The Sun. — London, England, 1856-07-01 00:00:00

• OTrti;iaecouut to be more sensitive to any supposed vie . lation of their law. Two circumstances had to be con , sidered, the municipal law of the United. States and their ri ht under international law. Under the former, an Act • - of Congress of 1818 made it a misdemeanour to hire or re , tain any person to go out of the territory of the United. States for th e purpose of being enlisted in the service of a foreign state. Unfortunately our Government had looked to close too the provisions of that Inw,_less to see how they could obey it th an how they could effect t h e i r object with , out positively violatin g . th e law. His hon. and learne I, friend the Attorney-General appeared to him to take a ~ most extraordinary view of international law as applic able to this 'question, and, he said it with great respect, utterly unfounded. . As it. appeared to him, though an individual might evade the provisio ns of the legislative acts of the United States, and keep clear of the penalties which would attach if he brought himself within the term 3 of the law, yet if, he systematically prompted and en raged others to evade it, suc h con d uct, he apprehended, would be contrary to the good faith and forbearance w hich should characterise the relations betwe e n th etwo countries. His hon. and learned iiiend, Mr. Crampton, and Lord Clarendqyaid that they must look to the municipal law of the United States to know what their view of interna tional law was. Now he must say, with great deference to such high authorities, that time was great confusion of ideas in this tu.tion, broached iu the manner that it had been ; because the municipal law of any country was only applicable to the subjects within that country; and thoug h that law might limit or restrain, or give freedom and liberty to its subjects, it could have no effect on interna tional law and the intercourse between nations. It was . quite true that every American was free to quit the . country, as had been laid down by Judge Ingersoll ; lu; that did not at all touch the international question ; for if a feagra Government, or the agent of a foreign Govern-. twilit, lent itself to seduce, or induce, or allure persons to 4114-4...‘ and-he approached-it. with a manse-a thealitlie.ultseia-wh ink he found himself plaint, because it was aleiost impessible to speak of it in those terms of m leration whiilli present state of affairs reqni ed. That that trial was set on foot and was conduc'e I by men bitterly hostile in spirit to this . country no one could doubt. He did not for a single Mo ment wish to infer that those were the sentiments of the whole American authorities, and he enthely believed they } were not the sentiments of the great body of the A aitrican people. That that tri sl was conducted in a spirit of most bitter animosity towards England no one could doubt. Mr. 'Van Dyke, the United States District Attorney, • opened the case rather as a case against Great Britain anti the British authorities than against the individuals cc ousel, spoke in terms of the greatest disparagement of Great Britain, adverted to the war in which we were then engaged, and showed his sympathies were not with the allies, by alluding with evident satisfaction to our losses, and in terms of sneering sarcasm and contempt to . our presumed deficiency in military skill. Witnesses were produced, and who were they ? They were Mr. or Capt. Strobel, whom the hon. member did not doubt to be a man of the most infamous character, others of very much the same stamp, and Mr. Hertz, who, being convicted, made a confession and implicated Mr. Crampton. The statements of a man who was an approver, and of an other man who had just been convicted, both of whom the American. Government would have found, if they had taken the slightest trouble to inquire, to be men of infa mous character, were taken as true, notwithstanding the strong and emphatic denial of Mr.Crampton and the ether gentlemen affected by those statements. Nay, more, the American Government sent here, not an authentic report of the trial, but the report which vas prepared for a newspaper —the Penn3ylvanian—remarkable for its bitter animosity against this country, the editor of which was examined on the trial, and was attempted to be foisted as a juryman upon the panel. There was not the slightest chance of the jury finding any other than a verdict against Hertz. It was an indictment against, and, by implication, a conviction of, the British Government ; and this gentle man, who was witness upon the trial, whose report was sent by the American Government as a report of the trial, did not scruple to speak of Great Britain in these terms, They are somewhat amusing : " England for centuries has been bullying and bribing the world; her insolence is astounding. In the Pacific, in the ' Atlantic, on the Isthmus, everywhere, that haggatd volup tuary—(a laugh)—Great Britain, who has been so long drunk with the blood of other nations that she now reels nod totters ' with her own inanity - (laughter).-glares upon us with her red eyeballs, and bids us depart:" (Cheers and laughter.) Those were the terms with which the editor of the Pennsyvaniak introduced to the wor1•1 a report of the trial, which was adopted by the American Government. He heard a right hon. gentleman say " Hear the other side," but be thanked God the British press was not yet lowered to such wretched ribaldry as that, and he hoped it never would be. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentle- Mall seemed inclined to giveimplicit credit to the witnesses: (Mr. Moore, with astonishment, " What ! I ? I deny it.") Then, to cast imputations upon the honour, veracity, and character of the gentleman whom the hon. gentleman im pugned, without evidence, was totally unwarrantable and totally unjustifiable. (Hear, hear.) The case made by the American Government was based upon the statements of these persons. It turned out that Mr. Strobel was a reason of bad character; he had served in the Dani,h army; he had held some rank in that army ; he proposed to raise men ; he said many of his countrymen were ready at once to follow him. Then came Hertz ' who said the same. Both expressed the greatest i n t eres t in the cause of the allies and the utmost zeal for the service of England. There was abundant evidence now that Strobel was a spy in the employ of Russia, and that Hertz was a swindler and a man of no character. But those facts were not in the pos session of the British authorities in America when those persons offered their services. It might be true, so far as their statements were concerned, that they violated the municipal law of the United States. In their anxiety to set men and establish a claim. to be rewarded for their zeal and assiduity, they might have transgressed the law of the United States. Whether they did so with the honest pur pose of serving the British Government, or whether they were preparing schemes of treachery and fraud in the in terest of Russia, or of those who were hostile to Great ' Britain, was a grave question, which he would not stay to die o aas ; but when, in answer to the statements of each men as those, ha had the positive asseraion of Mr. Crampton awl the consuls that those statementa were wholly and en tirely destitute of the slightest shadow of foundation upon truth, he asked the house whether they thought th it, under those circumstances, tha - B,itish Government would have been justified in making seapegOats of Mr. Crampton and the consuls by recalling them, and marking them with the stigma of Government disapprobation ? (dear, hear. ) He thought no one would go along with the hon. member in believing that, in spite of their instructions, those e.,en tlensen did violate, the municipal law by causing enlist ments, or engagements to enlist, on the territory of the United States ; and he submnittej that the British Govern ment, in accordance with the instructions which were framed, wore justified in accepting the services of their own subjects, and of Germans, Pales, Hungarians, or Italians, if they accepted those services by enlisting them beyond the precincts of the United States. There was no evidence that any acts were done in contravention of the )(teal laws of the United States, except the evidence lof 'Those men, who could not be believed; and against it they bad the positive denial of gentlemen, men of honour, and Englishmen. (Cheers.) It was all very well for the hon. gentleman, who wanted to make out a case if he coed I against these parties, to take up the despatches and, in stead of reading them in a manly, straightforward manner, read them - with a sneering sarcastic tone, meant to imply . - that he did not believe a word of them, bat in that view ' he was aura the house would not follow the hon. gentle man.- Re submitted that the question was whether her Majesty's Government would have been justified .in acting merely upon the view taken by the American Go vernment on the evidence of Hertz and Strobel, in spite! of the emphatic denial of Mr. Crampton and the consuls. Eli minated from the mass of verbosity with which, from elle side or the other, it had been- entangled, that was really the case which was brought befOre the attention of ;he house. He h a d cau ti ous l y a b sta i ned from saying one w rd upon the conduct of the American Government except; as ' regarde I that trial. At th e same ti me h e mi ght say, with out any intention of giving offence, that the spirit and tgie • tone in which the American authorities had considered he correspondence which h a d t a k en p l ace, an d Considered • d • answered the despatches of Lord Clarendon up )11 this sb ject (especially when the attempts of Lord Clarendon wire always of a conciliatory character) were not such as might have been expected from a State which desired, with sin cerity, to maintain friendly relations with Englao (Cheers.) Whether their conduct was to ha attributed to that cause to w hi c h th e r i g ht h on. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire adverted the other evening —a con viction on the part of the United States that Great Britain would not view with favour or submit unhesitatingly,to that expansive tendency which was said'to characterise tale territorial policy . of the American Government, was mere than hs could undertake to say; but; of this he was *.