of uatious i Ifc U ji>*t Uero tbat die uibk'ultips of the case ! begin. \sThat is the dinner which the law of ; nations prescribes for disposing of the contra- i band wueu jou have found and seined it on 1 board of the neutral vessel ? The answer would j be easily tumid if the question were what you i shall do wilt the contraband vessel. You ! roust take or send her into a convenient port, and subject her to a judicial prosecution there j iu admirality, which will try and decide the j questions of neutrality, contra-; baud add capture. sgatu, you would j promptly &ad the same answer if too question j wore, What is the manner of proceeding pre seabed by the law of nations iu regard to the j ouutruband if it ha property or things of to a- j teii ■] or pecuniary value ? Bat the question here concerns the mods of j procedure iu regard, not to the vessel that was ! carrying the eoutrabauti, nor yet ooutrbaad things which worked lha forfeiture of the vsa scl, but to contraband persons. The books of law aia dumb, Yet the ques- j tron is as important as it is difficult. Fust, j the belligerent captor has u right to prevent J the contraband officer, soldier, sailor, minister, or courier from proceeding iu his unlawful vny- j ago and reaching the destined scene of his iu- j jurioua service. But, on tha other hand, tha ; person captured may be innocent—that he may j not be contraband. Lie, therefore, ha< a right , to a fair trial of the accusation against him.— The neutral State has taken hiui under its Hag, I is bound to protect him if ha is uot coutrabaud, and is therefore eutiiled fa be satisfied upon that important question. The faith of that State is pledged to his safety, if inttcaent, as its justioo is pledged to his surrender if he is realty contraband, ilofo are conflicting claims, involving personal iiborty, life, honor, and duty. Here aro conflicting natioual cUims involving welfare, safety, houor and empire.— They require a tribunal and a trial. Tuo cap tors and the captured are equals; the oeuttal and the belligerent State aro equals. While the law authorities were found silent it was suggested at an early day by this Gov ernment that you should take the captured persons into a convenient port and institute ju dioial proceedings there to try the controversy. But only courts of admirality havejurisdiotiou in maritime cases, and these courts have for mulas to try only claims to contraband per sons, The oourts oaa entertain no proceed ings and render no judgment iu favor of or against the alleged contraband men. It was replied all this is true; bnt yon can reaeb in those eourta a decision which will have the moral weight of a judicial one by a circuitous proceeding. Convey the suspected men, together with the suspected vessel,.into port, and try there the question whether the vessel is contraband. You CEn prove it to be so by proving the suspected men to be contra band, and the court must then determins the vessel to be contraband. If tbe men are not contraband the vessel will escape condemna tion. Still there is bo judgment for or agaioat the captured prisons. But it wis assumed that there would result from the determination of the court concerning the vessel a legal cer tainty concerning the character of the men. Tbe course of proceeding seemed open to many objections. It elevates tbe incidental inferior private interest into the proper place of tbo paramount public one, and possit ly it taay the fortuues, the safety, or the exis tence of a nation depend on the accidents of a merely personal and pecuniary litigation.— Moreover, when tho judgment of the prize court upon the lawfulness of the capture of the vessel is rendered, it realy concludes noth iug, and binds neither the belligerent State nor the neutral upon the great question of the disposition to be made of the captured con traband persons. Teat question is still to be really determined, if at all; by diplomatic ar rangement or by war. One may well express bis surprise when toid that tbe law of nations has furnished no more reasonable, praJtieabte, and perfect mode than this of determining questions of such grave import between sovereign powers. Tbe regret wo may feel on the occasion is nevertheless modified by the reflection that the difficulty is uot altogether anomalous. Similar and equal deficiencies ftre found in every sy stem of utu nicipal law, especially in flic system which ex ists in the greater portions of Great Britain and the United States. The title to personal property cu hardly ever bo received by a Uourt without resorting to the fiction that tbe claim mt bus lost and the possessor his found it, aod the title to real estate is disputed by real litigants under the names of imaginary persons. It must be confessed, however, that while all aggrieved uatious demand, and all impartial cues concede, the need oi some form of judicial process iu determining the charac ters of contraband persons, no other form than tho illogical and eircui'ous one thaa described exists, nor has aoy other yet been suggested Practically, therefore, the choice is between that judicial remedy or no judiuial remedy whatever. If there be no judicial rem-dy tbo result is that the question must he determined by the captor himself, ou tbe deck ot the prize vessel. Very grave otjrations uri9anly arise, and these nre so fr qu-nt and destructive that it may Well be deviated waether tuis form of rem- dy is not it groattr social evil than sit thai couid follow if tuc bel ligerent tight of search wero universally re* oouueed and abolished forever. Bui carry the case one step farther. What if tbe State that bus made the capture uureaaouably refuse to hear tbe ci taplaint of tbe neutral or to redress it? In that case, the very act of capture would be aa act of wtr—of wsr begun with out notice, aud possibly entirely without prov osauou. I tbtttk ull unprejudiced minds will agree that, imperfect as the existing judicial remedy rosy bo supposed to be, it would be, os a gene ral practice, better to follow it than to adopt the sommaiy cne of leaving tbe derision with the captor, and relying upon diplomatic debates to review wis decisioo. Practically, it is a question of choice between law, wt'h its impf r teetious and delays, and war, witu its evils and desolation?. Nor is it ever to be forgotton that neutrality, honestly ana justly preserved, is always tue htrbinger of pceee, and therefore is the common interest of nations, which is on ly saying tbat it is the interesa of humanity itself. At the same time it is not to bo denied tbat ! it may sometimes happen that the judioial reme dy will become impossible, as by the ship-wreck of the prizi vessel," or other circumstances which excuse the captor from sending or t tk tug her into port for confiscation. Jn such a case tbe right of the captor to the custody of the captured persons sod to dispose of thorn, if they aro really contraband, so as to defeat tbetr unlawful purposes, caonnt reaaocsbly be dented. What rule shall be applied in such a ease? Clearly, the captor ought to be required to show that the failure of the judicial remedy results from circumstances beyond his control, aud without his fault. Otherwise ho would be allcuci to derive advantage from a wrongful act of bis OV7D. ! Iu the present ease, Capt. Wilkes, after cap turing the contraband persons and uukiug pr ze lof tue Trent in what seems to us a peifcctly ! lawful manner, instead of sending her into j port, released her from the capture, and per ; mitted her to proceed with her whole cargo ou ' her voyage, lie thus effsetually prevented tbe judicial examination which otherwise might have occurred. If now, the capturo of thocontraband per sons aud the capture of the contraband vessel are to be regarded, not as two ttrparaio or dis liuot transaction* under the law of nations, but |as oue transaction, one capture only, then it I follows that the capture iu this case was left uufl uished or abandoned. Whether the Unt tcd States have a right to-retaia the chief pub lic benefits of it, namely the custody of the captured persons on proviug them to bo contra band, will depeud upon the preliminary ques tion whether the loavtugof the transaction un i fluished wis neecasury, or whether it was un necessary and therefore voluutary. If it was necessary, Groat Britain, as we suppose, must j waive the defect, and tbo const q-ieut failure of the judicial remedy. Ou the other hand, it is ; nut aecn how the Un.tcd States can insist up ? on her waiver of that judioial remedy, if the ! defect of tbe capture resulted from an act of I Capt. Wilkes, wbioh would be a fault on their I own side. V0L.35. NO. 2. Capt, Wilkes has presented to this Govern ment bis reasons for releasing tbe Trent. I forbore to seize her," he say*, *'in eoasf