The Sun. — London, England, 1856-06-16 00:00:00

THE DISMISSAL OF MR. CRAMPTON. The following the despatch of Nit% Marcy to Mr. Dallis, informing him- of the determination .of, the American Government to dismiss Mr. Cramp •• ton. THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS. WASHINGTON, MAT 29. A message was received from the President of the United States, informing Congress that he has ceased to.hold intercourse with the Minister of the British Government to Washington, and deems it proper to lay before them the considerations of public duty which have led to the adoption of a measure of so much importance. Among the documents transmitted by the Presi dent is the following despatch from Secretary Marcy to Mr. Dallas s--- "SECRETARY MARCY TO MR. DALLAS. __ "Department of State, Washington, Tuesday, May 27. . "Sir,—The President has carefully considered the note of the 30th ult., aclilressed to you by the Earl of Claren don, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, relative to the questions which have arisen be tween this Government and that of Great Britain on the subject of recruiting within the United States for the British army; and has directed me to present to yon his views thereon, foi the purpose of having them made known to her Majesty's Government. He has been much gratifies by the conciliatory spirit of that note, and by the desire manifested by the Esrl of Clarendon to adjust the existing difficulties, and preserve and strengthen the friendly relations betwen the United States and Great Britain. "The vast interest which the Government and people of both countries have in upholding and cherishing such rela tions cannot he more solemnly impressed upon her Majesty's Government than it is upon that of the United States. The unequivocal disclaimer by her Majesty's Government of any intention either to infringe the law or disregard the policy, or not to 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 any infringementof the laws of the United States,' are satisfactory to the President. The ground of complaint, so far as respects her Majesty's Government is thus re• moved. But the President extremely regrets that ho can not concur in Lord Clarendon's favourable opinion of the conduct of 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, im plicated in proceedings which were so clearly an infringe ment of the laws and sovereign rights of this country. " In respect to such of these officers and agents as have no connection with this Government, it has nothing toask from that of her Majesty ; but the case is different in rela tion to Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary to this Government, and the Consuls at Nee' York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. The President is gratified to perceive that her Majesty's Government would not have hesitated to comply with the request to withdraw these officers from their official position if it had . . entertained the views here taken of their Conduct in regard to recruiting contrary to the laws and sovereign rights of the United States. I need scarcely say that in making this request, no interruption of the diplomatic relations between this Government and that of Greet Britain was anticipated; bat, on the contrary, the President was and is sincerely desirous to keep them upon a most friendly footing. "Mr. Cramptcaa's withdrawal was asked fo -expressly ripen the ground that his connection with the affair, raising re cruits in this country forth° British service, hasrenderedhim an unaceeptable representetiveof her Britannic Majesty near this Government.' rorthe same reason the withdra walof the three British Consuls was also requests I. These officers were, as this Government confidently believes, deeply im plicated in. proceedings contrary to the law and sovereign rights of the United States, and contrary, as it now appears, to the intentions and reiterated instructions of their own GovernMent. It was their personal acts, not the less ob jectionable for having been done contrary to the directions of her Majesty'S Minister, which rendered them in their official character and position unacceptable to this Govern ment, and induced the President for that cause to solicit theirrecall, believing that by this course he was contri bating to the common interest and harmony of the two Governments. He has not, after most mature considera tion, been able to change his view of their conduct, and cannot therefore change his purpose in relation to them; though their conduct related to, and in fret originated, a difficulty which disturbed the cordial harmony and good understanding between the two countries. It constituted , a decided objection to them of a personal character, which loses none of its force by the satisfactory adjustment of that difficulty. The only embarrassnient which attends the ease is the difference of opinion between the two Govern ments as to the complicity of these officers in illegal pro ceedings within the United States. In reviewing this subject, the President was disposed to avail himself of any reasonable doubts which could be raised in his mind ie order to bring his opinion in this respect into conformity with that of her Majesty's Government ; but, after mead consideration of the case, he has been unable to change the conclusion to which, he had previously arrived. "The difference of opinion may in some degree be as cribed to the difference in views of the two Governments in respect to the neutrality laws and sovereign rights of the country. It is not proposed, however, to continue the dies Cussion upon that subject. The conclusions of the Presi dent, stated in my despatch of the. 28th of December to your predecessor, in regard to the construction of that law and the extent and character of these rights, remain un changed, and he cannot forego the duty of using all proper means to sustain and vindicate them. "The main cause of this difference of opinion is the dif ferent appreciation of the proofs by which the charges • against her Majesty's diplomatic Representative and Con sul; are sustained. Lord Clarendon asks this Government to regard the bare declarations of these ofac 3 rs as o f suffi cient to countervail evidence against them. Their denials, as presented in his despatch of the 30th of April, (and that is all which has been communicated to this Go vernment on the subject,) seem to be special, and do not traverse all the allegations against them. They deny that they have infringed our neutrality law by enlisting persons within the United. States for British service, or hiring or retaining parsons to leave the United States for the par psse of: being enlisted in that service. - " The charges aeainst them are much breeder, and em brace the offence of violating the laws and sovereign rights of the United States, by setting in operation- within our own territory and conducting an extensive system of re cruiting, which was not and could not be carried into eff.ict • ,without infringing upon our laws and rights ; by employe lug numerous agents to engage persons, for pecuniary and . other considerations, to leave the United States for the express puepose of entering into the British army ; and by' keeping these agents in this employment after it was well driown that they were constantly infringing our laws The denial of the implicated officers only covers a part of :the delinquencies imputed to them, but, confining the ex culpetory declaration to the Pimple charge of- having vie. lated. the provisions of our neutrality act, it does not merit the consideration which Lord Clarendon has ascribed to it. " By adopting Lord Clerendon's construction of our neu ' tratity law; contained in his note of the lath of November. ; which rendere sit almost nugat.;ry, anti contrary to thatt-of this Covernment and of its judicial tribtlnals, these efficere 'have hot probably found much embarrassment in meeting lhe'dharges with a general denial—but giving to the decia ,, ration, 9f xtr, Crempton and the Con su l s all the considers ': Aipiieebseh can be fairly claimed for it under the circuits , etaiscbs of the case, it cannot counterbalance the unitn - 'peached and well-sustained evi fence which establishes tin charges against these officers of having infringed the laws and sovereign rights of the United States. "Loi'd Chrendon's note to you of. the 30th of April con veys the itnpressi6ti that the evidence by which the OffiiLlT'S are implicatei is derived from one or twa witnesses, whose credibility has been assailed., This, lowevei, is not a ear _ Peet view of the fad's. By examination pf my deepatch of ' the 23th of December, it' will be' perceived - that these wi t neisee-were strongly confirmed, and that there are proof 3, Wholly independent of their testimony, abundantly suffi 'Vent to establish the compliiity of Hr. Crampteu and the Consul's iri•tbeir'infrineeinent of the laws and sovereige rights of the United States.' : "I trust that it will not be questioned that it ,belongs isitcliniVelY to this Government and its judicial tribunals to give -a construction to its rhuaicipahlaves, and to det2r what acts done withinits jurislictionare an infringe ment of these jaws. This is a - matter which concerns its in ternal administration, and it cannot allow the agents of any foreign Power to controvert that construction and justify. tlo3ir conduct by a different interpretation of our laws, which virtually renders them ineffective for the purposes. i n t en d e d. The,Earl of Clarendon informs you, in his note ef-the'-30th orApril; that Mr: Crampton positively denies of the acts of illegal enlist-the eharmeoftomplicity. in any merit in the United States, and that the three Consuls inin culpated do the see. He assumes that the charge against , them is austaineit Mainly by the evidence of two persons, Strobel and' Hertz, whom he conceives to be unworthy of eTedit,and he appeals to the American Government to accept as conclusive declarations of the Ministers and Consuls. "I am instructed tcssay - that these consi leratione do,not relieve the President's mind of the nnfavontable impressions produced by the conduct of these gentletrien in relation to foreign recruitment in the United States. It wilt be seen, by referring to my despatch of the 28 t h December, in which the grounds of charge against Mr. Crampton were fully - at t eted, that the testimony of Strobel and Hertz was quite a secondary and unimportant part of the evidence adduced, . 