The Press. — London, England, 1856-06-28 00:00:00

JUNE 28, 1856. RECRUITING IN THE UNITED STATES. DESPATCH OF EARL CLARENDON UPON MR. CRAMPTON'S FURTHER papers relative to recruiting in the United States have been presented to Parliament this week. They include Mr. Marcy's despatch communicating the fact of the dismissal of the British Minister and the British Consuls, and the affidavits which accom panied the same ; a letter from Mr. Crampton to the Earl of Clarendon, dated London, June 19; a memorandum by Consul Barclay, containing a denial of Mr. Marcy's charges ipsissimis verbis ; corre spondence of Consul Mathew with Mr. Marcy and with the Earl of Clarendon ; and, finally, Earl Cla rendon's reply to Mr. Marcy. Mr. Crampton's letter is of great length. After quoting the principle of international law, which, ac cording to Mr. Marcy in his despatch, December 28, 1855, was violated by the British Minister, Mr. Crampton proceeds to quote the opinions of Judge Kane and Judge Ingersoll at the trials of Hertz and Wagner, when Judge Kane said— I do not think that the payment of the passage from this country of a man who desires to enlist in a foreign port comes within the act; and in the terms of the printed proclamation there is nothing conflicting with the laws of the United States ; and Judge Ingersoll— Any resident of the United States has a right to go to Halifax with the intent to enlist ; as directly at variance with Mr. Marcy's principle. It will be remembered that, in order to sustain the charge against her Majesty's agents of having vio lated the municipal law, Mr. Marcy resorted to a reiteration of his implicit belief in what he calls the " unimpeached and unimpeachable " testimony of Messrs. Strobel and Hertz, adding, however, that this evidence forms but a small part of that upon which he relies. and tbat there are numerous acts of Mr. Crampton's and of her Majesty's Consuls, "nn denied and undeniable," which confirm it. Upon this Mr. Crampton observes:— Mr. Marcy has not stated to what acts he alludes, but if they are acts by which I am supposed to have recruited soldiers for her Majesty's service within the United States, or " hired or retained," in the sense of the Act of Con gress of 1818, persons to go and be recruited elsewhere, or authorised other persons to do those acts, I do deny them. If they are acts by which persons were informed of where and on what terms they would be received into her Ma jesty's service in British territory, or by which aid and assistance was afforded to them to reach that country, I do not deny that acts of that sort were authorised by me ; but I maintain that such acts were neither illegal nor a violation of the sovereignty of the United States. As to invitations or inducements, I never offered them to any body, although it appears that I might legally have done so; for I cannot agree with Mr. Marcy that the offer of any inducement short of hiring or retaining, and that by &con tract which would, if not rendered illegal by the act of 1818, be binding, would constitute a violation of the law, and, onsequently, of the sovereign rights of the United States. I am far from seeking to deny to the Government of the United States the right of interpret ing the laws of the United States; but I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that the Executive alone has a right to interpret the law. Every act done or authorised by me is supported by decisions of the judiciary in which the Pre sident himself could not refuse to acquiesce in any case in which, either in his official or private capacity, he might be concerned. Mr. Crampton proceeds to examine the various affidavits with the view of showing that they are " disfigured with deliberate falsehoods," as well as blunders and mistakes of all sorts, and are influ enced by malicious motives:— With regard (he says) to those parts in which T am re• presented to have personally played a part, I can only say that a more imprudent tissue of falsehoods was never put together. I never saw or conversed with any of those men with the eicepiion of Sierawski; and, when I saw him, I did not even know his name. The statements of Kazinski Mr. Crampton declares, so far as he is concerned, to be equally destitute of foundation. Mr. Crampton contends that those only were responsible for the illegal acts proved to be committed who were convicted of them, viz., Hertz and Wagner, "both of whom acted without any authority from any British agents ; and, in the case of Hertz, against my express desire, as is proved by Hertz's own letter to her Majesty's Secretary of Legation at Washington, and by Mr. Bucknall's affidavit., which is appended to the documents laid before Parliament." Mr. Crampton calls attention to papers in relation to Nicaragua, recently laid before Congress, which show that at the very time when the United States Government were taking extreme measures against her Majesty's consuls and Mr. Crampton for an alleged violation of the law of nations and the sovereignty of the United States, for having given information and assistance to per sons desirous of leaving the United States to be enlisted in the British army, Mr. Marcy was contending with M. Molini, the Minister of Costa Rica THE PRESS. That the liberty to go where hopes of better fortune may entice them, belongs to