The Press.
London, England, 1856-06-14 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 14, 1856.

THERE are more unlikely things than a war
between England and the United States. We
do not suppose that the people of either
country would anticipate such an event with
calmness, still less that they would delibe-
rately plan the means by which it could be
brought about. Without some more hostile
and aggressive action on the ono part and the
other than there is any reason to expect, the
two countries are not likely to be furnished
with any such large ground of quarrel as
would lead them willingly to embark in war.
Their interests are substantially the same.
The commercial ties which unite them are
mutually beneficial. They have far more
reason to desire each other's continued pro-
sperity than to desire each other's hurt or
destruction. The boundaries of British pos-
sessions on the North American continent are
well defined, and between those possessions
and the States there has, from the advantages
of increasing trade, grown up a much better
feeling than formerly prevailed. It. is most
improbable that war should spring from any
real opposition of national interests, or from
any vital antagonism of policy on any matter
of importance.
Whence, then, the likelihood of war at all?
From little motives and petty disputes ; from
feelings of jealousy rousing hostile passions ;
and from questions utterly insignificant in
themselves—whether as regards claims to
territory or extension of influence, or admi
nistrative differences—being embittered by
mutual misunderstanding or angry corre-
spondence.
While no quarrel, then, is likely to arise
from any cause involving the essential in-
terests of the two countries, a quarrel is not
unlikely to arise from causes in which their
Governments conceive themselves specially
interested. It may be laid down as a prin-
ciple that when war breaks out it will be
directly attributable to some governmental
mismanagement, and not, in the first instance,
at least, to the pressure of national animosities.
We say in the first instance, because, if the
Governments of the two nations are for any
length of time hostile—if they are bent on
provoking and insulting each other—if they
make demonstrations of armed force, which
are a challenge to hostilities—it is impossible
to avoid inflaming the public mind on both
sides of the Atlantic, and preparing it for an
appeal to arms.
It is this danger which has to be guarded
against at the present moment. and the danger
is neither visionary nor distant. For twelve
months past the intercourse of the two Go-
♦ernments has been growing continually more
angry, and it has now reached a point when col-
lision—without some such concession on either
side as cannot be made without an acknow-
ledgment of blunder or wrong—is inevitable.
The Government of the United States con-

tends that Mr. CRAMPTON, in endeavouring to
give effect to the Foreign Enlistment Act in
its territory, has violated the laws and
sovereignty of the United States. The Go-
vernment of Great Britain contends that Mr.
CRAMPTOI4.B proceedings from first to last were
justifiable, and that the United States Govern-
ment has no just ground of complaint against
him. This is the question which has to be
determined. If the countries themselves
remain silent—if they have such perfect con-
fidence in their respective Governments as to
support them in whatever decisions they may
arrive at—then it is no longer the Govern-
ments merely, but the nations, which are in
opposition. The people of the two countries
will accept the acts of their Administrations,
and the quarrel from being in the first instance
purely governmental will become national.
The dispute has arrived at that stage when
our Legislature cannot shrink from the respon-
sibility which devolves upon it of discussing
the whole question. It cannot remain silent
without approving the conduct of the Govern-
ment ; and if that conduct be really worthy
its approval and support, it will act a more
honest and manly part by making a declara-
tion to that effect in face of the world.

In any case we must not close our eyes to
the gravity of the situation. Let no one sup-
pose that the difference between the two
Governments can advance a single step fur-
ther without seriously compromising the con-
tinuance of peace. A total rupture of diplo•
matic intercourse may not immediately lead
to a declaration of war; but from the moment
when the rupture is complete, the outbreak of
hostilities will be but a question of time. The
honour of the two countries will be committed
to the support of the Governments whose
policy they have approved ; and when national
honour is concerned, we have no faith what-
ever in any of the grounds of interest or good-
will on which some politicians rely for the
continuance of peace.