- • 'meted, that any per.nenent rupture of the f-iendly refs,- ' tions bet Ween the two - countries would be fatal to the b et interests of beth, and deeply inju r i ous t o th e cause of p o gresive irrrPeovemeetthroughout th e w h o l e civilised world. (Cheers.) - It became its' as the older, as not the lest powerful; and, Inokiiig to what' was gbing on in varidus parts of Arneric-i, ha thotight he might also ad 1 as not the 'leftist deltoid of' the two nations, to evince' a spirit of madly i moderation and' digni fied forbearance. (Cheers.) We wore never better prepared for war, and therefore ought to I leis the mere inclined to peace. Oar 'renown was not ;of yesterday; our glorrwits not of recent date ; our prowess had been established by sea and land in every quarter .of the universe.' We could afford to be conciliatory ourselves, • atel kJ exlihrt othereto conciliation. Nor 'was it poesibleio misinterpret the motive with which we might address the American people in these persuasive accents— .' Nen patrne validas in viscera vertite vires. , . Twins prior, ta parce, sestina qui duds Olympo ; Prreice telt ;Menn e sauguis linens. • . . (Cheers.) It was in that spirit of harmony that the Go ' vernsnent now entenel on the present discussion. Theze was no denyi ng tlytt its tend enc y was t o ta k e at a disald -- vantage bpt,ll the Ministry and these absent m en w h ose honour and veracity lied been impugned, but who did no t r' enjoy the opportunity of defen c il ug t h emselves, (lleat.) * Remembering that, though this attack was directed ao•a*ti-t her Majesty' s Government, the inter es t s o f those persons . were deeply implicated —nor tlitirs aloes, but what was 0" far greeter tnesnerst, those a l so o f t wo mighty nations--it 4 . was to be hoped that, the house woul t view this questipn withent reference to play considerations, and in a cilia : • dispassionate spirit, suitable to its dignity, gravity, aui importance. (Loud cheers.) . . Sir F. THESIGER - said he should address himself .to " . e • UPI partl s egst o r the question. The Attorney-Geueral had . complained of Mr. Moore for not yielding to the request of • the Government to postpone this question. But he hid been -, long enough in the house to know that no moment was con. sideredopportune for brin g i ng f orwar d a vote of censure on • i , the Government ; and if the house was to wait until those a negotiations which were darkly shadowed forth were a' brought•to a close, it was certain there could be no discsis •;' rims of therrpiestine until discussion w as t oo late. lie 1 .concurred with the Attorney -General on the necessity of approaching this important question in a spirit of trio - • deration. We had to consider how we stood, and what •• had .brought us' be -this position, We had just , so ceiyed one of .the strongest marks which one nation j . . „ could use towards another of its disapprobation. • Our minister at the court of the United States had been ay - dismissed, along with f our o f our consul;. Was their con ' duet not'such as to render them obnoxious to censure? If ' '. it were not, there had been- a gross and gratuitous insult on.the part of the American Government. (Haar.) When ' the Foreign Enlistment Bill was under discussion in that • house, several wise persons enticipated that it would be likely to, embroil ns with foreign powers, and warned the ' Government to th it effect. Questions were pat as to the countries whence recruits were likely to be obtained ' • but no hint was ever thrown out by the Governme n t that any attempt would be made to obtain them from America, or the warning addressed to them would. have been still stronger. There were other grounds of misunderstanding with America which ought to have withheld the Govern ment from any such, attempt, aetthe Americans were aura brava the UelitesLStatee r although.iiethat-cas -there might be no le:WI of the municipal law, there would be a breach of international law, and a violation of that community of iaterceurse which ought to subsist between two nations. (Hear, hear.) He would pat this case :An American hat estell'ished a manufacture which was supposed to confer great public ad vantegee ; all the workmen in that eete tdi,iireent were free to quit the country and transfer their I sle mr to some other soil. Bat because the workmen possessed this in livi Inel freedom, would it be maintained that another Government could allure these men away, by the offer of a higher price for their libour, without a breach of international law ? Mr. CHEET HAIL—It is often doue. Sir F. TFIESIGER—Though it might be done he did not hesitate to say that it was a gross violation of inter national law, and contrary to that spirit of justice and courtesy which should regulate the intercourse of nations. He could not therefore assent to the doctrine that because persons were free, by the municipal laws of the United States, to leave that country even for the purpose of en listment, there was no breach of international law in the government of another country holding out inducements to the subjects of the United States to leave that country for the purpose of enlistment in a foreign legion. It was this mistaken view of international law which led to these proceedings, so justly blameable in his opinion, and which brought upon this country so much humiliation. (Hear.) What was the conduct of this country in America with regard to this question of enlistment ? There was great difficulty in tracing in the blue hooka the precise actsdone by the recognised and authorised agents of the Govern ment, but there were some occasional glimpses of light which 'were sufficient to show that they were pursuing a course which was highly reprehensible. There could be no doubt that there was a system organised within the United States for the purposaeoLdedacing men to leave that country, and to proceed to Halifax or Canada, there to be enlisted. There were agents, money, and depots for the purpose of carrying out the plan. With regard to the particular agents employed for the purpose of carrying out the plan—Hertz and Strobel—he begged to observe that if the case depended on their testimony he would at once abandon it ; but that was not so, for they had under the hand o f M r . C ramp t on himself admis sion that he Employed thet • two persons as agents for the purpose of enlisting men, and they had the cypher to which they, as well as other agents had aocess. Such being the agents and machinery employed, he would con sider whether it was possible to trace in their proceedings any indication of a conviction that what they did was per fectly lawful, that they-had a right to do what they di I, and that the American GOvernment had no just ground of complaint. At a very early period Mr. Crampton took the advice of a vary able lawyer. The hon. member for Mayo read his opinion; and anything more strongly worded for the purpose of inducing caution on the part of the British Government could hardly be imagined. (Hear. ) Mr. Crampton communicated this opinion to Sir G. Le M , rchant, and adds ; I have furnished your agent with a copy of this opinion for his information and guidance, and I have directed him to confine his operations, in the first instance, to making in quiries as to the desire which may exist among the inhabit ants of the eastern cities of the United States to enter her Majesty's service, to inform such persons generally of the dis position of he Majesty's Government to accept such prope ly qualified candidates as may offer themselves, to make them acquainted with the terms upon which the enlistments will be made,and with the places within the British dominions to which they mayrepair for the purpose of' being enrolled, carefully ab staining, however, from entering into any argument with such persons, or from doing anything which might be con strued into "retaining or hiring" any individual to emigrate for the purpose of enlisting - in-the-British service. Any ad vance of money by her Majesty's agents, or others, in the United States, would constitute an infraction Of the Neu trality Law. It was also communicated, together with an account of the steps which had been taken, to Lord Clarendon, in a despatch dated the 12th of March, and on the 12th of April following Lord Clarendon replied, approving of those proceedings, but telling Mr. Crampton to be careful in abstaining from any violation of the laws of the United States. Now he must say, with great respect for Lord Clarendon, that having the opinion of this eminent lawyer before him, in which was pointed out the dangers incurred by attempting- to procure men to enlist—that the law of the United &atea would reach every case of payment, expenditure, or other valuable consideration, however ingeniously devised—it would have been wise on his part to have abstained from the endeavour to obtain troops in the United States, or, at all events, to have warned the Minister that the course he intended to pursue was not open, straightforward, and candid, but an under hand proceeding which her Majesty's Government would not be justified in adopting. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said that Lord Clarendon warned the minister to avoid concealment from the American Government ; but ho had looked over the correspondence and could find no despatch in which Lord Clarendon had told the minister to be open and to avoid concealment from the American Go vernment. Bat if any such instructions had been issued they were not observed by Mr. Crampton. The fatal mis take of the Government and their agents was that they merely instructe i their subordinatesto avoid any infringe ment of the municipal law of America, without looking to the broader and more extended view of the question ul,oe which Americans were likely to feel sensitively when their rights of sovereignty were invaded. Mr. Angus Mac h. , nabl issued an advertisement stating that an office had been established for the purpose of procuring passages from the United Statearo - FflliriX for persons who might go there to enlist. But, on the 22d of March, Mr. Cramp ton wrote to Consul Barclay to disavow the proceeding of Mr. Angus Macdonald, because they were apprehensive it Would attract the attention of the American Government, produce a "ferment," and induce them to interfere and in• terrupt the proceedings. Mr. Crampton afterwards showed the letter he had written to Consul Barclay to Mr. Marcy, and the latter sai I that from his doing so he understood that he meant to disavow the participation of the British Government-in any acts of enlistment. In the early p art of 1855 there were several offers of enlistment mede to Mr. Crampton, and the answer was that the- neutrality law of the United States was very stringent and comprehensive, and that no enlistment could take place in the United States. But Mr. Lumley, in replying to one of the agents, stated that there was no objection to the insertion of an advertisement stating that steamers for the conveyance of passengers would constantly run daring the summer, and although Judge •Kane had decided that the payment of passage-money did not come within the neutrality laws of the United States, his authority could not be very great, because he afterwards altered his opinion, so that the opinion of Judge Kane on the subject neutralised the opinion -of Judge Kane. (A, laugh.) Now, he did net hesitate to say that if one person paid the passage money of another it was as near a case of " hiring teed retaining" as he could imagine, and it came, be thought, not only within the spirit but the letter of the law. Hie object was to show the secret nature of the proceedings adopted by the agents of the British Government, in refe rence to this enlistment. The instructions which 'had been issued by Mr. Crampton to all the agents had be e n already referred to by th e h on . member for Mayo, and were read at the trial. These instructions contained the following paragraph : It ii essential to success that no assemblage of persons should take place at beer-houses or other similar places of en tertainment, for the purpose of devising measures for enlist ing, and the parties should ssupulonsly avoid resorting, to this or similar meads e disseminating the desired informa tion, inasmuch as the attention of the American authorities would not fail to be called to such proceedings, which would undoubtedly be regarded by them as an attempt to carry on recruiting fora foreign power within the limits of the United States; and it certainly must be borne iu mind that the in stitution of .legal proceedings against any of the parties in question, even if .they were to elude the penalty, would be fatal to the success of the enlistment itself. His hon. and learned friend said, that everything which had been done Was perfectly lawful, but he would ask the house whether these:attempts at c( n leahnent ditl not show I on the face of them that the parties themselves considered the pneceediags . they were taking to be unjustifiable. They did not adopt the view which had been ingeniously, pet forward by hie hen. and leeraed friend, by Mr. Cramp ton and L , rd Clarendon, because if they had been acting in a perfectly legal way they need not have shrulak ieto the - darkness,-and endeavonre 1 to conceal their proceedings . from public view. It h a d b een sa id t h at M r. Marcy was aware of-all,that had been going on, and that be acquiessed in Oa proceedings, at least by his silence. How (lid that appear'? When Mr. Lumley read for -Mr. Marcy the riespetab of Mr. Crampton, in which he