freemen, and no free Govern- ment withholds it ; and, that the laws of the United States do not even confer authority to examine into the motives which may lead any one to exercise the right of expatria- tion. Mr. Crampton then refers to the accusation of Mr. Marcy, that he, Mr. Crampton, originated the en listment scheme : Mr. Marcy has alleged it against me as not one of the least causes of complaint that the idea of obtaining re cruits from the United States was by me first suggested, and urged upon her Majesty's Government, and that misinformed them as to the prospects and possibility of obtaining men in the United States. It will be unneces sary for me to dwell on this subject to your lordship, who is in possession of all my communications on this subject ; but 1 must observe that it is something more than a gra tuitous assumption on the part of Mr. Marcy to say that this appears from the correspondence laid before Perlis ment. The same despatch reiterates the account of the interview which took place between Mr. Crampton and Mr. Marcy, the accuracy of which was denied by Mr. Marcy. Ina postscript Mr. Crampton appends certain declarations voluntarily made to him by Colonel Smolenski, and which flatly contradict as false and forged the main statements and certain docu ments h) which it is sought to implicate Mr. Cramp ton in the recruitment affair. The despatch of the Earl of Clarendon to Mr. Dallas, dated June 20, upon the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, states that her Majesty's Government, after a careful examination of the additional docu ment' sent by Mr. Marcy, has failed to find " any evidence worthy of belief to shake the confidence they have reposed in the assurances of Mr. Cramp ton and the consuls." Lord Clarendon then pro ceeds to say that, however her Majesty's Govern ment may regret the view retained by President Pierce, they cannot deny the right of the United States Government of forming their own judgment as to the bearing of the laws of the country, and hence they have not. felt, it their duty to advise her Majesty to command a suspension of diplomatic intercourse between the two countries. CENTRAL AMERICA. REPLY OF THE EARL OF CLARENDON TO MR. MARCY. LORD CLARENDON writes to Mr. Dallas, and quoting the Ist Article of the treaty of 1850, which is in these words : of Great Britain and the United States hereby declare that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal ; agreeing that neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colouise, or assume, or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America; nor will either make use of any protection which either affords or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have, to or with any State or people, for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifi cations, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonising Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America. or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same. Nor will Great Britain or the United States take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence that either may possess with any State or Government through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, fur the subjects or citizens of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal, which shall not be offered, on the same terms, to the subjects or citizens of the other,— maintains that her Majesty's Government interpreted this article as a prohibition against either Govern ment doing what the words of the article explicitly declared that neither should thereafter do ; " but that both Governments retained the righta which they bad previously enjoyed, where those rights were not expressly limited or abandoned." With respect to the Mosquito protectorate, the possession of Ruatan, and the offer of arbitration made to Mr. Buchanan, Lord Clarendon says : The treaty does not require the existing protection to cease, but only forbids using such protection for certain specified purposes. I repeatedly informed Mr. Buchanan that it was the wish of her Majesty's Government to withdraw from the protectorate of Mosquito, provided they could do so with honour, securing adequate provision for the King and the Indians of that country ; that Ruatan was a possession of her Majesty's Crown ; and that, as her Majesty's Government could not consent to abandon the protecto rate of Mosquito, or to give up the Island of Ruatan, merely in pursuance of an interpretation given by the Government of the United States to a treaty, which inter pretation her Majesty's Government did not admit, the most usual, as well as the most friendly, course to pursue was to refer the meaning of the treaty to the decision of a third power. This offer was made by me to Mr. Buchanan by the direction of her Majesty's Government; it was several times renewed and discussed between ns. Mr. Campton ought undoubtedly, according to his instructions, to have communicated to Mr. Marcy, at the time when he received it, my despatch of the 10th of November, giving an account of my conversations with Yr. Buchanan; but 615 his not having done so was of little consequence, as Mr. Buchanan had often assured me that everything which had passed between us bad been duly reported to his Government. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand how it happened that the President should, as stated by Mr. Marcy, have been induced only by certain collateral incidents to infer that arbitration by a third power of the differences between the two Governments in relation to Central America had been proposed by her Majesty's Government. Lord Clarendon considers that the question of boundary is the only one so far as Belize is con cerned, and one easily settled. Ruatan and the Bay Islands he maintains have been held at different periods by Great Britain as well as by Spain, and, having been again occupied by British settlers, formal possession was taken of Ruatan in 1839 by Great Britain. In 1852 the island received a regular form of colonial government, but Great Britain "did not thereby acquire any territorial rights that she did not previously possess." " The Government of the United States," continues Lord Clarendon, " maintain that, even supposing the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was only prospective in its operation, these islands were no part of the British dominions earlier than 1852 ; " but, Lord Clarendon observes in conclusion : If the differences between the two Governments on this subject cannot be arranged by direct negotiation, there seems no reason why they might not form the matter of a reference to a third power. Her Majesty's Government have learned with satisfac tion that you are instructed to enter into communication with me in respect to Central America, in order to ascer tain, in the first place, whether existing differences cannot be promptly terminated by direct negotiation ; and, if they cannot be so settled, then to discuss the conditions of arbitration on those points of difference as to which this method of settlement may be requisite or appliable. This is the course which her Majesty's Government has throughout been willing to adopt; and I have accordingly the honour to inform you that I am prepared to enter into the proposed communication, and I trust that oar conferences will be conducted in that spirit of cordiality and frankness which, as Mr. Marcy justly observes, is dictated by the true interests of Great Britain and the United States. THE BALAKLAVA CHARGE. THE EARL OF CARDIGAN AND LORD GEORGE PAGET. A correspondence has taken place between the Earl of Cardigan and Lord George Paget, referring to a statement of the latter, that during a certain portion of the time occupied in the famous calvary charge at Balaklava, he (Lord George) took command of the 4th Dragoons and 11th Hussars. Lord Car digan observes, the matter is immaterial beyond that, arising from an officer present in the action, every statement should be strictly correct. Lord George Paget replies : _ _ Icannot perceive any error in my statement that I had charge of the 11th Hussars at a moment when that regiment and the 4th Light Dragoons found themselves in a position of most remarkable difficulty, cut off from the rest of the brigade, and entirely, though unavoidably, isolated from the first line, which, after the most extraor dinary exertions, had been forced to retreat before over powering masses of the enemy, I being at the time the senior officer with the two regiments. and with regard to which assumed position I have confidence that I could satisfy you. should you desire a more detailed statement, which you, from your position on that day, have of course the right to demand from me, but which 1 fear I could not enter into except at some length, especially as I should then dealt e to make a more detailed answer to your letter. The correspondence was continued on the 23rd, by Lord George Paget writing that he was ready to enter into more details, "which he did not volunteer, but from which he did not shrink," and declining to acquiesce in Lord Cardigan's view. To this Lord Cardigan replies, on the 24th, that there then must exist a difference of opinion on the subject, anti on the day following writ e s again Portman-square, June 25, 1858. Dear Lord George,—l shall this morning comply with your wish by sending your letter of the 23rd inst., and mine of the 24th, to the Morwing Post. As I conclude this correspondence is now drawing to a close, I most, be fore it is terminated, and after a reperusal of your letter of the 23rd inst., observe that there is one expression which I cannot understand —viz., " That although you do not volunteer, you do not shrink from entering into further details ;" and that, of course, you are the best judge of what details you like to go into.—Believe me, yours truly, CA.RDIGAN. Colonel Lord George Paget, C.B. _ _ _ . P.S.—I shall send icopyo(this with the other letters The correspondence terminates here for the pre sent ; but of course Lord George Paget will afford the Earl of Cardigan an explanation of so singular an expression. A meeting was held at the Mausion•house yester day, to take measures to further the memorial to the late Joseph Hume, M.P. The Lord Mayor, Mr. Deputy Dakin, Mr. Alderman Lawrence, Mr. P. A. Taylor, and Earl Fortescue, addressed the meeting, dwelling upon the career of Mr. Hume, and his un flinching advocacy of public liberty, order, and economy in the country, and proposing various reso lutions in favour of a City subscription, no contri bution to exceed 101. The resolutions were carried unanimously and a committee appointed. A