The Sun. — London, England, 1856-07-02 00:00:00

-- - any letters he might receive, he would confine himself to communicating to the persons who addressed themselves to him the terms upon which they could be received into the service of his country, so far as he was acquainted with them. That appears to me to have been a promise of a most solemn character, Mr. Crampton's own communica tion to Mr. Marcy resting upon Mr Crampton's allegations now produced by himself in self-defence. Was that pre mise kept ? Did Mr. Crampton confine himself to . that in formation? Is there a man in this hous e who will rise and say he did so ? If he did not, how are we to meet the charge of the American Government, when they say we deceived and deluded them, that we threw them off the scent and induced them to believe that although proceed ings were going on in the Union we had nothing to do with them, because they gave credence to our assurance, as conveyed by Mr. Crampton, that whatever agency was employed in the United States it was the agency of unsup ported and unrecognised volunteers with which the Go vernment had nothing to do. But was there nothing more? There was a certain Angus M`Donald who appear ed to think that, free trade being a very good thing, it might properly be applied to recruiting, who, upon re ceiving a remunerative price for the passage. offered to take persons to the British dominions. Well, we laid hold of this convenient despatch to Mr. Al`Donald, carried it with great pomp to the American Minister, who read the indignant and almost ferocious terms in which the offer of Mr. Angus M'Donald was repudiated. Upon the very day of the conversation with Mr. Marcy to which I have referred this letter was written to Angus M`Donald, and it will not be very uncharitable to suppose it was written for the purpose of being exhibited to Mr. Marcy. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was, however, read by Mr. Marcy, was regarded by that gentleman as an important fact, and led to the expression of great satisfaction on the part of the American Government. Let ms say I was very sorry to hear the criticisms of the hon. and learned member for Leominster (Mr. J. G Phillimore) upon the conduct of the American Govern ment upon this subject. If peace be our object, together with the maintenance of the honour of England—(hear) —I would ask whether the attainment of those objects are promoted by private members setting themselves up as judges of the conduct of the American Government? I will give my judgment upon the conduct of that Govern ment upon the question before us ; but if it be true that the American Government is pettifogging and litigious, then I sly, instead of that being a reason for trampling noon the law, it was a reason why, if not, out of regard for them, at least in consideration for the great country which we represent, we should have held those laws more sacred, and have avoided still more carefully to give so litigious and pettifogging a people the slightest reason for com plaint. A comparison has been made between the procla mation of Mr. Angus M`Donald and that of the Nova Scotian Government, and it has been argued that what was against the law if done within the boundaries of the United States was not against the laws if done beyond those boundaries. Upon that all I can say is, I cannot conceive a sorrier answer than that things which were not lawful for a man to do because done by a private indi vidual within the dominion of the United States might lawfully be done by the British Government immediately upon the borders of the United States. But that is not the question at issue. Compare the proclamation of Mr. Angus M`Donald with that of Mr. Wilkins, and with the actual proceedings of the British Government in the United States. Mt. M'Donald disseminated the informa tion that, upon 'certain terms, he was prepared to send re cruits to a British colony. Mr. Crampton and his agents disseminated information, too, and advertisements ap peared in German newspapers published in the Union, that personswere required to g 0 abroad—sometimes it was said as mechanics, but everybody understood the kind of machinery they would be expected to use. (near, and a laugh.) The only difference was, that they provided a free passage, or paid money for the purpose. Therefore, it stands thus—that we actually paraded in the face of the American Government our condemnation of the unfortu nate Angus M`Donald, and thus, perhaps, ruined his inno cent and well-intended enterprise, while at the same time we were doing all that he proposed to do, superadding the provision of a free passage, or paid weeny to meet the expense. I think no one will deny that a Government who by its agents pursued that course, and afterwards signified its approval of their acts,is not only fairly chargeable with concealment, but is also liable to the charge of having de luded the American Government. Therefore, nothing is more unjust than the charge which is made against the American Government of having at first confined its com plaints to the proceedings of unauthorised persons, and subsequently extended those , complaints to the British Mi nister and his subordinates. The American Government at first confined their repiesentations to the unauthorised persons, because it believed the answer which was given. Those representations were extended when they found that the answer was not based upon truth. Aiming as I do at a plain and intelligible statement, I must say the Ameri can Government was deceived by the proceedings of the British Government. I say we intentionally broke the law of the Union. My hon. friend (lfr. Spooner) tells us not to judge generally of intentions. I agree with him, except so far as we can infer them from acts. Mr. Cramp ton—and I give him credit for it—began his proceedings by taking the opinion of a most eminent American lawyer, one in whom, according to Mr. Crampton'. significant description, he had perfect confidence, not only as to professional ability, but also as to political principles —that is to say, a man who, he believed, could confidently be reckoned on as having no feeling adverse to the interests of Great Britain. That gentleman seems to have given a very prudent opinion ' neon which, I conceive, Mr. Crampton was bound to act. Why did Mr. Crampton take that opinion? He himself, at page 131, gives us the reason. He says he took it because he did not understand the neu trality laws, and therefore he says : " I requested an eminent American lawyer, in whose judg ment and professional ability I felt entire confidence, to draw up for me an opinion on the subject ; and a copy of this opinion I thought it right to transmit to her Majesty's con suls in the chief cities of the Union, and a copy of it accom panied my despatch to your lordship of the 13th of March." Now, in this opinion it is distinctly laid down that any person would be found guilty of offending against thenen trality laws who either gave money or money's worth to any other person within the territories of the Union in order to induce or enable him to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign service. Why do I say that we intentionally broke the law? I will show you from the declaration of a British offieer how he understood the meaning of that opinion. Mr. Lumley, who still remains in America, and who has entirely identified himself with the proceedings of Mr. Crampton, says at page 15, in a letter to Consul Dyer,— " But a promise to pay the travelling expenses or to pro vide for the fancily of any person who may join her Majesty's service, as proposed by your correspondent, would not de• prive such emigration of its voluntary character, but would constitute a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States, and no proposition of this nature can therefore be entertained by her Majesty's Minister or consuls." So it stands upon these documents that the counsel of the British Government state 1 that giving oitber money or money's worth to'persons to induce them to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting would be a violation of the law ; and it stands upon these documents, also, that Mr. Lumley,on the 13th May, representing Mr. Crampton, wrote to Consul Dyer to say that a promise to pay travelling expenses con stituted a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States. The meaning, therefore, of those laws, as ex pounded, was known and admitted by the agents of the British Government. That was on the 13th of May. On that day Mr. Lumley stated a promise to pay travelling expenses would be a violation of the law. Where was Mr. Crampton on the 13th of May ? He was at Halifax. What was Mr. Crampton doing at Halifax at the time when Mr. Lumley was thus soundly expounding the American neu trality laws? Mr. Crampton was committing that very breach of the neutrality laws—aye, and something even beyond that—which Mr. Ltiniley was denouncing from his office at Washington. (Hear, hear.) if you turn to page • 133, you will see that Mr. Crampton begins by saying that he left Washington on the 2d of May to go to Freida:: ; that he arrived at Halifax on the 11th ; it was there that " Strobel, who had already brought with him seine men from New York and Boston, and who appeared to be well acquainted with the condition and desires of his country men in the States, positively asserted that be knew many hundreds of G ermans i n the cities and country in the vicinity of the great lakes who only required to be informed of where they could be receive 1 in C la and to bo sup plied with the sm a ll sums which would cover' their travel ling expenses, immediately to present themselves on British territory for enrol men t i n her Mejesty'a service." They required somethi ng more than a pro mi s e of travelling ex penses; they wanted the money i ; the promi se o f travelling expens es was declared i`l handegah by Mr. Lumley at Washington. Mr. Crampton at says •—• " Th• plan, seeming t o me t o present a batter prospect ef suc cess, and at the same time to be uno'sjectionabl e as re garded the laws of the United States was i adopt e d." Af ter this, will any ge n tl eman r i se in this iawe, and state that the laws of the United States have not been vi o l a t e d ? (Hear, hear.) Is it p ossi bl e t) r C y evidence furth er ? I have shown Yon th e American constructionand I certainly hold that th e A merican of the l aw , Courts and G )1 ern ment were better entitled to construe their law than any foreign Goverrment. I abot7ll' municipal i how we should deal with the A motican Minister who ike toknow in this country, doing certai n ac t s contrary to was con struction of the law, judicial, and o'herwise an d king forward some ingenious view t- k en on the othaehrjenit of the Atlantic with respect to that construction in order to justify his acts. But the case do s not stand neon the opinion of your own Am o s l ean l awyer; it stands upon M r Lumley's declaration on th e p ar t of Vie British Govarn: went, that it was a breach of the law to promise t 0 p a y these travelling expenses, combi ne d w ith Mr. Crampton', , simultaneous declaration that at th a t very is sz ij,t Halifax, he agreed to a elan for pay'ne h ar d c ish p o eriod, e t sons then in the United States to enabl e th em t o find their way to Halifax and enlist. _ That is wh a t I cu ll an inten tional breach of the Americao niutr i ali'y lava. It is u necessary to go through the various cases; I am sorry to say there are too many. My right hon. friend (Mr. M. Gibson) has mentioned the case of Mr. Smolenski and the contract with Mr. Howe. There is no answer to that case except this—that Mr.. Howe was not diplomatically em ployed by the British Government in the United States. There were, in fact, no means of getting hold of this gen tleman—as one of the npvspapers said of him, he was too slippery. But there is one case to which I shall refer for a few moments—l mean the case of C rnsul Mathew. The Attorney-General yesterday seemed to suppose that this was a question where the evidence was all on one . side; that on the one side we had the testimony of fliiriz and Strobel, and on the other the assurances of Mr. Crampton and the three consuls That is one reason why I congratulate the