disavowal the pro• ceedings of Mr. Angus Macdonald, he said that Mr. Marcy appeared pleased with the communication, and desired that he might have a copy of it to show to the American Cabinet. Now, he would ask any dispaseionate man whether it was possible for Mr. Marcy to have any idea than that the notion of enlistment had been.aban doned altogether? (Hear, hear.) Such was the stet'. of things when at last the attention of the American Government was called to the proceedings with re - - gerd to the eulist , nent, and on the 6th of July, 1853, gr. Buchanan addressed Lord Clarendon on the subject. He (Sir F. Thesiger) most earnestly invited the attention of the house to the correspondence, and as he did not wish to weary them, he hal been at some trouble to make -ex tracts Mr. Buchanan wrote • Tue disclosures made within the very last month, upen judicial investigation at Boston (a report of which i- now le fore the nutbrsigned), afford good reason to believe that an extensive plan has been organised by British functionaries and agents, and is now iu successful operation in different parts of the Union, to furnish recruits for the British army. The plain and imperative duties of neutrality, under the law of nations, require that a neutral nation shall not suffer its territory to become the theatre on which one of the bellige rents might raise armies to wage war against the other. If such a permission were granted, the partiality which this would manifest in favour of one belligerent to the prejudice of the other, could not fail to produce just complaints on the ',add the injured belligerent, and might eventually involve' the neutral as a party in the war. • v st e i r - unemhtoeowdat far persons have e t v n er cl s e ao r undersigned In view of all these considerations, the President has in cted, ia t a h sle c whether station, engagingt ion, e either er themin enlistingo pproceed persons eed from within the n the United the B ill3 l B . S i l t .a t i i t a P s i t h Ps e hr s: Gb r o o ao. r . : there enlisted and ha vinees, for the purpose of being measures, if any, have been taken to restrain their unjusti fiablewt roumwnidttehir,:tuElaorl of Claren don conduct. To this distinct and specific demand of Mr. Buchanar, Lord Clarendon replies on the 16th July : The undersigned must, in the first instance express the regret of her Majesty's Government if the law of the United States has been in any way infringed by persons acting with or without any authority from them ; and it is hardly neces sary for the_unclersigued to assure Mr. Buchanan that any such infringement of the law of the United States is entirely contrary to the wishes and to the positive instructions of her Majesty's Government. The house would recollect that Lord Clarendon repeatedly asserted that he had made the most ample expression of regret on the part of this Geyernment, for any violation of the American law, but the only passage to which Lord Clarendon referred for these expressions was that he had just read, It expressed his regret if the law had been in any way infringed, but then it went on to assert an incon testible right to act as he had done, and so far from er a pressing any regret, he justified ueself. The House would find that from first to last he never abandoned that position. In the same despatch he says ; Her Majesty's Government do not deny that the acts and advertisements of these self-constituted and unauthorised agents were in many instances undoubted violations of the la w of the United States ; but such persons bad no authority whatever for their proceedings from any British agents, by wheal they were promptly and unequivocally disavowed. Bat be does not condescend to say what were t ie partieu lar acts and advertisements of the accredited see s which were different- from those of the unauthorised agents which he admitted to be illegal. He, gave no answ(r to the question how far the Government approved the acts of these agents. This letter was deemed very unsatisfac tory, and in a despatch of the 27th of September, ad dressed to Mr. Crampton, Mr. Marcy distinctly stated' what it -was of which the American Government com plained. The President perceives with much regret that the clis LONDO TIIVENIyi G s JULT '.closures implicate you ia _Leese .proceetliage.- --The ieforme , tion in his posscssieu does not allow him to doubt thatiyour i eel, as well as the Lieutenant-General of Nova Seoti t, and ' several civil and military officers of the British Government, were instrumental in setting on foot this•s;heme of eniist- • i ment, and made :iber 1 provision for funds to be used.as in- ducements fnr persons residing therein to leave the country for the purpose of enlisting in the British military service. 1 And, in tele eace to the demand which had been made, he Rays : i The object of this note is to ascertain bow far the acts of known and acknowledged agents of the British Government, done within the United States, in carrying out this scheme of recruiting for the British army, have been authorised or sanctioned by her Majesty's Government. That was a clear and categoriCal demand which deserved an unequivocal answer, and it was much to be regretted that Lord Clarendon, so far from displaying the courtesy due to the United F.ltates Government, should have written the letter of the 29th of September, in which he makes most offensive remarks on that Government, and reflects on them by insinuating that they themselves had been guilty of a breach of the international law. Ho says : Her Majesty's Government feel confident that even the extraordinary measures which have begin adopted in various parts of the Union to obtain evidence against her Majesty's servants or their agents by practices sometimes resorted to under despotic in titutions, but which are disdained by all free and enlightened governments, will fail to establish any well founded charge against her Majesty's servants. The British Government , is fully aware of the obligations of inter national duties, and is no less mindful of those obligations than is the government of the United States. The observance of those obligations ought undoubtedly to be reciprocal, and her Majesty's Government do not impute to the Government of the United Sates that while claiming an observance of those obligations by Great-Britain-Ow are lax in enforcing a respect for those obligations within the Union. This passage was not less offensive, because it conveyed an insinuation instead of a direct charge, and it was much to be regretted that Lord Clarendon should have so far for gotten himself as to write a letterof that description in an swer to the just demand of the American Government; and it was that letter which produced all the irritation and ill feeling which ultimatelyled to the course so deeply to be regretted. In answer to it Mr. Marcy wrote the despatch of the 13th of October. After repelling the im puted - in contained in Lord Clarendon's latter, he says : The President would fail in due respect for the national charcter of the United States, and in his duty to maintain it, if he did not decline to accept as a satisfaction for the wrongs complained of, Lord Clarendon's assurance that these official were enjoined a strict observance of our laws, and that he does not, believe that any of them have disregarded the in junction. This government believes, and has abundant proof to warrant its belief, that her Britannic Majesty's officers and agents have transgressed our lawn and disregarded our rights; and that its solemn duty requires that it should vindi cate b, VI by insisting upon a proper satisfaction. The Pre sident indulges the hope that this demand for redress will be deemed reasonable and be acceded to by her Britannic Ma jesty's Government. This government has indicated the satisfaction which it believes it has a rig -t to claim from the British Government in my despatch to you of the 15th of July last. _ That despatch was not delivered to Lord Clarendon until the 2d of November, and he has since asserted that Mr. Buchanan withheld it because he considered that the de spatch of the 11th of July was a perfectly satisfactory set tlement of the dispute. A controversy arose on this subject in consequence of the statement made in that house by the noble lord at the head of the Government. Much corre spondence took place, but it was immaterial to the main question before them. The original demands of the Ame rican Government were much less than they afterwards became. On the 15th of July Mr. Marcy wrote to Mr. Buchanan : - The President instructs you to say to her Majesty's Govern ment that he expects it will take prompt and effective mea sures to arrest their proceedings, and to discharge from service those persons now in it who were enlisted within the United States, or who left the United States under contracts made here to enter and serve as soldiers in the British army. Lord Clarendon says that before this letter was received orders had been sent out to atop all recruiting; but in his letter of the 16th November he justifies his whole pro ceedings, and contends that he had a r i g ht t o d o every thi ng he has done. Ho says: It appears to her Majesty's Government that,, provided me'y that no actual " recruiting" (that is, enlisting or hiring) takes place within the United States, British officers who, within the United States' territories, might point out the routes which intending recruits should follow, or explain to them the terms upon which they would be accepted, or pub lish and proclaim such terms, or even defray their travelling expenses, or do similar acts, could not be justly charged with violating such sovereign territorial rights. The despatch concludes in a most extraordinary manner : It only remains for me to state that no enlistment in the British service is valid without attestation, and that accord ing t 3 British law a recruit cannot be attested in a foreign country, nor even in the British colonies, without a specially delegated authority for that purpose, No binding contract could, therefore, be made with any man within the United States ; promises might be so made, but any money given:to men to enable them to repair to places beyond the United States' territory for the purpose of being enlisted would be advanced at a Ask. Nevertheless, if it can be shown that there are persons now in the foreign legion who have been en listed or hired in violation of the United States' law, as well as of the British law, her , Majesty's Government will be pre pared to offer them their discharge, and to give them a free passage back to the United States, if they choose to return thither. Let the house observe Lord Clarendon's view of what this country had a right to do in the United States—a right which he deliberately maintained. Mr. Marcy might very well say : " Although you have put a stop to recruiting, you have laid down a principle, which you reserve for future occasions, which we must deal with." Lord Claren don says there can be no enlistment without atteetatien, and ne attestation can take place in a foreign country, bat we are ready to discharge any persons you can show' to have Been enlisted in violation of the United States laW— but according to it, no person could be enlisted in the United States even if he wished to be, and it was, there fore, perfectly illusory of him to make the offer in satisfac tion of the demand of the American Government. It Was only just, howeier, to Lord 'Clarendon, that in his de spatch to Mr. Dallas he complained that he had been niis un lerstoed. He says :-- The reference made to British law was merely intended to indicate that if persons had been enlisted under the ciream ,stances supposed, such enlistment would have been at vari ance with British as well as with American law; but the Un dersigned did not mean that respect would not be paid; iu the discharge of men, to the principles cf the law of the United States alone, should that law appear to have been -violated in a single case. • Ile (Sir F. Thesiger) put it to the house whether anything could he more illusory than this course, when the United States made a demand for satisfaction. ;• or could anything be more natural than that, when their demand for ex tremely moderate satisfaction was refugee, they should rise in their demands far above what we considered stilfi cient in the letter of December, 1855? The American Go vernment, in the course of proceedings, found themselves compelled to demand the withdrawal of ttr. Crampton; as stated in the June despatch. 