The Press.
London, England, 1856-06-21 00:00:00

JUNE 21, 1856.

THE DISMISSAL OF MR. CRAMPTON.

WITH the return of Mr. Crampton to this country
a despatch was received by Mr. Dallas from Mr.
Marcy, to be read to Lord Clarendon, in reply to
Lord Clarendon's ultimatum of the 30th April.
Mr. Marcy commences by expressing the satisfac-
tion of the President at the conciliatory spirit of Lord
Clarendon's note, at the desire manifested to maintain
friendly relations, anti at the unequivocal disclaimer of
the English Government of any intention to infringe
the law or disregard the policy of the United States.
"The ground of complaint is thus," says Mr. Marcy,
"so far as respects her Majesty's Government,
removed." But the President cannot concur in
Lord Clarendon's view of the conduct of Mr. Cramp-
ton and the consuls, and after the most mature con-
sideration declines to change " his view of their
conduct or his purpose in relation to them." Hence,
argues Mr. Marcy, the matter resolves itself into a
mere difference of opinim between the two Govern-
ments as to die complicity or non-complicity of Mr.
Crampton and the Consuls in illegal proceedings in
the United States, arising from adifferent appreciation
of the proofs by which the charges against Mr.
Crampton and the Consuls are sustained. Mr.
Marcy then reviews the points of the case at length,
and flatly denies Lord Clarendon's assurnpti in that
the evidence against Mr. Crampton and the consuls
was mainly sustained by Hertz and Strobel, two
witnesses unworthy of credit. Their testimony, says
Mr. Marcy, " was quite a secondary and unimpor
taut part of the evidence adduced ;" the charge—of
conducting an extensive system of recruiting, and
employing numerous agents, and keeping those
agents employed atter it was well known taey were
constantly infringing the laws of the United States,
by obtainint, recruits for a pecuniary consideration—

being supported " by other witnesses, by original
letters of Mr. Crampton and others, and by the
undenied and undeniable acts of Mr. Crampton
himself."
As to the " infamous characters " of Strobel and
Hertz, Mr. Marcy retorts that, at least, they were the
agents selected and trusted by Mr. Crampton to carry
out most important concerns, and that Strobel was not
only intimately associated with Mr. Crampton, but
had the rank of captain in the foreign legion con-
ferred upon him by the Queen. Then, as to the
ignorance of Mr. Crampton of the illegality of
the proceedings, Mr. Marcy observes, that although
at the trials which took place in May at New York
and Philadelphia certain British agents were com-
mitted for violation of the municipal law by illegal
recruitments, yet similar acts of recruitment were
continued throughout the States up to September :

Who ( asks Mr. Marcy) is to be held accountable for
these unlawful acts? Were they all performed by volun-
teer and irresponsible persons. as argued in the Earl of
Clareudon's despatch of the 16th of July? That cannot
be admitted, for the conclusive 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 Govern•
ment, disclaims all intention to violate the laws, compro-
mise the neutrality, or disrespect the sovereignty of the
United States by the enlistment of troops within their
territory. The President unreservedly accepts and is
full• satisfied with this disclaimer. Of course, the nn-
lawful acts in question were not authorised by the British
Government, bat the fact is nevertheless well established
that they were done, and done in the name and at the
expense of the British Government.
Who, then, is responsible for these acts? Were there
nn direct proof, though there is much of that character, the
inference would be irresistible, that, not being authorised
by the British Government itself, they were the unautho•
rised acts of the British agents in the United States.
Sach agents, having acted in wilful disregard of their
Government in thus infringing our laws, may have failed
to inform their Government that what they had under-
taken 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
knowing 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 were
those agents ? Of this we are not left in doubt.
By permitting these recruitments to continue after
the result of the May trials, whereby a continuous
♦iolation of the law was perpetrated, and by neglect-
i ug to observe the orders of the British Government
to stop recruiting the moment its illegality was
pronounced by the proper authorities, Mr. Marcy
contends that Mr. Crampton's responsibility is
obvious, while the same considerations apply
to the consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and
Cincinnati.

Mr. Marcy then complains of a want of frankness
evinced by Mr. Crampton in not at first disclosing
the measures he intended to pursue within the
United States in execution of the act of Parliament
for raising a foreign legion; reitetates the Presi-
dent's conviction of the responsibility of Mr. Cramp-
ton and the Consuls, and asserts his determination,
for the best interests of the two countries, to imme-
diately remove "those very unacceptable officers"
Irotn their posts. Mr. Marcy then concludes his