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

SUN OFFICE, Seven, o'clock. NEWMARKET RACES—(This Day.) Cantrip Petercei, Pitapat (BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.) SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 SOUS, Three ran. MIDSUMMER STAKES. San Francine Bishop of Osnaburg C4 IYINio colt .. Four ran. Won by half a length. TOWN PLATE. Druid Indulgence Duveroay filly 701. HANDICAP PLATE stuff and Nonsence Thebop of Osnaburg Four ran. BETTING ON THE COURSE. GOODWOOD CUP. 7to 1 azst Yellnw .Tack (wanted) CARLISLE RACES.—(This Day.) (PT ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.) LOTTERY STAKES. Gaudy Seven rao. SPECULATION PLATE Qneen of South Florida ... Four ran. STEWARDS' PLATE. St• Andrew,,,, Johnny Taft Seven ran. TALLY ITO STAKES (YESTERDAY).—The Stewards decision is that Confederate and Lady of Lodge divide $h stakes, ARRIVALS AT WORCESTER. Filly by Phlegon out of Ameryliss, 2 yrs, Ugly Mug, New Brighton, Crookshanks, Bandalore, Alonzo, Diana, Oaklauds, Princes Mixture, Surgeon-General, Curious, Tirnotheus, His Piper, Octavia, Alembic, Desdemona, Little Bird, Herculea, and cult by Cossack out of Whalebone Dam. biPERIAL PARLIAMENT, ROME OF COMMONS.—(This Day.) o CT he SPEAKE R took the chair a t 10 m i nu t es a f ter 12 ock. • The 'Lords' amendmenPßlVATE BUSINESSts to the Eastern Union Rail- Rill were considered and agreed to. ...Petiti ons were presented for and against the Bleaching works Bill, which ro osed to restrict the h o u r s o f labour- P P Colonel DUNNE presented a petition, signed by num jbers of the Land Transport Carps, complaining that in ury had been done them from the non-fulfilment on the part of the Government on the terms on which they enlisted, and praying that the house would hav e j u ,ti ce done to them. RIBBONIS,II, &c. Mr. NAPIER asked the Chi e f S ecre t a ry f or I re l an d *bather certatn masters of National S c h oo l s i n I re l an d, in t the county of D.l nega l, h a d b een arreste d on a charge o inil lwfut confederacy and ribbonism ; and whether the said scho o l s were in connection with th Nattonal Board ite rtan.'eeßted cohn,bis ? Mr. lIORSAAN said he had received no informa tion on the so bjwct. JUDGMENTS EXECUTION BILL. This bill was read a second tune. On the motion that it be committed, Col. DUNNE said it was hopeless to expect that the bill could be framed at that late period of the session, and suggested its withdrawal. Mr. NAPIER doubted the working of the bill in Ireland. The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND gave it as his opinion that the bill was sound in principle, and Would be found beneficial to Ireland. The object of the bill Was to render judgments obtained in England or anywhere within these realms effective in Ireland. Mr. I. BUTT objected to many of the details of the bill, and pointed out what he considered its defect. He moved that the bill be committed on that day three *tenths. The LORD ADVOCATE supported the bill on the ground that it was desirable not to continue this system of law within the United Kingdom, as at present existed, with reference to this su ject, and expressed his surprise that any hon. member should of'ject to the re. 'nova' of such an absurdity, admitting there were defects in the details of the bill. The principle of the bit! was Sound, and as it was impossible to legislate against the possibility of fraud, he called upon the house to accept the proposed reform of the last relating tojudginentexe onfion in Ireland. After some further remarks from Mr. Na, APIE Mr. BAINES said be hoped the house would allow the bill to be committed. The objections stated to the affected its details, which should be di-cussed in committee, and not on the nreqent motion. He had the authority of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to state that they considered this a very proper bill, and lan !The.- sound i n pr i ncip ig', -.The Law Society of Ire d had wi thdrawn their opposition to the bill. ' Mr- G. BUTT was in f avour o f th e pr i nc i p l e of t h e Which was one that ought to be extended to the three kingdoms. It was necessary there should be a reciprocal. power of enforcing jud meats in the three ]kingdoms. Ile thought the machinery of the bill would su bstantially effect what they all desired. TheThlle VAINCE opposed the commitment of the bill. . Present law gave sufficient power to creditors over unfortunate debtors. After- some remarks from Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Craw ford, and Mr. Deasy , the a mendment was wtthdrawn, and the bill ordere d to be committed on Wednesday next. BLEACHING, &c , WORKS (No. 2) BILL. The deb a t e on the sec ond reading of this bill was re . 'nixed by nue Ai r. BA XTER who Paid he was n o t p re p are d t o question of the non-interference of the • 14egielature between master and servant, but stated his 'objections to the house proceeding further this session lan With the bill. All t h e masters on the east coast of Soot petitioned apinst it, and so had sections of the operatives. He objected to Mr. Tremenhere's report on which the bill was besed, and the manner in which he had t aken the ev id ence, as one-sided and partial. The the bin, and PO far from occupying 60 hours a-week, as stated in the report, did not amount to 50 hours a week. The honourable member entered into many ef the difficulties with which the manufacturers had to contend aainst, especrom the , . and sa i d that u n less the hon. ially f and learned member weathe fo r r Toughen postponed the bill and obtained further infor mation On wh a t h e proposed to legislate, the bill in its Present form mould inflict material and serious injury on iraPerta nt branch of trade. The provisions of the bill Sh owed that those who bad drawn it up were not con versant with the subject. One of the effects of the bill would he t o melesiitute female for male labour. bill, Col d DUNte E supported the second reading of the ••• A Ir, _ l ee-4e l it/ s TGAN'opposed the bill on th e groun d t h at i t tocalled for, and would not act beneficially fur the weerativee. of e M E r RROUGH supported th e bill, an d comp l a i ne d thconduct of hon. members who expressed their ab horrence of slavery abroad, but did not trouble them selves about the slavery that existed in this country. He called upon the house to rescue the operatives in bleach ing and dying works from the slavery they were subject 1e in these works. Sir J. GRAHAM thought there was no good to be • effected-by lengthening the discussion on this subject, • because it would he impossible to pass the meaeu,e at thin, late period of the session. Much benefit would re ' melt from delay and further consideration of the measure. The bill before the house did not correspond with Mr. Tremanhere'e report, which bore on the face of it errors of so grave and palpable a character that, if the bill rested -on it, he (Sir James Graham) doubted if the house could with safety adopt it. He looked upon the m i n i mum of inter erence by Parliament in these matters as the maximum of wisdom, and he al ways looked with jealousy on measures of this kind. He was desirous of consulting the health, comfort, happiness, and wealth of the wotking classes, but if they uninten tionally and aceidentally inflicted an injury on trade by legislation of this kind, insteed of conferring the benefit they wished on the operatives, they would be inflicting per manent evils, the effect of which on the working claeses would be of the greatest magnitude, and such as they could not foresee. Toe bleaching trade of this country was . oeeti to the k een competition of foreign rivals, which wan admitted by Mr. Treinanbere, and the error into which that gentleman had fallen appeared to be this— that whilst admitting the keenness of that competition, be .admitted that by following his advice the cost of production would be increased 10 per cent., and the finished article one per cent. That Mr. Tre- Manhere considered would have but a trifling effect on the trade ' On a matter of trade be (Sir J. Graham) was - ;not disposed to follow blindfolded the advice of Mr. Tremeeeefe e__ , for if it b e f o ll owed i n this instance h e (Si r J. Graham) predicted with confidence that by a hasty and wild legislation they would ensure the success of the t ne rade of Sa xony end Bavaria the rivals of this country. an ggeeted th at the question should be properly in- Yestigee e e by a select committee. To appoint such a com mittee at this late period of the session vould be a delu ti, and a g farce, and he thought it better to going into a committee for ix months. (Hear.) postpone Dir e NEB,` DECieVa.; AiprOVO of the.principle of the r _ r f't ; , A c q r 4, bill He thought under the circumstances it would be better to accede to the bugge, tio a of the ri„lht hen, baronet. f t , Sir GEORGE GREY said ht %tisbed to know the course intended to be ptirs.2 , ..!lt by the hon. member for Yougha . :l after the , :-A-tendon of opinion on the bill that day. He loolccA 'cp in the postponement of the cowl• deratio , . - : of the bill in the early part of June as an ab"..ndortrmmt of the measure for the session. Mr. 1. BUTT defended his conduct in reference to the bill. He called upon the house to affirm the prin ciple of the hill by a second reading, to show the bou.e was in a position to legislate on the subject, if they re fused after to proceed further with it this session. If, however, the house wet of a contrary opinion, be had no wish to press the Bond reading. • Mr. DRUMMOND called upon the hon, member for Youghal to press the second reading, and not take the advice of false fri.nds an-I withdraw it. 5 Lord R. GROSVENOR s uppo r t e d th e bill. Mr. CARDWELL supported further inquiry on this