41! charge being supported, independently of their testi nifty, by other witnesses; by original letters of Mr. Cramp - tan and others, and by the undenied and undeniable acts oriZe: Crampton. As to Strobel and Hertz, however, it may be observed, the documents transmitted by Lord Cle rendon as proving these persons unworthy of credit are entitled to but little weight, consisting as they do of ex 2Arte affidaviti, detailing matters mostly of hearsay; and whatever may have been the character of those persons it by no means follows that they did not testify to the truth. "They were agents selected and trusted by Mr. Cramps ton himself, and to them ho committed most important con cerns. Such an endorsement should countervail the im peachment of their veracity, founded on loose, ,hearsay re ports- Nor does itseem to be a thing of ranch moment, • relation to th e p re sent question, that Strobel, inconsme (pence of imp u t e d m i sco nduct, was di sm i sse d f rom employ ment by th e Li eu t enan t,G overnor o f N ova Scotia, and es:. terwards endiayoured to obtain money from Mr. Creasy • ton. ,The fact remains that he held a commission in the British Foreign Legion, and that, as is clearly proved an,; not denied,,he maintained, as recruiting officer, and fora \ considerable period of time, associati o n, personally or by correspobdence, with Mr. Crampton. "The employment of Strobel, by Mr. Crampton, their long association in the joint work of recruiting in the United States for the Foreign Legion, the distin c ti on o f her /Ilejeety's commission of captain in the corps conferred on Strobel, would seem at least to deprive Mr. Crampton of the right to deny his Credibility as a eitness. But there is a large and more comprehensive class of consideratioce applicable to this, particular question. For a period Of nearly five months, that is, from about the coddle of March, 1855, to the sth of Angtiet, 1855, the pence and order of this country were disturbed, especially the cities of 808- ton, Newyork, Philadelphia, and Ciucinnati, by the ne awfal,acts of nurnerons persons engaged in raising recruitee or in being recruited for the British Foreigfr tegiOn. They were supplied with. ample funda by British aeeets. and these-obstinately resisted and sat at naught all efforts of the local authorities of the United States to put a stop to their proceedings, nor did they desist until they received orders to that effect from the British Government in the month of August. "The recruits thus unlawfully raised in theU cited States during all that time were conveyed by British agents' to Halifax, and there enrolled in the Foreign Legion. All these acts, as well as their illeg a lit y, were notorronsLong befatia:the.erial of Hertz in Septet - I:her, and of Wagner-in October, they.must have been bro ug h t to the particular notice of Mr. Crampton, the British Consuls, and other agents, by the preliminary judicial inquiries which took place both at New York and Philadelphia. In consequence of steps to that effect taken by ma on the 21(1 of March, the proper instructions were issued on the 234, and prose cutilinliibmmenced in khilailelpbia o the 30th of March, and in New York on the sth of April. As an example of the characterlof these proceedings, their notoriety, and their comprehensive legal effect, what occurred in May deserves particular notice. " At New York, on the 15th of May, a number of per sons, namely, Godfred Witchier, Wilhelm Schumite,ker, Julius Parkus, Oscar Cremey, and Andrew Lutz, were examined before Commissioner Betts, on a charge of re cruitment for the service of Great Britain. Eminent counsel were employed by the accused, who argued that no offence had been committed, because it did not appear that any valid contract of enlistment had been consum mated ; but this ground of defence was overruled by the commissioner, who, though he discharged Wachier for de fective evidence, committed Lutz, Schumacker, Cremey, and Parkus. "At Philadelphia, on the 25th-of May, three persons— Hertz, Perkins, and Bucknail—having been arrested on the charge of illegal recruiting in the service of Great Bri tain, applied to the Circuit Court of the United States, by habeas corpus, to be discharged from custody. The presiding judge, the Hon. John K. Kane; on the examina tion of the evidence taken in the case before a commis sioner, found the proofs were sufficient to bring the acts of Hertz and - Perkins within the conditions of the law, but not so to Bucknail ; accordingly the latter was dis charged, but the two former were committed for trial., " Thus, so early as May, it was judicially shown that what was doing in this respect was unlawful. Mr. Cramp ton was acquainted with these proceedings, and was thus sufficiently admonished that the acts of recruitment car ried on under his authority did in fact, whatever may have been his intention, constitute a violation of the mu nicipal law of the United States. This had been decided by the Courts of the 'United States, and was publicly and extensively made known. It is not controverted—indeed it is admitted, that he had the recruiting business in his charge and under his controul ; yet he permitted it to be continued, although judiciously determined to be unlaw ful, through the months of May, June, July, and August. "Now this long series of acts, unlawful and otherwise prejudicial to the good name and tranquillity of this coun try, were performed by persons who were liberally paid by the British officers, and many of whom actually entered, the military service of Great Britain. That was incon testably proved on the trial of Hertz and Wagner, by evi dence which has not been and cannot be impeached, and although the evidence adduced on these trials does not need corroboration, still it may not be amiss to add that much other evidence to the same effect is in possession of this Government, some of which is annexed to this des patch, in the form of documents responsive to those ac companying the letter of the Earl of Clarendon. " Who is to be held accountable for these unlawful acts ? Were they all performed by volunteer and irresponsible persons, as argued in the Earl of Clarendon's despatch of the 16th of July ? That cannot be admitted, for the con clusive reason that they received pay from British officers, and of course were employed by some responsible agents of the British Government. The Earl of Clarendon, in behalf of her Majesty's Government, disclaims all inten tion to violate the laws,, compromise the neutrality, ordis respect the sovereignty of the United States by the Enlist ment of troops within their territory. The President un reservedly accepts and is f ally satisfied with this disclaimer. Of course the unlawful acts in question were not autho rised by the British Government, but the fact is never-, theless well established that they were done, and done in the name Aid at the expense of the British Government. " Who, then, is responsible for these acts? Were there no direct proof, though there is much of that character, the inference would be irresistible, that, not being autho rised by the British Government itself, they were the un authorised acts of the British agents in the United States. Such agents, having acted in wilful disregard of their Go vernment in thus infringing our laws, may have failed to inform their Government that what they had undertaken to do could not be done without infringing those laws ; or by mismanagement, indiscretion, or over zeal, they may have participated in such infringement, though well know ing it was- contrary to the wishes and express orders of their Government. However this may be, it is certain that agents existed, because their acts appear. Who ware these agents? Of this we are not left in doubt. "In the documents on the subject recently laid before Parliament it is distinctly stated that the enlistments in the United States did not stop until Mr. Crampton gave orders for their cessation on the sth of August. He heel the power to stop the acts of enlistment. He knew the proceedings were, from the commencement, exceedingly offensive to thie Government, and that it was devoting its asitiveanergies to arrest him. He was bound to know—he could not but know—what was notorious to all the world, that, through the months of April, May, June, and July, the recruiting- agents in various parts of the United States, and conspicuously in Boston, New York, Philadel phia, and Cincinnati, were keeping up a most unseemly contest with the law officers of the United States, and that, at least, as early as May, the illegality of the pro ceedings had been pronounced by the Federal Courts in New York and Philadelphia., and yet, notwithstaedirg this, he permitted the unlawful acts in question to go ou without check until the month of August. For thus Ov ine countenance to those illegal proceedings he is distinctly responsible. " Bat his accountability extends yet further, for the same documents show that the official suggestion to the British Government of the untoward scheme of obtaining recruits in the Uuited Steles cane from the correspon dence of Mr. Crampton, and of the consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati, and that to Mr. Crampton was the superintendence and execution of the scheme aim witted, and thus it was that he who directed had pocier to stop proceedings, and thus from early in M trch until Au gust he is found busily occupied in superintending the en listment, partly in the United States and partly in Canada and Nova Scotia, and in issuing instructions to the agents engagedin that enterprise. "It does not suffice for Mr. Crampton now to say that he -did not intend to commit or participate in the commis sion of any infringement of the laws of the United States. He was the directing head of the long-continued infringe ments of the law. It was under superior authority from him. thatasta of continuous violation of law wore perpe trated by the inferior agents. Some of these &gems are proved by his own letters to have held direct intercourse with him ; and in every stage of inquiry in the numerous cases investigated by the American Government there is reference by letter and oral declaration to the general su perintendenoe of Mr. Crampton. His moral and legal re sponsibility are thus demonstrated. With full information -of the stringency of the laws of the United States against foreign recruiting, with a distinct perception of its being all but impoisible to raise recruits here without infringing' the laws, and with a knowleilge of the cenderonatory judi cial proeeedings of April and May at New York and Phi ladelphia; yet ho persisted in carrying on the scheme until August, when its obstivate prosecution brought on a most unpleasant controversy between the United States and Great Britain ; 'and it is not the least of the causes of complaint against Nit.. Crampton that by his acts of com mission. in this business, or in failing to advise, his Go-- vernment of the impracticability of the undertaking in which he was embarked, and the series of illegal acts which it involved, and in neglecting to observe the general -orders of his Government, and stop its recruit ing here She moment its illegality was pronounced by the proper legal authorities of the United States he was reckless!y endaegerine the harmony and peace-of two great nations,' which, by the character of their cone mei-cial relations, and by othereconsiderations, have the strongest possible inducements to cultivate reciprocal amity:' • • " The foregoing considerations substantially apply to the conduct of the British Consuls at New York, Phila delphia, and Cincinnati. Though of a subordinate official character, they) are not less responsible than Mr. Cramp ton. This continuous violation of law proceeded wain , ' their respective . consulatee„ month after month, under th it eyes, pot only ,without any apparent effort on their part, to stop it, 'but with more pr less of their active participa tioh therein. the Coneulate at New York appears to heve been the point at which the largest expenditures' were made, and it is proved by docurhents herewith transmitted ' that payinenfi at- that 'Consular office to some of the re cruiting agents; continued to be male by the secretary of the Consul,. in the Consul's presence; from time to tined, down to the begiuuing of Jan. in the present year. "-The'Preeident, as has already been stated by me, can - not admit the force of the objection now urged of the al leged want 9f respectability on the part of some of the vvit • nesses by whore tiles-) facts were proved, awl as to whom a prominent cause of such alleged want of respectability aeelP4 to be the fact that their evidence has in c ulp a t e d their accomplices . in the violation of the law. The testi- , molly which most directly inculpates the British Consul et New York, as will be seen by the inclos - ures