'se (Sir F. Thesiger) put it to the house whether the course adopted by Lord(Cla'rebtlim, first in writing au offensive letter in answer to the clues- tion whether the acts of the agents were sanctionediby the Government, followed by a bold assertion of a right which.could not be allowed by the American Government without compromising their independence, and his re fusal of the moderate satisfaction demanded had not driven the American Government ioto a position where it was necessary to take some step to vindicate their Sovereign rights? Lord Clarendon, however, had still' an opportunity of preventing the last indignity put on this couutry. He might have admitted that his refusal \V as not justified, and , have withdrawn the minister and re moved the consuls, at the same time, if he believed them to have been faithful servants, giving them employment elsewhere. Unfortunately he adopted, a different course. In his despatch of the 33th he says : . . That Mr. CraniptoU positively and distinctly denies the charge brought against him ; he declarei th a t b e never hired or retained, or engaged a single person wi hin the United States for the service of her Majesty, and that he never coin]: w tenanced or encouraged any viol a ti ve o f thela of the United 'itates., . ' He cannot but express the earnest hOPe of tier Majesty's di vernnierii that these explanations and assuraniees • may prove satisfactory to the Government, of the United States, and effectually remove any ruisaPpiehonsion which may have hitherto' existed. The house would observe that Lord Clarendon distinctly ree gni•ed and sanctioned every act of Mr. Crampton, and decl cored none of his acts were illegal; sand at the tineelm wrote this despatch he was fully informed of the partiem tars of those acts, for he had all the correspondence. of February and March, 1855, bet keen Mr. Crampton and his agents before him. In the month of May he was im ported to have said, " That her IL jesty'S Government had hesitatedin dealing with an agent who could hive so far forgotten bis duty and violated his instructions as to have riolited the Ia tv - of the United States, but to throw otef end censure their agents when they were convinced they had done nothing of the kind would be shabby and dis• honourable." On the 27th of May the American Govern ment wrote :-- The uacquivocal disclaimer of her Majesty's Government of any intention either to infringe the law or disregard the policy, or not respect the sovereign rights of the United States," and their expressions of regret—' if, contrary to their intentions, and to their reiterated directions, there has been infringement of the laws of the United States,' are satis factory to the President. The ground of complaint, so far a% respects her Majesty's Government, is thus removed But the President extremely regrets that he cannotvoncur . in Lord Clarendon's favourable opinion of the conduct o f some of her Majesty's officers who were, as this Government believed, and, after due consideration of all which has been offered in their defence, still believes, implicated in proceedings which were so &early au infringement of the laws and sovereign rights of this country. Lord Clarendon knew perfectly' well that these officers had acted with the sanction of their. Government from begin ning to end. In the month of May he considered it would he shabby and dishonourable to sacrifice them, yet he al lowed the American Government to remove them without a remonstrance. The manly, straightforward, and honour able course for him to have adopted was to have said, " These agents have but faithfully discharged their duty ; they have not disobeyed instructions. Do not visit it upon them ; for whatever has happened the Government is re sponsible, and visit it on them." But what. did. Lord Cla rendon sly? He (Sir F. Thesiger) wouid read his answer. He says : " Her Majesty's Government retain the high opinion which they have ever held of the zeal, ability, and integrity of Mr. Crampton ; and of the earnest desire by which he has been animated to avoid all just cause of offence to the Government to which he was accredited. Her Majesty's Government can not but believe that on many Material points in respect to his conduct the President has been misled by erroneous informa tion, and by the testimony of witnesses undeserving of belief. But in the p• esent case' her Majesty's Government are bound to accept the formal and repeated declaration's of the Presi dont'of his belief that these officers of her Majesty have vio lated the laws of the Union, and are ou that account unac ceptable organs of communication with the Government and authorities of the United States; and her Majesty's Govern ment cannot deny to the Government of the United States a right similar to that which, in a parallel case, they would claim for themselves —the right, namely, of forming their own ( judgment as to the bearing of the laws of the Union upon transactions which have taken place within the Union." - - - What was thfs-b at to sacrifi c e these - jaiidomen 1 1 Lord Cla rendon himself had fitly characterised such conduct, and that in terms which he (Sir V. Thesiger) would be loth to use. He was not in the slightest degree apprehensive that this discussion would produce any irritation or keep alive a gill-feeliagin the American Government. On thecoutrary the people of the United States will learn that the House of Commons do not concur in the principles put forward by Lord Clarendon, and the effect of this discussion will be to tranquillise the u,in is of the people; and so far from being detrimental to the interests of this country cannot but-be" pro:luetive of the beat results. (Hear.) Wet s the United States right in -the course which they ha 1 parsit el or no L ? Th;4 entirely dependiel on the pre toe whether the English '4-x/emu-nit were justified in. the clandestine and secret scheme which they set on foot and carried ot. for the purpose of evading the neutrality laws of the United States. If the GoYerntnent were not justi tied in thatethen, of course. the dismissal of their Minister was perfectly right on the part of the American G,:vern ment, and we must submit, to the indignity which we had received in consequence of the acts of our Government, for no one could doubt tket it was a hunibation and a degra dation to be obliged Co submit to the insult cf the dismis sal of our Minister, and to confess that the American Go vernment were justified in what they had done. (Cheers.) Nothing could be more calculated to degrade this country in the eyes of foreign states. He was very much struck with a passage which he had found in a French newspaper which showed the opinion that was entertained of the con duct of this country in France—an opinion which, no doubt, pervaded the whole cf the continent, and which -would unhappily attach te the British name and character. The passage to which he referred was as follows :—" It is far from our intention to blame the prudence, the circum spection, and even the humility of the Government and statesmen of England, which are commanded in the name of such great interests; but,' nevertheless we will permit ourselves to remark that the spectacle offered by the Bri tish Administration by no means corresponds with the idea we had formed of aegreat country. This moaeration, Oil patience pushed to the limits of abnegation in the presence .of a cool and premeditated insult, this desertion of an agent who was declare I up the last moment worthy of responsi bility, this facility of viewing matters in their best light, astonishes us; but, after all, the honour at stake is not our owe, and it is not for us to take Wunder our protection. (Opposition cheers.) Were they not forcibly reminded by these expressions of the language of the great Lord Chat ham, "But yesterday and England might have stood against the world, now none so poor as to do her reverence ?" And who had brought them to this condition? Why, her Ma jt.sty's Government. Could we then hesitate to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Mayo, declaring that their conduct was not such as to entitle them to the ap probatioe of that house? Mr J. PRILLIMORE hoped the result of the motion would strengthen the hands of the Government. °His hon. and learned friend (Sir F. Thesiger) asked wore they dis posed to submit to the insult of the dismissal of their Am bassador? but he (Mr. Phillirnore) maintained most dis tinctly that any State had, according to the law of nations, a right to demand the recall of an amoassador. When Charles 11. came te this country after the Restoration, altheugh he was on the most frienaly terms with the French Monarch, he immediately demanded the recall of the French Ambassador, and he was receded immediately. If their ambassador had given offence to a foreign nation, and that 1 1 foreign nation demanded his recall, were they to be driven to the alternative of going to war or sending another am bassador ? It was most important for the house to bear in mind that the law of the United States did not resemble the Engli-h law. The policy of the United States permitted any subject of the Sta es to take service under a foreign Power; there were several people in the United States who joined in the war and took service in the British army froth the beat and highest motives ; there were also several victims of Russia, and was there any harm in telling them that, if they chose to go to Halifax, they might enlist in the British army? With regard to the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon, he (Mr. Phillimore) said that from the beginning to the end of the blue book there wart but one directipn given, and that was—" Take care not to offend the law of the United. States." (Hear.) Ho (Mr. Philli more) said, if the law had been transgressed, a high-spirited an' generous nation. ought to be content with the despatch of the Earl of Clarendon to Mr. Buchanan, in which the noble earl stated that to avoid any infringement of the law of the United States, her Majesty's Government had deter mined that all proceedings with regard to enlistment should be put an end to. He said it would be more con sistent with the true dignity and honour of a gr eat nation to accept that apology as frankly as it was offered. Sup• posing no offence to the national honour of America were intended, and the President fully acquitted the English Government of any such intention, was there anything iu the history of America to lead one to suppose that she would be so sensitive upon this subject? When he com pared the conduct of America in reference to us with our conduct to other nations, he was forcibly reminded of a passage in " Junius," in which, speaking of the Dnke of Grafton, he said the conduct of that person reminded him of the conduct of a prude, who prosecuted one lever for a rape, while she solieited the advances of another. Mr. H. BAILLIE said the Attorney-General was per fectly correct in saying that, in deference to the opinion of man* hon. gentlemen with whom he generally acted, he had withdrawn the motion on the American question, of which he had given notice. He (Mr. }Lillie) had no reason to complain of the course taken by the hon. member for Mayo; he no doubt believed that the time had arrived when it was impossible for Parliament, without failing in its duty, any longer to maintain silence on this question, and that they were bound to give to it