question before the house affirmcd the practical operation ~f the bill and afterwards placed it in the statute-book. By so doing they would be consulting the interests and happiness of the operatives engaged iu this branch of trade. Mr. COBBETT said be visited many of the bleaching works in England and Scotland after the session of 1853. He then found that the operatives worked 16, 18, and 20 h 'ors a day, and in PLI atmosphere varying from 90 to 130 degrees, He had attended several meetings of the operatives on this cuhject, and from all he bad seen and heard he was of opinion the operatives desired legislative inti-rference in the manner proposed by this bill. He learned from the wet-king-men that they had frequently to carry three and four females a day from the "roasting alive" shops, as they were cared, into the open air, on account of faintness from excessive heat. The beat was so great that the nails in the floors of the bleaching works got so hot that they frequently blistered the feet of the workpeople. The operatives were looking with great anxiety to this house for relief, and be asked the bon, and learned • member for Youghall to go to a division on the sub ject, or, if not, to obtain a pledge from the Home Se cretary that a committee of inquiry should be appointed early next session, Mr. BAINES, on the part of the Government, said there would be no obstacles thrown in the way of the appointment of a committee early next session. It was desirable to avoid a decision on the question, so that it may gu before a committee without prejudice on either side. • After some remarks from Mr. Kirk, Mr. Muntz, Lord Naas, Mr. Walter, Mr. Wilkinson, Admiral Jones, Air. Napier, Mr. Richardson, and other hon. members, The house divided, when the numbers were— Fir the second reading 65 Against it Majority against the bill ---44 REGISTRATION OF LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee. SCIENTIFIC AND LITERARY SOCIETIES BILL. The bowie then went into committee on this bill. Mr. BOUVERIE objected to the further proceeding with this bill, which was one to exempt certain societies from local taxation. The effect of the bill would merely be to increase the rent of the premises, by which the landlords of the buildings would be the only parties benefitted. On these grounds he moved that the chair- man do now report progress. Mr. HUTT defended the bill. Mr. HADFIELD regretted the opposition that had been given to the bill, which was one to benefit institu tions raised mainly by the exertions of working men. L , rd LOVAINE objected to the bill. lie thought the decision arrived at, viz., notto exempt these societies from local taxation, was light, as if this bill passed the number of buildings for which exemption would be claimed would be enormous. Mr. BUTT objected to the bill. The law as it at pre sent stood with respect to these institutions was as much as conk' he exp, wed, Mr. BOUVERIE said this bill was not one to ex empt mechanics' institutions from the payment of taxes. It was the exemption made by this bill to w hich he ob jected. By the present bill the exemption was so wide that the end of it could not be seen. It was on this ground that he opposed the bill, and he trusted the house would avve to the proposition he had made. Mr, E WAR C maintained that the present law was unequal. A certain number of institutions were now exempted, and he thought it was but a matter of justice to the others that they should share in the benefit. He regretted that the hon. member, the PresEent of the Poor-law Beard, should have been the person who opposed this bill, becalm-, if anything more than another tended to decrease pauperism, it was education. On the occasion when he brought forward a bill to enable parishes to levy rats in favour of public lihraries, he was supported in his endeavours by the then President of the B on the ground that the establishment of such institutions would decrease pauperism. He trusted the present un equal law would be altered. Mr. HENLEY said the exemption by this bill wa- , wide enough 10 exempt a nobleman's picture gal lery and her Majesty's theatre. The bill was, in fact, an att em pt t o ma k e th e #l aw equa l upon unequal subject., which he did not think it was possible for the house to accomplish. If it was intended to merely exempt mechanics' ins':,itutior,s, why did not the hon. member bring in a distinct bill for that purpose. Mr. STRUTT supported the bill. He did not think because there was some objectionable words in the bill it was fair to throw it over tor the session, without even an attemct to improve it in committee. Mr. TITE supported the bill. Mr. LIDDELL also supported the bill. Mr. MASSEY said the committee was asked to ex tend the provisions of an act of Parliament beyond what was contemplated when the existing law was passed. He thought that exonerating all societies claiming to be established for the advanceo.ent of science, literature, and the fine arts very like permitting an injustice to be perpetrated at the expense of the ratepayers. He was sorry to find from the Court of Queen's Bench that reading cheap penny newspapers at any of these insti tutions deprive(' them of the privileges of the present law, but he thought, on the whole, it would be far oett,r-r to furnish these societies with the standard lite rature of the country than with the ephemeral publica tions referred to. He saw no reason for altering the present law. Mr. HILDYARD regretted the opposition that had been raised to the bill, all of which were untenable, and he hoped the committee would reject the proposition for reporting progresi. Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR complained of the nar row views entertained by the members of the Treasury bench on this bill, and hoped the committee would ne- . ga►ive the motion. Mr. HEADLANI said he was of opinion some altera tion should be made in the existing law, and that if the committee proceeded, amendments might be made in the bill to 'meet all objection. Mr. ATHERTON concurred in opinion with the hon. and learned member for Newcastle. After Romp further discussion, Mr. BOUVERIE withdrew his motion, and the com mittee pr )ceeded. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clau-e 2, Mr. BOUVERIE said he was at a loss to know how the building was to be described aad be exempt from rating, except for the "exclusive" use of scientific pur poses, &e. . . Mr. HUTT Raid that if the committee would pass the clue he would he prepared on bringing up the report to submit to the bou.te a remedy for the difficaty. Ultimately Mr. BARROW moved that the chairman do report progres.. The committee divided, when the numbers were— For the motion 25 Against it 117 Majority —92 On the question that clause 2 stand part of the bill, Mr. H. BAILLIE objected to this loose system of legislation. It being a quarter to six o'clock. the committee (in accordance with the standing order) was postponed till to Morrrov, and the house resumed. Mr. HENLEY said he hoped the hen. member (Mr. Hutt) would then commit the bill, pro forma, and re print it with the proposed alterations. PROCEDURE BEFORE JUSTICES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee. RATING OF MINES BILL. The order fur the second reading of this bill was dis charged. DISTILLATION FROM RICE BILL. Thig hill wag read a third time and tiasaed. OXFORD COLLEGE ESTATES BILL. ThiM bid %Va. read a thiri time and pam-nd. TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL. Tois bill passed through commitee. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at five minutes to six o'clook. LLOYD'S SHIPPING.—(This Day.) LONDON, July 2.--Wind this day at noon, N. ; light breeze, and fine clear weather. PonTswaUTH, July 1. —Wind S. S. E. --An ived—Bahiln% (s.s. tpt.), from Constantinople. Sailed—Tasmanian Maid, for Australia ; Cape of Good Hope (s.s. tpt.), Wool wich. Off the port - Benares, from St. John's, N.B. ; Devonshire, New York. The Babiana (s.s. tpt.), arrived here, towed the brig Eamont, for Spithead, with batteries of artillery on board, to within 21 miles S.E. of Cape St. Vincent. PLYMOUTH, July I.—Wind E. N. E.—Arrived —Orrient, from London, for Adelaide, S.A.; H.M.S. Acorn, Sheer ness, for the coast of Africa. Sailed—Dunbar, for Syd ney, N.S. W. ; Johannes Antonius, Batavia. FALMOUTH, July I.—Wind S.E.—Arrived--Neptune, from Laguna ; Zebean, Rio Grande. SHIELDS, July I.—Wind E,-Arrived—Penza Menuto, from Havana. SWANSEA, July I.—Wind S.W.—Arrived—Valdellur, from l - ivasco. Sailed.—Sunbeam, for Cuba; Pearl, St. Thomas. Bittwlerc, July I.—The Hope, of Perth, which got on shore on the 2, th June on Goswick Sands, proceeded to Newcastle. (PER ELEOTRIO TELEGRAPH.) SOUTHAMPTON, Wednesday Morning. Arrived—Simla, steam transport, from Portsmouth ; Jane, Swansea; Mechanic's Own, Newport; Purveyor, Swanage; John Daniel, Crirdiff. lonia, for Sunderland Judy Macdonald, Melbourne; Milli cent, Swansea; Charlotte, Guernsey. LIVERPOOL, Wednesday Morning. Wind S.W. Arrived—Paragon, from Akyab ; James Lnmsden, Sin gapore ;" Missionary, Benin ; Free Trade, Savanmib ; rice, -Montreal ; Foahound,-Dragiheitoo. VAPTAIN MAYNE REID. The Forest Exiles. By Captain. Mayne neid. With Twelve Illustrations. Bogue. 