herewith, is . ludic affidavits. of the very pereons relied on by her Ma jeite's Government for proofs ins this case, and whose de positions accompany Lord Clartnilon's note to you of 30th April. The Earl of Clarendon perfectly well understands' that in Great Britain as well.as in the United Steles it would be impossible to administer penal justice without occasionally rece i v i ng th e ev i dence of accomp l ices. " In Great Britain not only is evidence of this class re ceived continually in state trials, as well as in inferior neat ,ters, but rewards and other special inducements are held out to such witnesses by not a feWprovisionsof acts of Par diameut. - The competency of such persons in a g iven c as e,' and :heir credibility, are i n bot h countries q uestions u p on which the court and the jury, i n their repsrpeseechtitvceaspheere of jurisdiction, ultimately pass. In the elusions have been established on documentary proo 6e f and other unimpeachable evidence, by proceedings before the proper tribunals of the United States, by the ve r di c t s o f Juries, and by the ruling ofindges, which must be held as final in the estimation of the President. The Earl of Cla rendon suggests. as a consideration pertinent to this ques tions, that the Minister and Consuls had no means or op portunity of rebutting the charges thus indirectly brought against them in the trial of the inferior recruiting agents. , " In regard to the Consuls, the Earl of .Clarendon errs in supposing that they had not full means and opportunity if they saw fit, to appear and to confront and contradict any accusing witnesses. They were not allowed to interfere in the trials bymere letters written for the occasion, which indeed they could not have done lawfu'ly had there been no such prohibition : but, if conscious of their own innoi , cence,, and,that of the parties on trial, and that their owe acts would bear examination, it was alike their duty and . right to appear and say so on oath, and to contradict by their testiniony . whatever was alleged against British officers or agents if known to them to be untrue. Nor is it any just cause of complaint that evidence was received upon these trials impugning the acts of Mr. Crampton. It was in due course of proceedings required- to be shown sa 'against the parties on trial, that the recruitments in which they were engaged were for the service of a foreigu Go. vernment. ur " Dtr.CraMpton was himself privileged from trial foraviolati on of o naunieipall was the adrainisra for employed were not avr, but the persons whom he, that cause to g 9 unpunished—nor 11 012,10 oa. eeen ' u t n i t on of penal justice to be indefinitely f c o o r u t l h . l e int fsort f3 amt t na r at i l e :n l , immunities w hi ch tiv, r his position and the diplomatic peen liarlv proper that th e facts on the contrary, it was not be by whieb he was implicated, should be verified in ( b iu ti e f f f o O r r i l n w o h f ic l li al h v, e of his Government as welrits that of the 'Unita, remarked in his letter- of the 30th. The Earl-of Clarendon April that— - • ' " c The int6ntions of the British -Gayer arrangemen te made: to carryMene int mt' nrnent, and the I -were not concealed from the Governr o Zt s inft° execution, States; those intentions and arrangemeut°` the United . stated by Mr. Crampton to Mr. Ilarcy in n %vreili frankly The 22d ~March,, HO, and the only observationsvenatio on rebigti:Srr- Marcy made in reply were that :the. neutrality la ws of the United States would rigidly be enforced, but that D - , ---- s 7 nuinher-of persons who desired,* might leave the tinit " el ' Statee and get enlisted in any foreign service,' - "It is incumbent on me to say that in this respect the Earl of Clarendon labours under serious misapprehension, which, while it serves in part to explain how it happens that the enlistment went on for so many months in a man ner contrary to the intentions and express orders of the British Government, also s4ves to increase the weight of Mr. Crampton'g responsibility in this respect. I repeat now, with entire consciousness of its accuracy, what I stated in my letter of the 28th becernber last; that at that interview on the 22d March—the only one I over had with Crampton, as h 3 admits, in which the recruitment THE S.O ON DON, MONDAY EVENING ; JVNE rf ip, 1856. business was alluded to—he (Mr. Crampton) had satisfied me that bis Government bad no connection with it, and was i❑ no way responsible_ for what was doing in the United States to raise recruits for thelliitish army. But lam quite certain that on no occasion has he intimated to me that the British Government Grin)? of its officers were or had been in any way concerned iu sending agentsinto the United States to recruit therein, or to use any inducement for that purpose. Nor did he even notify to mo that he was taking or in tended to take any part in furthering such proceedings. Such a communication, timely made, would probably hails arrested the mischief at its commencement. If he had then apprised me of the system of recruiting which had at that time been already arranged and put in operation within the United States by British agents, and under his superintending direction, he would have been promptly notified in the most positive terms that such acts were contrary to the municipal law, incompatible with the neutral policy of the country, a violation of its national sovereignty, and especially warned against the violation of our neutrality laws. But he blames me now for not then stating to him that my construction of that law differed from his own ; but no such difference of opinion was then developed. " Mr. Crampton on that occasion manifested a coincidence in opinion as to the provisions of that law which, I then held and have since fully disclosed. He called on me to show a letter which he had written on that day to the Consul at New York disapproving the proceedings of a Mr. Angus M'Donald, ' because I (he) thought those proceedings would or might be taken to constitute a violation of the Act of Eighteen—the Neutrality Law of the United States.' What were the pro ceedings of Mr. M'Donald which Mr. Crampton thought might constitute a violation of our neutrality? The simple issuing of a handbill, specifying the terms on which recruits would be received at Halifax into the Queen's service. " This opinion of Mr. Crampton ascribes as much strin gency to our neutrality acts as has ever been claimed for them by the Government or Courts of the United States I had then no suspicion, nor did Mr. Crampton give any cause to suspect, that ho was acting_ or intending to act upon an in terpretation of that law which would justify the act of Mr. M'Donald, which he then condemned, and make the law but little better than a dead letter. I could not but suppose ho viewed it in the same. light as Lord Clarendon did when he wrote his despatch to Mr. Crampton on the 12th of April thereafter, in which his lordship declared it to be not only very just, but very stringent.' " To show that I was not mistaken in this respect, I quote a passage from a letter of Mr. Crampton, dated the 14th of March, to Sir G. Le Merchant Any advance of money by her Majesty's agents or others in the United States would con stitute an infraction of the neutrality ltw.' The depos;tions which accompany this despatch, made by some of the same persons who have furnished the British Government with affidavits 'to impeach Strobel and Hertz, prove conclusively that Mr. Crampton did disburse various sums of money to agonts employed in recruiting within the United States. "It was; indeed, apprehended by me at the time that violations of that law would ensue. It could not fail to be seen that any organised scheme of a foreign government to draw recruits from the United States, though by mere in vitation, would necessarily tend and result in violations of the municipal law. So decided was my belief in this respect that measures had already been taken by me, in behalf of. the Government, as it happened, upon the very day of the interview with Mr. Crampton, to institute prosecutions against persons engaged in this business in New York ; and Philadelphia. I then notified Mr. Crampton of thatfact, as - he expressly admits in his report of that interview made to his Government. " An attempt is made to deduce an excuse for Mr. Cramp ton's course in the business of recruiting in this country from the alleged fact that he communicated to me on that occasion the arrangements which had been made for that purpose, and that I did not disapprove of them otherwise than by insisting upon the observance of the neutrality law of the United States. This allegttion is hardly consistent with Mr. Crampton's own statement of what then passed. in the defence of his conduct, recently sent by him to his Government, he makes admissions, inconsistent with the allegations, that there was no concealment on his part, and that the recruiting arrangements were communicated to me. He says : " ' It is perfectly true that.l did not enter into any details of means which were to be adopted by her Majesty's Govern ment to render available the serVices of those who tendered them - to ns in such numbers There seemed to be obvious reasons for abstaining from this ; and oven if it had occurred to me, I should have been unwilling to do anything which might have borne the appearance .of engaging Mr. Marcy in any expression of favour or approbatidn of a plan favouring the interest of one of the parties in the present war. All I could desire on hii part was neutrality and impartiality.' " His reasons for withholding from me the details of the enlistment system—the most important part of it for this Government—are not satisfactory. If Mr. Crampton be lieves that what he was doing, or intended to do, in the way of recruiting was right, he could have had no reluctance to communicate it to me, for his instructions required him to make that disclosure. Acting in duo frankness, and with a proper regard for the dictates of international comity, Mr. Crampton should, it would seem, have disclosed to me all measures intended to be pursued within the United States by the agents of his Government, including himself, in execution of the Act of Parliament for raising a foreign legion. Nay, he was expressly commanded by his Government to practise no concealment with the American Government on the sub ject. If he had obeyed these orders all misunderstanding be tween the two governments would have been prevented. Mr. Crampton was the more imperatively called upon to make full explanations on the subject, not only because he was commanded by his Government to do-so, but for the fur ther reason that immediately after the breaking out of the w,r between Great Britain and France on the one hand, and Russia on the other, he had, by an official note addressed to me, invoked the efforts of this government to enforce upon the inhabitants of the country (citizens or others), the neces sity of observing the strictest neutrality towards the belli gerent parties, and especially to enjoin upon them to abstain from taking any part in armaments for the service of Russia, .or in any other measure opposed to the duties of a strict nett. trality. To this application the undersigned, by exprese direction of the President, replied, declaring that the United States, while claim lag the full enjoyment of their rights as a neutral power, will observe the strictest neutrality towards each and all of the belligerents. "Reference was made to the severe restrictions imposed bylawnot only upon citizens of the United States, but upon all persons resident within its territory, prohibiting the en listment