The public men of this country must, then,
seriously consider the question at issue, and
must prepare for its discussion. The Foreign
Enlistment Act has produced that difficulty
which its opponents said it would produce,
and which it could not be carried into practi-
cal effect without producing. It has embroiled
us with the Government of the United States,
and has placed us in a position from which
we cannot advance without plunging into war
with a country bound to us by a thousand
ties of peaceful relation and mutual advantage.
and from which we cannot recede without an
acknowledgment of terror. To the country
and the Leg►slature alike we say, this is the
situation. Do,not be deceived as to its import
and imminence. It has reached that point
when diplomatic skill can neither shift the
issue nor avert the decision. Consider it
well—deliberate calmly. At present the re
sponsibility is on the head of your Govern-
ment ; but be assured of this, if you miss the
opportunity for action, you will take the
responsibility on yourselves.
In certain quarters there is a disposition,
we know, to throw all blame on the Cabinet
of President PIERCE It is assumed that he
is playing an electioneering trick, and
agitating for the Irish ticket. The Govern-
ment of the United States, like our own, has
its political necessities. But this notion that
a Government at the head of thirty millions
of people—acting in the face of day—with all
its acts closely scrutinised by a free Legisla-

ture and free press, with all its diplomatic
documents published without reserve, would
dare to trifle with the great interests com-
mitted to its charge, and seek occasion for
quarrel with England that it might gain the
suffrages of the foreign and least influential
element of its population, is too monstrous for
belief. There are the despatches of the United
States Government—we can judge of them for
ourselves. Whatever may be our opinion of the
justice of their ideas, it is impossible to deny
them the credit of great ability, and equally
impossible is it to deny that the statesmanlike
attitude of the United States Cabinet at this
moment is entitled to high respect.
If we proceed on the assumption of the
weakness of that Cabinet, or on an opinion
that the strength of factions in the States will
render the Executive powerless for hostility,
we shall find ourselves deceived. While firm
on the point of dismissing Mr. Camarrox,
the Washington Government shows itself
eminently conciliatory on other matters. All
grounds of dispute, save this one, are virtually
at an end, and on its decision depends the
peace or hostility of the two greatest maritime
Powers of the globe.

RECRUITING IN AMERICA.
IT was announced last evening by Lord Cu-
RIENDON in one House. and by Lord PAL-
meturrom in the other, that Mr. CRAMPTON, her
Majesty's representative at Washington, had
received his passports from the Government
of the United States, and that their exequaturs
had been withdrawn from Consuls BARCLAY,
Rowcaorr, and MATtiew. The accompanying
despatches from the Washington Cabinet are
conciliatory in their tone, and express an
anxious wish to settle the Central American
question by direct negotiation with the Bri-
tish Government, or by the arbitration of a
third party.
The only question, then, now at issue is,
whether the conduct of Mr. CRAltirroN and the
incriminated Consuls, in endeavouring to
give effect to the Foreign Enlistment Act in
the United States, really gave the Govern-
ment of that country just cause for dissatip-
faction. No one will suppose that Mr. CRAMP-
TON intended to give offence to the Govern-
ment to which he was accredited, or to violate
the neutrality laws of the United States. On
the contrary, there is abundant evidence that
he endeavoured to keep within the law. But
he had a difficult part to play.
Before the Foreign Enlistment scheme was
brought before Parliament, Mr. Ca.otrroe, at
the instigation of his Government, addressed
to British Consuls in the United States a
‘• confidential circular" as to the number of
British subjects in the States who were willing
to enlist in her Majesty's service. He states:—

I inculcated upou her Majesty's Consuls the utmost
caution in conducting this inquiry, stating to them dis-
tinctly that " enlistment and enrolment of citizens of the
United States, or of residents therein, for the service of a
foreign Power with which the United Sates is at ream,
would be clearly in contrave
the United States' neutrality

measures which might
infraction of those laws

Government, would be
p. 130.
This was as far
when the Foreign
contemplation. The

ntravention with the provisiin • of
Aridity laws ;" and adding that any
t even have the a of any
is by the age • • • • s
•-
e highly Ob. ty. 1•P„.-
(„,•'4
back As • ,
Enlistniqn
,i;
extrenicWftilLb
a • •
s -NT? vio
.•
rP4
04`