1855. The Bash Boys. By Captain Mayne Reid. With Twelve Illustrations. B.)goe. 1850. Scene—Front of a bookseller's shop window in a country town. Persons—A casual passer-by and a couple of urchins (just home from school) ou the look out for fun and frolic even in the streets. Time —commencement of the Christmas holidays, a period, as everybody knows, sacred to snapdragon and presents of story books, to tip, plum-pudding, and pantomimes. Lognitvr—Jne of the urchins aforesaid, spying (with a caper of delight) a bran new volume, prettily gilt and enticingly ticketted in the shop window—" 0 my ! here's capital sport —another of Captain Mayne Reid's books of ad venture !" Now, at once be it remarked, this is no imaginary sketch, but a mere homely and actual reality--what novelists sometimes designate (de lightfully) " founded upon fact"—telling us so through the pleasant medium of an asterisk and a foot-note. And no wonder the schoolboy jumped for glee when he caught sight of the familiar name on the new story-book. For Captain IVlrayne Reid has come to be a welcome name indeed upon the lips of those boy readers who are already book : worms in their young way—children wao can pore !by the hour, enraptured, over the pictured pages of " Sandford and Merton," of " Philip Quarl," of " Peter "Wilkins," and best of all of dear old " R ,hinson Crusoe." The writer of books for boys we take Ctpt. Mayne Rid to he among all living men-of-letters, at least in England. A wholesome, charming, imaginative • story-teller, whose minor works in their way are not unworthy of being coupled with the goblin legends of the Brothers Grimm, and the fairy tales of dear Hans Christian Andersen. Acceptable, I therefore, to ev er y i n t e lli gen t b oy i n the laud will be these two last contributions of his to the book shelves of Young Hopeful, bookshelv esa l rea d y s t ore d with such a very s motley gathering of old and new literature. Grammars bound in roan and fright fully dogseared ! Dictionaries yellow in calf and thumbed at the top corners, and freckled, inside and outside, with ink-splotches innumerable ! Here the Gradus and there the Delectus—there prim, old, catechetical Pinnock, and there again garrulous, gossipping Peter Parley, with his chat tering pages crammed from top to bottom with amusing anecdotes. Yonder the Pilgrim's Progress with those preposterous old woodcuts of Vanity Fair and Christian, and yonder the Arabian Night's Entertainments, as much a casket of marvel in themselves as ever was the brass casket they tell of, out of which the mighty Geni slowly rose to the awe and wonder of the poor fisherman. There they ad stand that astonishing collection of belle lettres—the volumes ranged ide by side upon the schoolboy's bookshelves. Volumes among which may be already recognised as especial favourites the earlier of Captain Mayne Reid's " Books of Adventures for Boys." First of all, " The Desert Home," being the adventures of a Family l os t i n the Vilderness ! Then " The Boy Hunters," being adventures in search of a White Buffalo ! Then " The Young Voyageurs," or the same boy hunters in the North ! And lastly, in due succession, these two charming companion volumes, en , itled " The Forest Exiles'' and " The Bush Boys"—the former recounting the perils of a Peruvian Family amid the Wilds of the Amazon— thelatter(chanaing theground completely)giving us the history and adventures of a Cape Farmer and his family in the Wild Karoos of Southern Africa. " From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step,"•aaid the Great Napoleon. It is but one step to Captain Mayne Reid from America to Africa! Although the waters of the Atlantic roll between them, he strides across like Gulliver sauntering among the fishponds of Lilliput, or like a rover fresh from the land of Brobdignag. He is equally " at home " upon either continent, and relates all about the wonderful creatures seen in both, as well as the incidents met with here, there, and every where, among the Africans and among the Ameri cans, with the same ever-fresh and sparkling anima tion. And what things he does tell, to be sure ! Why the dullest boy reader in the world could not but be roused to some show of interest in adven tures such as those related by Captain Mayne Reid—particularly related as those adventures are with such a fervour of eloquence, and coloured as they are with such a glow of imagination. Here, for example, in "The Forest Exiles"—don't we " hear tell " of the Monkey Bridge, the suspension bridge made of living monkeys, along which old Jacko and young Jacko scramble safely across the water, far up in the air, from tree top to tree t o p ? D on 't we learn, breathlessly, how Leon was saved from the Puma—how Guapo caught the nimble-peters—how the tapir fell into the trap—how the conder was captured—how the encounter with the anaconda terminated—how the armadillo escaped from the apparently certain perils of either seizure or destruc tion by curling itself into a ball and rollingover the edge of the precipice like a ripe pumpkin ? Again, 00, in " The Bush Boys," of which friend Stvartboy is the hero, as Guapo, we cannot but think, is the hero of " The Forest Exiles" don't the boy readers listen with opened eves and pricked-up ears, while Captain Mayne Reid tells them all about the deadly encounter between the elephant a n d th e r hi noceros ; about the trap ping of a lion in a chimney ; about the blinding of a quagga ; and about Totty's escape in the nick of time from the horrors of being torn to pieces by a mob of apes, the ugly-visaged chacmas ? Yes— such are actually among the number of those sparkling tales of adventure which havebeen recently recounted by the old familiar voice of that most delightful story-teller, the author of the " Rifle Rangers," and the " Scalp Hunters," and the " 'White Chief "—Captain Mayne Reid, the idol of the Boy Readers of England, because par excellence and beyond all manner of comparison, the writer for them of these healthy, invigorating, delightful books of adventure. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-YESTERDAY. The SPICA/LER took the chair at a quarter•past 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Leeds Water Bill were considered and agreed to. Shipton's Disabilities Removal Bill was read a third time and passed. The order for going* into committee on the Earl of Perth an4l Alelfort's C myensation Bill was read and discharged. JURIES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of the ATTORNEY•GENERAL for IRELAND the order for the second reading of this bill wa4 discharged, and the bill withdrawn. COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL. The committee on this bill was resumed. The remaining clauses, from 9 to 100 inclusive, were agreed to, and the bill passed through committee. DEEDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill, consisting of only one clause, also passed through committee. The house suspended its sittings at 20 minutes to four, and resumed at six. QUESTIONS. Mr. J. EWART asked the Secretary of the Treasury whether any priveQs bad been made in the inquiry stated to have been instituted in the department of Cue tome at Liverpool, and whether any steps were about to be taken in c , .nsequeoce thereof? Mr. WILSON said the Commissioners of Customs had instituted an inquiry, and the result was a recom mendation for a revision of the services of the port and a considerah e improvement in the payment of the offi cers. This recommendation had been sanctioned by the Treasury, and he hoped it would give satisfaction to the parries e‘incerned. Mr. OLIVEIRA asked her Majesty's Government whether some substantisl mark of:Approbation might not be given to Lieut.• Colonel Lake and Lieut.• Colonel Teesdale, for their distinimished services at Kars Viscount PAL MERSTON was understood to say that the rank ~ f colonel to which this officer had attained would enable him to receive the honour of the Order of the Batb, but that it was not usual to recommend Parlia ment to make a provision for any officer who bad not the good fortune to be at the head of a force which had achieved success. Mr. COWAN asked the Lord Advocate if his atten tion bad been drawn to the recent alarming increa.e of the crime of housebreaking in certain parts of Scotland, and to the difli,ulty hitherto experienced in its suppres sion ; and whether, in these circumstances, it was the intention of the Government, by the revocation of tickets of leave, by the establishment of a Scottish constabulary, or otherwiNe, to afford a greater measure of security to property than was at present possessed in some districts of Scotland I The LORD ADVOCATE said he knew nothing of the circumstances in question except what he had read in the newspapers. Last year there were many cases of housebreaking in the country districts and neat Edin burgh ; but he believed the delinquents had all been apprehended. As regarded the tick et•of-leave system that was before a select committee of the house, and no doubt it would receive all the consideration which it merited. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON ENLISTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved the postponement of a'l the motions on the paper, for the purpose of proceeding with the adjourned debate of the previous night. Mr. NAPIER complained that this course was very bard upon him, inasmuch as it probably prevented his getting another day for his motion on the subject of pre paring bills for legislation for the remainder of the ses sion. A resolution of the house had been come to on the let Feb. on the subject, but at the instance of the Go , T er n meut be had deferred acting on it until the Statute THE SUN S LONDON WED EStIA_Y EVE JULY 2, 1856 Law Commission had male its report. That Pelmet lied been made; nothing was done, and since then legislation teas getting worse on the subject. Hebei waited already fear months to redeem his pledge that he would bring the question before the house, and now found himself deprived'of the opportunity which offered itself. Sir G. GREY said it was quite impossible the motion of the right hon. gentleman cold I be passed without a debate. The Government had opposed the adjournment of the debate on the previous night for the purpose of giving the right hon. gentleman and other hon. members the opportunity of proceeding with their respective mo tions, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would have been ready to state what bad been done, as a member of the Common Law Commi-ision, if the Ties non could have been brought on. If, however, the right hon. gentleman would on any future evening ad dress a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan caster, his (Sir G. Grey's) right hon, friend would be pre. pared to state the position of the question and the pro. bable couree of the Government in regard to it. The motion for postponement was then agreed to, and the adjourned debate was proceeded with. Mr. M. GIBSON said he had moved the adjournment of the debate on the preceding night, because whatever doubt might exist as to the propriety of the motion, no doubt could exist on the proposition that once the discussion of the question was entered on it ought not to be prematurely concluded. A forcible appeal bad been made to the hon. member for Mayo not to bring on the motion, and doubtless the conviction which actuated those who made that appeal was that no good could arise from the discussion of the question at this moment, but pro bably some evil. He (Hr. Gibson) was himself averse to the motion on other grounds, but he could not admit that there was any Parliamentary ground for shrinking from its discussion, because when the Minister of the Crown laid papers before the house relating to negotia tions with any foreign powers, pending or concluded, he invited Parliament by that act to express an opinion on the subject, and any member was therefore at liberty to elicit an expression of that opinion. The Government could not therefore complain of the question broueht un der discussion, because if publicity was deemed by them to be injurious to the cause in hand, they ought not to have courted publicity, and because having, as it were invited Parliament to discussion, silence on the part of the house might he taken as acquiescence in their course of policy. As the motion stood, therefore, it was impossible for any hon, member to shrink from recording his vote. The motion involved the questions, first, whe• ther the operations carried on by her Majesty's Govern ment in enlisting soldiers for her Majesty's service in the United States were wise and politic •, secondly, whether, supposing them wise and politic, they were prudently and judiciously condUeted ; and, thirdly, w h et h er the re sults were such as t o enable Parliament to approve of the policy of the Government and of its mode of proceed. icg. He (Mr. Gibson) had been opposed to the principle of the Foreign Enlistment Acc from the beginning, be cause he felt that any attempt to carry it out would lead this country into international disputes of a serious character. He should not, however, permit his opinion upon that measure to bias his judgment in the present case ; because the bill having been adopted by Par liament it became the duty of the executive to give effect in some form or other to the intentions of the Legislature. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had, thrown out an insinuation to the contrary effect as regarded the supporters of the motion ; and he had stated that the speech of his (Mr. Gibson's) friend the hon, member for Inverness might have been, and probably had been, delivered in opposition to the Foreign Enlistment Act. There was another statement of the right hon. gentleman in refeience to the contents of the blue book, an .t the papers laid before Parliament on the subject, in which he (Mr. Gibson) could not con cur either. The right hon. gentleman had said that the friendly feeling of tee British Government, and their un willingness to give any just came of offence to the United States Government, was evident on the face of every des patch which had been sent from the Foreign Office, and and that they had done nothing whatever to place them in the wrong with the United States Government. He (Hr. Gibson), however, found passages in those despatches of Loi d Clarendon than which, in his opinion, nothing could be more insulting to the United States,or bettercalculated to produce irritation and bad feeling between the two countries. In the despatch of November 10, 1855, Lord Clarendon informed Mr. Crampton tbat Mr. Buchanan bad called on him to inquire why such large reinforce- ments had been sent to the West Indies, as he was ap prehensive it would create excitement in the United States ; and th a t h e b a d t i ld M r Buchanan there was no intention on the part of her Majesty's Government to attack or menace the United States ' • but as they had reason to believe th a t s hip s were fitt e d out in United States ports for Russian purposes—as there was a great conspiracy in progress in the. United States to create an insurrection in Ireland—as a Milted States ship had recently been engaged in taking soundings in the ports of the West Indies—and as there had been a note from Marcy to Mr. Crampton, indicating a fixed purpose to promote a quarrel, her Majesty's Government thought it fit to be prepared for the course of events which it had done and would de nothing to provoke, and which they would still do their utmost to avert. (Hear.) He (Mr. G.) denied the accuracy of these statements. As regarded the first of them—namely, that ships were fit ting out for Russia in the ports of the United States— that charge, which had been made by Mr. Barclay, our consul, was made under false information, and it was re tracted by Mr. Barclay himself in a published apology in the newspapers. To steve, therefore, that this was a rea son why an increased force was sent out to the West In dies, was to assume the truth of the allegation without waiting for inquiry, and to act on that assumption was to insult a friendry nation. Then as regarded the great cron• spiracy to promote insurrection in Ireland in the United States, he (Mr. G.) not only denied the fact, but he con demned the terms as totally inapplicable to the Irish population, subjects of her ty, in the United States. A great conspiracy, to be followed by an armed invasion of Ireland ! Was there a man in the house who would say he believed it ? It was consequently an insult to im pute it to the United States, and to charge the United States Government with knowing it was in progress. As regarded the American ship taking soundings in the West India ports, that was a sheer absurdity ; charts, accurate charts, of all the ports in the West Indies, could be bad in any of the shops for the sale of such commodities without any trouble, and at a trifling cost. The cry about "soundings " was a periodical cry, hav ing been absurdly got up on many occasions in this country, mere particularly just before the French Re volution, bat without the least foundation fur the alarm that wee supposed to be felt. The tone now adopted by the,Governrnent was that what they had done in the United States was what they were entitled to do, and nothing more. Buf had nob the Government made mis takes m the Hanse Towns, and had not the Prussian Government taken our consul, and not only roughly handled him, but thrown him into prison ? And if they made one mistake might they not have made an other ? The Government wished the world to be lieve that all the British Government had done in issuing their proclamation was to "give informa tion "to the American people. But upon that ground every law might be broken. A man might say to an• other, "I wid give you 101. if you will vote for me," and say, with just as much reason, that that was only "giving Information" to the voter. Tee right hon. gentle. man the Secretary for the Home Department had told the house that no persuasion had been used to induce the men t r leave the United States ; but Lord Clarendon, in his despatches, maintained that the Government had an indis putable right to use persuasion and offer inducements to American citizens, If that were the opinion of the Govern ment why should that denial have been put forward ? If the British Government had power to do that, they had power to do all that the American G ivernment itself had power to do. But be (Mr. Gibson) thought it was highly necessary to inquire whether the recommendation of Lord Clarendon in the despatch of July 16, that there should be no concealment from the American Govern ment, had been followed up or not. Now Mr. Crampton had had but one conversation with Mr. March (that of March 22) until September, and on that occasion in March, he told Mr. Marcy that numerous applications had been made, and Mr. Marcy said that persons might of course leave the United States, but he should enforce the neutrality laws. (The right hon. gentleman then read the minute of this conversation as read by the Attorney-General on the previous evening, in which Mr. Crampton said he had intentionally abstained from in forming Mr. Marcy of the means adopted by the British Government to induce Americans to join the British army.) Now that was really and truly the only impor tant matter that Mr. Marcy had any interest in know ing, because upon the exact messes employed depended the legality or illegality of the proceedings of the British Government. It was now denied so very forcibly that anything wrong had been done, that he supposed the Government were prepared to do again that which they hail done. He could see no reason ter desisting from that which we had a perfect right to do ; but be believed that had there been no United States municipal law at all, the British Government had no right to make treaties with agencies of questionable character, but to communicate with the Government itself. He believed, after reading the works of the most eminent writers on international law, that