of men therein for the purpose of taking a part in any foreign war. .It was added that the President did no t apprehend any attempt to vio'ate the laws, but should hie just expectations in this respect be disappointed, he will not fail in hie 'duty to use all the poiver with Which he is in vested to enforde obedience to them. ' In view of this formal and solemn appeal by Mr. Crampton to the American Go vernment, and of the assurance be received of his determi nation to maintain a strict neutrality, it was not for a mo ment suspected that Mr. Crampton could misunderstand its ptirpoFes, - or believe he would bnpermitted to set on foot and execute for a period of five consecutive monthi a syste matic scheme to obtain military recruits for the British ser- TiCOU the United States. " That Mr. Crampton did enter most deeply into this Scheme is proved by evidence already submitted to her Att jesty's Govermnent, but is still More conclusively established by the additional proofs which accompany this despatch. Whatever detraction from the value of the testimony against Mr. Crampton may result from the attempt to discredit Stro bel and Hertz, is much more than made up by the additional proofs now adduced. This body of strong cumulative evidence confirms the President's fornier conclusion as to the compli city of Mr. Crampton and the British consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati in the illegal enterprise - of re cruiting soldiers for the iritish army within the United States, and the President does not doubt that when this new evidence shall be brought under the consideration of 11.2 r Ma jesty's dovernment it will . not longer dissent from this con clusion. " The gratification which the President feels at the satis factory-settlement of the recruiting quest:on, iu so far as yospects the action of the British Government itself, has induced to examine the• case again with the view to remove, ,if possible, from his mind the personal objections againstber Majesty's Minister and Consnls. The examina tion has not produced that eft,ct ; but; on the; contrary, has qtreNthened his conviction that the interests of both Go Vcimniehts require Oat those — per Sons 'should 'cease dO holi their present official positions in the United States: He S cerelyre! , rets that Her ‘lajesty's Government ,has not bean able to take the same view of the case, and to comply with his request for their rocal; but it has not consented to do so. " in the earnest desire to act with all possible courtesy toward her Majesty's Government, the President could have suspended his determination in the case in order to sub- Jnit the new testimony Which he is confident would hay., been found sufficient to induce conipliance with his request for the . recal of the British Minister, he is precluded from any such thought of delay by the exceptional charaeterbf the despatches of that gentleman, copies. of which, having been recently laid befiire Parliament, have thus come to the • knowledge of this Government, and which are of a tenour to render further in tercourse between the Governments—through that Minister ,alikeAmpleasant and detrimental to their good understanding. The President has, therefore, been constrained by .considera tions of the best. interests of bOth, countries reluctantly to have recourse to the only remaining means of removing, with ant delay, these very unacceptable officers_ from the .connection they now have with this Government. " This course has been deemed necessary on account of 'their bnfitudes (or the positions they hold, arising froni the very active part they have taken in'gettin.. * up and carrying out. .a system of recruiting which has been attended with numerous infractions of our laws, which has disturbed our" internal tranquillity, and endangered our peaceful relations to . a nation with which this Government is most anxious to maintain cordial friendship and intimate commercial and social intercourse. •He has, therefore, determined to send to • Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's Diplomatic Representative, his passport, and.to revoke the exequaturs of Mr. Matthews, Mr,. Barclay, and Mr. Bowecroft, British Consuls at Philadelphia, New York, and Cincinnati. " lam, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, " W. L. MARCY. " Geo. M. Dallas, Esq., Ste., London." The following is the letter of dismissal to Mr. Crampton : Department of State, Washington, May 28. Sir,—The President of the United 'States has directed me to announce to you his determination to discontinue farther intercourse with you as her Majesty's diplomatic representative to the Government of:the United States. 'The reitsons which have compelled him to take this step . at this lime have been communicated to your,Gevernment. T avail myself of-this occasion to add that due attention will be cheerfully given to any !communications a idreased to this department from her Alajesty's Government affect-. ing the relations between Great Pritain and th e U n it e d States, which may be forwarded to this G overnmen t through any other channel. • Should it be your 'pleasure to retire from the United States, the President directs me to furnish-you with the usual facilities for that purpose. •I consequently enclose herawith - the passports in such cases. I avail myself -of this opportunity to renew to you, sir, the assurance of my respectful ?.onsideration. W. L. .MUICT. John F.,Cranapton, Esq., ke., &c. THE CENTRAL -AMERICAN QUESTION. DDSPAICOHiFROM SECRETARY MARCY TO MR. DALLAS. ff letter from Secretary Marcy to followin g . Mr, o,illas, ,treating of the Central American ques tio,a and the, proposal to arbitrate, had been sent by President Pierce to the American Senate : , SECRETARY MARCY TO MR. DALLAS. _ „Demently:riofSt•ste, Washington, May. 4185'6. . , iSir,—l am directed by the President to address you on th) subject of the *difference of opinion betvieen the British Gpvernmeht Add - that of the United States - regarding the construction 664 i -ft-id of the Convention of April 19.1856. and the sulijio - eifYreutral America generally, and state to veu the views Ohielithe President entertains of that qnes ben as it nosy :et/arras:in order that you.may communicate the same to the Earl of Ciarendog, her Britannic Majesty's w principal Secretary :ofState for Foreign Aff4irs. You are a aie that thereb As A )een uo direct communication between tho two Clove; nment s on the main subject since the letter ofiyour predecesser,-Mr. Buchanan, to the Earl of Claren dated'aptiali"l3ss, and his lordship's reply of the 28th of the same September, and the brief rejoinder by Mr. Buchanan on the 4th of the following October. In his letter of 11th of September, Mr. Buchanan, briefly reca pitulating the conclusiwis at which the President had ar rived on the whole case, and which had been fully ex plained to the British Government in his previous des patches, reminded Lord Clarendon that more than a year had already elapsed, without any new step being taken by the United States in the discussion, from an unwilling ness to press the subject while the attention of her Majes ty's Government was engrossed by war with Russia, and he proceeded to say that the President had directed him, before retiring from his mission, as he, was then about to do, to request from the British Government a statement of the position which it had determined to maintain, more especially in regard to the Bay Islands, the Belize settle ment, and the Musquito Protectorate. To this communica tion, the Earl of Clarendon replied, stating as the fluid opi nion of her Majesty's Government, that the Convention of April 19, 1850, was merely prospective in its operation, and did not in any way interfere with the state of things existing at the time of its conclusion. He repeats this idea afterwards, in other forms of expression, saying in one place that the Britirh Government consider that the design of the contracting parties was not to disturb any state of things then existing, and in another place that while the British Government have no wish to extend the limits of their possessions, or the sphere of their influence in Central America they are not prepared to contract e ith er th e one or the other in pursuance of the interpretation of a con vention to which interpretation they cannot subscribe. Here, with the exception of a brief note from Mr. Bucha nan to Lord Clarendon—and that upon a single pointonly —the correspondence touching the general question has remained suspended. It will thus be perceived that in his closing despatch the Earl of Clarendon desists from all further discussion of the main objects of the controversy which had previously occupied tie attention of the two governments, and rests the case upon the single position, then at length definitely assumed and expressly announced—of particular hypotbesas touching the con ',traction of the convention. The President could not but receive this announcement with equal surprise and regret. He would, indeed, have been constrained to regard it as an abrupt and complete termination of all correspondence on the subject between the two governments, and as imposing on this government the painful duty of solemnly declaring that the convention had now ceased to be obligatory on the United States, but for the following expressions in the Earl of Clarendon's despatch : • " The British Government share the conviction of the President of the United States, that the interests of the two countries, and their mutual desire to maintain the ex isting friendly relations, will alike inspire each party with a conciliatory spirit, and enable them to overcome all ob stacles to a satisfactory adjustment of the central Ameri can questions. The British Government see no reason why it should be otherwise." This language on the part of her Majesty's Principal Se cretary for Foreign Affairs had the effect of preventing the President from dismissing all hope of an amicable adjust ment of the serious misunderstanding which had grown up between the two governments. He would have been better satisfied if, in expressing the conviction that all obstacles to a satisfactory adjustment of the controversy might, by a conciliatory spirit on both sides, be overcome, his lor,lship, had been pleased to indicate the me ans w hi c h, in his judg ment, were calculated to produce so desirable a consum mation. For want of this, the President has been left to conjecture the precise idea of her M a j es t y ' s Government. He cannot be certain that his conjecture concerning it is well founded, but he is induced, by certain collateral inci dents whi h have occurred, to infer that it was the arbitra tion by a third power of the differences between the two governments in relation to Central America. It appears by the letter of Mr. Buchanan to this depart ment, of February 8, 1856, that on a recent occasion Lord Clarendon had stated in the House of Lords he had offered to refer the whole question to arbitration to any third power, and that that offer had been renewed. In con sequence of which statement Mr. Buchanan, not being aware of any such offer having been formally made by the - British Government, had an interview with the Eatl of Clarendon for-the purpose of explanation. In that inter view Lord-Clarendon stated that the ori g inal offer of which he had spoken in the House of Lords r e f e rred to an expres sion he had used in conversation -with Mr. Buchanan at an early stage of the discussion on the subject of Central Ame rica, and that what he had said of a repetition of the offer was in allusion to a despatch which he had addressed to Mr. Crampton, and which Mr. Crampton had communi