551

by Mr. CRAMPTON indicated no great confidence
in the legality of even this first procedure in
the matter. To be frank, his injunctions
throughout savoured of the Spartan Code.
He enjoined acts, but deprecated their dis-
closure. In this stealthy policy there is always
danger. What may not be done by a represen•
tative of her Majesty at a foreign Court openly
had better not to be done at all. His proce-
dure must seem cowardly, if it he not illegal.
Directly the Act passed, Mr. CRAMPTON was
instructed by her Majesty's Government to
use his " best endeavours to give effect to their
wishes." How this was to be done without
offending the neutrality laws of the States was
the question to be solved. Was it possible for
him to offer any kind (,f inducement—or en•
courage agents to offer such inducement—for
the purpose of getting persons to quit the
United States territory that they might be
enlisted in her Majesty's service? He never
seems to have been clear on this question.
But as he knew what service was expected
from him by his Government, he seems to
have thought it his best course to encourage
the operation of the Enlistment Act, but to
give all persons with whom he communicated
strict injunctions to keep within the letter of
the neutrality law.
As might have been expected, it was impos-
sible to carry out courses of action funda-
mentally inconsistent with eac" other. The
attempt to evade a law is commonly sufficient
to bring persons under its provisions.
In one way, and in one way only, could Mr.
CRAMPTON and the British Consuls have
avoided ground of offence. They might have
informed all applicants that suitable recruits
would be enlisted at Halifax without concern-
ing themselves in any manner as to the means
by which they were to get there. The policy
of the United States Government is to leave
the inhabitants of its territory entirely free to
quit the country to engage in the service of
any foreign Power ; but that freedom or volun-
tary action is infringed when any kind of
organisation is set afoot to interfere with their
voluntary and individual action. Directly the
servants of the British Government had any
kind of connection with the agents who made
it their business to engage numbers of people
to quit the States for the purpose of enlist-
ment, it became inevitable that they must be
brought into collision with the United States
authorities.
On this point we are not left to conjecture.
Mr. ChAmproil relates that when he went to
Halifax on the enlistment business in April,
1855, he found that a number of the Germans
who had come to Halifax from New York,
Boston, and Philadelphia, to enlist, had re-
turned to the States to make known to their
countrymen, eager to enlist the terms on which
it could be dune. And Mr. CRAMPTON con-
tinues :

From what I heard in regard to the proceedings of these
people, who were, as was to be expected, very imperfectly
acquainted with the provisions of the neutrality laws, I
judged that it was highly probable that they would render
themselves amenable to penalties, and that it would be
inferred that their acts were ordered or authorised by the
British Colonial authorities. It seemed to me that a
great deal of confusion and misunderstanding prevailed
upon the subject of enlistment in the Foreign Legion, and
that many of the persons directly and indirectly engaged in
the matter were rendering themselves—no doubt without
any intention of so doing—liable to the charge of infring-
ing the laws of this country, and, at the same time, of
utterly defeating the object they themselves had in view.—
Blue-book, p. 32.

Mr. CaAmrrox supposed that by more care-
ful and cautious procedure he could attain the
desired object and avoid the misunderstand-
ing. He was deceived. He adopted, as he
tells us, a plan drawn up by STROBEL (p. 133)
to inform the German residents is the vicinity
pf the Great Lakes of the offers of the British
Government, and " to supply them with the
" small sum which would cover their travelling
" expenses." Still he insisted on the necessity
of a strict observance of the neutrality laws,
though we hold it impossible that his own ad-
mitted connection with STROBEL ,and his parti-
cipation in the plan for inducing many hun
dreds of Germans to quit the States for the
purpose of being enlisted at Halifax, could be
fairly
construed otherwise thpanaar
as the very
:*iolation he was constantly deprecating.
It is not easy to perceive how this scheme
Lot !molding the neutrality laws can be other-