no Government had any right to operate in the territory of another without the consent of that Govern ment. It had been stated in a pamphlet, the writer of which was prepared to verify his statements, that the operation of our Government there had cost about 40,0001., and that the net proceeds of the whole transac tion were 37 Germans who were now creating mutiny and disturbances in our garrisons at Plymouth. These men had cost about 1;0011. a-head, and could not be trusted with arms in the public streets. How any Bri tish Government could imagine that the English people would sanction their sending across the Atlantic in pur suit of Germane at that price he could not tell. [The right hon. gentleman then read some further passages from the pamphlet, stating that payments had been made to those persons who had gone to America, and returned after a fruitless journey.] Now when appli cations were made to the Government for situations, it was not usual to compensate the applicants who were refused, and he-believed that some arrangement had been made between those persons and the British Government. [ln support of that opinion the right hon. gentleman read a letter from the Hon. Juseph Howe to a Major Smolenski, promising him the colonelcy of the regiment when it was formed, and four dollars a man for every recruit he shipped from Boston.] Now there was au answer to the letter from Smolenski himself, who said—" I have received the annexed letter, and I under take to serve her. Majeteiy the Queen' as therein ex plained." This letter was signed "Joseph Smolenski." Ile (Mr. Gibson) maintained that if ever there was a con tract that was one, and if the thing, hid been legal it would have been a contract between two parties in the fullest sense of the word. It wen)ri e h!eve been a hiring add' retaining. He found that Mr, Mathew, the con suj, admitted that be had paid money to Mr. Rata through Mr. Howe, to whom the receipt was made out, and the most remarkable part of the proceeding was this, that in acknowledging the despatch admitting this fact Mr. Crampton said he saw nothing wrong in any thing that Mr. Mathew had done, and in fact be took upon himself all the responsibility. Hertz, it appears, was on very friendly terms with Mathew, for Mathew said be went one morning int ) his bedroom and with oaths and protestations induced him to lend him fifty dollars, but that he had not the honesty to repay him the amount. Now, was it true that the Government had spent the public money in carrying out what Mr. Marcy had properly called these " unseemly contests ?" He did not know whether the Government had thus spent the public money or not. If they had, they of course a•l -remitted that these men were their agents. (Hear) Bct it appeared plain that Mr. Crampton had given Strobel money, and that Strobel by such means at once became the agent of Mr. Crampton, who was responsible for his acts. Mr. Crampton in one of his letters stated that on his arrival at Halifax Captain Strobel waited upon him and informed bins that there were many Germans and others there who would gladly join if the requirements of the British nation were only made known to them. Upon that representation Mr. Crampton gave him money to carry on his operations. He (Mr. M. Gibson) very much regretted that her Ma jesty's Government were mixed up with proceedings such as these, and he repudiated any enlistment whatever with the United States. At the same time he was very much surprised that when this course was decided upon the agents of her Majesty's Ministers did not at onee put themselves in friendly communication with the American Government. The opinion of Judge Kane had been ad verted to as sanctioning the proceeding of the English Government, but that learned judge, in the course of the trial of Hertz, said he was surprised to hear that whilst the British press was fulminating against the Americans, there were agents of the British Government drawing away persons to fight the battles of a people who were not very courteously pressing upon them (the Americans) the duty of neutrality. He hoped nothing that had oc curred would at all injure our relations with the United States. He believed it amounted to nothing more than a difference between the American Government and the Government of our ewn country. The English House of Commons had nothing to do with Mr. Marcy, Mr. Cushing, or President Pierce, but with their own Minis ters, and it was his deliberate opinion that they had not done well in picking this quarrel with the United States for the purpose of getting a few miserable Germans. Mr. BAITER said there were considerations which might render it not inappropriate that he should make a few observations. He was intimately connected commer cially with the United States, and bad spent many years of his life there, with a view to obtain information upon the social and political condition of the States. He had no sympathy with those who spoke of the United States not as a child whom we ought to cherish, but as a rival whom we ought to chain and bridle. No doubt the constitution of the United States had many defects, which filled thinking men with dismay. But we should not be too sensitive or prone to find fault, but being ready to make all allowances, we should treat their shortcomings with generosity and magnanimity. He confessed that before reading the papers laid upon the table by command of her Majesty, he had a strong bias in favour of the Americans, but a careful perusal of them had led him to the conclusion that the House of Com mons had no right to pass such a censure, as that con tained in the resolution, on her Majesty's Government, and he had framed an amendment, which he understood by the forms of the house he could not put, to the effect that the resolution was unjust by implication to Mr. Crampton, and directly to her Majesty's Government. de regretted that Mr. Crampton did not communicate to Mr. Marcy what were the intentions of her Majesty's Government. He did not make such a communication, and therefore if there was any error in this matter, it certainly was at the door of Mr. Crampton himself. (Hear.) In 'saying this, however, he did not stand there as the apologist of her Majesty's Government, but for the purpose of expressing his own opinions as an inde pendent member of the House of Commons. Then, with respect to her Majesty's Government, and to the course they took in this matter. Tnat Lord Claren don did make some unguarded statements could not be denied, but they were soon recalled, and the American Government had stated its full satisfaction with the ex planations her Majesty's Government had rendered. In every other despatch Lord Clarendon had adopted that conciliatory and generous tone which the people of this country had a right to demand. (Hear.) Then it must he recollected that Mr. Marcy, Mr. Attorney• General Cushing, Mr. Vandyke, and others—not newspaper edi tors!, but gentlemen holding important situations under the federal Government—had used language of the most insulting and irritating nature. He could not help com ing to the conclusion that her Majesty's Government had acted in a most generous and conciliatory spirit to. wards a people with whom this nation would always de sire to be at peace. If President Pierce and others bad acted in a similar spirit, many of the difficulties that had followed would have been avoided. He bad no hesita tion in saying that while they were blustering about war with England, it was only civil war that they feared. (Rear.) Mr. PEACOOSE did not mean to deny that Ame rica was a great and rising nation. He dirt not mean to deny that the Americans spoke English, or that they hospitably entertained the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. (Laughter.) But he did mean to deny the statement that had been made that this was an improper time for the discussion of this question. It was constantly said when the question was raised that the present was not the proper time for considering it ; but now there were no negotiations pending, for they had terminated roost disastrously to the fame and honour of this court _ try. Mr. Crampton admitted that be had corresponded with Strobel in cipher, that he gave people instruc tions as to the beat way of being enlisted, that he made arrangements for evading the laws of the Unit ed States, and that he went to Halifax, there more fully to earry out his plan et operations. The hon. gentleman proceeded to read some extracts from the correspondence with a view to show that the course of proceeding which Mr. Crampton carried out was part of a policy adopted by the Government at home, and carried out by their agents abroad. He then referred to the case of Mr. Cdrtas, our consul at Cologne, who was condemned for enlisting contrary to law, but was par doned on the declaration made by him• that he was acting under the direction of the British Gcvernment. That was precisely an analogous case to that which had taken place in the United Skates, and be contended that if Mr. Crampton were right he should have been upheld at the risk of the loss of Mr. Dallas. If be were wrong he should have been recalled. Instead of that advice being taken, this country had adopted a mean course, at the suggestion of the noble lord at tho head of the Govern. ment—the orator of Rornsey, and the rhetorician of the Mansion-house ; who had stated that he would protect the meanest of E 'gland's subjects, and yet had nue embed, when there was the slightest appearance of danger. Air. SPOON - ER said he would not enter upon the merits of this question, for he believed that the more it was discussed the more dangerous it would become. The resolution visited her Majesty's Government with dis approbation, while the American Government was per. frctly satisfied. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) An insult not intended was not an insult, and any one who re sented it when it was not intended knew the conduct of neither a Christian nor a gentleman. (Hear, hear.) If the Government had sent back Mr. Della., they i would have committed the most desperate act that could be conceived, and would have plunged the two countries into an inevitable war. (Loud cheers.) We could afford to be magnanimous and wait patiently under false accusations until, God grant, the differences could be settled satisfactorily between the two countries. He would not, therefore, enter into the merits of the ques tion ; he bad his own opinions on the subject, and would not venture to express any opinion on the points so ably argued by the honourable and learned Attorney- General and the hon. and learned member for Stamford last night. He did not profess to understand the legal bearing of the points in question. He would recommend those hon. members who laughed at this expression of his ignorance themselves to get up and point out in what respect either of these learned gentlemen were wrong. Believing that the present was not the proper time fur arguing the question, he should decline to pro nounce any opinion on the subject, and would vote for going into committee of supply. Mr. GLADSTONE— Sir, the speech which has just been delivered by my hon. friend marks a feature in this debate so important, and so much connected with the vote that I shall probably give myself at its close, that although I am likely upon a division to go into the same lobby with the hon. member, yet I think there is no impropriety in my following him in discussion. It ap pears to me that the two cardinal aims which we ought to keep in view in the discussion of this question are peace and a thoroughlycordial understanding with America for one, the honour and fame of England for tha other. I am bound to say that in regard to neither of these points am I satisfied with the existing state of things, or with the conduct of her Majesty's Government. A cordial understanding with America has not been preserved ; the honour of this country has been compromised. Sir, I am not one who will wet up the phantasm of honour in a • case where the plea appears to me unreal, or who will condescend to separate between honour and the honour able conduct of which it ought to be the symbol. But as respects the honour of England, I assent—l cannot but assent—to the statement of the hon. and learned gentle man who has already spoken from an opposite bench, that what is considered by the world to he a❑ insult— that which, at any rate, cannot but be called an insult-- has been put upon England by the Government of the United States. Has it been put with or without a cause ! If with a cause, it ought to be confessed ; if without a cause it ought to be resented. Sir, I am bound tosay that upon this question my feelings are such that it would be impossible for me to meet with a direct negative the motion of the hon. member for Mayo. I could not Bay ' No" to a motion which states that the conduct of her Majesty's Government in regard to enlistment in Ame rica has not entitled them to the approval of this house. Nor do I mean simply to take my stand, when I say I am likely to vote with the hon. member for North War wickshire, upon the circumstance —though it is an im pi,rtant one—that we are not called upon to say " Ay" or " No" to that question. The question which you, Sir, will put from the chair, that we should go into C immittee of Supply, gives to the matter the technical Parliamentary aspect of what is called the " previous question ;" but, at the same time, I must say that I do not concur in the censures which have been bestowed upon the hon. member for Mayo with respect to the time of bringing forward his motion. (Hear, hear.) Yet the question is one of the greatest difficulty. I cannot say that there is no inconvenience attending a enotlon which criticises or assails the conduct of her Majesty's G veratnent engaged in transactions with a foreign ccuutry; bat, before deciding the question whether the hon. meet ber for Mayo is open to the severe censures which have been cast upon him, we must consider whether the papers which have been laid on the table do not make us acquainted with all the facts of the caee—whether the misunderstanding with America has not gone beyond the point of mere diplomatic communication, and has assumed form and action in the face of the world, and whether the house itself, or at least those individual members who have familiarised themselves with the con tents of the blue-books, wilt not by declining to take this opportunity of expressing their opinion upom them become parties to the approval of the conduct of her Majesty's Government ? (Hear, hear.) For myself, Sir, I frankly own that I have felt the greatest difficulty in considering the question what vote to give upon the present occasion. I never recollect a question more difficult as pressing upon my own under standing and conscience (hear, hear) but with my kn ow l e d ge an d exper i ence of this house, I am convinced that those who feel with me cannot do better than throw themselves or. the indulgence of the house, stating fully the difficulties which they experi ence, exposing themselves if need be to adverse criticism, but relying with confidence on the generous forbearance of the house to put a fairconstruc; ion upon their language. (Hear.) At any rate, after what I have said, Isbell state in intelligible language why it is I expect to find myself voting with the hon. member for North Warwickshire. My hon. friend stated, at the commencement Of the dis cussion, that he deprecated the beginning of it as likely to icjure the interests of peace, and he likewise charac terised it as a party question, casting some discredit upon it on that account. Is it, then, in point of fact, a party question ? Why, I appeal to his own example against his precept. He himself has risen in his place and declared that he will vote against the motion of the hon. member for Mayo. So far that is an indication that it is not a pal ty question. (Hear, hear.) Again, within the last few mi nutes the right hon. gentleman the member for Man chester, who, I apprehend, does not belong to the same political school as the hon. member for Mayo, has declared his intention to support the motion. But if my right hon. friend and the hon. member for Mayo are making it a party question, on behalf of what party are they raising it ! Is it of the party opposite ? Does the hon. member for Mayo belong to the school of the right hon.. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire ? Why, sir, it is quite plain this is not a party question. And, sir, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, that is a vitel element in the consideration of the case. Disap proving the conduct of her Majesty's Government in the managenlent of the foreign enlistment question, I say here that I should be ready to express that disapproval by vote if I saw a motion to that effect made ke a peety ready to be responsible for the consequences of success. Now, sir, I say to the hon. member for Mayo, with out the slightest disrespect, that these questions of votes of censure upon Governments are matters of great importance, and that in considering them we must look not merely to the terms in which they are framed, but likewise to the quarter from which they emanate. (Hear.) I mean nothing disparaging to the hon. member for Mayo ; but are we to regard his mo tion as the declaration of a party ready to be responsible for the results of its adoption, or is it merely the expres sion of the opinion of individual members of this house, who can have little influence upon the division, and who, if the resolution were carried, could not themselves be responsible for the consequences ? (Hear.) I think, sir, it is a good practical rule in Parliamentary discussions that we should not by our votes weaken the hands of Go vernment unless we are prepared to displace them from office. (Hear.) I think it is not desirable that in these foreign transactions the Government should be assailed by votes that tend to weaken their influence on behalf of their country ; unless they are moved by those who are responsible for carrying those opinions into effect. I therefore should have approved the motion before the house if it had been moved by some party who were re sponsible for carrying the resolution of the hon. member for Mayo into effect. For a vote of censure on the Go vernment, as an abstract resolution, I am not able to vote, but if the motion had come before me supported by those who were ready to carry out the principle it em bodied I should have felt it my duty to give effect to my opinion. But then I may be asked, " Why, admitting that we ought not to weaken the hands of the Govern ment in carrying on their difficult negotiations with a foreign country—why do you enter upon this discussion and express opinions contrary to the course taken by the Government ?" My answer is plain. I have no choice after the turn which this debate has taken. [An hon. member made a remark, which was inaudible.] My hon. friend says I am going to speak one way and vote an other. (A. laugh.) Well, Sir, I object to all votes of an abstract character, and which cannot be carried to a practical result. I believe it to be a wise rule that votes of censure on the Government should only be pro posed by those who are able to give effect to the prin ciple contained in those votes. I should not shrink from giving my vote in accordance with that opinion, but as matters stand I shalt vote for going into Committee of Supply. The state of things with which you