Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
No. 1.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE UNITED STATES
RESPECTING THE IMPRISONMENT OF MESSRS. WARREN AND COSTELLO.
Lord Stanley to Mr. Thornton
Foreign Office,
June 16, 1868.
Sir: The United States chargé d’affaires
has inquired of me, by direction of Mr. Seward, whether her
Majesty’s government were prepared at once to enter into a treaty
with the United States on the subject of naturalization.
I reminded Mr. Moran, in reply, of the statements which some weeks
ago I made in the House of Commons, and which were received, as I
believed, with general approval, that her Majesty’s government were
prepared to entertain in principle the question of a naturalization
treaty, and no longer held to the doctrine of indefeasible
allegiance.
But, I observed to Mr. Moran, that with every good disposition on
their part to contribute to setting at rest a question which, as it
now stood, was calculated to interfere with the maintenance of good
understanding between this country and the United States, her
Majesty’s government found it was inexpedient, not to say
impossible, to proceed hastily in a matter which involved points of
great legal difficulty, and might affect the interests not only of
persons now in being, but of persons still unborn. It was necessary,
therefore, to consider how British law bore on the question, and the
similarity between the laws of the two countries need scarcely be
insisted upon in support of the statement that there are many legal
points to be considered and determined before either a treaty can be
concluded, or legislation attempted by this country.
Her Majesty’s government, I said, have lost no time in seeking to
elucidate the questions to be considered. A royal commission,
composed of very eminent persons, had been appointed, and were now
engaged in investigating those questions; it was impossible to say
how long the inquiry would take, but even apart from the question of
the inexpediency of anticipating the report of the commissioners, I
thought it right to remark that, in the actual state of public
affairs in Parliament, and considering the general anxiety felt to
restrict legislation to what was absolutely required with a view to
an early dissolution, it would be impracticable, even if the report
of the commission had been agreed upon and published, to introduce
into the House of Commons, with any chance of its immediately
becoming law, a bill for giving effect to the recommendations of
that report. It could not be expected to pass without much
discussion, and for this there was not now time.
[Page 349]
It seemed to me, therefore, inevitable that legislation on the
subject must be deferred till the meeting of the new Parliament,
and, as the treaty must be made dependent on such legislation, it
was useless to conclude it at once.
I am, &c.,