Attorney-General on his felicitous and all but total ignorance of what the blue books contain, for it is italtestsible he can have read the blue-books and ima tertetzhat that i s th e w h o l e i ss ue raised. Now, I throw over and Strobel altogether, and am only sorry that that mass of affidavits from one person and another, swearing to all sorts of things, should have been pro lucid as public documents—those affidavitebeing the most worthless trash ever printed in thi s world.' I do more than reject the tes timony of Hertz and Strobel. I don'tattend to the allega tions of the American Covetnte evidence afforded by our own I won't remark on t e h 6 e in tl m ov iss e- i l n ik nes of a l n lr o k ur solely to the own agents. rune of the Govern ment in conferring gentlemen of this not very d ou btf u l charl Qaeen's service on Hertz . and Stro bel, laugh.) r But, treating as you please the evidence oaf° is it true thatthe charges ar e d en i e d b y Mr , and thq three consuls ? With regard t o these thre e e 1 ce adu n l ° s r , I may observe that the evidence is n o t equally full a all. I have read a most manly letter mitten by Mr.; tr. clay, and looking to the character of the allegations m ale againstthatgentleman whether aeregerds the barque Maury or as respects recruiting, I think it is clear th a t M r . lear clay was free from all complicity. I should also give en tire credence to theassertionsof Consul Methew, but those assertions prove the very worst part of the ease. The At torney-General says there has been no breach of the mu nicipal law of America. I am clear, then, that his studies must have stopped short of the 34th page of this blue-book, . or he would have found there evidence which, to my mind, is conclusive oar this case. In the first place, I think there, is no doubt that Hertz was engaged in breaking the dew. In the second place, there is no doubt that Howe was the r ()muting agent in con-nee tion with Hertz, and if Howe s was found supplying Hertz with money it must be pre sumed that Howe was cognisant of the use which Hertz was about to make of it. That principle, at least, would apply to such a case occurring in this country. I have heard the Attorney-General speak most ably in this house with respect to a charge of bribery at an election. If the name of Howe had been Frail—(laughter)—and it had been proved that Frail had handed money to Hertz for certain purposes, theAttorney-General would not, I think, have had much difficulty in identifying Frail with those purposes. But between this Howe and Mr. Hertz comes in a third person, and that third person is Comm) Mathew. He says, in the 3lth page, that Hertz's confes sion was a tissue of falsehoods, and he was determined to know nothing about Hertz or anything of his proceedings. Well, that is the kind of answer we sometimes receive in committee-rooms in this house when inconvenient questions are put to witnesses about acts done at elections and money misapplied there; in that case they tell us they know no thing of the use to which that money was applied. Consul Mathew says :—" At his (Hertz's) earnest request I trans mitted a sealed letter to Mr. Howe, and handsel him a reply, containing, I believe, money." Well, that is very cautious on the part of Consult. Mathew, when we re member that his belief was not formed without good and sufficient grounds, for this reason—that he took a receipt for the money, " for which," he says, " Hertz gave me a receipt, made out to Mr. Howe, and inclosed by me to him." Mr. Mathew was always very judicious; the receipt was ' not made out to him ; Hertz swears wrongfully that the receipt was made out to Consul Mathew; but it was made out to Howe. Mr. Mathew handed money from Howe td Hertz; he took a receipt from Hertz and sent it back to Howe. "On a second occasion (he says) I declined to give him the money, though merely the channel of transfer ; and the amount was sent to the propriet3r of an hotel, from whose bookkeeper he received it." Those are net chance or casual expressions, for much further on in the book Consul Mathew travels over the same ground. He twice handed money from Howe to Hertz ; he sent the money by a circuitous channel ; and there is no doubt he sent it in that way in order that it might be the more dif ficult to trace. Can there be a doubt as to the character of that act? Is there any lawyer who will say that in a com mittee of this house Consul Mathew would not have been hold to be implicated in the proceedings of Howe, or that the American Government were not right in the view they took upon this point? (Hear.) Then shall I 'be told that this was the proceeding of Consul Mathew—that the British Government had nothing to do with it ? Now, Consul Mathew, upon the whole, behaved with considerable prudence and propriety, for although he had done these acts, yet, at any rate, he was determined that the respon sibility should not rest with him, and therefore he took took very good care to inform Mr. Crampton. Mr. Cramp ton, at page 35, acknowledges the receipt from Consul Mathew of the letter to which I have just been retorting, and says : " I have in the meantime forwarded a copy of your de spatch to her Majesty's Government, and I have satisfaction in assuring you that I can see nothing in any of your pro ceedings in regard to this matter which appear to me to be incorrect, or derogatory to your office." I apprehend, therefore, that Mr. Crampton is pretty clearly responsible for the whole of Mr. Mathew's proceedings; bat does the responsibility stop there ? Mr. Crampton again, with perfect propriety, sent home to Lord Claren don Mr. Mathew's letter, together with his own letter of approval, and on the 2 d Nov. Lord Clarendon ackuow leiges the receipt of that communication in the following terms : " I have received your despatch of the 15th ult., and its enclosures, respecting the proceedings which have been taken in the United States District Court at Philadelphia, in the case of Henry Hertz, who has been pronounced guiltyof hav ing violated the neutrality laws by enlisting recruits for the British army ; and I have to state to you that I approve the answer which you returned to Mr. Consul Mathew 's commu nications to•you upon this subject." Consul Mathew thus identifies himself with Mr. Cramp ton, Mr. Crampton identifieshimself with Lord Clarendon, and Lord Clarendon we can only regard as the organ of the British Government. Whet is the explanation of these facts ? There are plenty more, but I will not weary the house with going through them, for the length of these dis cussions even now bewilders one, and it is necessary to throw overboard much matter. The acts which I have detailed were contrary to the municipal law of America, not only as construed by the executive Govern ment, by the Courts, by the Attorney-Generalof America, but as construed by the confidential adviser of Mr. Cramp ton, as construed on the 13th of Maybytheßritishmission at Washington itself. Here, however, we are traversed by the opinion of Judge Kane. In September Judge Kane de livered a judgment, in which he stated distinctly that the payment of passage money, the giving an inducement iu money or money's worth to people to enlist in a foreign service, was a breach of the American law.; but it is smi, "Oh, that was in September ; look at his opinion in May! In September the American Government had entered int a controversy with the British Government; in May it was supposed that they were merely persecuting a fe w wretched unsupported individuals." It is thus coolly insinuated that Judge Kane prostituted the judicial conscience, anti gave, in September, a contrary opinion as to the construc tion of a law to that which he had given in May, in order to serve a political purpose. I hope that all members of this house will show some respect for the feelings of the Americans. There is nothing of which the Americans are more justly proud, nothing in which they associate them selves more closely with the great country froin which they have sprang than the character of their judicature, and the character of their laws and their courts is established in the world. How should we look upon a charge against one of our own eminent judges, first, of having given two opposite con structions of a law within a few months, the second being a false construction, in order to please a Government of the day? But the charge rests upon a very sandy foundation ; there is no evidence of any real contrariety in Judge Kane's opi nions. The allegation of the British Government is that in May Judge Kane said it was not contrary to the American law to pay the passage of a person going to enlist abroad, but while the opinion of September is authentically reported in the official reports of the proceedings of the Court, the opinion of May is a paragraph out of a newspaper, paragraph which grossly misquotes the Am er i can l aw , by asserting that it is an offence in an American citizen to go beyond the boundaries of the United States with intent to enlist. Of course an abridgment, a mere synopsis of what is said nloes not contain those details and explanations with out which it is impossible to give judicial force and mean ing to the words of a magistrate. Bat, after all, there is nothing in Judge Kane's opinion, assuming the paragraph to be correct. He says : 'I do not think that the pay ment of the passage from this country of a man who de sires to enlist in a foreign part comes Avithin the act." That is his bare and nakd proposition, but you insert in it other words—you say that because the payment of the passage of a man does not in itself constitute an offence, ergo, the payment of the passage of a man by the British Government does not constitute an offence. The two cases are very different. Suppose my right hon. friend near me and I reside in the United States ; he is rich and I am poor; I tell him that my feelings are with the of cruetry in the war in which she is engaged, and that I will go to Halifax and enter her service if he will assist me. I do not apprehend that my right hon. friend would be guilty of an offence if he complied with my request. Would not that be a totally different case from the payment of money by the British Government to its agents for the purpose of inducing men to go? That is not all. Judge Kane's opinion was given at the end of May, but what were you doing at the beginning of May, in April, in March? Then you had the construction put upon the law by your own lawyer, yet you fell back for your justification upon an un authenticated paragraph in an American newspaper com ing long after the acts with which you are charged had been committed. Stich is the celebrated case of Judge Bane's opinion ! In the beginning of March your own lawyer told you the moaning of the American law; why di I not you act upon it ? Why did you, long after it hen been communicated to you, and lets before Judge Kane opened his mouth, give men free passages and hard cash. and offer them other inducements to enlist ? (Hear, hear.) The two chief points urged in defence of the Government are the apology and the abandonment. I have already spoken of the apology —now where is the abandonment ? This is one of the most mysterious and singular parts of a case which contains much that is singular and mysterious. The hon. member fur Montrose said the mistake was no sooner discovered by the Government than it was correct ed, And last year a question was put by the vigilance of the hon. en I learned member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), to which the noble lord at the head of the Government gave an answer that was very satisfactory to the country. The noble lord said that, not only had recruiting been abandoned in the United States but even our d e p o t a t Halifax had been abandoned, that the exercise of an un questioned right had been foregone rather than the risk should be run of having the slightest misunderstanding with the. American Government. I am astonished to , see the evidence as to this explanation. On the 221 of Jane, Lord Clarendon addresses a letter to Mr. Crampton, which may be construed as an order for the abandonment of the recruiting scheme. The noble lord states that the abandonment takes place by the detlren of the Minister for War, and that