cated to this department, and he even proceeded to re count the answer which, on that occasion, it was alleged Mr. Crampton had received from me. In relation to this important matter, as has since been fully manifested,- there was a misconception on both sides. In the first place, although the note to Mr. Crampton had been written so far back as the 10th of November, 1853, and in it Mr. Cramp ton had been expressly instructed to communicate it to this department, he had neglected to do so, and it was not until a late hour in the evening of February 27, 1856, and, in consequence of discussions in the Senate of the United 3tatea on the subject, that Mr. Crampton executed his in structions in this respect, ned made a communication of Lord Clarendon's note of the previous November. In the second place, it had not been understo 4 either by Mr. Buchanan or by his Government that the suggestloni of arbitration which Lord Clarendon had made in conversa tion with Mr. Buchanan were intended by the'former as a formal proposition to that effect on the part of her Majes ty's Government. If it had been so understood the propo sition would at once have received the respectful conside ' ration of the President. It would be superfluous now to dwell on the regret which the President entertains that a proposition 'of this nature, which her Majesty's Government intended as a final one, was not presented at the commence ment in such a shape as to have attracted to, and fixed upon it the attention of this Government. The President has never ceased to be sincerely solicitous to preserve unim• paired the friendly relations of the two countries, and in that spirit passing over all which there is of apparent in formality in the offer of the British Government, and as suming the late communication by Mr. Crampton of Lord Clarendon's note of the 10th of November as a definite pro position, he instructs me to make the present response to that proposition. At the very threshold is the question— What is it which shall be submitted to arbitration ? Lord Clarendon, in his letter to Mr. Crampton of the 10th Nov., seems to assume the difference between the two countries is merely of the interpretation of the Convention of April 19, 1350 ; but that is not so understood by this Government. If indeed it should be determined in any way that the American construction of that treaty is correct., which is, that wbs'ever may have been the state of things previous to its date, yet after that neither the United States nor G. eat Britain is to hold any possessions inCentral Atnerica —that when the two Governments agreed that neither will ever occupy, or fortify, or colonise, or assume, or exereise ,any dominion over Ni caragua , C os t a Rica, awl the M lTi ci an uit °at or any pe l t o f C en t ra l A mer i ca, the slpnacomprehends as to the acts enumerated, prohi bition of their continuance as well as their initiation, without which their could bo no effective neutralisation of the American Isthmus. If, I say, such were the agreed or settled interpretation of the treaty, then, indeed, such determination would conclude all existing differences, and settle it in accordance with the views entertained by the United States. But, on the other hand, it is not easy to see bow the wipers() construction, if it wore adopted by an arbi ter, could terminate the differenee. Lord Clarendon con. ceives that the treaty was merely prospective, in its opera tion ; so it undoubtedly was in one sense, that is, its en gelements only took effect at the time of its execution, and did hut apply to all future time. But when he goes on to infer- that the treaty did not in any way interfere with the state of things existing at the time of its conclusion, he n only asiumee- a consequence which does nab flow from theprentises, b u t h e a l so assumes a state of facts which is controverted by the government, and a determination of which cannot derive the least aid from fro thalnterpretation which he claiins for the-conven tion. . The.. Earl of Clarendon here assumes, without distinctly asserting it, that at the date of the treaty Great Britain had posseseiens in Central America. The existence of such nos ' 3 - oisions, onus ho otherwise expresses it, the assumption of those being portions of territory occupied by Great Britain * in Central America, would appear to be what he more than °nee sOalcS of as " the state of things existing at the time of its conclusion," But this government does not under stand that at the date of the treaty, Great Britain had any possessions or occupied any territory in Central Atnerica, unless' the British establishment neldisehsmenatby her treaties atßeltzewit with s hiits pain depen dencies (as the saute s are to be considered ai British possessions or territory in C ntral America. That is the only possible construction of the declarations exchanged between the Secretary of State, Mr. Clayton, and the British Minister, Sir It Bulwer, at the time of exchanging the ratifications of the convention. Independently of that cogent consideration, this govern• ment supposes that as a matter of mere fact, the state of things existing in this respect at the time of the conclusion of the Convention was a thing _of indisputable notoriety. I will not do her Majesty's Government the injustice of presuming that when the Earl of Clarendon speaks of the possessions of Great Britain is that quarter, or of portions of territory occupied by it, he intends to be understood as weaning anything bat rightful possessions, and rightful • occupation, that is possessions and occupation based upon principle's and conformed to the public laws which govern the international relations of the Christian States of Eu rope and America; Had Great Britain at that time, any such possessions or occupation in Central America ? If; so it must have consisted either in her relation to the Mos quito Indians, to Belize, or to the Bay Islands. Firstly.—As to the Mosquito Coast, it is not understood I that Great' Britain now lays claim to any possessions or any territory there; all she is supposed to claim is the right to protect the Mosquito Indians. It cannot be al ledged by her that those Indians constitute, or are compe tent to constitute, an independent State, admissible as such into the family of sovereign powers. Nor is it pre- . tended by Great Britain that, in the name or on behalf of those Indians, she herself can, without contravention to the treaty, assume or exercise political sovereignty on any part of. the Mosquito Coast: Her Majesty's Government considers itself under obliga tions of honour to protect the persons of these Indians— nothing more,—and declares it is ready and desirous to be relieved of ; that duty in any manner which shall honour ably assure the future condition of these Indians. With out entering here into a discussion of the question whether the- convictions of duty thus entertained by the British Government are well or ill-founded, it seems sufficient to say, there is-nothing in that branch of the subject which merits the aoleinnity of arbitration by a third power, or which ought to be regarded as incapable of being settled at moment by direct intercourse between the respective GoVernments of Great Britain and the 'United States. Nor is it apprehended that her Majesty's Government is dis posed to claiin the possession, either - in her own name directly or that of the Mosquito Protectorate, of the port of S Juan de Nicaragua. It cannot but be admitted that the port was the old possession of Spain,-her right to which was as indisputable as it was to 'Vera Cruz and Panama—that she had a port of entry and fort at or near that place.so low, as she retained her sovereignty in Cen tral America, and that then her rights of sovereignty there and of territorial possession passed to the Republic of Central' r Ainerica It is true that at a subsequent period, and shortly before the date of the treaty now in question, a British force landed at Son Juan, and expelled the authorities of, the State of Niearagua, which then held possession of it, and retained it for_ awhile against that State in the name of the Mosquito Indians. It is true that Great Britain afterwards relinquished the place to the so-called people of Greytown ; but the original taking of it was her act ; that is, she, in the words of Lord Clar endon, placed a people under her protection in the posses sion of6an Juan. A protectorship so exercised and in the name of such persons as the Mosquito Indiana' world, it is plain, amount to practical sovereignty. If admission under the name of protectorship for one of the contracting parties to tit- eolv *ion, it would be equally safer the other, and the United States might be impelled for controlling reasons to uodortke the counter protectorship of the Indians and other persons in Central America. It is not supposed that Great Britain desires to enter into any such line of policy of conflicting protectorships in that quarter, or contend for any construction of the treaty leading to such conse quences, and, of course, no difficulty between the two Go vernments is apprehended on this point any more than in regard to the general relationof the treaty to the Mosquito Indians. Secondly—As to Belize, it being conceded that in pur suaime of explanations interchancred b,tween Sir Henry Bulwer anti Mr. Clayton, Great Britain is not precluied, by any stipulation with the United States, from continu ing to exercise at that establishment all the rights which she acquired frosu.Spain, it would seem also that there is nothing in that part of the subject which it would become the two Governments to say to the world they cannot settle by themselves; for, although it is ce'min9n in English hooks of geography and others to give to Bell.Ze the appellation of British Honduras, still it is too well known to admit of dispute that Belize is not, and never was, any part of Hon duras; and her Majesty's Governm e nt w ill no t, it i s as sumed as a matter of course, found on mere name any pre t-nsions of extendesi territory in that qii4ter t e the preju dice of the territcrial integrity of the republic of Honduras. Finally, there remains the question of the Bay Islands, as to which there is more of controversy, at least in ap pearance. It is due to perfect frankness to say that the :set of her Majesty's Government, establishing, so late as the year 1852 (and in apparent contradiction to the ex press letter of the convention of 1850) a colony at Bay Islands, has left a disagreeable impression on the minds of the Government and people of the United States. Possessidn, as Great Britain does, numerous colonial es tablishments in all parts of the World, many of them in the West Indies, it has not been readily seen what induce aients of interest she can have had to establish a new co lony under the peculiar circumstances of the time in the insignificant territory of the Bay Islands. Nor, on look ing hack beyond the fact of her Majesty's warrant esta blishing the colony of the Bay Islands, and considering the state of things existing in the question at the date of the Convention of 1830, does this Government well see on what ground it can be maintained that Great Britain at that time had possession of the Bay Island; which could be deemed rightful, either as respects the engagements with +he United States or territorial sovereignty of the repub lic of Honduras. Ido not understand the Earl of Claren ton positively to assert that the Bay Isl inds are depen tencies of the British settlement at Belize. He indicates, to bo sure, an inclination on the part of the British to maintain such a claim, but concedes, at the same time, that it is