States? Give me leave, Sir, to say, with all possible admiration of your very ingenious discussion of the general principles which are supposed to govern the right and practice of interference by the people of one country in the wars and quarrels of others, that this part of your argument is little applicable to our immediate case. If Great Britain, America, or any other country suffer their people to fit out expeditions to take part in distant quarrels, such conduct may, according to the circumstances of each case, be justly matter of complaint, and, perhaps, these transactions have generally been in late times too much overlooked or connived aț. But the case we are considering is of a wholly different description, and may be best determined by answering the following question, Supposing a man, standing on ground where you have no legal right to follow him, has a weapon long enough to reach you, and is striking you down and endangering your life, how long are you bound to wait for the assistance of the authority having the legal power to relieve you? Or, to bring the facts more immediately home to the case, If cannon are moving and setting up in a battery which can reach you, and are actually destroying life and property by their fire; if you have remonstrated for some time without effect, and see no prospect of relief, when begins your right to defend yourself, should you have no other means of doing so than by seizing your assailant on the verge of a neutral territory?

I am unwilling to recall to your recollection the particulars of this case, but I am obliged very shortly to do so to show what was at the time the extent of the existing justification, for upon this entirely depends the questions whether a gross insult has or has not been offered to the Government and people of the United States.

After some tumultuous proceedings in Upper Canada, which were of short duration and were suppressed by the militia of the country, the persons criminally concerned in them took refuge in the neighbouring State of New York, and, with a very large addition to their numbers, openly collected, invaded the Canadian territory, taking possession of Navy Island.

This invasion took place the 16th of December, 1837, a gradual accession of numbers and of military ammunition continued openly, and though under the sanction of no public authority, at least with no public hindrance, until the 29th of the same month, when several hundred men were collected, and twelve pieces of ordnance, which could only have been procured from some public store or arsenal, were actually mounted on Navy Island, and were used to fire within easy range upon the unoffending inhabitants of the opposite shore. Remonstrances wholly ineffectual were made; so ineffectual, indeed, that a militia regiment, stationed on the neighbouring American island, looked on without any attempt at interference, while shots were fired from the American island itself. This important fact stands on the best American authority, being stated in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, of the 6th February, 1838, of Mr. Benton, attorney of the United States, the gentleman sent by your Government to inquire into the facts of the case, who adds, very properly, that he makes the statement "with deep regret and mortification.

This force, formed of all the reckless and mischievous people of the border, formidable from their numbers and from their armament, had in their pay and as part of their establishment this steam-boat "Caroline," the important means and instrument by which numbers and arms were hourly increasing. I might safely put it to any candid man, acquainted with the existing state of things, to say whether the military commander in Canada had the remotest reason, on the 29th day of December, to expect to be relieved from this state of suffering by the protective intervention of any American authority. How long could a Government, having the paramount duty of protecting its own people, be reasonably expected to wait for what they had then no reason to expect? What would have been the conduct of American officers? What has been their conduct under circumstances much less aggravated? I would appeal to you, Sir, to say whether the facts which you say would alone justify the act, viz.: "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation," were not applicable to this case in as high a degree as they ever were to any case of a similar description in the history of nations.

Nearly five years are now past since this occurrence, there has been time for the public to deliberate upon it calmly, and I believe I may take it to be the opinion of candid and honourable men, that the British officers who executed this transaction, and their Government who approved it, intended no slight or disrespect to the sovereign authority of the United States. That they intended no such disrespect I can most solemnly affirm, and I trust it will be admitted that no inference to the contrary can fairly be drawn, even by the most susceptible on points of national honour.

Notwithstanding my wish that the explanations I had to make might not revive, in any degree, any feelings of irritation, I do not see how I could treat this subject without this short recital of facts; because the proof that no disrespect was intended is mainly to be looked for in the extent of the justification.