that consideration which its vast importance imperatively demanded. It was impos sible to deny that it was a question in which the honour and character of the country were involved. Whatever might be their differences of opinion, either with respect to the origin of the war in which they had unfortunately been engaged, or with regard to the manner in which it had been conducted, they were all equally prepared to maintain and vindicate the honour of their country. That honour had been compromised, not indeed by her Majesty's envoy in Washington, because the Ministers of the Crown thought fit to maintain and declare that he had been dis missed 'without reason and cause —that he had committed no offence, and violated no law. Well, if all those facts were tine, then, indeed, an outrageous insult had been Offered to the people of this country, which the Gevern went bad'failed in a proper manner to resent. (Elder, hear.) In discussing this question they must go to itslorigio. They were often told that the war had been popular throughout the country, and that a martial spirit had ge nerally prevailed among the people. It that be 'rue, they had aright to ask how the Ministers had been unable to till up the ranks of the army, or to raise the necessary number of men to carry ou the war. They had a right to ask why the Ministers bad felt it necessary to employ agents to seduce the citizens of foreign states from their allegianCe in order to engage them in the service of her Majesty, con trary to the wishes of their gevernment and the laws of their country. - These were important questions, worthy the serious consideration of the house. He was not one who opposed thraForeign Enlistment Bill. Whatever objections he entertained to that measure he thought it was desirable at the commencement of the war to give full and ample powers to the Executive Government, but he certainly did not anticipate that they would abuse those powers. He never for a moment supposed that any Government would bring forward a foreign onliitment bill unless they had tiactaained by previous inquiry or negotiation whether permission cbuld be obtained to enlist men in those coun- Wel-, in which it was intended to raise foreign legions. Sat & a praCtice had been adopted in modern times by Etifopean tations—by the French Government. when they wanted to raise Swiss legions, and also by the Neapolitan and the Roman Governments, by both of whom it was well known'that Swiss legions had ben engage I It had re meineil for the Ministers of the Queen of E-gland to set all -decency atalefianee—to outrage the law which regulated the conduct of other modern European States, an ! to insult foreign nations in a manner which had called forth the just rebuke of the Government of the United States, and it would he fortunate for the people of this country if this conduct did not lead to still more disastrous results. It also appeared to him that the Government friled iu their duty at the commencement of the war in failing to im press on the minds of the people of this country that if they wished the war to be carried on with vigour, they. ought to bo prepared to - submit to all the evils :Ind incon venience which a state of war of necessity entailed on ci vilised nations; and it was bocense the First _Minister of the Crown shrank from the unpopularity which he knew would attene the enforcement of that principle that he was compelled to resort to a course which lowered the cha racter and compromised the honour of the nation. He could not conceive that a gr ea t er i n s u lt cou ld b e offered to any nation :than attempting to seduce its subjects from their allegiance in order that they might engage in the ser vice of a Powee Which was fighting against a country with which that:nal-len was friendly. 'Rey were teld: thst the 'English Government were misled by the language held by Mr. Buchabane the-American Minister; but he had de rded that ho had given any tricourfreernent to the Govern ment to adopt the course they did. (Divide.) Suppose that before Mr. Buchanan was made aware of the senti ments of his Government upon the subject of the Ruisian war, he had expressed his own opinion to be that the great mass of the people of the United states woul I take a deep interest in the success of the Western Powers, who had come forward to resist an unjust aggression, and to main tain the independenc3 of Europe —suppose that to have been the case, it would only have shown a mistake on the pot of Mr. Bechanon.• But there never was any mistake as to the sentimen is of the American Government, because seven days after the declaration of ' war they made thr.t communication to Mr. Crampton which had been alma y read to the house, in which they told him that the course which the Government intended to pur-ue .vasone if strict neutrality, and that they would n o t t o l era t e any vi Wien or breach of that neutrality by either of the coutesding na tions.' But of whit had Mr. Crampton been guilty? He was accused of having given his sanction to the employ m -nt of agents by officer, of the American Government, for the purpose of seducing the citizens of the United States from their allegiance, and of engaging them in the service of her Majesty. Before he (Mr. Baillie) entered into pr eefs in support of that charge, he desired to come to a clear understanding of the nature of the offence. Great confusion of ideas prevailed upon the subjel. The offence was described, boob by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the noble lord at the head of the Government, as a breach of some municipal law of the United Sates; where as, if - the offence charged had been committed, it was a direct violation of the law of nations. So it hail beta always held by the great constitutional writers who had hitherto been regarded a, high authorities upon questions of international law. The Attorney-General had referred to Vrittel, but he seemed to consider him as a writer whese authority was not much esteemed. 1 attel says, " The man who undertakes to enlist soldiers for foreign countries without their Sovereign's permission, or who entices away the subjects of another State, violates one of the most sacred rights of nations. This crime is distirguished by the name of kidnapping or man stealing. and it is punished with the utmost severity in every well-regulated St te. Foreign enlisters are hanged without mercy, and with the greatest justice. (A laugh.) It is not presumed that their Government evenld order them to commit a crime ; but even if they receive each an order, they ought not to obey it, for they ought not to do anything contrary to the law of nations. With respect to such of them as practise seduction only, it is generally thought sufficient to punish them when caught; but if they use violence, it is usual to claim theieshrrender, and the giving up of the persons whom they-have carried off. If it is done by the orders of their Sovereign, it is a sufficient cause for declaring wr r." Such was the description of the offence and punishment as given by Vatted. But the American Government had fur ui- hed them with a variety of authorities of great eminence both in Germany and France. Hubner, a learned Ger man, laid it down—" A State entirely neutral has a right to exact, even by force if necessary, that the belligerents do not use their neutral powers for the purposes of war; that they do not gee together ammunition, or other re quirements of war; and that they do not make aoy mili tery preparations, or any enrolment or collection of ;amps." The Abbate Galliani, the great Neapolitan jurist, and M. Ilautefenille, a French jurist, laid down the same princi ple. He would give the authority of a statesman whore opinion he well knew would be respected by the noble porn at the head of the Governments—he alluded to Mr. C- n ning. Upon a motion made in April, 1823, by Lord Al thorp for the repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which was supported by the noble lord the member for the City of London, and opposed by Mr. Canning, the Secretary of State for Forum Affairs, Mr. Canning sai , l—" WI at I now cell upon the house to do is to adopt the same emus which has been recommended to neutral powers upou tor- trier occasions. If I wished for a guide in the system of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America in the days of the Presidency of Washington, and the Secre taryshio of Jefferson. I n 1793, d ur i ng thel French war, complaints were made against America that vessels were being fitted nut in her ports, in opposition to the laws of neutrality. Immediately upon this representation, the American Goverurneet held that such a fitting out was coetrary to the relations existing between that country and Great Britain, anti orders were issued prohibiting the arming of auy vessels. That is the principle upon which we ought to act." He (Mr. - Baillie) could only regret that these principles were no lodger maintained by his (Mr. Canning's) successor in office and friend. That Mr. Can ning might have gone further, and said that, upon the demands of the President of the united States, the French Minister, who was engaged in those proceedings, was immediately recalled by the French Government.. Sir Williani Scott, a great lawyer and statesman, bad said, "There can be no solecism more injurious in itself, or more mischievous in its consequences, than that the subjects of any State shoal have a right to act amica bly or hostilely to other countries." That was opposed to the principles laid down by the noble lord, who had stated in that house that the subjects of the United States had a right to leave their country and enter into the service of foreign nations. " Clvitas non career est" were the words of the noble lord. The spirit, if not the letter, of the Act of Congress was opposed to any vio lation of the neutrality laws. He would now proceed to consider the charge made by the President of the United States against the Government of this country. When making his speech to Congress, the President said that the enlistment was carried on upon a preconcerted plan—that rendezvous were opened oa the frontier and in the cities of the Uaioe, and that the elitirtrifirsiness was couduc'ed by a corps of British officers—some in the North American colonies, and others iu the United States. The facts were proved on the trial of Hertz; but before he (Mr. Baillie) entered upon the consideration of them ho would briefly abuile to the etetement made by the noble lord at the head of the Government, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for the West Riding, whose absence, and the cause of it, he sincerely deplored. The noble lord on that occasion said it was true that some violation of the muni • cipal law of the United States might have taken place, but that as soon as it was brought under the notice of the Go• vernment the recruiting was put an end towand that a suitable apology had been made, which was accepted by the American Minister, who stated that he had no doubt it would be also acceptable to the Government whose re presentative he was.. Now, the'noble lord had misled the house by this statement, as, in reality, no. apology had been rendered for the principal complaint, which was that our Minister had violated the laws of. the United States. The noble lord, so far from making an apology, had inti mated that the British Minister had done nothing wrong, and that, the charge against him had been supported by perjured witnesses. It was true that on the 16th July the Earl of Clarendon bad written to Mr. Marcy to say that we bad violated no law of the States, but that, if we had, we were sorry fur it; but Mr. Buchanan at that time was not aware of the charges that had been brought against Mr. Crampton. Mi. Marcy said that when the recruiting was first commenced it was carried on openly—that houses were opened at Philadelphia and at New York to receive recruits—that advertisements were inserted in the newspapers, headed