similar letters will be addressed to thektovernors of Nova Scotia and Canada. If letters contaihing those- orders had been so sent the proceedings would have been altogether discontinued ; the subsequent correspondence assumes that they were die. continued, and consequently, when the Arnet*.xa Gonern meut at a much later period complaine I of their continu ance, they were taunted with the fact that even before they h a d h a d time to make a comp l a i n t a nktuely, on the 22.1 of June, the scheme had been abandon* Wassitti: - w Li it not tebandoned — /fonenlnuttrneer/I.lant that the lett 1r of the 22.1 of June was intended to be ant, but some unfortunate mishap appears to have befallen et; we do not know the course it took, and no explanation, respecting it is given. A careful consideration of the dates of the al leged abandonment. is important, because the Americans h we been condemned in this country as highly unreason able on accoun t o f having complained of acts which had been put an end to long before those complaints were made. That is a most important statement, if true, but a most extraordinary figment, if not true, and a grievous h t it e t r h e ,L w t a t s na e n o at intentional ava i sdtoantemmeenntt of the wrong to th e Amer i can Government. (Hear.) I am con- I v s i - c t a regardthat a nt e recruiting system by her Majesty's t Government took place, but at the same time let us sea what time the abando n went really did t a k e p l ace, and to arrive at that we must consider the statements of fir. Lrarapton and Sir Gaspard le Merchant as to when they first beam wishes of th e G overnment in that rees ee e t. cog,uisant of th e Mr. Crampt on states that h e fi rs t b ecame aware of the desire of the Bti ti,h Govern men t t o a b an d on the scheme i recruiting the 2tl of August. Si r G aspar d l e nlarchantwhose posi tion was of still more importance, because II ' alifax was the great centre of operation, states that it was on the 17th c f August that he first received an intimation-that he was to o cease his proceeding s , an d even th en h e did t t receivothe intimation from the Colonial Secretary at home, but through Mr. Crampton. Her Msjesty'a Government fo l out, therefore, that driffirestlais pearioetheeaproeeedings wore going on, `and were being coplstiner of, and yet to those cOtnplaints they retorted= that they had abandoned the scheme of recruiting - Nig ego, and Lord Clarendon, in somewlest - noitemptuons tone, stated that recruiting had long ceased, at the same time expressing the opinion that the American Government had not appreciated as they ought to have clone the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers ' _in abandoning those proceedinge. Hee s t a t e d :list the abandonment of recruiting took place on the 22d of June, but, as I have pointed out to the house, the letters ordering a discontinuance of the sysleurreachen Mr. Crampton only on the 2d of August, and Halifax a n '. the 17th of the same month. It. appears to me, then, that we originally commenced a system of concealment towards the American Government; and not only did we do that, but we also adopted measures calculated tb mislead them. (Hear.) It appears that we took the most trustworthy opinion as to the law of the United States, and not only acted against that Opinion, but continued to do so for many months after the time at which we profeuel to have abandoned the course which we had hid commenced. After this can the house - say that the American Government had no just cause for complaint? Can we refuse to admit a arrong to America because the -Goverpmentassert that on wrong whatever has been clone? It appears to me to be that sort of case which scarcely admits of further argument or illustration. If it is to be made a matter of dispute that I any cause of complaint has been given to the Government of the United States, then I think that we may fold our arms in despair and say, " Even in this imperfect world some things have hitherto been held to bereal, and beyond the possibility of a doubt, but henceforth nothing is cer ttin, there is nothing upon which reliance can be placed, there is nothing which may not be made a subject for cap tious disputation." It is said that there is nothing in the instructions of the British Government to cause a wrong to the American Government. Now, what is the real fact ? Lord Clarendon says that anything short of the con clusion of an actual contract to enlist within the limits of the United States may be done, anti innocently done. Now, that is one way of avoiding responsibility, because a contract is governed by the lex loci, and therefore a con tract to enlist could not be concluded at all ; and he then goes on to say to the agents of the Government,' "Yon may persuade persons to enlist, you may assist them in so doing, you may pay their passage to a place where they can be enlisted," although such an opinion was contrary to the opinion of the American courts, contrary to the opinion of his own law officers,fand contrary to the declaration of Mr. Lumley himself, the agent of the British Government. Well but, says the hon. member for North Warwickshire, " the American Government hasaccepted the apologies which have been made." Now, sir, I cannot admit that such is the case, although I do not seek to detract from the force of what they have done. A most extraordinary state of things has been brought about. (Hear.) The American Government acquits the British Government, but at the same time punishes Mr. Crampton and the three consuls, while the British Government maintains and acquiesces in the acts of its agents, and yet accepts with satisfaction its own acquittal. (Cheers.) This is a simple, unadorned state ment, it contains no heightening epithets, and, indeed, I do not think any epithet could heighten it. Mr. Cramp ton has been made a scapegoat—by whom is a question I will not discuss—but I want to know whether it would not be cuntraryto the character and practice of this House, when there is no single action of Mr. Crampton which has not met with the approval of the Government, to allow any distinction to be drawn between the proceedings of Mr. Crampton and those of the British Government. (Loud cries of "Hear. ') I admiLfully the honourable con duct in this respect of thOse who sit upon the Treasury bench, because they do not attempt to draw any such dis tinction. The dismissal of Mr. Crampton was either right or wrong. Now the hon. and learned member for Leominster says that it is the undoubted right of any State to ask for the withdrawal of any Minister accredited to it at its own pleasure, and without assigning any rea son. Now, lam not, like the hon. and learned gentle. man, qualified professionally to deal with that subject ; but, from referring to authorities upon the subject, I am i dined to think that some reason should be assigned, and in the present instance the American Government have admitt el that principle, because they have assigned a reason. But, Sir, what an extraordinary course is that adopted by the hon. and learned gentleman ! The hon. and learned gentleman says that the American Govern ment had a perfect right to demand the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, and he gives that as a reason for supporting the conduct of a Ministry which, when the demand was made, refused to comply with- it. (Hear, hear.) The, Sir, appea-s to me a considerable anomaly. (Hear, bear.) The American Government had either received just cause for offence or not. If it had not, then it had no right to make the demand for the recall of Mr. Crampton, and the dismissal of that gentleman ought not to have been ac ceptel as it has been. (Hear, hear.) And, whatever happens, the Government ought not to allow mat ters to remain in their present doubtful and anomalous state ; for to allow Mr. Dallas to remain here, and at the same time, by not replacing Mr. Crampton, to exhibit a certain amount of ill-feeling to the American Government, does not telound to the credit or honour of the country. If we send a substitute for Mr. Crampton, it is going far towards admitting that the Ames ricens have received just cause for offence, and that they have can any one in this house doubt? Thequestion is one which the American Government had a perfect right to raise. It might have been a more generous course not to raise it, but no one can dispute its right to raise it. Wo cammenced by a course of concealment, and even now, so far as the vast majority of the public and even of members of this house is concerned, the whole affair is so compli cated with dates and events, which require great pains and study to extract from these papers, so long buried in the archives of the Foreign-office, that very imperfect infor mation exists. The ultimate judgment, however, of this hoase and of the country is not doubtful, as may be gleaned from the character of this debate. The hon. gen tleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) has deprecated the policy of raising the present discussion, but he carefully avoided giving any opinion upon its merits. The hon. member for Montrose carefully avoids de:ending the proceedings of the Government, but he says that they do not deserve the censure of this House of Commons, and ho has conde econded to throw upon Mr. Crampton the responsibility which ought to belong to his employers. It is impossible that the result of this discussion can be any but one. I do not deny that it is a question which deserved discussion in this house. Ido not know what may be the intentions of the h in. gentleman who made the motion, not being in Lis counsels, but he has acted on his privilege as an inde pendent member. (Hear, hear.) The debate which has taken place will, I believe, not be altogether free from in convenience, but I am certain that it will have this great advantage, that it will tend to the real elucidation of the facts. (Hear, hear.) It is for the true, substantial, and per manent interest of the two countries that the facts should be elucidated. (Hear, hear.) If the American people are made aware of the facts, they will take care that their Government does not heedlessly carry them into a quarrel. The English people, too, when properly informed on the subject, will also exercise a similar salutary influence, and this debate is the first effort made to bring a knowledge of the facts to the mind of the English people. Hitherto, the facts have never been brought to the teat of argument.. They have been the property of the writers, or of persons using them for purposes of their own; and they were now for the first time exposed to free discussion. I was sorry when the noble lord at the head of the Government at tempted to put a cl,se to this debate last night, but I do not suppose that the discussion is of the most agreeable character to the Government. I grant that my noble friend acts on a sound general rule in giving the weight of his authority against the practice of frequent adjournments of debate; but the importance of this matter is hardly to be overstated. The facts with respect to American law are toe clear for sophistry itself to disguise. If it were possible to insure the real study of the bluebook by all the members of this house there would be no serious dif ference of opinion remaining as to whether .the American law had been observed or not. If persons responsible for the consequences of their opinions were prepared to take up this question, I should not hesitate to give my adhesion to an authentic expression of the sentiment of the house; but, in an abstract vote of censure, I am not prepared to participate. When the hon. gentleman opposite said this was a party question, I could not help hoping that he would not give the weight of his character against party combinations in this house, which are associated with some of the best chapters in our history. When I look bock to the period when party combinations were strong in this house—when Sir R. Peel was oa those (the Opposition) benches, and Lorl John Russell on these, I think, though many mistakes and errors were committed on both sides, that, on the whole, the Government of the country was honourably and efficiently carried on. I believe that the day for this country will be a happy day when party com binations shall be restored on such a footing. But this question, instead of being a party question, is a most re merkable illustration of the disorganised state of parties; and of the consequent impotency of the House of Com mons to express a practical opinion with respect to the foreign policy of the country. Under these circumstances, the only resource left to me is the undieguised expres sioe of the opinions, which I strongly and conecien tiously (perhaps erroneously) feel after the study of these papers. I leave had the privilege of expressing those opinions freely and strongly—a privilege which I would not have waived on any account 'when I consider the bearing of the case with respect to the American alliance, which I so highly prize ; or with respect to that which I still more highly prize and more dearly love—the honour and fair fame of my country. (Cheers.) Mr. JOHN M‘GREGOR here caused much merriment by attempting to address the house during the absence of the Speaker, who quitted the chair for a few minutes for the pur pose of obtaining some slight refreshment. The bon. mem ber on having his attention drawn to the fact of the chair being vacant resumed his seat amidst roars of laughter. On the return of the SPeAKER, Mr. J. PHILLIMORE explained that when he alluded -to Judge Kane's change of opinion, he meant not to imply any thing but the change was conscientious. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was then about to address the ho Ise. when Mr. JOHN M'GREGOR, amidst general cries of " Order V int aposod, lie said he i os3 to order, and moved the adjourn, ment of the debate. The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that, according to the rules of the house, a member I icing to order must speak to order, and could not move the adjournment of the 4tonse .(" Hear," and laughter.) The SOIICITOR-GENERAL said he felt it to be an im possibility to believe that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was in earnest in the arguments her-had brought forward. In what way the right Imo. gentlem\au connected his arguments with his conclusions it was utter:* laves:Vele for him to understand. He said he could not vote an the same lobby with the hon. member for Mayo ; and he (tile Solicitor- General) could not but thi4 therefore, that they had heard a.tn. • ' ifectual exereitaCion. It was undoubtedly true le had proved, very well and very truly, what he should wished to have seen. He complained of angels on the oppo site side being afrai l to tread where the hon. member for May., had rushed in. But that was not all. The right hon. gentleman had been bold enough, in his view of this subject, to tell the house that the American Government did not know their own case. Ife told them that the American Government ought not to has e arrived at the conclusion at which they hal arrived at, and that they ought to have been satisfied with the termination of this matter. By some wonderful and mysterious manner he OW them he would make them a pre sent of the evidence of Strobel and Hertz. He had taken a view of this matter in which he at once pronurnc3d that the Amerie4n lawyers did not understand their own business, and that,. in pyint of fact, there were materials 'here for ar riving et a sorkelusion. Ho (the -,Solicitor-General) meant to follow, as well as he could, the arguments and process of ra tiocination of the right hon. gentle Man: And, first of all, with regard to the position in which this matter stood. He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman, who had studied 1 this matter evidently with great care, M s a h r o o u y ld hhE no s t lf h h a a v t e l v ar v riar ved, a a t n t l li a s t h c o o uld u u. e s x i o p n ec a t t w th h o i ch M H ou l s .. e of Commons should accept an interpretation wholly at variance with that which the American Government placed upon the last despatch. Now, he (the Solicitor• General) apprehended the American Government knew their own ground of complaint, and if so, all who attended to the last despatch of Mr. Marcy, of the • 27th May, 185 G, would find the most clear and satisfactory nuouneemeut that the American Government were s .tisfied with the explanations they had received at the hands of the British Government, and that they were perfectly convinced that there was neither intention nor design on the part of the British iloVerinnent either to offend the municipal law or the sovereign rightS of the United States. But the real state of the case was this :-- The American Government said to us in that despatch—" It is perfectly true you have abundantly exonerated 3 ourselires, but your agents have acted unwisely, and have been led into the commission of acts which we see are foreign to your notions ; but, inasmuch as they have done so, you are bound to refuse your sanction to acts by which they have transgressed the limits of discretion." But the 'sir Government said, " Upon what grounds have you a ritivo' conclusion that our agents have trans gres3ed the lini -r a - 44 discretion ?" And what was the evidence which the .A. - meripi Government brought for ward ? Pr ec i se l y that which the right hon. gentleman,him self admitted to be totally unworthy. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Marcy did not complain that we did. not accept the Ameri can view o f' th e matter. Mr. Marcy said' that different views might, and would, be entertained, but he admitted that the American Government were bound to accept the con, elusion at which the British Government had arrived, and.to, abide by the opposite view they entertained.; and aa, they would not withdraw their Minister, they'(tho' American Go vernment) were bou n d t o dismiss him. (Hear.) Now, was it possible to constr ue th at into an insult Could myth ' ing be more natural? The American Government say, " We are THE SITN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 2, 1856. perfectly satisfied, and have uo complaint against you, but it is different with regard to your agents ; and, therefore, we arrive at an opposite conclusion in our views with regard to their conduct." Now, that was the whole state of the matter as placed by the despatch of Mr. Marcy. Now, he (the Soli citor-General) must submit to the house that that was one of the very thin g s that were deprecated by the hon member for North Warwikshire (Mr. Spooner), and, he thought, most wisely. He thought the mischief that would be produced by that discussion in the House of Commons would be ten times as great as any despatch of Mr. Marcy's. (Hear, and laughter,) He observed in the course of the despatches, and of the argu ments used by hon. members, that there was a great deal of misapprehension, and a great want of precision in their views as to the Jaw upon the subject. At one time the eomplaint was that there had been evasion of the municipal law—(hear, hear)—at another time the American Government gave up that ground of complaint, and rested their case more parti cularly upon what they called an evasion of the rights of na tions. Then there was a third argument and a third view of the case put forward, especially by American writers and the American Attorney-General, that the offence committed by this country consisted not in a direct evasion of the municipal law, not iu a breach of international law, but in an attempt to evade, and by that evasion to violate, the municipal law. He more particularly referred in these observations to the opinion of Mr. Cushing, the American Attorney General, which somebody had printed and circulated, he (the Solicitor- General) supposed with a view to the present discussion. The argument of Mr. Cushing was founded not so much upon the language of the municipal law as upon the language of the international law; and he (the Solicitor-General) would in vite the attention of hon. members to the citations which were made from the jurists, which it would be desirable to examine in the original language, and not to trust to the translation given by Mr. Cushing. The result of those ci tations will be found to be that international law went only to the extent of forbidding one nation actually to enrol or to enlist soldiers in the territory of another nation. (Hear.) The offence, therefore, was, the actual enrolment or enlist ment of soldiers. That was the 411 extent and limit of inter national law. It prohibited nothing more. In order to put the matter beyond a doubt—and he would take the whole of the materials furnished by the American 1 twyer—he would refer hon. members to the great pamphlet of Mr. Cushing's, which had been so generously circulated, where they would find that the American Attorney-General specially referred to two works - namely, a treatise by Mr. Wheaton on inter national law, and the admirable Commentaries of Chancellor Kent. Mr. Wheaton's treatise contained this passage :—" The authority both of W.llfins and Back goes to show that the levying of troops is a prerogative of the sovereign which no foreign power can lawfully exercise within the territory of another State without its express consent " That was t'.e only principle of international law upon the subject. The municipal law of the United States went further for it not only embodied the rule and principle of the international law, but it also prohibited any person from hiring any citizen of the United States, within the territory of the United States, for the purpose of being enlisted in foreign service., (Hear.) It was to be observed that, to commit a breach of the municipal law, the offence must be committed within the terra ory of the United States. (Hear.) With respect to the evasion of this law, it was to be borne in mind that an Ame rican citizen might expatriate himself with perfect liberty; there was no such principle as that which pervaded the law of England, and which was embodied in the Act of 1819,that no citizen should engage in the service of any foreign nation without the consent of the Sovereign. When, therefore, they were speaking of the Government asbeing exposed to censure, because the whole of their proceedings were admirably adapted‘to enable parties to evade the law of the United States, it must be remembered that there was no principle embodied in the municipal law beyond the strict letter of the enactment. Tho law was in restraint of natural liberty. The spirit of such a law could not be violated without at the same time its letter being violated also. That law which restrained the natural liberty of the citizen was ono which could not be extended by construction; it must be construed strictly. Hon. members must bear in mind,there fore, that it was idle to speak of a breach of internationallaw where there was no breach of municipal law, because the mu nicipal law went beyond the international law. If there was no breach of the municipal law, d mulio fortiori, there was no breach of the international law. As be had said, interna tional law pithibited the enrolment or enlistment of soldiers within the territory of the United States for foreign service ; those rights were embodied in their municipal laws ; and therefore the question simply was, whether the English Go vernment had violated the letter of those municipal laws. Those laws must be construed strictly. The right hon. gen tleman who spoke last began by a reference to the handbill published by Angus M'Donald; and if the right hon. gentle man bad understood that document he would have abstained from the arguments which he founded upon it. He had charge 1 against Mr. Crampton that he was guilty of a species of fraud in respect tothat document. The right hon gentle inan'would observe that that was a handbill published in the United States, pretending to issue with the authority, and to speak in the came of, the British Government, and holding out an offer in the name and in the behalf of the British Go vernment to every ono willing to accept a commission in her Majesty's service ; so that it became the foundati m of a con tract the mo:nent that any individual acceded to the offer it ' conta lied. If that handbill had been circulated by Angus M'Donald with the authority of Mr. Crampton, it would amount in tho case of any individual accepting the offer to a hiring and retaining within the territory of the United States. Sir F. THESIGER pointed out that the handbill described what the British Government had done. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the language was the language of a present offer. But by theletter, a very proper document, which was addressed to Mr. Marcy by Mr. Crampton, enclosing a copy of that handbill, Mr. Crompton stated that Angus M'Donald had no authority from the British Go vernment to issue the handbill, or to proceed with any hiring within the United States. (Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that Mr. Crampton put the' interpretation on the document which he (the Solicitor-General) thought the language of it naturally bore, and that he repudiated it openly, instead of trying to throw dust in the eyes of the American Government, as it was alleged, and sending his agents throughout the United States to do the same thing as Angus M'Donald professed to have authority to do In fact, if they discarded the evidence of Hertz and Strobel, which the right hon. gentleman said he gave up, there re mained not a particle of testimony anywhere throughout these proceedings that any authority had been given by Mr. Cramp ton at all approaching to the authority alleged by Angus Nl'Donald to have been given to him. Now, with regard to Judge Kane,- he trusted that in that house they would give all credit to American judges, and accept their interpreta tion of the law of that country, without attempting to bend it to their own purposes or conclusions. He agreed in the eulogy which was pronounced on the learning and upright ness of those judges by the right hon. gentleman, and from that eulogy he would not except Judge Kane. But it was too much for the right hon. gentleman to censure the Attor ney-Geueral as he did for the quotation which he made of the opinion of that learned judge, ascribing ignorance to the At torney-General of what the opinion was of the judge whom lee quoted. But the representation of that opinion, given to the house by the Attorney-General, was affirmed by the re ference made to the same opinion by Mr. Cushing, the Attcr ney-General of the United, States. The opinion of Judge Kane was delivered in May, 1855, when he laid it down as the law of the country that the words " hiring or retaining" included mutuality of engagement ; and that no offer of a passage to those who were Oestrous of enlisting in a foreign port, provided there was no enlistment in the United States, came within those words to make such an act an offence against the law. That now being the state of the case, what became of the charge that money had been spent by Mr. Crampto r ? Where was the allegation that money had been spent by Mr. Crampton for the purpose of hiring or retaining a single individual ? There was no such allegation anywhere except in the testimony of Strobel and the confession of Hertz. But Mr. Marcy made no complaint against the pro clamation of Angus M'Donald. That was left to the right hon gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to do. Neither did Mr. Marcy complain of Mr. Crampton having practised concealment upon him. In the List despatch which Mr. Marcy wrote, he distinctly said that he believed the agents of the British Government had no communication with these parties, or that they were in any way concerned in sending agents into the Unite 1 States for the purpose of recruiting. Now the word recruiting appeared to have been used by Marcy in the most general and indefinite manner. The word was not to be fou id in the American law. True, the complaint of Mr. Marcy was that Mr. - Crmpt• n never represented to him that agents had been sent to recruit, but that begged the question —that was the point for inquiry, and where was the evidence appiicalie to prove it? If they took the word recruit as mean ing to engage, where, he would ask, was the evidence to show that agents were sent to engage or hire men ? There was not a particle of evidence to support the charge which was made? Could the house, in a matter of this ki n d, an d i n o pp os ition to its accredited Minister, accept such evidence and say that they had arrived at a satisfactory conclusion? The house was called upon to say that the-means of obtaining this evidence of the American Government was satisfactory to them He would now refer to the trials which took place, the evidence then taken, and the manner in which the jury were said to have been influenced. These things deserve the greatest con sideration of the house, and the real question was, whether the Britis'i Government ought to have been satisfied with the American inquiry, and have allowed their Minister to be sent away condemnt.d by such a jury. In the last despatch of Mr. Crampton, the meaner in which the evidence wan brought be f ,re the jury was stated, but he would now read the re,;ort of tire case from official documents. The hon. and learned gen tleman then read the speech of the district attorney for the prosecution, and referred to the testimony given by Hertz and by Strobel, and asked the house whether such evidence could be received with credit He had no hesitation in saying that if such a case had occurred in this country, in a prosecu tionby the Government, greater pains would have been taken not to give offence to the United States than had been shown by that country. That was the issue. The inquiry was, ought they to have consented at once to the recall of their Minister at the request of the American Government, in opposition to the opinion of all with whom he bad acted in this country. The American Ministry had accepted their assurance, as they were borind to do. The Foreign Enlistment Act must be taken as the law of this country, and that being so, to what country in the world, he would ask, could her Majesty's ,government with greater propriety go than to the United States of America, to which a great number of our natural born subjects owed no other obligation than that of resi dence ? There was uo place where they could seek with greater confidence to carry out the Foreign Eulistment Act, the municipal laws there being morn easily relaxed than iu any other country. And such being the state of things, he blasted that the British House of Co r•mons would believe that the Government were under no obligation to recall Mr. Crampton upon the representation of the American GOvern ment. (Hear, hear ) _ _ , Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he would leave it to the house and to the country to determine between the hoe. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned gentleman the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) whether the right hon. and learned gen.le man was in earnest in the very able anti eloquent speech' which he had made. After that speech, which be might say had almost exhausted the subject, he would willingly give a silent vote on the question, were it not for the circumstance of his having been accused of using strong expressions on the subject upon a former occasion. In those expressions he be lieved he had been fully supported by several hon. gentlemen who had addressed the house during this debate. For his part, ho (Sir J. Pakington) mu-t confess himself desirous to assume the responsibility of stating frankly his opinion —an opinion in which ho was supported by the right hon. gentle man the member for the University of Oxford—that the time had now come when the House of Commons might fairly and properly address itself to this painful subject. The papers before them were now complete, and a most discreditab'e tale they disclosed, rendered even worse by the last docu ment added to them. He could well understand that her Majesty's Government desired to avoid discussion on the subject ; the crisis, however, was one of no ordinary interest, the &cum - stances attending it were peculiar and most im portant. The question was whether discussion. on the sub ject could be prejudicial to the public interests - 1 (Hear, hear.) He believed that, so far - from being' prodtictive of any ill effects, it could do nothing but good; tend to aiel the settlement of our delicate relations, and assist in the ne gotiations now pc-ding--(hear}-- , if it were shown to the pub licand the Amorican citizens that there was an indepdndoat. party in that house who dispassionately raised their protest against the rashness and imprudence by which the peaceful relations between the two countries bad been disturbed. With Mese views, he thanked the bcpu member for Maya (Mr. Moore) for the decision with which he resisted the efforts made to induce him to withdraw his motion, and if that hon. member pressed the question to a division ho would support his motion. No one, he thought, could rise from a carefu perusal of the blue book with° .t feeling that the conduct of her Majesty's Government had been such as to compromise the character of the Government of this country, endanger thelNace of the world, and bring us to the verge of a war with America— and conduct which had obliged us to make very humiliating apoltgies to the United States, and to submit to the indignity of having our ambassador dismissed. That, he thought, a most painful state of affai s, to which he felt con vinced her Majesty's Government would never have sub mitted had they not felt conscious that their conduct had been such as to show thatthey had deserved it. The Govern ment had involved them in this dilemma by showing a most unwise and imprudent disregard of the most obvious require ments, both of the general international law and the munici pal law of the United States. He was amused by the extra ordinary ingenuity with which the Attorney-General last night drew the house away to the only part of the American law on the subject which had nothing whatever to do with that point. The Secretary of State fur the Home Departme had followed in precisely the same endeavour, and the Solici tor-General was not altogether free from the same attempt. They had all endeavoured to fix their attention on the part of the American law under which, no doubt, American citi zens ware perfectly free to enlist in a foreign service when they were not of the American States, but that was not the real question; and they would have dealt more ingenuously with the house if they had explained the municipal laws of the United States, as well as the general international law, as laid down by the best translations. He thought the Govern ment had made a serious mistake in entertaining the idea of drawing recruits from the United States for the army—but if they had determined to adopt the plan, there was only one mode in which they could carry it out with prudence— viz., by limiting their efforts to 'our own colonial possessions, and neither attempting to draw troops from the United States nor communicating with any of her Majesty's officers within the States. If they had opened recruiting offices at Halifax and Quebec, where it was well known loyal colonists were anxious to enter our service e —cOlonists whose services were unwisely rejected—and if they had abstained from com municating either with Mr. Crampton or any Lritish consuls in America, they might possibly have succeeded in their efforts; and if citizens of the United States had voluntarily come to enter our army, there would have been no ground foe. quarrel; but the very last persons they ought to have com mimic AM with on such a subject were Mr., Crampton and our consuls, because they were certain to be involved in the difficulties to which such measures might be expected to give rise. He could not conceive how the Government, after receiv ing the legal opinion which was sent by Mr. Crampton, to gether_ with his intimation of what the feeling of the Ameri can Government was, could have persevered for another day in the irrational course which they had adopted. He had no intention of referring to the Earl of Clarendon in slightest degree in terms of personal disrespect ; but no member ought to be induced by personal feelings to compliment away the interests of the country, or to abstain from expressing opinions which, as a public man, he conscientiously entertained. It was only the other evening that the noble lord the member for the City of London, with a kind of rhetorical flourish, said lie hoped the same statesman whose name was connected with the aci fication