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

JUNE 21, 1856.

Vrocecings zn nth :tune.

HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY, JUNE 18.
OUR RELATIONS WITU AMERICA.

The Earl of DERBY put the question to the Earl
of Clarendon whether her Majesty's Government
had come to any conclusion as to the course they
had advised her Majesty to pursue, and were pre-
pared to state that course to the house.
The Earl of CLARENDON replied that it was his
intention to lay on the table the diplomatic corre-
spondence exchanged between the two Governments
so soon as the first answer to the last despatches of
the American Cabinet was forwarded. The reply
was not quite ready. In the meantime he had no
hesitation in stating that her Majesty's Government
did not intend to advise any suspension of diplo-
matic relationship with the United States in conse-
quence of the dismissal of Mr. Crampton.
The Earl of DERBY expressed his satisfaction at
this announcement, because, although deeply
regretting the course pursued by the American
Government, the conduct of Mr. Crampton and of
those under whose authority he acted could not be
vindicated. Her Majesty's Government, in accepting
the withdrawal of Mr. Crampton and the consuls,
had coniessed to faults, and had accepted conditions,
which could oe regarded in no other light than as
humiliating.
The Earl of CLARENDON deprecated premature
discussion, and charged the nuble earl with pre-
judiug the question.
The Earl of DERBY rejoined that he had simply
formed his julgment from the papers supplied by the
Government; and the subject dropped.
The Joint-stock Companies Bill was real a second
time by a majority of eighteen to five.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-MONDAY.
OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

On the question that the house resolve itself into
Committee of Supply,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to ask explanations from
the Government respecting the present state of our
relations with the United States. There were two
questions of great importance requiring some ex-
planation. Firstly, whether after the dismissal of
Mr. Crampton it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to desire Mr. Dallas likewise to with-
draw; anti, secondly, what, pending any negotia
tion respecting Central America, were the in-
tentions of her Majesty's Government with respect
to the force that either now may be stationed at, or
may be sent to, the coast of Nicaragua or Costa
Rica? The noble lord then alluded, in support of the
view that the dismissal of Mr. Dallas need not neces
sarily follow that of Mr. Crampton, to the dismissals
by the Presilents of the United States of M. Genet,
French Minister, in 1793, of Mr. Jackson, English
Minister, in 180 D, and of M. Poussin, French
Minister, in 1850, in each of which cases the resi-
dent American Ministers in London and Paris re-
mained at their posts ; and concluded by ex-
pressing a hope that if the Government were about
to enter into negotiations upon the Central American
question every means would be taken to pre-
vent any accidental collision between the naval
forces of the two countries.

Lord PALMERSTON replied that as the United
States Government in dismissing Mr. Crampton had
intimated their desire to continue diplomatic inter-
course with her Majesty's Government, the Govern-
ment had not deemed it their duty to advise her
Majesty to suspend diplomatic intercourse with Mr.
Dallas. Her Majesty's Government was, therefore, pre-
pared to enter into communications with Mr. Dallas
upon any matters concerning the interests of the two
countries ; and, under these circumstances, it was better
to abstain from entering further into the question.
With respect to the orders despatched to the
commander•in-chief of the naval forces on the
coat of North America, they related merely to the
protection of British interests, British subjects, and
British property—

And (continued the noble lord) there is nothing in
those instructions which would tend to a collision be•
tween the British and American forces. We cer-
tainly did think it right, considering the uncertain—
uncertain as it then undoubtedly was—position of our
relations with that great. naval power, that our force in
those seas should be placed in such a condition that it
might not be liable to any occasional disasters.
We thought it right to be strong ; but, being
strong, we shall not be the aggressors. Upon that subject
also—the question about Central America—l am sure the
house will not at present wish me to go into any details.

Mr. DisaAELI then rose and said :

The frequent recurrence of questions of this kind—of
misunderstandings in our relations with the United States
—must impress upon every gentleman the expediency of
treating them with the utmost moderation, and in a spirit
•f the utmost forbearance. The noble lord who has just
addressed the house nos touched very lightly indeed upon
the immediate cause of the retirement of her Majesty's
Minister from Washington. I was glad to be reminded by