with the royal arms, and that every possible means was taken to carry out the obe ject in view. This reaturally excited the attention of the American Ministc4, who went to Mr. Crampton to ascer tain whether he' had received the sanction of his Govern ment for his proceedings. Mr. Crampton replied that he had not, although it' was proVed at the trial of Hertz that he had opened an office at Philadelphia for the enlistment of recruits, and tb ,t Mr. C ram pt on h a d wr itt en t o hi m to come over to him to Washington, as he wished to get sonic information from him. • Atter Hertz had been arrested, tried, and convicted, lie made a. confession, in which he declared that he had acted as the agent for Mr. Howe, with the full approval and sanction of Mr. Crampton. He ' argued that Mr. Crampton not only had full knowledge of the acts of Hertz, but knew that those acts were illegal, and therefore it was that instead of transmitting the wormy direct to Hertz, he eent it round through Mr. Howe. He quite admitted that Mr. Crampton never retained any one in the United States for her Majesty's service ; and more, he a twitted that every time be saw Hertz he might have told him to take care and not violate the law. The other person engaged in those operations was Strobel. It was published in all the newspapers how that person entered Halifax with music at the head of his troops. But vigo rous application of the United States law quickly put an end to tees° measures. The recruiting office was closed, awl Mr. Crampton set off, at the end of May, for Halifax. The first friend he called on their was his friend Strobel. So much might be learned from the letter of Lieutenant Preston. Strobel afterwards stated that then it was that a new plan of operations was drawn up, with Via approv• 1 of Hr. Crampton, who wrote out instructions for the car rying of it out. Now, whether those instructions pointed to a violatim or an evasion of the law of the United States, they were equally a breach of that good faith which, as her Majesty's envoy, he was bound to observe. Now, so far from this course being the wayward impulse of two or three Canadians, why, it was the very line which was deliberately pursued by her Majesty's Government towards the nations of Europe—towards Prussia, Swit zerland, awl the 'Tense Towns. Remonstrances were ad dressed by those Powers to the Government of this coun try, but the First Minister bad refused to communicate these to the house, arid, thelefere, they could only con jecture that they contained whit was injurious to the cha racter of this country. Her Majesty's Government, with the leave of the Emperor of the French, established a depot within two miles - of the town of Basle, and offered every encouragement for the desertion of the Swiss sol diers. The consequence was, that in a single night the sol diers at the outposts in Basle would desert to the English depot. Such conduct as that which was pursued by the English agent: was declared to be felony by the Prussi an code. The British consul at Cologne was arrested for a violation of the Prussian law of enlistment, and in answer to the charge put in two pleas. The first was the general plea, " not guilty," and the second, that he was acting under the authority of her Majesty's Government ; and on this latter plea the King of Prussia pardoned him his offence. The other night he (Hr. Baillie) inquired of the Government if any correspondence had taken place between the Foreign-office and the authorities of the Hansa Tarsiers relative to the imprisonment of five or six agents of the British Government, confined there for an infringement of the neutralitylaws, and he received an answer which did ' indeed surprise him. He was told that no such correspon ' deuce had taken place, and from that answer was to' be gathered the way in which groat men treat the tools they employ for illegal purposes. Now, what he wanted to know Was, why a different course was pursued with reference to Prussia, Switzerland, and the Hanes Fowns, to that in re ference to the United States of Atiserica. All last winter, down to the very last day of the war, our ships were in the Elbe, despite the remonstrances of Prussia and the Hanse Towns, employed in transportingtheir subjects who enlisted in the Foreign Legion to Heligoland. Was the house to un derstand by this that it was the palicy of our Foreign-office to be humble and submissive to powerful naval States, and to treat with contempt the remonstrances of such States as had no naval force. (Hear) No doubt that had been the policy of the Foreign-office while it had been under the superintendence of the noble lord at the head of her Me jesty's Government. They all recollected how humble and submissive be had been to Russia in relation to the capture of the Vixen, the annihilation of the Republic of Cracow, and violation of the treaty of Vienna, and how active be had been at the same time in interineddling Spain, Portugal, and Ample;. It now appeared that cur foreign policy was still tainted with the same odious and contemptible spirit, In considering this matter, however, there were two p o ints w o rthy of conside ration. The first was, if the proper means had been adopted to maintain the efficiency of our army during the last war ; and, se mndly, if any necessity had arisen to juseify the course pursued in raising foreign troops? Ili 1813. when the population of this country was only 1:3,000,030, we maintained a much larger army in a state ' of effi lieocy than was voted for the 'late war, and yet the population had increased to 23,000,000. Iu tiwe of war, the only means of recruiting the army was to maintain the militia force. In 1813,-the militia force raised by ballot was 415,210 men, and the regular army 270,422 men. During tb• late war the militia was only between 40,000 and 50,000 men. The gallant general, the member for Westminster, put a very pertinent question to her aldeety's Government. He asked what had become of our army? Parliament had. voted 212,000 men; there wore about 60,000 at Balaklava, and he supposed tha rest. were doing the duty of policemen in the colonies. Now,' he (Hr. Blithe) could tell the gallant general that they were not employed as policemen in the colonies, for, the army was from 40,030 t o 50,003 enen l ess t h an Parliament had voted. Now, it would be admitted on all hands that the Tact of the army being kept in a full state of efficiency would be in time of war the main spring of the Govern ment; but her Majesty's Ministers, instead of acknow ledging that, thought that a lavish and profuse expenditure on foreign troops was all that was required of them—au expenditure so lavish and profuse was never known in what were called the clays of rampant Toryism, es the noble lord at the head'Of the Gf'Overnment, who was then Secretary of War, knew well. Now, the army of the East, of which the noble lord all last session boasted so . much, was made up of six different nations; and he (Mr. Baillie) might be told that such was the natural result of the system of voluntary enlistment, and that the people of this country were too independent to submit to a conscrip tion ; but the hon. gentleman who used that argument seemed to be unaware that in the United States, where the people were considered as independent as in this country, the army was maintained by conscription. The position of England had been changed by th t application of steam to the purposes of war, and if we were not pre pared to adopt some system of defence different to that which had before existed, we must give up all hope for the future destiny of England Sir G. GREY said that he would occupy bat a shot t period of time in the observations which he was about to address to the house. Tt was difficult to ascertain what was the precise nature of the charge which was brought against her Majesty's Government. The bon. gentleman who brought this motion forward showed but too clearly that the great object which he bad in view was to disparage the character of the Earl of Clarendon, her Majesty's Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs—a character which stood too highly in the opinion of Europe to be affected either by the sarcasm or invective of the hon. member for Mayo. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesivr) seemed to have pointed his shaft against her Majesty's Government, because thee had suffered an indignity to be cast on this country by the removal of Mr. Crampton, without its having been resented by the le moval of Mr. Dallas. The hon. and learned gentleman said that he had read the despatch recently addressed by the Earl of Clarendon to Mr. Dallas, and he said that her Majesty's Government had stooped to an indignity which compromised the dignity of the country. Bat the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baillie) bad taken a totally , different u ound. His attack upon the Government, and lly ; or the Goverment which had preceded it, was in equa re pt-- once to the policy of the Foreign Enlistment Ac - . T e hon. gentleman had deliveted a speech which he (Sir G. Grey) was not sure he had not delivered with great force and effect when the measure was before the house. (Hear, hear, and a laugh) He had laid down, as a princi ple of international law, that no subject of a nenttal state could enter lath the service of a state which was .at war. • He said that the maxim --civitas non career ed, was not ttue ' and that th e U n i te d S tates would not periit their subjects to enlist in foreign service. Was that the doctrine of the United States? What did Mr. Mercy 13 on the subject of those persons who had left the United States 'to give their assist anc t to Nicaragua? He said The right of expatriation is not to be withheld from the 6M - zees of any free state. The liberty to go wh re hopes of better fortune entice them belongs to freemen, and no frce Government can oppose it. It is no complaint against the neutrality of this country that persons have left it a' id have afterwards been found in the ranks of a belligerent army." The Prtsident' in his message. s "that, in the i a'ed state of:Nicaragua and Costa Rica, one of the conteu4 tin - facticks* invited the co- perati, , n of a small body of citizens froru California, by whose assistance tran• quillity wire • speedily restored within those territories." The law on the subject had been very chiefly laid down by his hem. nevi learned friend the Attorney-General, namely, that the citizens of the United States had a right to leave their country with the avowed object of taking service with a foreign Power, provide I that they were not hired within the territory of the United Stetee. With regard to the Foreign Enlistment Act, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beillie) had referred to the state of the British army in the year 1 , 13, and to the amount of the mill is force then embodied, to show that in the war with 'tussla the employment of foreign soldiers was not necessary. But the honourable gentleman had overlooked this impor tant fact, that it was at the beginning of a war that the difficulty of raising troops was chiefly felt. The Bri tish Government had thought it necessary to raise foreign troops, but they had resorted to no new method—they ha I thought that they might invite the set vices of men whose sympathies were favourable to this country. He (Sir G. Grey) thought that the Foreign Enlistment Act had been founded on sound policy, and therefore it became the duty of the Government to carry into effect the intent.ou with which that act hail been passed. The hon. member for Mayo said that the first step . was taken by the despatch of the Colonial Secretary to Sir G. Le Marchaat in July, 1855. The first step was that many persons - iu the United States, British subjects, German -and Scl ' eswie-Hol steiuers had tendered their services to the British Govern ment. Under these circumstances, did the hon. gentle man say that the Colonial Secretary was not