of the East would also have the honour of concluding the disturbances in the West. Now, he could not subscribe to the justice of that sentiment. As regarded the East, they found the Earl of Clarendon's name attached to a resolu tion which he conceived uo English Minister ought to have signed. Last night they wore told the fortifications of Is mail were to be dismantled—a measure against which the noble earl had directed his efforts in Paris, but had entirely failed. And then, again, in the West, the name most con spicuously connected with these transactions was that of the Earl of Clarendon. In the despatch of the 12th of April. the Earl of Clarendon, although warned by the despatch of Mr. Crampton and the enclosed legal opinion, gave no intimation to our agents in America to alter the system which they had pursued. In the meantime the American Govern ment had taken alarm. It was urged by hon. •gentlemen at the other side that the American Government had not inter fered ; but it was shown that the moment they were apprised of Mr. Angus Macdonald's proceedings they gave instructions to have him prosecuted for a violation of the neutrality laws. Practically the American Government had been deceived, and it was impossible to read the papers published by the autho rity of Parliament without coming to the conclusion that they had been misled by Mr. Crampton and the other agents of the British Government. The hon. and learned gentleman the member for Aylesbury had said that the American Govern ment had made no complaint, but it was evident that the hon. and learned gentleman had no \more read the blue book than the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney-General, who had argued the previous night in the same strain, for if he had he would have seen that Mr. Marcy, on three occasions, wrote a strong and indignant letter, expressing the feelings of the American Government at the proceedings of the British Government in'America. There were two facts in connection with the subject which he asked her Majesty's Government whether they were prepared to deny—one, that a cipher was drawn up in order to enable Strobel and others to communi cate with Mr. Crampton; and the other, that when Strobel went to the United States to enlist troops he adopted the name of " Smith" for concealment ? If these facts were not denied, what became of the assurance of the Government that there should be no evasion of the law and no concealment ? Was it true that these men had been engaged under the pre tence of being employed to go to Halifax to work on railroads, and that a cipher had been used for that purpose ? He was ashamed, as an English gentleman, of such practices. He would touch for a moment on that part of the subject which related to the conduct of the consuls. He thought that these gentlemen had been most unfairly treated. He had been struck with the reluctance of these gentlemen as well as that of Mr. Crampton and of Sir G. Le Marchant to interfere in this matter. They all wished to be out of it ; but they were afraid to act upon the advice given by Vattel, that public officers under such cir cumstances ought to disobey the orders of their Government Mr. Mathew, who had paid money for Mr. Howe to Hertz, evidently wished to disconnect himself from the transaction. The house had heard a great deal of the bad character of Hertz and Strobel, but it was obvious that no honourable man would have undertaken the duty which those men had been asked to discharge for her Majesty's Government. Mr. Marcy said that the acts which had been complained of, though disclaimed by the British Government, had been com mitted by British agents. The hon. and learned gentleman, the Solicitor-General, had stated that the charge against Mr. Crampton was one of indiscretion and inadvertence. Instead of being a charge of indiscretion and inadvertence, Mr. hi trey stated that it was not the least of the acts of omission on the part of Mr. Crampton that he had recklessly endangered the friendly relations between the two countries. He (Sir J. Pakington) could not understand the distinction which the American Government had drawn between the conduct of the Government and that of Mr. Crampton, But what was the plea urged by the Government ? It was that they had offered the most ample apologies. The right hon gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) doubted whether any apology had been made at all. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought that Parliament and the people had a right to complain that the government had placed the country in a position as to require humiliating apologies to be made on their part to the Government of the United Stites. He could imagine nothing that eithercountry could gain by such a calamity as war. Both might gain tem porary triumphs, and glory might be achieved; but what compensation would that be for the interruption of social progress, the wasting of millions of treasure, the shedding of blood, and the animosity that would inevitably succeed any such contest? If the national honour, or the interests of the country should ever lead to such a struggle, no doubt the people of this country, and our loyal colonists, would rally round - the Crown, but they must all hope such a day was far distant—(hear, hear)—and this,' he thought, was the feeling of every well-re 'ulated mind on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr. BENTINCK rose to move the adjournment of the debate. Lord PALMERSTON—Notwithstanding the doubt ex pressed by the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down, as to Whether the hon. gentleman who made this motion would press it to a division, and notwithstanding the effort made by the hon gentleman who has just presented himself, unfortu nately for him, I admit, too late, I do hope the house will feel it their duty to pronounce an opinion upon the motion which is now submitted to them—(cheers) —which is no less than a vote of censure upon her Majesty's Cove, merit ; and I trust the house will feel it their duty not longer to protract an opinion on that question, and that we shall not remain in suspense as to whether the Government, which has hitherto enjoyed the confidence of the country, are henceforward to rest under a censure like this. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman who made this motion began by stating that he called upon the house to pronounce an opinion in a judicial capacity, and to conduct their deliberations with judicial calmness ; but no sooner had he announced that opinion- -no sooner had he given to the house that exhortation —than for the whole course of the time almost during which he enforced his mo tion by his speech, he did nothing but indulge in a tissue of personalities and invective—(hear, hear)—raking up all that he could find in the treasury of his memory of calumnious attacks which had on former occasions been made ou my noble friend the Earl of Clarendon, and by dwelling on the name of the Earl of Clarendon in every alternate sentence of his speech endeavouring to create au impression that there was some thing in these transactions which separated him from his col leagues, and that the censure of the house was to fall on one member of the Government, and not equally to affect the whole. The touour of that speech was as unconstitutional as the object of the motion is, I trust, unfounded. It has been well stated that there is no individuality in the person of that member of a Government who is charged, by the office he holds, to conduct a great operation, but that all his colleagues are equally responsible with himself, and I can assure the house that we are, in the fullest sense, willing to take entirely upon ourselves the responsibility of all that the Earl of Cla rendon may have said (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman the member for Inverness began his speech by referring to the act which was passed enabling the Crown to raise foreign troops for the conduct of the war. He told Us that in 1813 there were I don't know how many thousand men more than were re quired, and yet that at the beginning of the late war we had not a complete establishment. I will not follow the example of the hon. gentleman and enter upon a di scuss i on o f w h a t took place when that bill was passed ; but the ground upon which you proposed to Parliament to give that power to the Crown was that, especially at the beginning of a war, you did require, when the army was formed by voluntary enlistment, and not by conscription, to use all the resources which could bo put in request. That bill having been passed and become law, it became the duty of the Government to carry it into execution. We heardthat there were a number of persons re siding in the United States, some of them British subjects, some of them Germans, who had removed from their own country and settled for a time in America, who were desi rous of joining the ranks of the British army, and taking part in a war which they considered rightful and just. Under these circumstances, it was determined to endeavour to avail ourselves of the aid of those persons; and my rigt,t hon. friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and those who sit near him, were parties to that arrangement. (Cheers.) I cannot allow my right hon. friend to admit himself to have been a party to the arrangement for the establishment of a depot in Nova Scotia for the distinct and avowed purpose of enlisting persons who came from the United States, and then to escape from it. (Hear.) The establishment of that depot was determined upon, but at the same time the Government determined that nothing should be done which might be at variance with the municipal laws of the United States. A distinction has been attempted to be drawn between interim ' tional regulations and sovereign rights, but that sophistry has been thrown to the winds by the speech of my right hon. friend the Solicitor-General---a laugh) —who demonstrated that the municipal laws could not be construed beyond their enactments, and that, therefore, it was a fallacy to say. the international law had been violated. Then the question is, was the municipal law of the United States violated ? I re- Main of pinion that it was not violated. It certainly was not violated by the orders of the Government, or, to their know ledge by anyt.offleers acting tinder their instructions. It Was contended that it had been violated by their officers acting in• di: erectly and with over zeal, but those o IR !ers den ed the asser tion; and according to their interpretation of the law of the United States, it was manifest that they did nothing at-vari ance with that law. But who is to interpret that law? It ; said there is a counsel who gave an opinion one way, but there is a judge who gave au opinion another way, and if Judge Kane felt that lie was acting in accordance w th the law, in the opinion which he gave, it is perfectly clear no thing was done by our agent iu violation of the laws. Judge Kane altered his opinion afterwards, but when f In Septem ber His first opinion was given in May, and our. operations ' ceased iu July, and therefore so far as the conduct of our officers was concerned it was borne out by the judicial opinion of the United States during the period it continued. (Hear.) It is stated, nevertheless, that proof was given to the Govern ment of the United States that things were, done vehicle were a violation of their law. No doubt things were done which amounted to a violation of their law by persons not autho rised to act by toe British Government, and prosecutions took place, and in some cases they succeeded, and in other cases they failed. It is said, towever, that no prosecution could be instituted against Mr. Crampton, because he was protected by his diplomatic character. That exemption did not apply to the consuls ; and if Viey had violated the law, why were they not brought to trial? We have been told by theright hon. gentleman the member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) of the case of Consul Curtis in Prussia, but Consul Curtis was prosecuted. We thought the proceedings at his trial were not fair and just, and the Prussian Government so ar concurred in that opinion that, though he was condemn d still the King