There remains only a point or two which I should wish to notice, to remove, in some degree, the impression which your rather highly coloured description of this transaction is calculated to make. The mode of telling a story often tends to distort facts, and in this case, more than any other, it is important to arrive at plain unvarnished truth.

It appears from every account, that the expedition was sent to capture the "Caroline," when she was expected to be found on the British ground of Navy Island, and that it was only owing to the orders of the rebel leader being disobeyed that she was not so found. When the British officer came round the point of the island in the night, he first discovered that the vessel was moored to the other shore. He was not by this deterred from making the capture, and his conduct was approved. But you will perceive that there was here most decidedly the case of justification mentioned in your note, that there should be "no moment left for deliberation." I mention this circumstance to show also that the expedition was not planned with a premeditated purpose of attacking the enemy within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that the necessity of so doing arose from altered circumstances at the moment of execution.

have only further to notice the highly coloured picture drawn in your note, of the facts attending the execution of this service. Some importance is attached to the attack having been made in the night, and the vessel having been set on fire and floated down the falls of the river, and it is insinuated, rather than asserted, that there was carelessness as to the lives of the persons on board. The account given by the distinguished officer who commanded the expedition distinctly refutes, or satisfactorily explains, these assertions. The time of night was purposely selected as most likely to ensure the execution with the least loss of life, and it is expressly stated, that the strength of the current not permitting the vessel to be carried off, and it being necessary to destroy her by fire, she was drawn into the stream for the express purpose of preventing injury to persons or property of the inhabitants at Schlosser.

I would willingly have abstained from a return to the facts of this transaction, my duty being to offer those explanations and assurances which may lead to satisfy the public mind, and to the cessation of all angry feeling, but it appeared to me that some explanation of parts of the case, apparently misunderstood, might be of service for this purpose.

Although it is believed that a candid and impartial consideration of the whole history of this unfortunate event will lead to the conclusion, that there were grounds of justification as strong as were ever presented in such cases, and, above all, that no slight of the authority of the United States was ever intended, yet it must be admitted, that there was, in the hurried execution of this necessary service, a violation of territory; and this I am instructed to assure you that Her Majesty's Government consider as a most serious fact, and that far from thinking that an event of this kind should be lightly risked, they would unfeignedly deprecate its recurrence. Looking back to what passed at this distance of time, what is perhaps most to be regretted, is that some explanation and apology for this occurrence was not immediately made; this, with a frank explanation of the necessity of the case, might and probably would have

prevented much of the exasperation and of the subsequent complaints and recriminations, to which it gave rise.

There are possible cases in the relations of nations, as of individuals, where necessity, which controls all other laws, may be pleaded, but it is neither easy nor safe to attempt to define the rights or limits properly assignable to such a plea. This must always be a subject of much delicacy, and should be considered by friendly nations with great candour and forbearance. The intentions of the parties must mainly be looked to, and can it for a moment be supposed that Great Britain would intentionally and wantonly provoke a great and powerful neighbour?

Her Majesty's Government earnestly desire that a reciprocal respect for the independent jurisdiction and authority of neighbouring States may be considered among the first duties of all Governments, and I have to repeat the assurance of regret they feel that the event of which I am treating should have disturbed the harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain with the American people and Government.

Connected with these transactions there have also been circumstances of which, I believe, it is generally admitted that Great Britain has also had just ground to complain. Individuals have been made personally liable for acts done under the avowed authority of their Government, and there are now many brave men exposed to personal consequences for no other cause than having served their country. That this is contrary to every principle of international law it is useless for me to insist. Indeed it has been admitted by every authority of your Government, but owing to a conflict of laws, difficulties have intervened, much to the regret of those authorities, in giving practical effect to these principles, and for these difficulties some remedy has been by all desired. It is no business of mine to enter upon the consideration of them, nor have I sufficient information for the purpose, but I trust you will excuse my addressing to you the inquiry, whether the Government of the United States is now in a condition to secure, in effect and in practice, the principle which has never been denied in argument, that individuals acting under legitimate authority are not personally responsible for executing the orders of their Government. That the power, when it exists, will be used on every fit occasion I am well assured, and I am bound to admit that, looking through the voluminous correspondence concerning these transactions, there appears no indisposition with any of the authorities of the Federal Government, under its several administrations, to do justice in this respect in as far as their means and powers would allow.