justified in writing that despaech? The Government was noxious that nothing should be done to violate either the sovereign rights or the municipal laws of the United States. The Government acted iu that spirit, and believ ing that these British officers had acted in the same spirit, it would have been base on their part to have recalled these men when they hail only acted acccordiug to the letter and spirit of the instructions which they hadreceived. Mr. Crampton communicated to the Government of the United States the offers made by persons resident there to take service in her Majesty's army, awl he also communi cetel those freer to Mr. Marcy. Mr. Crampton made no e mr•rltnent whatever of the offers which were made, and if he did not enter minutely into all the arrangements, he was impressed with the conviction that the United States were not anxious minutely to inquire into what was going on. That was the spirit in whee Mr. Crampton acted, and when criticisms were *lllVie on single passages In the de spatches, or in the fact of that gentleman having.been in communication with persons whose character was of a most disreputable kind, they should not overlook the generous spirit exhibited by the Earl of Clarendon, and the gene rous spirit - in which Mr. Crampton acted throughout the whole of these transactions. There were persons in the United States, who professed to act upon the a uth o rity which they had received few her Majesty's Govern vent, or from Mr. Crampton—who were doing acts tending to interfere with the amicable relations of the two nations, and who it was impossible strictly to defend; and it was on these grounds that her Majesty's Government avowed their determination to put an end altogheher to this scheme for enlisting troops. It had been denied that any apology .was offered by the Government when these facts came to their knowledge. What wet e the facts of the case? The apology, which was said to be no apology, was one which did, indeed, say that nothing had been done by persons acting under the authority of her Majesty's Government to give any just cause of complaint to the United States, but it expressed our regret that their laws, if infringed, should have been infringed by persons without.any authority, and stated that such infringement Was entirely contrary to the wishes and the positive instructions of her Majesty's Government. It was of course impossible to admitin that apology that things had been done contrary to the laws of the Uuited States because nothing was proved • but they admitted the fact might h ave b een so, and i f so they deeply regretted it. (Hear.) The apology concluded by setting forth that her Majesty's Government, having reason to think that no precautionary measures would effectually guard against an iufringemeet of the law, were determined that all proceedings for thoenlistment of recruits should be put an end to, and instructions fur th tt purpose were sent out before her Majesty's Government had the honour of receiving Mr. Buchanan's note. A good deal had been said as to the effect of that despatch upou Mr. Buchan in ; but what were the facts of the case? Mr. Buchanan, to whom it was addressed, certainly made a very short answer, for he did not enter into any argument to show that - the course pursued gave no satisfaction to the United States, but he s tid he would have much satisfaction in transmitting a copy of the Earl of Clarendou's note to the American Se cretary of State. Mr. Buchanan was evidently satisfied with the explanations given by her Majesty's Government, and in the decision they ha .t come to to abandon their pro ceedings. (Hear.) A despatch, written in ignorance of the despatch of Mr. Buchanan, by Mr. Marcy, insisting ou certain terms of satisfaction, it was not thought necessary by the former gentleman- to transmit to the Earl of Clarendon, because he felt that the despatch sent by the British Goveretneet, of the ldth of July, was likely to terminate the whole affair by showing the spirit in which the English Government had received the remonstrances of the United States. (Hear) He thought the passages to which he had referred clearly showed that the impres sion on Mr. Buchanan'. mind was that the despatch in question ought to terminate the a hole matter, and be concurred with her Majesty's Government that the conci liatory course they ha f adopted, rut of deference to the feelings of the United States, would be entirely satisfac tory to the latter Government. (Hear, hear.) He thought the house would consider that the course pursued by the Government showed an earnest desire to do nothing which would be at all likely to place them in the wrong, iu case these affairs should unfortunately not be brought to a sa tisfactory conclusion. The hon. gentleman s aid that the evidence given at the trial showed that Mr. Crampton had been in communication with Strobel and Hertz. No doubt he had been, but in tetal ignorance of th e ir ch e. racier, which was alto wholly unknown to her Majesty's Government, and he (Sir G. Grey) did not think that the house could condemn the Government because, in pursuit of a legitimate object, they had employed those men, and that the house would allow the evidence of men of such infamous character as these were proved to be—denied, as it was, by Mr. Crampton and the consuls—to have any influence upou the decision of the house. The hon. mem ber for Stamford, from one of the despetches of the Earl of Clarendon which he had. read to the house, assumed that the Bill of Clarendon asserted that the British Go vernment insisted upon the right of both enlisting and at testing recruits ou the United States territory, to serve in the British army. But that despatch did not bear that in terpretation ; for the Earl of Clerendon was there only an swering a charge of Mr. Marcy's and showing that it was impossible, by the law of E gland, that, having regard to the terms of the dernandsof Mr. Marcy, any person could have been so enlisted ; but the Earl of Clarendon further added that if any one had been enlisted contrary to the law of the United States he would send him back again to America. He (Sir G. Grey) did not believe that any one had been so enlisted, and the demand was thereto; e impossible to comply with. He urged the house to be guided in their opinions by the' general character of the correspondence and pro ceedings, and to say whether they were satisfied that the -Government had not, in all respects, in what they had done, regarded the municipal law of the United States—a lea which even the American Government itself now confessed the Government of Great Britain.had nrt infringe I. Were the house prepared to condemn the Geyer lenient becausewhen teey thought there might be ground for a shadow of con plaint if they persisted iu the course they had adopted with reference to enlistment, they Stopped, at great disadvantaues te themselves, all further probe° iinge iu the Uuited States, and because they had not thought rght, upon the dismissal of the British Minister, to retaliate by the dismissal of Mr. 'Dallas, against whom this country had no complaint, and through whom the American Government was ready •to continue negotiation upon. pressing • matters of great im portance? He was sure that the house and the country, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, would come to the conclusion that the Government, in the measures it had adopted, had consulted'the honour, 'the dignity, and the interests of the nation at large. (Hear.) Sir F. THESIGER, explained that he had not complained of the-Government for not retaliating upon the American Government by sen dug back Mr. Dallas, but that what he had complained of was -that the Government had placed the country in such a position as to compel it to submit to the indignity which had been offered to it. 'Sir J. WALSH n:loved the a journment of the debate. Lord PALMERSTON expressed a hope that the debate would be brought to a close that evening. - The house then divided, 'when there appeared— ' • For the adjournment of the debate Against it... 220 Majority for the Government —llO The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheering. Sir J. WALSH then rose to speak upon the original motion. He thought the exultation of hon, members was misplaced. The opinions of many of the leading members of the house had not yet been ascertained. The noble lord at the head of the Government had not yet addressed the house, and 12 o'clock was rather a late hour, under such circumstances, to proceed witifit debate on so imp or t an t a subject. He Irect no politibal sympathies with the bon. gentleman who brought forward this motion. He felt that the honour of the country hail been placed in a delicate position—(a laugh)—the question before the house really being ma hether the Government had sustained our national dignity, and whether it had not received detriment at their bands. It appeared to him that the American Go vernment might have Written and asked her M a j e sty' s Go vernment to recall their Minister; but, unless based upon sufficient grounds, the dismissal must have been an offen sive one, either towards the Minister or towards the na tion which he represented. The Gm ernment had acquiesced in this proceeding of the American Government by not. dismissing Mr. Dallas ; bat he was not prepared to say that they were not right in that course. Their justifica tion for not oismissing him was, however, that they were in the wrong, and that was the only defence they could make. (11,ar.) The complaint of the President was that there had been a systematic evasion of the United States law, and that her Majesty's Government had not acted in th'tt spirit which one friendly Government ought to act towards another. He felt himself forced to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Mayo,. because he consi • tiered that this country had, is some respects, been humi liated. If Mr. Dallas had been dismissed, the house could not have interfered with the dispute, but as the Govern ment had not dismissed him they acknowledged they were in the wrong, and therefore he should votefor the motion. Mr. M. GIBSON then moved that 'the debate be ad- journed. Lord I'ALMERSTON said if these motions for adjourn ment were repeated at that time of night (half-past 2 o'clock) the result was clear that the debate must be ad jowl ed. _ _ • The debate was then adjourned till 6 o'clock to-morrow (this day), and the motion that the Speaker leave the chair was withdrawn. THE GRAND JURY ASSESiIitENTS BILL. Certain additional clauses were agreed to, and Mr. FORTESUUE proposed to insert the following clause after clause 3—" I n ma ki ng suc h a pp o i n t men t, this treasurer shall omit therefrom every tenement consisting wholly or in part of a dwelling-house, the total annual valus.tion of which tenement, as set forth in such final list, or in such revised valuation as aforesaid, shall not exceed the sum of four pounds." . _ After a shoit discussion, the house divided, when the numbers were-- For the amendment Against it lO9 Majority against it • Mr. BLAND (in the absence of 31r. M'Aitthon) moved, after clause 11, to it Bert the following clause Notwith standing anything contained in the act of the 7th year of King William IV., chap. 11g, it shall not be nnessa,ry for the high constables or cess collector to enter into fresh secu rities at each assizes, provided that the bond and warrant of attorney to be executed by him and bis sureties, as by the said act required, be conditioned for his duly collecting and' paying to the treasurer of the county, on or before the fit e'• day of each assizes, from time t o ti me, so long as he s h all continue Sigh constable or collector, whether by his then present or any future appointment, all such public money as he is or shall be required by such treasurer to collect : 1 Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the grand jury, at each assizes, if they in their discretion think fit, BIRTHS. Or & SON. ... 