of Piussia released him. Of the three consuls not one of them have been brought to trial, and with regard to Mr. Stanley, proceedings against him have been discon tinued by the authority of the United States Government. I am therefore warranted in saying that the accusation of the United States Government agai ist the Government of this country rests entirely upon the evidence of those men, who are admitted upon all ban sto be men of vile and infa mous character, and totally unworthy of belief. We are said to have practised a deceit upon the American Government, and to have concealed our proceedings from them. Mr. Crampton however, in his conversation of the 22d of March, stated to the American Government, what they must long before have been aware of, that the British Government was, at Halifax, taking steps to engage men coming there who might be willing to enlist in our service. (Hear.) But it was said, why did not Mr. Crampton from time to time in , form Mr. Marcy of what was going on with regard to enlist ment ? Sorely if Mr. Marcy was otherwise informed that pro ceedings were taking place by British authority at variance with the laws of the United States it was his duty to have sent to Mr. Crampton and made inquiries of him as to the circumstances. Could any one suppose that a Minister of Foreign Affairs in this country, if he were informed that any person was acting by the authority of another country in violation of our laws, would not at once send for the accre dited Minister of that country, and sift the matter to . the very bottom, so that there might be no misunderstanding between the - two Governments on the subject ? (Hear.) But was that the proceeding of the Minister of the United States ? On the contrary, he allowed the causes of complaint to accumulate, in order that when what he considered the proper time are he might either take advantage of them or deal with them as matters not worthy of notice. (Cheers.) I say then that there was an absence upon the part of the United States Government of those steps which it was their duty to take, if they thought the agents of the British Government were vio lating the law of the United States. (Cheers.) Well, then, when at an early period of these proceedings we found that they were likely to lead to embarrassments between us and the United States we stopped our arrangements. (Cheers.) But an hon. gentleman says that though the letter was dated the 1d of July, it was not sent until the 2d of august. Now really in a matter of this kind a few weeks' delay was not of much consideration, and the fact still stood out that the Bri tish Government, when they found that these proceedings were likely to lead to embarrassment, of their own accord di rected them to be stopped. (Hear.) Then an hon. member said that no apology was made. But, I ask, what greater or more acceptable apology could one Government make to an other than at once putting an end to the ground of offence ? (Cheers.) DJ not tell me of verbal apologies ; I say that an apology in deed was of infinitely more value, and infinitely more satisfactory to the Government of America, as a proof of the sincere wishes of her Majesty's Government to avoid any rupture of the friendly relations which exist between the two countries, than all the verbal apologies which ever could be penned. •(Cheers ) I say, then, that there is no question of concealment, and that reparation has been made f r the offence, if any existed. But then it is seid that we ought to have acknowledged that we had violated the neutrality laws if the United States, But we do not believe that we have violated them - we cannot acknowledge a wrong which we are unconscious of having committed. Well, 'then, we received an in imation from the United States Government that our agents should be with irawn. We replied, as we hoped, satis factorily to the American Government, and proving, as we thought, that there had been nothing done by our agents which could justify the disapprobation of their con duct which the American Government had expressed. In answer to that the United States Uovernme t •aid that they were satisfied with regard to the conduct of her Majesty's Government ; that all questions between the two Governments were closed and settled, but that they still retained their ex pressed opinion as to the conduct of our agents, and consi dered them as unacceptable organs between the two Govern ments. What, then, was the • course her Majesty's Govern ment bad to pursue ? They had to determine whether they would give measure for measure, and retaliate upon Mr. Dallas the step taken with regard to Mr. Crampton, and upon the American consuls in this country, by sending them their exe quaturs—that taken with respect to our three consuls in A.merica. Her Majesty's Government did not think it their , duty to advise her Majesty to take those steps; and, not , withstanding what has been said in the course of this debate, I still am of opinion that that decision was a proper one, and has met with, and will continue to meet with, the approbation of this house and of the country, (Loud cheers.) It is curi ous to folio iv the language which has been used by hon. gen tlemen in the course of this discussion. All parties are, they , say, most anxious to maintain peace between the two coun tries, and abound with the assertion that that wish is at the very bottom of their hearts, and the chief object of their lives —(a laugh)—and yet here happens to be a case in which a question has arisen between the two Governments—expla nations have been made by one Government which are con sidered satisfactory by the other, and yet hon. members come here and publicly declare that England and America have both been insulted one by the other. An HON. MEMBER—Not England, but the Government ' of England. . Lord PALMERSTON- —Let me tell the hon. member that the intercourse of nations takes place through their Govern ments, and that an insult offered to the Government is an insults to the country itself. (Cheers.) Well, then, it is said that England has been insulted, has been treated with con tumely and indignity. What are such Assertions likely to lead to ? Are they not calculated not to soothe the feelings of the people of the two countries, but to excite in the breasts of the people of England a spirit of bitter animosity and re sentment towards their kindred people in the United States ? (Loud cheers.) Why, any one who knows the character of the people of England must know that, to tell them that they have been insulted, treated with contumely and conte,apt, must excite in them the fee'ings I have mentioned; for the bulk of the nation will take such assertions —coming as they do from those who call themselves the country party —upon trust, and believe in their truth without inquiry, and they will say, " We must have been grossly insulted, and let us punish and resist the insult which has been offered to us." Hon. gentlemen opposite, by using the language they have in the course of this debate, thus lay the foundation of enmity between the two countries. (Cheers.) Then the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Ox ford told the Americans that they have been deluded and cheated, and that their Government ought not to have accepted the apology which was offered to them. He told them that their law had been intentionally violated by her Majesty's Government, and that their Government had accepted and expresses themselves satisfied for that wrong with an apology with which they ought to have expressed themselves dissatis fied, and which they ought not to have accepted. Was that tbo way to secure between this country and the United States the most friendly relations ? Many hon. gentlemen told the hon. member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), when he brought forward this motion, that to persist in that course would be injurious to the interests of the public service; and certainly the dis cussion which had taken place that evening has proved the wisdom and truth of the suggestions which these hon mem ' bora had offered to that hon. member ; for certainly this de bate, fnsteaess f tending to efface any pass'on and ill•feeling which may existbetween the two nations, will tend rather to embarrass their intercourse, and render it more difficult to bring.about an amicable understanding between the two coun tries. I will not at this late hour further detain tbe house, for I think it totally unnacessai7. The house is now called upon to determino whether there shall be passed upon the Govern ment a vote of censure. The hon. gentleman the member for Mayo should have come forward and expressed that which was uppermost in ,his mind by moving a direct vote of cen tsure on her Majesty's Minister's. (Hear, h ear , an d c h eers. ) It would, I think, have been more manly on hi s par t if h e I had come forward with such a vote of censure, instead of re fusing to us that approbation for the management of our relations with the Government of the Unite - 1 States which we did not ask. My right hon. friend the memlspr for the Uni versity of Oxford says that he cannot refuse us his support, and I accept his vote, and will not look a gift horse in the mouth. (Great laughter.) The reason my right bon. friend gives for thus supporting us is, that it is impossible to find any persons capable of taking our places. (Hear, hear.) That is, I think, rather complimentary to us. (Laughter.) There are, nevertheless, I think in the house many gentlemen who are of opinion that that difficulty could he easily got over— that half an hour's conversation in private between my right hon. friend and some of the gentlemen who sit opposite would remove every difficulty which at present exists. (Great laughter.) I would not, therefore, accept from the house a vote founded on so great a political misapprehension. We take our stand on fireater and higher ground. (Great cheer ing.) We are of opinion that we have, during a difficult period, conducted the affairs of the country with honour and satisfaction. (Cheers.) We believe that the confidence re posed in us by the hone is shared in by the country at large. It is on this ground we are prepared to go to a division. We ask Parliament to support us, not because of the difficulty to find persons to take our places, but because we have done nothing to forfeit the good opinion of the nation. We trust to the good opinion of the house, and to the goodwill felt for us by the country. It is on this ground I challenge the hon, gentleman the member for Mayo to come to a division, and we are confident that the result will be such as our conduct may deserve. (Great cheering.) Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR rose to address the house amid loud cries of " Divide, divide" and was, from the impati ence of the house, scarcely intelligible. He was understood to say that the conduct of the Government to a people speaking the same language as ourselves was highly reprehensible. Mr. BENTINCK moved the adjournment of the debate', to give hon. gentlemen on the Conservative side of the house an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the motion. Mr. MOORE, in reply, said he had nothing to reply to—(a laugh)—except to say a few words in his own vindication with regard to the charge of " calumnious imputations" brought against him by the noble lord the member of that house as applied to the Earl of Clarendou— Lord PALMERSTON was understood to intimate that he only alluded to calumnies against the Earl of Clarendon which had been made at a former time. (Hear.) Mr. MOORE continued—With regard to the imputations of the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary, ho could state that ho hal not 13. en influenced by any personal feeling towards the Earl of Clarendon. He could only say that such imputations were entirely unjust and untrue. (Oh.) He re peated they were unjust and untrue. Not only had he no ill will towards the Earl of Clarendon, but ho believed it was impossible for any man who had been brought within the sphere of that noble earl to feel any towards him, or to feel anything but respect for him, not only for the success he had achieved, but for the many blunders out of which he had escaped. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He had yet to learn that he was not justified in stating the (public ante cedents of any public man when he felt they illustrated his subsequent career. He had said nothing but what the noble lord well knew to be true, and what the Earl of Clarendon himself knew to be true. Lord PALMERSTON—I used the word " calumnious" with reference to those calumnies which were disseminated against the Earl of Clarendon with reference to a trial to which the hon. member alluded. Mr. MOORE—I stated nothing but what was true. The house then divided on the main question for going into committee. Before announcing the numbers, Mr. HATTER informed the Speaker that three members were present in the house at the time of time division, but had not voted. Lie SPEAKER then directed the hon. members to appear at the table. Thereupon Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. W. Jackson, and Mr. Trail!, amid great laughter, appeared at the table ; and upon beinz informed by them that they had heard th question put, and intended to vote with the ayes, the Speaker directed th, i t vo t es t o be recorded accordingly. For the motion Against BO Majority The announcement was received with loud and continued cheering. The Distillation from Rice Bill passed through committee. The Oxford College Estates Bill also passed through corn. mittee. The Advowsons Bill was read a second time. JUDGES' AND CHANCELLORS' BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. Lord R. CECIL moved that the chairman report progress, as he thought that the bill ought to be considered in a full house, as its provisions were very important, and took away from the Archbishop of Canterbury privileges which he had enjoyed from time immemorial. After some observations by Mr. Gladstone, Mr. J. G. nal limore, and Lord Palmerston, The committee then divided— For the motion to report progress l5 Against Majority —23 The motion was consequently lost. Upon clause 1, Lord R. CECIL again moved that the chairman do leave the chair, After some discussion, the motion was agreed to, and the Chairman reported progress. The other orders were disposed of, and the house adjourned at a quarter after two o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—JULY 1. OUR AMERICAN RELATIONS.—SUPPLY. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment prhposed to be made to Question [3oth June], " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair ;" and which Amendment was to leave out from the wo r d " That". to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " the conduct of her Majesty's Government, in the diff er e nces th a t have arisen between them and the Government of the United State* on the question of enlistment, has not entitled them to the approbation of this house,"—instead thereof :-..-Quer tion again proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question ;"—The house divided; Ayes 274, Noes 80. AYES-274. Acton, Joseph ' Foley, J. H. O'Brien, Sir T.' /Waft, H. , Forster, Charles O'Brien, J. • Adair, It. Forster, John O'Connell, D. Agnew, Sir A. Fortt scue, C. S. Oliveira, B. Anderson, v-ir J. • Fox, W.. 7. Osborne, R. Antrobus, E. Freestun, Colonel Ossulston, Lord Atherton, W. French, Fitzstephen Owen, Sir J. Bailey, C. Gallvrey, Sir W. Paget, Lord A. Baines, Rt. Hon. M. Gladstone, W. Palmerston, Viscount Ball, J. Glyn, G. Patten, Col. Baring, H. Goddard, A. Pechell, Sir G. Baring, Sir F. Goderich, Viscount Peel, Sir R. • Bass, M. Gordon, A. Peel, F. Baxter, W. Gower, F. Pellstt, A. Beamish, F. Graham, Sir J. Perry, Sir E. Berkeley, Sir M. Greene, Thomas Phillimore, J. G. Berkeley, Hon. H. F. Gregson, Samuel Pigott, F. Bethell, Sir R. Grenfell, Charles Pilkington, J. Bidduiph, Col. B. M. Grey, Kt. Hon. Sir G. Pinney, W. Biggs, John Grey, R. Ponsooby, A. Biggs, W. G rosvenor , Ld. R. Portal, IC Black, Adam Grosvenor. Earl Portman, W. Blakemore, T. Gurney, J. H. Price, Sir R. Bland, L. H. Hall, Sir Benjamin Price, W. Blandford, Marquis 01 Hankey, T. Pritchard, J. Bonham-Carter, J. Hamner, Sir John Ricardo, 0. • Bouverie, Hon. E. P. Harcourt, G. G. Ricardo, S. Bramston, T. W Harcourt, Col. Rice, E. Brand, H. B. W. Hardinge, lion. C. Richardson, J. Brocklehurst, J. Hastie, Alex. Ridley, George Brotherton, J. H: stie. Arehd. Robartes, T„, Brown, W. Headlam, T. Rolt, - P. Bruce, Lord E. Heard. J. Russell, F. C. Buckley, Gen. 11 eathcrite. G. Rus.ell; F. W. Byng, G. H. C. Herbert, H. Sandon, Viscount Cardwell. E. Heywood, J. Aawle, C. Carnac, Sir J. R. Higgins, G. 0. Scholefield, W. Castlerosse, Vis. Hindley, C. Stobell, Capt. Cautfleld Col. J. Hogg, sir J. W. Scrope, G. Javendish, C. C. Holland, E. Seymour, H. Cawndish, G. C. foreman, E. Seymour, W. D. Challis, T. Howard, C. Shafto, R. Chambers, M. Hughes, W. Shoe. Serjt. W. Chaplin, W. Hughes, H. G. Shelburne, Earl Cheetham, John Hutchins, E. Shelley. Sir J. Cholmondeley, Lord Butt, W. Sheridan. R. Clay, Sir W., Bt. Ingham, R. Smith, R. Clifford, Lt.-Col. H. 1 1. Ingram, H. Smith, Abel Cobbett, J. M. Jackson, W. Smollett, A. • Cobbuld, J. C. Johnstone, J. Somerville, Sir W. Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Keating, H. Spooner, R. Coles, H. Kendall, N. Stafford, Marquis Col ler, R. P. Kershaw, J. Stanhope, J. Colvile, C. R. King, L. Stirling, W. Cowan, C. Kingscote, Capt. R. Strickland, Sir G. Cowper, W. Kinnaird, A. Strati, Hon. E. Craufurd, E. H. J. Kirk, W. Sturt, H. Crossley, F. Labouchere,Rt.Holl.ll Talbot, C. Currie, Raikes Lee, W. Tattered, H. Davie, Sir H. R. F. Lemon ' Sir C. Thompson, G. Dees , R. Lewis, Sir G. C. Thornely, T. Deedes, William Lindsay, W. Thornhill, W. Denison, E. Littleton, E. Tite, W. Denison, J. E. Lowe, R. Tomline, G. Dering, Sir E. Luce. T. Traill, G. De Vero, S. E. M'Cann, J. Uxbridge. Earl Dill vvyn, L. L. MacGregor, James Villiers, C. Drumlanrig, Vis. M'Gregor, John Vivian, H. H. Drummond, 11. McTaggart, Sir J. Waddington, IV Duke, Sir J. Megan, W. Warner, E. Duncan, Viscount Marjoribanks, D. Watkins, Col. Duncan, George Martin, P. Watson, W. Duncombe, Hon. Col. Massey, W. Welby. Sir G. Dundas, F. Matheson, Sir J. Wells, W. Dunlop, A. Milligan, B. Whatman. J. I :u Pre, C. Mills, T. Whitbread, S. East, sir J. Michell, William Wickham, It. Ellice, E. Moffat, G. Wilkinson, W. Esmonde, J. Monek, Vis. Willcox, B. ',wart, W. Iloncreiff, J. Williams. T. Ewart, J. Monsell, W. Williams. W. Farrer, J. Montgomery, Sir G. Wilson, J. Feilden, M. Morris, D. Winnington, Sir T. Fenw,ek, 11. Mom.yn, E. W oo d, Si r C. Fergna, John AI owatt, F. Wortley, J. S. Ferguson, Colonel Mowbray, J. R. Wrightson, W. Ferguson, Sir R. Mullings, J. R. Wynne, W. Ferguson, J. Muntz, 4a. Wyvill, M. Fitz Gerald, Sir John Napier, Sir C. Fitzgerald, J. Newark, Viscount TELLIIO3. Fitzroy, Henry Nisbet,R Fitzwilliam, C. North, F. Hayter, W. Fitzwilliam, G. Oakes, J. Mulgrave, Ear Lat NOES—SO. Adderley, C. B. Graham, Lord M. Naas. Lord Arch dell, Capt. M. Greene, John Na ler, J. Paldock, E. H. Gros.n, Edward Newdegate, C. Baring, T. Hadfield. George Pakington, Sir J. Baring, F. Hamilton, Lord Claud Parker, R. Bellew, T. Hamilton, G. A. Peacocke, G. Bignold, Sir S. H am i lton, R. C. N. Roebuck, J. Blackburn, Peter . Hanbury, Hon. S. Seymer, IL Bond, J. H andcock, It. Smijth,Sir W. Bowyer, G. Holford, R. Smith, J. B. Bramley-Nfoore, J. liume, W. Somerset , Colonel Brace, C. L. C. Jolliffe, Sir W. Stafford, A. Buck, Col. Jolliffe, 11. Swift. R. Butt, G. M. Kennedy, T. Tempest, Lord A. V. Cecil, Lord Knox; W. S. Thesiger, Sir. F. Cocks, T. S. Liddell, H. G. Tollemache, J. Cole, H. A. Lindsay, Col. J. Verner, Sir W. Conolly, T. Lisburne, Earl Vernon, V D.tvereux, J. Lockhart, W. Waddington, D. Dunne, Colonel Lovaine, Lord Walsh, Sir J. Evelyn, W. J. Lushington, C. M. Warren, S. Fellowes, E. Macartney, G. Wyndham, H. Fitzgerald, W. R. S. MacEvoy, E. Wynne, John Foyer, J. Maguire. J. F. Yorke, E. - Follett, B. S. Matins, Richard Forester, Col. Meagher, T. lIELLESSr Gibson, 31. Mall, E. Moore, G. Gladstone, Capt. J. Murrough, J. P. Bantle, H. fADVIARTISZILSNT..I SIGHT AND HEARING. SPECTACLNII POWERFUL TELESCOPES, OPERA, RACE, AND PERSPECTIVI GLASSES.—Messrs. S. and B. Solomon, opticians, 39, Ally' marle-street, Piccadilly. Ouse:ire—opposite the York Hotel: By ker Majesty's Ro3 al Letters Patent for valuable and extraordinary improvements in the mo s t p ower f u l an d brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Racecourse, Opera, and Per: upective Glasses, to know the distances of objects *woo through them—of great importance to the army, navis and others. These te!e ;copes possess such extra ordinal powers that some three and a-half inches, with an extra ey' piece, yell show distinctly Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rinf and the double stars ; with the same telescope can 1 . seen a person's countenance three miles and a half distaa! , and an object from 16 to 20 miles. They are of larger and *a sizes, with increasing powers accordingly ; while their vary' ing from 4 to 6 inches enable us to discover more than the above and the Georgian with his 6 eate ll ites, & c.—T h e Roy a' Exhibition, 1851.—yaluable, newly-invented, very smalls powerful waistcoat-pocket glass,the size of a walnut, by NV 13161 . 1 , a person can be seen and known l miles distant ; they ansvm every purpose on the race-course, and at the opera houses' country scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 8 to 10 mile l4 They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, t 4 sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. Opera. race-course, camp, and perspective glasses, with wonderful power. Newly-constructed Spectacle Lenses of the groat' est transparent power. The valuable advantage derived from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired ill preserved and strengthened, and very aged persons ale enabled to employ their sight at the most minute-wow' pation• can see with these lenses of a much less =gull' ing power--and they do not require the frequent changes to the dangerous effects of farther powerful assistanoe• Deafness—New Discovery.—The Organic Vibrator, an es' traordinary powerful, small, newly-invented instrument for deafness ' entirely different from all oth ers, t o surpass all' thing of the kind that has been, or probably ever an be, proddeed. Being of the same colour as the skin, is not per' ceptible ; it enables deaf persons to, hear distinctly at church and at public assemblies ; the unpleasant sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely removed; and it affords ‘ll assistance that possibly ,cou ld b e d es i re d . -39, Albetharbe street, Piccadilly. Observe—opposite the York HotaL BIRTHS. OP • SON. On the 30th ult., at Greenwieh, the wife of Hr. Samuel Saw, solicitor. On the 30th ult., Mrs. White, 8, Haymarket, London. JP A DAUGHTICII. On the 29th ult., at Chester-le-street, the wife of the Rev. J. P. De Pledge. On the 28th ult., at Cumberland-street, Bryanatow square, the wife of T. W. Watson, Esq. MARRIED. - On the 29th uIL, at the C a th e d ra l , M anchester, C. Tan . cred, Esq., of Arden Hall, Yorkshire, to Elizabeth, the daughter o f th e l ate Mr. J. Heatley, of London-road, Manchester. On the 23th ult. at Clifton Church, Lieuten an t• C o lo nel Montgomery, Royal Regt., to Juliet Selina, eldest daugh ter of the Rev. William Henry Twyning, of Bryn, is the c 'linty of Pembroke, and rector of Grosmont, Mon mouthshire. DIED. - - On the 23th ult., at Hamilton•place, General the Earl of Cork and Orrery, K.P., aged 89. On the 29th nit., at St. Peter's, near Margate, Sarah, wife of Mr. W. J. Balker, of H.M.'s Office of Works, Whitehall, aged 47. On the 30th ult., at Pangbourne, near Reading, Mr./iir• West. aged 81. On the 30th ult., at Woodlands, near Maldon, Essex, Frederick J. Bell, formerly of 338, Oxford-street; Lou. don, aged 42. On the 28th ult., at White-street, Bethnal-green, Mr. Henry Gregory, Registrar of Births and Deaths. On the 14th ult., Mr. Henry Wyon, Royal Mint, aged 22. On the 30th ult., in the Cloisters, Windsor Castle, isa• bella Anna, the infant daughter of Dr. G. J. Elves. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, or No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of MiAlikeloas Wednes,lay, July 2, latile, ~, 1 , ) ixe ; • ; ~ '! "'~ ~ .. • ' . , .:,1 fa r , ~::± _... r -. •' 7 , ~,~. t • t 1, i ,~ 3. ~