a debateable question. The President does not permit himself for a moment to entertain the idea that the Earl of Clarendon will insist upon any claim of right iu Central America incompatible with sacred respect for all the stipulations of the treaty as understood by her Ma jesty's Government. Of course he looks to see what are the rightfal sources of the British title to the Bay Islands suggested by the Earl of Clarendon. He finds them in the statement from the Forign-office of May 2, 1854, as communicated by Mr. Buchanan, and by him transmitted to this department. Her Majesty's Government admits on paper that Ruatan was claimed and militarily occupied oy the former republic of Central America as successor of the rights of Spain, but assorts at the same time the ad verse British claim manifested by acts of authority, mili tary and civil, and by acts of actual possession. Occa sional acts of military authority by captains of British ships of war, or of civil authority by the superintendent Belize, are sufficient, it is obvious, to determine the claim of the title as against the counter claims of the Re pisblic of Central America or State of Honduras. No re linquishment of title by the latter is alleged, except in cer tain declarations reported to have been made by the Cen tral American Commandant of Truxillo, who, whatever he May have said, could have no power to cede away the ter ritory of Honduras. The occupation of Ruatan by British subjects as its ori ;in and character ars described in the statement, presents aone of the conditions of rightful possession. Its language in that point is : —" Ruatan has been, of late years, with out any instigation on the part of her Majesty's Govern ment, spontaneously occupied by British subjects." It is not presumable that the spontaneous occupation of Ruatan by British subjects, without instigation on the part of her Majesty's Government—that is, an act of mere invasion, ey unauthorised private persons, will he perseveringly in ,eted neon by Lord Clarendon as a foundation claim by Great Britain to the sovereignty or even rightful possession of the B Islands. It cannot have escaped the attention of her Majesty's Government that the political condition of Belize, as fixed by the treaty, is not itself one of terri torial sovereignty. Therefore Great Britain could never have acquired, in the right of Belize and the assumed de tendencies thereof, the territorial sovereignty of the Bay Islands. In a word, this Government believes that the Bay Islands belong to the state of Honduras, and that, therefore, the occupation of them, and, still more, their colonisation by Great Britain, aro contrary to the tenour of her treaty with the United States, as being the occupation and colonisation of a part of Central America. But the British Government thinks differently, and upon the ques tion whether the Bay Islands are subject to occupation and donisatien by Great Britain, notwithstanding her treaty with the United states, the two Governments are at issue. Upon this retrospect of the several points of diffe rence between the two Governments, the President is not able to perceive that any useful result would ensue, either from calling on a third Power to say whether the convention is or is not prospective in its operation, in the sense of that idea as expressed by her Majesty's Government, for if that question should, by any possibility, happen to be resolved in favour of Great Britain, all the substantial points of difference between the two countries would remain untouched ; as, being wholly independent of the question of construction, the dispute would still exist as to what rightful possessions, at the date of the convention, Great Britain actually had in Central luserica. And if it is now contended by the British Go vernment that in the name of the Mosquito In ians Great Britain may take with military force and hold Sala Juan or other points in Central America, such pretension would be so totally irreconcileable with all idea of the independ ence and neutrality of the isthmus as to render the conven tion worse than nugatory to the United States. Instead of submitting to arbitration a pretension involving such consequences, or in other way consenting to restore to effect the treaty, with such possible construction, it would, in the judgment of the President, be his duty to propose its amendment, so as to release the United States from obliga tions not attended by any benefits, and which obligations, thus unattended, the United States did not intentionally , incur, they having entered into treaty only on the suppo sition that absolute reciprocity of restriction was incurred by Great Britain, I repeat, if the treaty could, by any possibility whatever, have the construction of leaving Great Britain in possession or military control of the At lantic coast of Central. America in the name of the MOs' quito Indians, and with powers to colonise insular posi tions commanding it, on the ground of their having been " spontaneously occupied by British subjects," while the United States are restrained from all such rights of con trol and acquisition that, in the estimation of the Piesi tent, would be to deprive the treaty of moral force, both because it would thus cease to have reciprocal effect, arid because the United States did not intentionally enter into any such engagement, and if such were a possible con struction, whether it would not then become the duty of the United States to , cek for the most honourable means of being discharged from such obligations, and render themselves perfectly free to re-establish their nroper relation as an American power to the transit routes of the American isthmus and the general indepen hence of America. In fine, the President cannot consent to any act which implies the existence of a possible doubt as to this point, as the convention of 1850, construed in the sense above supposed, would not be the treaty into which the United States entered, nor can ho do anything which could he taken to admit, either directly or impliedly, that there is a question in his mind relative to the truecon struction, and he feels bound to take 'care that, in enter taining the present proposition of arbitration, he shall not be understood as actuate I by the slightest feeling of die trust regerding the treaty rights of the United States; but the President is not prepared to say that some of the ques tions of fact, concerning which the two Governments dif fer, may not be conveniently determined by arbitration, or by some analogous method. Of this class of objects of in quiry is the question; what are the rightful limits of esta blishment at Belize on the side of the State of Honduras, he question whether the Bay Islands do or do not belong to that republic, and the question as to what extent of country is embraced in the term "Mosquito Coast," or is in actual occupancy of Mosquito Indians, as Indians, and with such territorial rights only as that description of per sons are entitled to claim according to the established pub lic law of Great Britain, of the United States, or of the independent States which haVe succeeded Spain in Ame rica, remembering no power exists on the part of Great Britain and the United States to dispose of the sovereign rights of Nicaragua or of any other State of Central Ame rica. All these questions of political geography regard, in the first instance, the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the inde pendent States of Central America. Great Britain and the United States have no pretension thus to interfere, except for the purpose of defining their own mutual obligations, arising out of the engagements they may have contracted in order to assure how far they concerned the neutrality and independence of the American isthmus. Regarded only as collateral considerations affecting the construction of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, they are question. which, if not determined by agreement setween the two Governments themselves, the President wou'd not decline to refer to arbitration. He is aware of the existence of many practio d obstacles to the adjustment of any international difference of this nature by arbitration, of which difficulties Great Britain and the United States had experience in the attempt to settle by such means a previous controversy on the subject of the boundary be tween the United States and the British provinces in Noll h America. The President does not doubt that any one of the powers of Europe which should consent to undertake the task of such arbitration as is now proposed would perform the duty with perfect impartiality ; but to apply to any power to do this would be to ask of them an act which, if grante I, would add to their own domestic duties the labours and burden of settling the complicated differences of other Governments. lie would greatly prefer that, in a controversy like the present, turning on points of political geography, the matter should be referred to some one or more of those eminent men of science who do honour to theintellect of Europe and America, and who, with the previous consent of their respective Governments, might well undertake the task ef determitair,g suck questions to the acceptance as wtllof her Majesty'. Government as that of the United States. You aro instructed, therefore, to enter into communication with her Majesty's principal Secretary, of Foreign Affairs, in relation to Central Ame rica, in order to ascertain, in the first place, whether the existing differences cannot be promptly terminated by direct negotiation, and if they cannot, then to discuss the conditions of arbitration upon those points of difference a; to which alone this method of settlement seems requisite or applicable ; it being assured that other points of differ ence would, after that, yield, as a matter of course, to con ference between the Earl of- Clarendon and yourself, con ducted in the spirit of cordiality and frankness which belongs to your personal relations, and which is dieteted by the true interests both of the United States and Great Britain. I atn ' Sir, respectfully, your o b e di en t servan t, Geo. 1.1. Dallas, Dq., London. W. L. Maßcv. ADDL'ESS IN PARLIAMENT ON THE BEGTUITING QUESTION. • The following are the terme . of the addrees which Mr, liaillie will move in the House of Commons on Thurs- nay evening next : "'that an humble address be Prpsenled to her Majasty, thanking- her Majesty for haVi-rg b ,, en graciously pleased to communicate to the house papers relating to recruiting in the United States of America. " To inform her Majesty that we observe it is admitted that the law of the United States, with respect to foreign enlistment, is no less just than stringent ; and that, in making this admis s i o n, h er Maj es ty' s G o vernment declared that on no account would they run any risk of infringing this law of the United States :. "To express to her. Majesty our conviction that h.r sonic weeks, both beforo and after this declaration, recruiting was carried on within the United States by her Majesty's officers without any communication of the measures tak by them to the Government of that country, but with the knowledge and co-operation of her Majesty's 'savoy at Wasilingtou ; and thpt proviedinge layo occurred which were at variance with our international obligations, and which her Majesty's advisers were unable or have failed to prevent : " That, accordingly, while we perceive with satisfaction that during the course of thes3 actions some measures have been adopted by the MiListry in a spirit of conciliation, we are unable to declare the complaints of the Ainerio4u Government, that thelaws and rights of that country have been violated, to have been advanced without cause : " That, while we assure her Majesty of our firm deter mination to assert now as heretofore, if justice shall re quire it, the rights and dignity of the Crown, we have to expres3 our conviction that we shall be best prepared to acquit ourselves of that duty by the frank admission and complete reparation of wrong : " That, with these views, and, moreover, having regard to the means which appear to be available for composing other matters in dispute, we humbly beseech her Majestr to adopt such measures, with reference to the correspond ence on foreign enlistment and its consequences, as in her judgment shall, while carefully guarding the bonen/ of the Crown, promote the restoration of a good understanding and of close and cordial amity between Great Britain and the United States of America." Sr De Lacy Evans- -Amendment on motion of Mr. Ba llie, on recruiting in the United States, to leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words " in the means resor;e I to by Government for reinforcing our army in the field, it •is the opinion of this house that, instead of inviting enlist ments from the United States, it had been more politic to have entertained such offers as were made by highly respectable parties for raising corps from amongst loyal Canadian . fellow-subjects,"in,tead thereof. MIDDLES fi X -- S ESSIO NS.