have to deal is this :—Upon the British Minister the penalty of dismissal from Washington has been inflicted. As far ae the honour of this country is concerned, the state of things is therefore unsatisfacti.ry. As far as regards the American Government, what is its condition ? Was the breach with America closed up by his disinter:al ? Will any man say Ire believes it is ? It it were rightto retain Mr. Dallas, why do you keep our diplomacy in a state of half animation? Why do you not appoint a successor to Mr. Crampton ? I can conceive no reason for not send ing away Mr. Dallas that does not equally prove that you should appoint a successor t 3 Mr. Crampton. If the American Government bad no cause to justify them in dismissing Mr. Crampton, why do you retain Mr. Dal las ? If they had a cause to justify them, why do you not admit that they are right and seed a successor to fill Mr. Crompton's place ? (Hear.) My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department having spoken last night, I presume we are in possession of the views of the Government, and the Government were not content to debate this question except upon its merits. My hon. friend the member for Warwickshire said lie would not enter upon the merits of this question, and that is a perfectly consistent course for me to take or for my hon. friend ta.take. But the Government have en tered upon the discussion upon the merits of the case. That was a manly course, and I do not find fault with it. Whether it was a prudent course I ant not so sure. But they declared their adherence to all that has been done and stated during the whole progress of this painful discussion. Nothing can, be more explicit than the declarations they have made to this effect. The Attorney General declared that, whereas there had been charges against the Government of violating both international law and the municipal law of the United States, he denied both those charges, and denied that either law had been violated. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was even bolder in his manner of deabng with this subject than the Attorney General. He said that the officers of the Government had noted up to the spirit of the instruc tions that they had received. He said that no acts bad been done contrary to the American law, and that the apologies made to the United States' Government did not admit that such acts had been done, because her Ma jesty's Government felt all along that no wrong had been done. So that the doctrine of the Government is that their proceedings have been justified by their own in structions. I am certainly not prepared to be respons ible for that opinion by the side of the evidence in this blue-book. I believe, indeed, that such an assertion is made in the teeth of the plainest evidence in every page of these documents. That is not only my opinion, but I believe it is in effect the opinion of a great many of the members of this house who have given their time and labour to the perusal of these blue-books. Small is, I fear, the number who answer to that description. There are many things that the English people will do. They will sign petitions : they will attend meetings ; they will get up agitations ; they will pay taxes, and double taxes if need be. But blue-books they will not read. That is the case also with members of this house. I say fear lessly that the Attorney-General has not read these blue books. (A laugh.) That is a fair challenge, and I will show that the references of the Attorney-General to these books—references evidently supplied to him at second hand—betray that be has never entered upon the study of these important documents. The effect of these declara tions of the Government is, that they keep alive the re collection of the differences between this Government and the Government of America, and I am not prepared to assent to the opinion of those who say that it is not de sirable to remove these affairs from the hands of those who have hitherto conducted them. On the contrary, I think that no Government is so little qualified toconduct these negotiations with America to a successful result, be cause of the differences that have prevailed, because of the course of combined obstinacy and weakness which the Government have pursued, and because the recol lection of these differences has been kept alive by claims which present a great difficulty in the further progress of the negotiations. My right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey) stated in a fair and candid manner a point of great im portance. I refer to the supposed apology of the British Government. It has often been said that the American Government cannot complain, because if any wrong has been done them it has been covered by a handsome apo logy. 'But that is not the language of my right hon. friend. He did not say that if any wrong had been done to the Government of the United Statesit bad been covered by an apology. On the contrary, my right hon. friend said, with the greatest candour and truth, that the apology offered to the United States' Government had always been a conditional apology, and was not an apology that implied or admitted that a wrong had been done, because her Majesty's Government, having been fully conscious that they had done no wrong, had not offered an apology that suppoied that a wrong had been done. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend stated these were the apologies that had been made. They had been repeated in various despatches. They all ran in one form. The British Government would regret deeply if, either intentionally or unintentionally, they have done a wrong to America. But they have not done a wrong to America. (Hear, hear.) If no wrong had been done I grant you that an apology so couched ought to be accepted, and that it would be a frank, genercus, and conciliatory step, going as near as possible to meet the views of th e Americ an G o vernmen t . But if a wrong has been done, such an apology is no apology at all. (Hear.) Whether a wrong has been done, therefore, is the question upon which we have to fall back. I maintain that if a wrong has been done that wrong has not been atoned for by the apology. Let me say two things, which will shorten my part in the dis cussion. In the first place, I will not, as a general rule, quote from these blue-books, bat for every word I utter I am ready, if called u pon, to repeat , th e chap ter and verse. If I do not quote much, it is .be .canse it would be unreasonable in me to trespass upon the indulgence of the house. In the next pl ace , I forbear to discuss the question of internatiowia not that I think it uniirportillt, liseatiaa I btathit 110 position is less defensible and no pretension less tenable than that we may exclude the queNtion of inter rational law from the consideratiwi of this sulject front the fri volous reason that the Americans have a munici pal law. Lint as the case is clear upon the municipal la w, I am ready to confine myself to that in the practic It view of the case which I Lave prescribed to myself. I am sorry to say that the propositions that I have to an sport, as embodying my conscientious convictions, are unfortu, nately propositions which attach very strong 6 lame to the conduct of the Government. Sir, I shalL not at tempt to qualify those opinions by any expressions of regret. These things are of little value in hosZ - ,ile dis. cussion. It is better for a man to speak out wha: he has to say, and to trust to be contradicted, corrected, and exposed if he has not spoken the truth. What I have to say is this—fn the first place, concealment wfas prac tised towards the American Government ; and; in the second place, not only was concealment practised, but the American Government were deluded and resisted by representations, which I do not say were intended to mislead, but were evidently such that they must toislead, if properly considered. I say this--that the municipal law was not only broken, but it was broken in defiance of the advice of those who were chosen as counsellors-- it was knowingly broken on the part of the agents of the British Government. Ido not say that in these papers in to be found the proof that this was done under the di. rection of the British Government: In that respect I venture to differ from the hon. gentleman the member for Mayo, and, permit me in passing to say, I could not but listen with regret to the observations expressed from the Treasury bench, not only on those portions of the speech of the hon. member for Mayo in which be introduced, by way of illustration, certain passages from Irish history--(a laugh)—but on the general tendency of that speech to throw blame on one particular member of the Cabinet. I must say, in justice to the hon. mem ber for Mayo, that although it may be good tactics to strive to keep out of view one's own incapacity by in troducing exciting matter, the hon. gentleman has no cause for any such expedient, because he has amply proved by argument his full ability to deal with the merits of the question. (Cheers.) But I differ from the bon. gentleman in that point. I think he stated these things were done under the direction of her Majesty's Government. I confess I do not discern that on the face of the papers. (Hear.) But, in my view, it matters little whether they were done under the direction of the Government or not, if the Government made themselves parties to the acts by their subsequent approbation. (Hear) And here, sir, I cannot help regretting deeply the injustice done Mr. Crampton by the .hon. member for Montrose. (Cheers.) One proposition that I state with the greatest confidence is this—that injustice was not done Mr.' Crampton by any member of the Govern. ment, but it was done ty the hon. member for Mon