'fi On the 26th ult., at Priory Houses, Hastings, the wor of J. 1., , n1ia11, Esq. On the 26th ult., at Portledge, North Devon, the wit . / of Cuptain H. J. Curteis. COP • DAIJORTXR. On the Sth ult., at Eatou-square, Viscountess AL A MO' On the 26th ult., at Edmonton, the wife of E. Mack murdo, Esq. to require new and fresh seeurii les to begin!! p , mit:iz,t to the pro vi,;(orA of the a;:id Let." The Al' FORNEY-6;E ERAL for . I.IIE WIND opposed the clause. After a short discussion the clause was negatived with wit a Vilii(l9 • • The bill, after some verb,' au.endinents had been intro ducotl, WAS read a thin' time an l pissed. • Ii(ThIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND) DILL. The house went into committee upon, this bill. The ATTORN EY•GENER,A L for IRELAND said, in consequence of the represeutatious he had received from different parts of the country, it was h's intention to strike clause 10 ut of the bill. Oa clause 17, _ _ Lord T AAS s tid this clause raised the principal ques tion in the bill upon which there was a difference of °pi llion ; and he thought they could hardly prodeed with the discussion at that hodr (AI minutes past 1). • Tue ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said if it were iltJ general feeling of members, lie would not ob ject to the Chairman reporting progres s . The house then resumed, and the Chairman reported progress, and obtained laave to sit again on Thursday morning. EXCHEQUER BILLS (24000,0 )0) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. CHURCH: BUILDING COMMISSION BILL. This t)ill vissed through committee pro forma. BANIittUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (litz.LAND) SALARIES, &c., BILL. This bill went through committee. DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL. This bll was read a third time and passed. • METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT (N,,. V) BILL. This bill passed through-committee. DISTILLATION FROM RICE BILL. This hill was read a second time. INTESTATES' PERSONAL ESTATES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. A DVO WSONS BILL. This bill passed through committee. DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL. • This bill was read a third time, and additional clause' haring been brought up and agreed to, the bill passed. The title was altered to a " Bill to Amend the Marriage Act." The house adjourned at five minutes to two o'clock. PA &LIAM it.N PA ItY Dl VISION. HOUSE OF CO NIMONS.—JuNE 30. OUR AMERICAN RELATIONS.--gDPPLY. Order for Committee read ; Motion made, and Question pre'p posed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair ; Amendment proposed, to leave out front the word ‘"rhat' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " the • conduct of her Majesty's Government, in the differences that have Arisen between them and the Government of the . United States, on the question of enlistment, h as not entitled them to the app ro b a ti on o f thi s house," —instead thereof :—Que,tiou proposed,- " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question :" —DOA' arising ; Motion made, and Question put, " That the cle• bate be now adjourned :"—The house divided; Ayes 110 w Noes 22u. AYES-110. Annesley - , Earl of Grahani, Lord M. Newark, Visccunt Bailiff., H. Greenall, Gilbert N.wport, Viscount Eta dock, E. H. Greene, John Norreys, Sir D. Barifig, T. Groe..n. Edward Pakine ton, Sir J. flaring, F. Haindton, Lord Claud Peacocke, G. Bellew, T. Hamilton, G. A. Peel; Gen. Bernard, Vist. Harcourt, Cbl. Pennant, Co.. E. Blackburn, Peter ' hardy, G. ' Ph,ll , more, It. J. lil.kemore, T. Heathcoate, Sit W. I oriel, M. Boldei 0, - Col. 11. G. Herbert, Sir T. Robertson, P. Bond, J. Hervey, Lord A. Roebuck, J. Brantley- Mi ore, J. holfo d, It. Scobell. Capt. iirainston, T. W Hume, W. Seymer, H. Bruce, C. L. C. Jollfire, Sir W. Stifijth, Sir W. Buck, Cut. Johlffe, Li. Somerset , Colonel Butt, G. M. Kennedy, T. Spooner, R. ~ ..alupnell Sir A. I. Knigbtley, R. btracey, Sir 11. Cardwell. E. Knox, W. 8. Stewart, Sir M. Carnac, Sir J. It. Lennox, Lord H. G. Swift, R. ..'ecif, Lord Liddell, H. G. Taylor, Colonel ..,., had. smith L oc kh art, W. Tempest, Lord A. Y. Cobbett, J. M. LOVAIne, Lord Thesiger, Sir. F. Colg, 11. A. lishington, C. M. Tollemache, J. f `ol,fily, T. Macartney, G. Vance, John Cubitt. W MacEvoy, E. Vernon, G. Dove rt tIXI J. MacGregor, James Vyae, :;o1 R. tElsraeli, B. WGregor, John Waddington, D. Outalets, G. Maguire, J. F. Warren, S. Dunne,Colonel Malind, Richard ' Whitmore,ll. Elm ey, Viscount M asterman, J. Wise, A: Followed, E. Meagher, r. Would, B. Foyer, J. Montgomery, Sir G. Wortley, J. S. : Follett, B. S. Mocire, G. Wynne, John Galway, Viscount Mundy, %Y. Yorke, E. Gladstone, W. Inurrough, J. P. Gladstone, Capt. J. Naas, Lord MUM. Goddard, A. . Na,ler, J. Walsh, Sir J. ' Graham, Sir J. Napier, Sir 0. Gibson, M. NOES -220. Mair, H. Fitz Gerald, Sir John Owen, Sir I. With', R. Fitzgerald, J. Paget, Lord A. 'knew, Sir A. Fitzroy, Henry Paget, Lord Anderson, Sir J. - Foley, J. H. Palmer. Robert .tinrouus. E. Forster, Citadel Palmerston, Vistetim Arctidall, Capt, M. Forster, John Parker, R. Atherton, W. Forte scue, C. S. Patten, Col. Bailey, C. }ox, W. J. Paxton, Sir J Baines, Rt. Hon. M. Freestun, Colonel Pechell, Sir G. sail, J. French, Fitzstephen Peel, Sir It. Baring, Sir F. Gallwey, Sir W. Peel F. - isarnes, T. G o d er i c h, Vi scount Pellitt, A. Barrington, Vist. Gower, F. Perry, Sir E. Bass, XL Greene, Thomas Philllmore, J. G. Baxter, W. Gregson, Samuel Pigott, P. iLanuth, F. Grenlell, Charles Pilkington. J. Beau nont, W. G rey , Et H on. S i r G. plumy, W. Berkeley, Sir M. Grey, R. . Ponscaihy. A. • Berseley, Hon. H. P. G rosvenor , Ld. R. Price, Sir R. Berkeley, F. Gin 'ley, J. H. Pritchard, J. Bethel!, Sir R. Hadfield, George Ramsdell, Sir J. . Biddul ph, Col. B. M. Mulkey, T. Rayn h am , Viscou nt ttigis, John Hanmer, Sir John Reed, J. Biggs, W. Harcourt, G. U. Ricardo, 0. 'slack, Adam nestle, Alex. Ricardo, S. titan°, L. U. II- stie, AT Chd• Rice, E. illaiidford, Marquis 01 Headlam, T. Ridley, George Bouverie, Hon. E. I'. Heard, J. Robartes, T. Bowyer. G. Li eathcote, G. Bolt, P. : - Irand, H. B. W. Heome,.Geo. F. Russell. F. C. Brocklehurst, J. Herbert, U. Russell, F. W. .Brothertoii, J. Ileywood, T. Sandon.Viscount -roan, W. limdity, C. Sawle, C Bruce. Lord E. Hogg, , ir J. W. Scholedeld, W. Buckley, Gen. liollaial, E. Scrope, G. Burroaghes, El. N. Horsman. E. Scully, F. Ityng, O. IL C. Iloward, C. Seymour, H. Castterosse, Vies. II ii;lie• , W. Shelburne, Earl Cau'field Col. J. Hughes, U. G. ishelley, Sir J. Javendb.h, C. C. Machina, E. Smith, R. Cav, radish, G. C. Inghatn, E. Smollett, A. Chambers, M. Ingram, U. Stafford, Marquil Chambers, T. Johnstone, J. Stirling, W. • haplin, W. Keating, it. Strutt, lion. E. 4 . heetham, John Keno ilv,.J. Talbot, C. Clifford, Lt. Col. H. M. Kingscote, Capt. R. Tiencrest H. Cockb m, Sir A. J. E. Kltinaird, A. Thompson, G. collier, It. I'. Lai inc . .ere,ltt.lion.HThornely. T. ,l,tvan, C. Lee, W. • Thornhill, W. Cowper, W. Lemon, Sir C. Tile, W. • • i.ratiturd, E.ll. J. ' Lewis, Sir U.C. Tottenham, C. rossley, F. Littleton, E. Trail, G. • Conte, itaikes Lowe, It. Vernon, V. i 'avie, Sir H. B. F. Mackinnon, W. Villiers, C DeAs‘ , R. re ann. J Waddington, H. - Venison, J. E. McTibmart, Sir J. Watkins, Col. Dering, Sir E. Megan, W. Watson, W. Ile Vere, S. E. Mangles, It. D. Wells, W. Billw3n, L. L. Martin, J. Whatinan, J. Duke, Sir J. Massey, W. Whitbread, S. Duncan, Viscount Matheson, Sir J. Wi c k ham. H. . Duncan, George M ills, F. Willeimion, W. Buncombe. lion. Col. 11,1111,e5, It. Willcox, R. Bundas, F. Michell, William Williams, W. unlop. A. Moffat, it. Wilson, .F. East, Sir J. DJ duck, Vis. Winnington. Sir t' Kilice, E. ki ones, iff, J. wool, Sir C. Esmonde, J. Mon‘eit„ W. Wrightson, W. Ewart, W. Morris, D. • Wynne, W. Ewa, t, J. Illogyn, E. . • Wyvlll, M. Feilden, M. Nish t, it Venwick, H. North, F Fergus, John O'Brien, J. Ferguson, Colonel O'Connell, D. Ferguson, J. Osborne, 11. TELLERS. Ray ter, W. Mulgrave, Eari of r [ADVEATISEMENT.)—Oue of the m os t va l ua bl e discoveries ' to , the benefit of mankind is shcw n by th e numerous extraoro l, na , y cures without medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), O r lency, constipation; nervous, bilious, and liver complaint o i l cough, asthma, consumption, and debility, effected by D, Barry's delicious health restoring Revalenta Arabic.), Poo,' the following are not the least remarkable :—Cure No. 41,11 ~" Winchester, Dec. 3, 1847. Gentlem en ,—l am h appy to "'" able to inform you that the person for whom your Royale°, was procured, has derived very giant benefit from its 1 10 ,', distressing symptoms of dropsy, dy s p e p s i a , and constipatie7 of long standing have been rem ove d, an d a feeling of restore; health induced. Having wit nesse d th e b ene fi c i a l effects la the above-mentioned case, I can with confidence recominsu t, and shall have much pleasure in doing so whenever an °w portunity offers, &e. Jam es Sh or l an d , l a t e S urgeon, Ow— Regim,;nt.—Cure No. 180,. "25 . years' nervousness, coustilO c i Mon, it digestion, and debility, from which I have sure' great misery, and which no medicine could remove or relic' have been effectually cured by Du Barry's P, , od in- a, 19 short time. W. R. Reeves, 181, Feet street, LoodoS• Supported by testimonials from the celebrated Professors 0 , Chemistry Dr. Andiew Ure Dr. Shorlaud ; Dr. Harle9 Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer.; Dr. Ingrar" Lord Stuart do Decies; the Dowager Countess of t.set ,l° ,: stuart ; Major-Gen. Thomas Ki ng , an d many o th er respeeta t persons, whose health ha s b een res t ore d b y i t, after all ot h" means c f cure had failed. Suitably packed for all climate s : with full instructions. In canisters, Sibs., Ils. ; 121 be., 22 00 super-refined, llb , tis. ; 21bs., Ils. ; Sibs., 225.; 'Whs., 3 39 ' I'he 101bs. and 121bs. carnage free, on receipt of post-OV, order. Barry du Barry and Co., 77; Regent-street, L on don I Fortirnm, Mason, and Co., Purveyors to her Majesty, rice 444 illy ; also at 60, Gra cec h urc h- s t reet ; 33J and 451, Strand ; , Cheapside: (ii, Ccrnhill ; 49, Biahopsgate-street ; 65, Clisr i ing-eross ; 54, Uppor Maker-street; 63 and 157, Oadord s street. MARRIED. • On the 28th ult., at Christ Church, Paddington, Ifichsol Parlor Smith, Esq. of Oraigue House. Kilk enny, tar Al.' line Rhode third daughter of James Durham, Esq., of If Leinater-gardens. Hyde-park. On the 28th ult.. at St. Mark's, Kennington, Thoruo Colyer, to Emily Harriet, fourth daughter of the Is to Thomas Davis, of the Harleyfoid road, Kennington,. DIED. On the 2Jth ult., at Haverstock , place, Ilampstes d, tbs Rev. Henry Sweeting- of Hartford, Hunting‘lo. ship e. On the 29th ult., at Brighton, Mr. Wm. Chas. i uGooae , late of 124. High-street, Borough, aged 35. ; On the 28th ult., at 5, Dover-Ptreet, Londou, .Tt.hn •P' Binnt, Esq., M.A.. of Tlinity Col.,.Camb t id ge , an d LW' sin's-ion, Master in Chance t y, age d 59 On the 28th ult., at Middlitou Lodge, Leeds, Voloa 4 Trandling, aged 59. On the 27th inst , at 8, Union-street, Southwark , GO' Gwilt, RS A.. F.R.S.A., ticc , aged 82. Oa the 2qh ult., Mr. Samuel Stocker, jun., of,the, arm of Stocker, Brothers, 3, Arthur-street, New Oxford-sfirev t ' aged 35. Oa the 29th nit., at Camden town, Wateinn Webb , Lap, of L:verpool, age,i 151. Lt qmox: Printed and Published by HORN) IT OUZO' , of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The .sun °thee, No, I .itrant3, in tha Preeinei of tha Savoy, in th• 1 iounti cf Middlesex ; Tueslai , July 1 1:34. • Gent Woods req tz " India: it eCePt ree, and t o 4PAsdut T RI - , ° l 3. the Vratlklti sand po Yal F:eole dt Vienna. 8, tom °llB equ, caciou, are P rey Orror3 it hßthew:o ,di e , t , i e Bo °f a •io,,t , anc dra th a Farr Pow, the ,! non- oc Jo , lace_ Ch Ph and g and tl field Tbi znotin Von a The ninst telera furtht