—Jitne 14. (Before Mr. Creasy.) Solomon, Hymns, a middle-aged man, surrendered to take his trial on an indictment, in which he was charged with indecently assaulting Catherine Samuels, a girl II years of age. Mr. Payne appeared for the prosecution at the in stance of the Society for the Rescue of Young Women and Children ; Mr. Ribton appeared for the prisoner. The prosecutrix, who gave her evidence in a very clear and straightforward manner, stated that she lived with hir parents at No. 3, Wentworth-court, Spitalfields. Trey were of the Jewish persuasion, and so was the pri. soner. Her father was a general dealer. The prisoner was also a dealer, and he lived opposite her father's house... One night (7th of May) she went out to buy a cucumber, and on her way home, as it was getting dusk, she saw the prisoner in Wentworth-street. He beckoned to her, and on going to him be said, " Kitty, will you go and see if my wife is indoors and the candle alight?" She did as he desired, and went round to a place called Irish-alley as he had directed, to tell him the result of her errand. His wife was not at hone, nor was there any light. He said, " Very well, Kitty, come along with me, I'll get change of a shilling and then give you a halfpenny." He took her across the road to a public-house, and asked her to, have some gin, which she refused, and he then called for a pint of beer. He pressed her to have some of that, but she said she did not want any; however, as he bothered her a good de d, she did place the pot to her lips and pretended to drink. 0:. leaving the public house he took her across the road and down a court, where he thrust his hand down her bosom. She told him not to that, but he said it was nothing, and pooh poohed her. He then took her to a house in the court ; the door wit open and he went in. A woman came into the pi male and he gave her 61. The wetnan asked him where hii female friend was, and be nodded to witness. When the woman saw her she said to biro, " you nasty scandling vagabond, if I do keep this house for people to come to, I don't keep it for beasts and children." He said, "Nell, what's the :natter ?" He then went out, when a woman took him by the shoulders and pushed him. He said, " Come along Kitty, there is 'nothir.g the matter." When she was with him in the public house, she saw a man named Sheen, and she saw him in the passage as she left the house the prisoner took her to. Mr. Sheen took her home. A lot of women col lected round the door and threatened t kill the pri soner if he 'lid nod get away. Tire house in the court was a brothel she had since htlard. Ir. Ribton cross-examine l the girt, but she did not vary her evidence in the lea: , t. John Sheen, undertaker, 88, Wentworth-street, de pos: d that on the evening in question he was in the City of Norwich public-house in Wentworth-street, when he saw the prisoner and the girl come in, and heard him ask her to have some gin. This caught his attention, the girl being so young, and he noticed them inconsequence. She refused, and he called for a pint of beer, of which he asked her to partake. She did put it to her lips, and the prisoner finished it. He then took her by the hand, and witness watched where they went to. He took her to a brothel in Angel-alley, and suspecting his int ntions, witness went after him, and heard the woman of the house ask him where was the female he had with him. Witness then went into the passage, took the child by the hand and went with her to where she said she lived. He met a polica-sergeant, and told him of it, and he went with them. He heard the woman say to him, "You ought to be ashamed of your self to bring such a child to my place ;" to which he re plied, " Well, I don't know, it is not the first time." Elizabeth Hodson, widow, stated that she kept the house, No. ,l, Angel-alley, Spitalfields (a brothel). The prisoner came thera one night and gave her al. for a room. When she saw the little girl he had with him she was indignant, called him a vagabond, and Mr. Sheen came in and took the girl away. She sent for a policeman. A mob of females got round the prisoner when he went out of her passage. Catherine Sullivan, a woman living in a court in Petti coat-lane, said she was going through Angel-alley on the night i❑ question, when, seeing a mob round the d3or of the last witness's house, and hearing them cry shame upon the prisoner, whom she knew to be a married man and the father of a family, she joined in with them, and, taking him by the shoulders, pushed him away. (She looked a person well qualified for such an office) If she had not done so ho woubi have been wore treated, Mr. Itibton, in his address to the jury, urged that there might be a doubt as to the prisoner having bad any evil intention towards thv girl. Mr. Creasy, in summing up, said it was quite suffi cient for the purposes of the indictment if the jury were satisfied that the pri , quier bad but once laid his hand on the girl without her consent. The jury found the pri:wntr guilty. Mr. Creasy, with a good deal of indignation, said be never met with a more disgu4ing case, and it was diffi cult to conceive conduct more hat:e than the prisoner had been guilty of. Great credit was due to the conduct of the witnesses Sheen and Horlson, who no doubt had saved the grl from ruin. He then sentenced the prisoner to hard bihour for ten calendar' months. James Gibbons, a plasterer, was indicted for having assaulted Elizabeth Millar, with intent,. &c. Mr. Sleigh appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Ribton f r the prisoner. The prosecutrix, upon whose evidence the whole case rested, stated that she was a, married woman, and lived at No. 2, Upper Cavend!sh•street, Maida-hill, and the prisoner and his wife formerly lived in their house. On the 231 of May she met him at the corner of Church street and Salisbury street, and he asked her to take part of a pint of beer with him. She refused at first, but afterwards went into a public-house with him. On le,-.Virig they had some conversation, and he told her that he had :heard that she Lad said disrespectful things concerning his wife before she was married, which she denied having done, and be then said if she would ac eompany him to a room, where they had lived, he would show her a book in which his wife had written the words she (prosecutrix) had uttered about her. She re fused to go with him several times, when he said with an oath that he believed her guilty. She said she was not, and'would go and see what his wife had written. She went with him to a house at the corner of Luton street, and he took her up to a room on the second floor. When they got in the room he locked'the door and put the key in his pocket. He went to a corner cupboard and appeared t> look for something, but ho said he could riot find it, though he was sure his wife had put it there. He then threw leer on the fl.)or and committed an assault upon her, which she described. She resisted him suc cessfully, and made as much /wise as she could. He used very bad language (which she glibly repesteel), and when he desisted from the-attempt he swore she should not leave until she promised to have something to drink with him. For the sake of get' log away she promised she would, and directly she got out she ran home, where she fainted. She was insensible nearly an hour and a half; and when she renwered she told her husband's mother what had occurred. The prisoner was after wards given in charge. There were persons in the house at the time, but none were present to say they had heard her call out. Mr. Ribton made an able address to the jury, and sug gested that it was a consistent ,iew of the case that what took place was with the woman's consent, and that she made'the charge to save her own character. Mr. Creasy, in summing up, remarked that it was im portant to take into consideration the demeanour of a witness in giving evidence, and he did not see anything improper in that of the prosecutrix. It way for them to decide the ca , e upon her testimony. The jury retired, and after about an hour's absence returned a verdict of not guilty. [ADVERTISEMENT.) --We quote some interesting cures with out 'medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipa. tion, nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility, by Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica, Food : Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatus leucy, spasms, sickness at the stomach, and vomitings, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Revalenta Arabica Food.---Maria Jolly, Wortham Ling, near Diss, Norfolk. Cure No. 3,9o6.—Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and gene nd debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Be - valenta Arabica Food.—James Porter, Athol-street, Perth. From the Dowager , Countess of Castlestuart. Cure 52,612. Rosstrevor, County of Down , Ireland, 9th December, 1854. The Dowa g er Countess of Ca s tl es t uar t f ee l s i n d uce d, i n th e interest of, suffering hitruanity, to state that Du Barry's ex cellent Revaleuta Arabica Food has cured her, after all Medicines had failed, 'of incligestiOn, bile, great nervous ness and irritability of many years' standing. This food deserves the coufhl en C e of all sufferers, and may be con sidered a real blessing. Inquiries will be cheerfully answered. Supported by testimonials from the celebrated Professors of Chemistry Dr. Andre t Ure ; ,Dr. Shorland ; Dr. Harvey ; ( Dr. Cam p b e ll ; Dr. attiket; Dr. 'Wurzer ; Dr. Ingram ; Lord Stuart de Decies; the Dowager Countess of Castle- Stuart ; Major -Gen. Thomas King, and many other respectable persons, whose health has been restored by it, after all other means cf cure had failed. Suitably packed for all slimates, with full instructions. In canisters, slbs., Ils. ; 121b5., 225. ; super-refined, Ilb., 6s. ; 21bs., lls. ; 51bs., 225.; 101bs., 335. The 101bs. and 121bs. carnage free, on receipt of post-office order. Barry du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, Loudon ; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., Purveyors .to her Majesty, Picca dilly; also at 60, Gracechurch-street ; 33J and 451, Strand; 4, Pheapside; 68, Ccruhill • 49, Bishopsgate-street; 55, Char ing-erose; 54, Upper Blker-street; 63 and 100, Oxford. I qregt, Coultry Markets. H -11/13INGTON CORN LIARKET— JUICE 13. WHEAT. I BARLEY I OATS. i BEAN . First 7ls Od 438 Od 35s 6d 1 496 Od Second 72s 9d 1 42s 5d 1 32s lid ) 466 2d Third 6os Od 1 423 0,1 J 21s Od 1 42s Od Total quantity of wheat in market, 345 qrs., 327 kol a ~ barley ~ 55 qrs., 0 sold oats ,1 181 qrs., 160 sold beans ~ 63 qrs., 42 so/d. AVERAGES PER INFIR/AL QUARTER. Wheat, 3/. 