trose, (Hear.) The hon. member, with his regard for America, was not willing to inculpate America ; and, with his regard for the Government, was not willing to inculpate the Government. (A laugh.) So, following the example of President Pierce, and passing by both the British and the American Governments, he threw the blame upon Mr. Crampton, and said Mr. Crampton, when he took the lawyer's opinion, ought to have stopped the scheme of recruiting. I give Mr. Crampton credit for taking a lawyer's opinion. It was a wise and pru dent step, but when it is said he should have stopped the scheme of recruiting, did it rest with Mr. Crampton to disobey orders from home ? (Hear,) In my opinion Mr. Crampton sailed as near the wind as he could, and, in justice to Mr. Crampton, it must be remembered that when be bad taken the lawyer's opinion he sent home that opinion to his Government and wrote to Lord Cla rendon— ` Your lordship will no doubt perceive that the provi sions of the Neutrality Act restrict our operations within very narrow limits." (Cheers.) I take it that it was a fair expression that in his opinion the whole thing should be abandoned. That suggestion was not adopted by the Government at home. Mr. Crampton had begun to act in the spirit of what he conceived to be these intentions, and the result is that her Majesty's Government are unreservedly acquitted by the Americans, and Mr. Crampton is no longer Minister at Washington. (Cheers.) But with respect to Mr. Crampton my proposition is this—that there is not one hair's breadth of distinction between the position of Mr. Crampton and the position of her Majesty's Government. (Hear.) I think, as far as I can judge, that the zeal of Mr. Crampton, and, perhaps, what he believed to be the intentions of the Government, but were not the instruc tions of the Government, were the source of the evils which have arisen. (Hear.) Everything which Mr. Crampton did was approved by the Government at home; every claim that Mr. Crampton made was maintained by the Government at home, and I entirely decline to draw the least distinction between the original responsibility of Mr. Crampton, as the subordinate person, and the sub sequent responsibility of the Government by its unre stricted posterior approval of Mr. Crampton's conduct. (Cheers.) But I say that, at first, Mr. Crampton concealed those proceedings from the American Government, and that in a point of great importance. (Hear.) The hon. member for Mayo has quoted a passage from Lord Cla rendon's despatch of the 15th July, in which Lord Cla rendon says that he has instructed Mr. Crampton, above all, to have no concealment from the American Govern• ment. My right hen. friend the member for Manchester says, that if that were so, then it was a high offence in Mr. Crampton to practise concealment. The American Go vernment, not doubting the assurance conveyed by Lord Clarendon, said the same thing and laid on Mr. Cramp ton's shoulders this burden—that, having received strict instructions not to practise concealment, he did practise concealment. The hon, member for Mayo has stated that there does not appear in these papers any instruction to Mr. Crampton not to practise concealment, and he has called upon the Government to point out to him where that instruction is. (Hear, hear.) The Attorney-Gene• ral followed, and he did not answer that appeal. The Home Secretary spoke later in the evening, and did not answer that'appeal. The appeal must be renewed, for this house has a right to know from her Majesty's Go verntiient whether it is true that Lord Clarendon in ,truetid Mr. Crampton to have no concealment from the American Government. If he thd so instruct Mr. Cram too, then undoubtedly the American Government are justified in the distinction which they draw ; but, if Lord Clarendon did not so instruct Mr. Crampton, and if the reference ;_n the despatch of July 15 is erroneous, then it is impossible to find words to describe the injustice in flicted on Mr. Crampton, because Mr. Crampton Las been made to bear the responsibility of concealment, which the hon. member fur Montrose well said was the fatal error from the outset, whereas the responsibility of that concealment belongs to the Government. I frankly own I think it does belong to the Government, for, although reference is made in the despatch of July 15 to sonic instruction not to practise concealment, there is no passage in any prior despatch, or indeed in any de spatch, prior or subsequent to that effect. The material point in the case is, whether concealment was or was not practised ? The Attorney-General said no concealment nal practised, for Mr. Crampton pointed out to Mr. Marcy that the British Government had established, or intended to establish, a depot at Halifax. And this is what induced me to say the Attorney• General had not read the papers, because my hon. and learned friend gave two references to despatches, neither of which contain a eord as to the depot at Halifax ; but there happens to be a third extract which does refer to it. I presume the person who prepared the references for the Attorney- General had unfortunately placed the wrong figures in the margin, or they were wrongly supplied at the mo ment, and my hon. and learned friend, not having read the papers, was unable to correct the error. (Laughter.) However, it is quite true Mr. Crampton did say to Mr. Marcy that the British Government intended to establish a depot at Halifax. It is not in the blue-book ; but it is in the 14th page of the last papers presented to Parliament. I think there is no doubt it was mentioned, but it is a fact, for Which I do not think Mr. Marcy had any great reason to feel obliged, inasmuch as this depot was the subject of great discussion in the public journals, and it is just possible Mr. Marcy Might have acquired a knowledge of its existence without any such communication being made by Mr. Crampton. The question is, did you conceal from the American Govern. ment that which was the matter and the cause of the com plaint? The American Government never complained of the existence of the depot at Halifax. There is not a word which implies such a complaint on their part. They knew quite well that the establishment of such a depot at Hali fax, whether prudent or not, was perfectly within the rights and competence of the British Government, and I am perfectly ready to say that I and my right hon. friend near me (Sir J. Graham) are responsible for that act in conjunction with the members of the present Government, because that resolution was the last step within our cog. nisance before we were compelled to quit the Cabinet of my noble friend on a question arising on the motion of the hon, and learned member for Sheffield. But that was never made the subject of complaint. What the American Government have complained of is the employment of an agency within the United States not only to give informa tion, but to tempt to induce by the offer of valuable con siderations, the subjects of the United States t o go b e y on d the United States for the purpose of enlisting. That is the subject matter of their ccmplaint, and I want an answer to this question—Did Mr. Crampton tell the American Government that he, on the part of the British Govern ment, was about to establish such an agency or not? Mr. Crampton says he did not tell the American Government the details. I must say that appears to me an unworthy mode el dealing a ith the question. This is not a question about details. It is a question about a measure, constitut ing the corpus of the complaint, on the part of the Ameri can Government, namely—the employment of an agency within the United States for the purpose of disseminating information and inducing men to go beyond the United States to enlist. (Cheers.) Did Mr. Crampton communi cate that, or did he not ? If not, it is useless to talk of not concealing, when you conceal not a detail but the very head and front--the very ground and foundation , of the whole case. (Cheers.) I say, without the =sliest doubt, Mr. the Crampton did not commun ec ioa a t u e se th t a h t er to e is e theAmericandeclaration, vernment, vernment, and I say so, b express and positive, of the American Government, because there is nothing in the statement of Mr. Crampton himself which sustains the allegation that he mad e suc h a communi snthteh United case nited cation to Mr. Marcy. (Hear, hear.) Thi s f act stands the proposition first great t s li ta at te t s h , e fo g r oi t n h g e a p t po ut to an agency 1 i e o f i n d uc i n g American citizens to go beyond the border and be enlisted, was concealed from the American Government. That is the charge of concealment, and it will be well if the Government can give some answer to it. (Hear.) But concealment was not all. There was more, unfortu nately. I request hon. gentlemen to look at the 14th page of the last papers which have been laid upon the table, and there they will find that Mr. Crampton, referring to his despatch of the 22d of March of last year, gives us a large part of a despatch which was not given in the exiginal blue. book. He there gives his account of his conversations with Mr. Marcy, and states the substance of kis communications with that gentleman. He says he told Mr. Marcy that to the inquiries which had been addressed to him by persons in that country he bad invariably replied by referring them to the provisions of the act. After stating those provisions lee goes on to say consequently all he could do was to give testicle persons • the information of which he was in Pos session as to the terms and the time and place A wklick they might, if so disposed, be received into the service of the British Government. Therefore, 31e. Crampton solemnly assured Mr. Marcy fiat, in answer to