I trust, Sir, I may now be permitted to hope that all feelings of resentment and ill-will, resulting from these truly unfortunate events, may be buried in oblivion, and that they may be succeeded by those of harmony and friendship, which it is certainly the interest and I also believe the inclination of all to promote.

YOUR Lordship's note of the 28th of July in answer to mine of the 27th of July, respecting the case of the "Caroline" has been received and laid before the President.

The President sees with pleasure that your Lordship fully admits those great principles of public law applicable to cases of this kind, which this Government has expressed; and that on your part, as on ours, respect for the inviolable character of the territory of independent States is deemed the most essential foundation of civilization. And, while it is admitted on both sides that there are exceptions to this rule, he is gratified

to find that your Lordship admits that such exceptions must come within the limitations stated, and the terms used in a former communication from this department to the British Plenipotentiary here. Undoubtedly it is just, that while it is admitted that exceptions growing out of the great law of self-defence do exist, those exceptions should be confined to cases in which "the necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation."

Understanding these principles alike, the difference between the two Governments is only whether the facts in the case of the "Caroline," make out a case of such necessity for the purposes of self-defence. Seeing that the transaction is not recent, having happened in the time of one of his predecessors; seeing that your Lordship, in the name of your Government, solemnly declares that no slight or disrespect was intended to the sovereign authority of the United States; seeing that it is ackowledged that, whether justifiable or not, there was yet a violation of the territory of the United States, and that you are instructed to say that your Government consider that as a most serious occurrence; seeing, finally, that it is now admitted that an explanation and apology for this violation was due at the time; the President is content to receive these acknowledgments and assurances in the conciliatory spirit which marks your Lordship's letter, and will make this subject, as a complaint of violation of territory, the topic of no further discussion between the two Governments.

As to that part of your Lordship's note which relates to other occurrences springing out of the case of the "Caroline," with which occurrences the name of Alexander Mc Leod has become connected, I have to say that the Government of the United States entirely adheres to the sentiments and opinions expressed in the communication from this department to Mr. Fox.

This Government has admitted, that for an act committed by the command of his Sovereign, jure belli, an individual cannot be responsible in the ordinary Courts of another State. It would regard it as a high indignity if a citizen of its own, acting under its authority, and by its special command in such cases, were held to answer in a municipal tribunal, and to undergo punishment, as if the behest of his Government were no defence or protection to him.

But your Lordship is aware that in regular constitutional Governments, persons arrested on charges of high crimes can only be discharged by some judicial proceeding. It is so in England; it is so in the colonies and provinces of England. The forms of judicial proceeding differ in different countries, being more rapid in some and more dilatory in others; and it may be added, generally more dilatory, or at least more cautious in cases affecting life, in Governments of a strictly limited, than in those of a more unlimited character. It was a subject of regret that the release of Mc Leod was so long delayed. A State Court, and that not of the highest jurisdiction, decided that on summary application embarrassed, as it would appear, by technical difficulties, he could not be released by that Court. His discharge shortly afterwards by a jury, to whom he preferred to submit his case, rendered unnecessary the further prosecution of the legal question. It is for the Congress of the United States, whose attention has been called to the subject, to say what further provisions ought to be made to expedite proceedings in such cases; and in answer to your Lordship's questions, towards the close of your note, I have to say that the Government of the United States holds itself, not only fully disposed, but fully competent, to carry into practice every principle which it avows or acknowledges, and to fulfil every duty and obligation which it owes to foreign Governments, their citizens or subjects.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) DANIEL WEBSTER.