the particular point domicile, and Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that in spite of traveling agencies limited to three or four months Mr. Shaver was domiciled at Belleville. the question, however, is one of natural allegiance and not of domicile, and when the U. S. authorities forebore to press the oath of allegiance which they had at first tendered to Mr. Shaver it was, Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt, because they were satisfied of his British origin ad allegiance.

Next, as to the charge against Mr. Shaver of using seditious language while he was in the United States. Her Majesty's Government observe that the only witness mentioned in connection with this charge is Sears P. Thompson. Mr. Shaver states that this Thompson was in his employment and that [he] fraudently withheld from him money receiv ed on his account. He declares moreover that his conversation with Thompson never proceeded beyond the private expression of opinions on passing events and were not calculated to excite any feelings, and indeed it may be gathered from the manner in which thompson's sstatement is mentioned in your note that this assertion is not likely to be disputed. Mr. Shaver moreover explicitly denies that he ever in any public manner gave expression to sentiments hostile to the Government of the United States. It seems therefore to Her Majesty's Government that the character of Thompson and his particular relations with Shaver go far to discredit his evidence such as it is; and Her Majesty's Government observe further that even if Thimpson's evidence were not discredited the conduct of Mr. Shavver could hardly be regarded as an offense except under a rigid depsotism; that it could be only under such a form of government that a free comment upon passing events to an acquaintance could be considered as a crime justifying imprisonment.

Other charges against Mr. Shaver connected with the carriage of correspondence and similar matters are prote with the wourds, "It is in proof," but no witness who has testified to them is named. mr. Shaver distinctly and categorically denies that he was ever either directly or indirectly engaged in the carriage of any correspondence to persons who were in arms or in revolt against the United States. With regard to the assertion concerning the trunks in his possession which are stated to have come northward light and to have hone southward heavy Mr. Shaver's answer is that these trunks contained the bills, papers and tickets which in the course of his business as a ticket agent he sold; that the trunks came up light because the greater portion of the passenger traffic was from South to North and the tickets were then in the hands of the passengers; that they returned heavy because the tickets had then been collected from the holders and were on their way back to the companies in the South for whose account they had been sold. He states moreover that on every occasion of their going South these trunks were searched.

It is further affirmed in your note that Mr. Shaver stated on the way to Fort Lafayette after his after his arrest that he had parcels in some express office which he expected to receive to carry South. The latter part of this statement Mr. Shaver denies having made. He admits the former part but adds that the U. S. authorities obtained the parcels and examined them and found them to contain cigars.

The assertion that Mr. Shaver stated his intention to go South contrary to the proclamation of the President and also to carry correspondence to the Southern army Mr. Shaver meets with a positive denial, and as the names of the withnesses on whose evidence this charge is made are not given it is not easy to say what other answer, supposing the charge to be untrue, Mr. Shaver could give to it.