The Press.
London, England, 1856-06-07 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

be gratefully acknowledged. . . . . Should they, on
reaching Halifax or any otherl British possession,
enlist in the service of her Majesty, their travelling
expenses will he paid ; and they will receive the
bounty of 6/., or thirty dollars, together with the pay
of eight dollars a month, rations, good clothing, &c.,
for every effective man from nineteen to forty years
of age. Any further information I may be able to
obtain I will not fail to transmit to you.

This MARTIN wrote again, saying that the
expense of each man's passage would probably
be from 6/. 15s. to 71. 10s.; and he inclosed a
notice, which he proposed to insert in one or
more newspapers. This notice was as fol-
lows :

_
Emigration and General Agency Office,
No. 1, Union-street, New Orleans.
The A 1 passenger-ship - will sail for Hali-
fax on Tuesday, June 5, and will be followed by a
ship of the same class on each succeeding Tues-
day throughout the summer, or so long as freight
and passengers will offer to justify their continu-
ance.

For freight or passage apply as above.
(Signed) CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Agent.
There was no concealment as to the object of
this notice. It was plainly declared to Mr.
CaAsnyroN to be for the purpose of conveying
men to Halifax to enlist in the Foreign• Le-
gion. Mr. CRAMPTON replied that he had
taken a legal opinion on the notice, and—

I beg to inform you that there cannot be the
slightest objection to your inserting the notice in
any newspaper you may think fit.

Numerous communications to the like effect
were made by Mr. CRAMPTON to other persons.
He forwards the whole correspondence to Lord
CLARENDON, and it occupies several pages of
the Blue-book (pp 183-195). Mr. CaptirroN
seems confident that in acting as he did he
gave the Government of the United States no
cause of complaint, 3 et it appears impossible
to contend, in the face of these documents
supplied by himself, that he did not essentially
violate the neutrality laws, which he was always
asserting ought to be strictly observed. Nor
can his conduct be reconciled to the legal
opinion by which he dechced his determina-
tion to rule his conduct. This opinion► (Blue
book, p. 10) defining what would constitute a
" hiring or retaining " under the statute,
says :

I think the words " hire or retain " susceptible of
very broad interpretation in such a statute. I in-
cline to think they would he held to reach ever, case
of payment, expenditure, or other valuable consi-
deration k however ingeniously devised) moving from
the party charged to another person, to the aid and
with the intent that such other should " go beyond,"
et.c.__." Do ut facies," or facio ut facies.

When we consider the necessity of something like
an inspection ; the unavoidable coincidence of num-
bers of emigrants; the malice of rejected appli-
cants ; the inducements to treachery; the natural
vigilance of a certain portion of tho community, in
such a matter, and through them the action of the
press and the police, I think the least to be appre-
hended is a prosecution, whatever its result; and in
that event the connection of any official person,
however indirect or faintly traced, would more than
counterbalance the advantages proposed.
It is astonishing that Mr. Cnioirros with
this opinion before him on March 12, 1855,
should have acted as he did throughout the
months of March, April, and May. Such pro-
ceedings could not take place without discre-
ditable agents being mixed up in them, with-
out misunderstandings, nor without being
brought with every kind of exaggeration to
the notice of the United States Government.
Discrediting the testimony of such scoundrels
as Hertz, Strobel, and Perkins, how was it
possible for arrangements to be made under
Mr. ChAmproN's sanction for the sailing of a
ship weekly from New Orleans to Halifax, the
head quarters of the recruiting service, with
a promise that the expense of the niens' pas-
sage should be paid, that they should receive
bounty, pay, &c , and that the services of the
shipping agent would be gratefully acknow-
ledged, without a positive infraction of the
neutrality laws taking place? Oa any fair con-
sideration of Mr. CRAIMON'S own statements
he must be charged with an infraction to those
laws, setting aside altogether the evidence
given on the trials which took place.
When Mr. MARCY, on the part of the United
States Government, first expressed uneasiness
on the recruitment question, he was answered

SATURDAY,

by a despatch of Lord CLARENDON (12t11 April,
1855), stating :

The law of the United States with respect to enlist-
ment, however conducted, is not only very just but
very stringent And her Mikiesty's Go-
vernment would on no account run any risk of in.
fringing this law of the United States.

Later (June 22) Lord CLARENDON wrote:—
I have been informed by Lord Panmure that his
lordship wishes all further proceedings in the matter
of enlistment to be stayed, and the project to be
definitively abandoned.

Unfortunately this determination was not
adhered to, for on the following 6th of July
Lord CLARENDON wrote that "certain Ger-
mans " should be received into the Foreign
Legion should they find their way to Halifax.
It was on the date of this last despatch that
Mr. BUCHANAN, in London, addressed a strong
remonstrance to Lord CLARENDON against the
continued violation of the United States
neutrality laws. Lord CLARENDON replied
(July 16), regretting that unauthorised agents
should have committed undoubted violations
of the law, and added that instructions had
been sent out that all proceedings for enlist-
ment should be put an end to. Here it seemed
probable that the matter would end. But the
Hartz trial, and the disclosures made of the
extent to which the system of enlistment had
been carried, induced Mr MARCY (Sept. 5) to
address a further angry remonstrance to Mr.
CRAMPTON. From this time the correspondence
became embittered. At the Hartz trial, the
prosecution was conducted in a spirit most
offensive to the British Government. The
urgent demands of Mr. MARCY that satisfac•
tiou should he given for the violation of the
United States law were met by Lord
CLARENDON by an assertion that no cause for
satisfaction had been made out ; sad at the
commencement be aggravated the dispute by
charging the United States Government with
having connived at a violation of the spirit of

Have not arms, and ammunition, and warlike
stores of various kinds, been sent in large quantities
from the United States for the service of Russia?
To this accusation the answer of Mr. MAscv
was complete. If American citizens, at their
own risk, chose to supply either of the bel-
ligerent parties with warlike stores, the neu•
trality of the Government was in no way
compromised :--
Private manufacturing establishments in the
United States have been resorted to for powder,
arms, and warlike stores fur the use of the allies,
and immense quantities of provisions have been tar-
nished to supply their armies in the Crimea.

The subsequent correspondence may be de-
scribed in few words. Mr. MARCY constantly
charged a violation of the United States laws,
and demanded redress. Lord CLARENDON—
sometimes with a sneer, sometimes with hi-
boured humility—denied that such violation
had taken place on the part of any British
agents, and refused redress. At last the posi-
tive demand was made fat the recul of Mr.
CRAMPTON, and the removal of certain ob-
noxious Consuls. Lord CLARENDON replied to
this demand (30th April last) in a despatch of
elaborate moderation, regretting that the
United States Government should think that
it had any cause of complaint, and hoping that
it would be satisfied with an assurance that it
had throughout been labouring under com-
plete mistake. The last intelligence is that
Mr CRAMPTON, her Majesty's representative,
has been dismissed from Washington.
The whole question turns on whether Mr.
CRAMPTON did or did not violate the neutrality
laws of the United States. We have seen his
own admissions. A frank apology or explana-
tion from Lord CLARENDON in the first instance
would no doubt have been accepted. He
denied that such apology was due; and hence
the two Governments were thrown into direct
antagonism. Diplomatic intercourse has ceased
at a moment when the complications in Central
America demand instant solution. If it be
true that the Cabinet of General PIERCE is
bent on making a hostile demonstration againA
this country, assuredly our Government, by
conduct on the recruiting question, and by 110
retention of the Central American islands, has
placed convenient weapons of attack in its
hands.

I

Jun 7, 1856.