12 9 11-12ths 1 Barley, —V. 2 5 0-12tba Oats, ... 11. 12 11 2-12ths I Beans, 21. 6 2 10.12tba ,~ ~, ,1 IP DALKEITH GRAIN MARKET—JUNE 12• Qrs. Best. Current. ln reri or 223 Wheat 78s al 315 Oats 33s 4 t oos Od 61 Barley 4ss Od oos Od ......... 38- Od 7d Peas & beans 51s Oil oos Od ..... .... 44s Od ABERDEEN—Jurr oc 13. Potato oats ‘ 7 63 M to 27s 641 1401bs per bubo Common oats 26s Od to 258 63 Bere 37s Od to 33a Od 531bs Barley 37s Od to 38s Wheat, red (spring)6os Od to 65s Od 621 bs ~ white 7os Od to 75s Od Oatmeal 204 Od to 21s Od per b oll. Flour 53s Od to 54s Od per sack. PROVISION MARKET. 1 Beef, per lb 6d to 8d Butter, p lb. Os 9d N 10 0 Button, per lb 6d to 8d Eggs, p doz. Os 7 d to Os I 6l Lamb, do., Os 6d to o , * 9 Hens, p pair 38 Od to3s Veal, per 1b..... 5d to Os 7d Chickens,do.r/s Od to 2 e 7.1 Pork, per 5t...5s 9d to 6s Od Ducks, do., 2 s O d to 24O` iSalmon, per lb Os to Os Ducklings,doOs Od to O' • Grouse, per brace 0s to Os Turkeys, each 45 Od to 4s Tallow, p stone, 3s9d to 4s 03 t Potatoes, pr peck, 6cl to 7 Rabbits, each 01 to Od. 921 Butter for exportation (present cure) per cwt.-080d t° —4l to 6 Eggs, wholesale price, per dozen RETAIL PRICES. 211 N Flour,l4lb 0s Od to 2s 10d Barley flour,l4lb.Os to , od Oatmeal Os Od to 2s Od dust, ........ Os WO' l oa Beremeal Od to is 10d , per lb .......... 2d t° Yeasemeal... Os Od to 2s 8d Sid d,•........ ............... 4-Ib. 10af...8d. 2-11 o. 10af...4d. Cheese, per imperial stone, 4s. to 4s 6d. DUBLIN, JlTlot.z 10. We had a steady but not brisk market to•day. demanded higher rates, but they. were not generallY ° • trained, except for oats, which must. be qu oted 6d dea.rerA. I I White wricrat,,, 393 Od to 44s 6d ; red ditto, 30s to 44 1', barley, 14s 63 to 20s Od ; oats, 12s ,Od to 16s Od ; raPe`r, ••••••3 Oct to --s Oct per brl; oatmeal, 1'243 Oct to 16s 6d ; It"rod dour, 2.18 Od to 27s Od per cwt ; India acorn, 285 64 to NA per 480 I.ltA BORNE .lid 1 LS• ,r 1 signifies that the mails are sent from the General rot y the night—and M by the morning--olespatt. h•) why, nty wta en mail,: • i Tro. "u Wha t a ge 11/ COUNTED:4, in Genf•rai P„:, I la • g. • Office, London.* ,se I..uti • .........._,..,0, -......... ,nerizat tiYitri"P3eh • Every Friday ... f.,.vew00. 1 ••• We kmericp. (by United S , jacket) ......... , ~. Every 'r uesday .. i.,iverpool •-• • •ncrica (by U. Staff c 4Outhanr, , an Wield/ packet) ...... . • Istralia (via Liver pool ............ tvt 4th and 19th .... Liverpool •• • Tr" a In° Ditto (via Marseilles) N Ditto (via Cape of Good! ... Once ° n . .. • • .tlfica k West Coast) ..N l "' 0, ti• lionti • . e[ymo. • • 6 th °11 .:.T . t exandria.......... 1,. 10th t 26th 0: . o Dover ...... .d 16 - 17 „ t , . l a e h a a a m n d u r ia . .. .. .. .. .. : .. .. .. .. 5•1 1,,, 4 11ti j o ii t , h , e it m m on q l . , ito.uutthhaainnl::(c);;4l6o/11 01.' leigium ...........N !)ii'Y •• • ..... Dover .... • ;),., 11 ~ arazil .. ........ .... N 1 9 th of the month.. ' l .ntbs.tnp • cl• June !.T• 1,,, , on , .. ; ~.th ~,...- n June I_7 ; , Buenos Ayres ........30 - ‘ ; , ,p, of Good d o p e .1.. Uncertain 'Jape of Good Hope ~N f re• lap° de Verds ......, "' '' n - . 3.nitnALOP,CSI 9th 0 . 3eylon (see India) 110th and 26th ly t 59 :1ey10n...........,, ..1.. 1 4th a,..d 20th 7hAnuel 151e5..., ...N 'hill. .. .. ~,, .. ~, .. NI 1.1 4 17f , of nu,r ionthamy oti rune 1 . % china .... .. 4th and 20th .„ . 4 A nd •••,, 7 2 an d 7 ........ - .....,.. P , 1 • ,33: it h aro li on ru.Th.S, lonstamtinople .... .. IN I t i Oth and 26th 1.14 7* ". ••• ,„ 2 4 . .3/istantinople ........ 4th & 20th of mon 4 ' ' , 'iniP t o' 7 all* 'font. of Europe M 4 N I:wice daily ... , i Dover ...... vac. Egypt (see India) i .„.„,,,, o ds fi •i'rance ........ M & Nlrwie. daily-- Dover ...• • .••'" 2 4 2 . libraltar .. ... ... .. M ,4, 7, 17, 20, 27 ern, 5,7001,132w° , 6,7. s ;room (see India) I , y l i r oc e ,i y iey t z o u w ,: n t:. .......... hi 2nd 4 17th of moo. Scutll , ..mPte* Ju l y 1 • •Ismburgh ..........N Dail," l tvs.rinah .......... NI ;2nd of the monti ,i,,,,,,,,,,ptcr, otnottn,_ lolland ..........-M i Daily.„ ..... ..., Dover „...... 4 & 20 ID ionduras ..........M;l7t of the month. Southampton (ndis (via"loutharnpt.)M i4th ~ /oth of rniii• Plymouth .• June 20 India (via Marsoilles)M . 9thts26thofmontb Dover ...... , lonian Is'es (see India) 10 4•, 4th . . Dover.... • • Ireland ........31 & NI Twice (lady Lisbon .............. 51 1 2 d af r, o .... Aadeira ............ 51 9ch of the myna SouthamptonB, 16 ilty Madeira ............N 234 of month Waits (see India) 15, 2 Malta ........'......N ,4, 10, 20, and 26 Dover ...... 4, 2 1 Mauritius (see India) I Mauritius ..........N,20 hof the inontl• 14, 21 Unto() ............M:211 ,1 of the month. so t ithaminenl 1.21)1°3 ' • •• - ••• • • •• •• N DallY • • . • • • • . • • • • Dover ...... 'July I New Granada .. .... 5/ i2(1.8c 17th of monti a,,,,,,,h am pter, New Zea1and..,....... Twice a month Various port - Papal States ........N Daily-. • • • • • • •• • • Dover ...... 4 week!: Peninsula .......... M Southampton Porn ..............M id Pc 27th of mon. Southampton Post Natal ....................„ ... ..... : N lE Tl 24 ; : n t rl yn v sta i a t t e : i lt o p y n • t : . . Southampton Vari ous v er . r : 6 Tuscany ............N;Ditto • ... ..., •• • • Dover •.:" •• ... r e Van Diemen's Load (see kustralia) .„ .. ~.....,4th of mon. .. We''' . 'MIN' • .•*•fi9o • (1 , ..• .n.“, , t igrorthatnntan 'IMO !lth of mon. [9n , .s, ! Ditto e When any of these date s fall *OO a Annday, the malls male -erg s,satched on the following day, with the exception of the ` outhampton).and the Malta. both of which will be desvate .l preceding day LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL. Julia 14. STnett EXCHANGE.—The market has been dull to-de , and prices must be noted a shade easier, with little doing;at the following ra t es : --Liv er p oo l, Crosby, and ant . . 1 ne r port, 173—Midlands, 78A—Shellields, 29,3—Ditw, 04 1 1r, i . cent., 68 c.— Lancashire and Yorkshire, 921—Eaetri cashire, Pref., 1-sth sh a r es , 6s—S ou th E astern , 2 1 4 North Eastern, Berwick, 204—Ditto, G.N.E. Parchll se ' d. 21. MANCHESTER, RINK 14. 3TOOI EXCHANGE.—The market bas been firm 10 very little business wa s t ransac t e d. D o yen nt , - Midlands, 78:4—Leeds, 93. BIRMINGHAM, JUNE 14. • , E , oolt EXORANGE.-Thi market was steady to' a gi with a good dem an d f or a ll ki n d s o f s t oc k . Midlande,..„ for next account G rea t w es t ern Birmingham Gu'iol teed Stock, 74i for next account—Eastern Counties,. London and North Westerns, 1028—Shropahfre trxll°//4 LEEDS, Juin 14. STOCK EXCHANGE. —North Eastern, Leeds, 18. DUBLIN—JUNK 14. STOOK EXCHANGE.—Three per Cent. Consols, 95il Ditto for Account, Bth July, 944 94—Ditto, for new fit ter count, 0 - New Three per Cent. Stock, 931 94- P" for the Account, Bth of July, 94A—Great Southern 6 !," We-tern, s.3 , —Mining Company of Ireland, 141 Dublin and Belfast Jun c ti on , 441—Midl an d Great tern and RI. Canal, 514—Waterford and Limerick J-' 98 —Dublin and Wicklow, sf---Sillarney .Tunctiour ex d.—Cork and Bandon, 10. We (Sunderland Herald) have much pleasure in if flouncing that a matrimonial alliance has been arranged between Hed worth Williamson, Esq. , eldest join of, Pr Hedworth Willi amson , B ar t, o f Wh itburn-hall, county, and Miss Louisa Rosamond Haigh, only dee& ter of the late J o h n H a i g h, E sq ., o f Whitwell•hall,prk• shire. We understand that the fair bethrothed , addition to many accomplishments, is possessed of sid erahle landed and other property. ‘ ,AI at [ADVERTISEMENT.j—HoIIoway's Pills an Ex---- i e n , Medicine. — Perfect digestion • and pure bile Priw u n - r good blood, and if the functions of either the stomeen;,,," the liver are disordered, Holloway's pills will assurou'i repair the mischief, and enable them to supply the JO": nels of circulation with an uncontaminated fluid ; tb in cases of bile, indigestion, or disordered ston3achs,, im not use this invaluable 'remedy, which has cured thell* sands when every other medicine has failed ? The nu; her of years these pills have been i n use con firm the e • racy of their good effects.—Sold by all medicine ,ind it e throughout the world ; at Professor Holloway'e row blishment, 244, Strand, Lond o n, an d a t 10, Maiden' lane, New York ; by A. Stamps Conbtaninople; Guidicb Smyrna; and E. Muir delis. BIRTHS. OP A BON. On the lith inst., at 15, Upper Hamilton-terrace, M fg. Frederick Miles. On the 13th inst., at 1, Argyll-place, Regent-street, gra' Charles H. Savory. Or A DAIIGHTEM, On the 12th inst., at 7, Stockwell Villas, Mrs. JODI Doulton. f tht On the 10th inst., at Hyde, Cheshire, the w ife o Itey. C. It. Ord. MARRIED. .• On the 14th inst., at: St. James's, Paddingto, ut Erydo• Colonel Alexander Mednyanszky, of hiverness-road, park, to Anna Margaret, eldest daughter of the late GO. Birkbeck, M.D. On the 12th irist., at St. Matthew's, Brixt.cin, now ° Wm. Bilton, Esq., solicitor, eldest son of Thomas•Biltoos Esq., of Blixtou-hill, to Mary Ann, eldest daughter of th l late Thomas Smith, Esq , of Upper Kennington -lap*, ° D Princes-street, Lambeth. DIED. On the' 13th inst., at Woolwich, Lieutenant-Gen er4 Thomas Paterson, Colonel Commandant of the.sth Batta lion Royal Artillery, aged 76. On the 12th inst., at 45, Myddelton-squitte; Ch" leg Shaw, Esq., of the Stock Exchange, aged 81. f On the 13th in s t., Mr. Thomas Wm. Duff, upwards 0 40 years a clerk in the Bank of England, aged 66.. On the 12th inst. at Stamford-hill, Mr. John Oliver, late of Winchmore-hill, aged 67. On the 13th inst., Mr. George Delano, of Great Tine' street, Regent-street. On the 14th inst., in Great Coram-street, Lieut. George Read, R.N., and K.T.S.. aged 62. On the oth inst., in Upper Eaton-street, Win. W 11111(4 Esq., aged 91. On the Bth inst., at Naples, the Lady Victoria Susi ° Talbot. LONDON: Printed and Published by MITRDO TOTING of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, -go. 1 12, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, In the asluil cf Atiddletiels AleAdeys Jese.l6, 1866. trg qu.t w i held at 1 Rth Ju ............. T H i That i Liven nc Quarter] at th e i r June ne: " Tiiii for his 81 1 4 itido T H' That litiven no ',tartan *t their 111,1tant, " Thiit revenue *hetet , ' That a Kam, in' General "That each Pra et Thorn former 0; o'cl4 Walla, as AR' &Piston, n. Limn 1)R l' 111. 9) fro and prep health a ?.:.and 1 by D r . E formanex %hove en includine Doteal. ' , fhb the 11 0 16 j her 31 rrince of bridge, tl 4 tl extei sl nollg tl Cremorn le'clock SIC rotm, Jane 11, the teleb ~R oy ""itnlissio ea Bantle 26 . 6d. eg t Mr Perfectly the ode tray m . at .Lnis et •Peratior tttarante tendered home fro Su/ Pollcle OUR-F liceordini The Pl are lower are fully Additinn ?rernitur Polley Prove Ro henry L Xdmond John Ga Alexand, Edward Alexand Rlland. TY 1111 am ,ocelot Notice Mims f FIRE 1 1 3rittion • In the th profit The fc Slat Dec Years' st when Assure Equii by tilos, • The Any This A' erthe q the eel nude v Product The lion • Cation Leparl are vril littripli the FL ' lbany • le of tl . Iron c than t Sc retloll 'NAT rentle JADE P i.,.. *rmt , wess, kind' Oftici 23, Viet Place quar mad sand IPIPrf Lou lirAd *Ai en will Ea Vti