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

which, while it serves in part to explain how it happens
that the enlistment went on for so many months in a man
ner contrary to the intentions and express orders of the
British Government, also serves to increase the weight of
Mr. Crampton's responsibility in this respect. I repeat
now, with entire consciousness of its accuracy, what I
stated in my letter of the 23th December last, that at that
interview on the 22d March—the only one I ever had with
Mr. Crampton, as ha admits, in which the recruitment
business was alluded to—he (Ar. Crampton) had satisfied
me that his Government had no clnnexion withit, and was
in no way responsible for what was doing in the United
States to raise recruits for the British army. But Tam quits
certain that on no occasion has he intimated to me that the
British Government or any of its officers were or had been in
any way concerned in sending agentsinte the United States
to recruit therein, or to use any inducement for that purpose.
Nor did he even notify to me that he was taking or in-
tended to take any part in furthering such proceedings.
Such a communication, timely made, would probably bay*
arrested the mischief at its commencement. If he had
then apprised me of the system of recruiting which had .at
that time been already arranged and put in operation
within the United States by British agents, and under his
superintending direction, he would have been promptly
notified in the most positive terms that such wig were
contrary to the municipal law, incompatible with the
neutral policy of the country, a violation of its national
sovereignty, and especially warned against the violation of
our neutrality laws. But he blames me now for not thea
stating to him that nay construction of that law differed
from his own ; but no such difference of opinion was then
developed.
" Mr. Crampton on that occasion manifested a coiacideace.
in opinion as to the provisions of that law which I then held
and have since fully disclosed. He called on me to show a
letter which he had written on that day to the Consul at New
York disapproving the proceedings of a Mr. Angus M'Donald,
because I (he) thought those proceedings would or might
be taken to constitute a violation of the Act of Eighteen—the
Neutrality Law of the United States.' What were the pro-
ceedings of Mr. M'Donald which Mr. Crampton thought might
constitute a violation of our neutrality? The simple issuing
of a handbill, specifying the terms on which recruits would
be received at Halifax into the Queen's service.
" This opinion of Mr. Crampton ascribes as much strin-
gency to our neutrality acts as has ever been claimed for them
by the Government or Courts of the United States. I had
then no suspicion, nor did Mr. Crampton give any cause to
suspect, th he was acting or intending to act upon an in-
terpretation of that law which would justify the act of Mr.
M'Donald, which he then condemned, and make the law but
little better than a dead letter. I could not but suppose he
viewed it in the same light as Lord Clarendon did when he
wrote his despatch to Mr. Crampton on the 12th of April
thereafter, in which his lordship declared it to not only
very just, but very stringent.'
" To show that I was not mistaken in this respect, I quote
a passage from a letter of Mr. Crampton, dated the 14th of
March, to Sir G. Le Merchant Any advance of money by
her Majesty's agents or others in the United States would cone
stitute an infraction of the neutrality law.' The depositions
which accompany this despatch, made by some of the same
persons who have furnished the British Government with
affidavits to impeach Strobel and Herta, prove conclusively
that Mr. Crampton did disburse various sums of money to
agents employed in recruiting within the United States.
"It was, indeed, apprehended by me at the time that
violations of that law would ensue. It could not fail to be
seen that any organized scheme of a foreign government to
draw recruits from the United States, though by mere in-
vitation, would necessarily tend and result in violations of
the municipal law. So decided was my belief in this respect
that measures had already been taken by me, in behalf of
the Government, as it happened, upon the very day of the
interview with Mr. Crampton, to institute prosecutions
against persons engaged in this business in New Yurk and
Philadelphia. I then notified Mr. Crampton of thatfact, as
he expressly admits in his report of that interview made to
his Goverument.
" An attempt is made to deduce an excuse for Mr. Cramp.
ton's course in the business of recruiting in this country
from the alleged fact that he communicated to rue on that
occasion the arrangements which had been made for that
purpose, and that I did not disapprove of them otherwise
than by insisting upon the observance of the neutrality law
of the United States. This allegation Is hardly Consistent
with Mr. Cramptol,'s own statement of what then passed.
In the defence of his conduct, recently sent by him to his
Government, he makes admissions, inconsistent with the
Allegations, that there was uo concealment on his part, and
that the recruiting arrangements were communicated to me.
He says :
" ' It is perfectly true that I did not enter into any details
of xneans which were to be adopted by her Majesty's Govern-
ment to render available the services of those who tendered
them to us in such numbers. There seemed to be obvious
reasons for abstaining from this ; and even if it had occurred
to me, I should have been unwilling to do anything 'which
!night have borne the appearance of engaging Mr. Marcy in
any expression of favour. or approbation of a plan favouring
she interest of one of the parties in the present war. All I
could desire on his part was neutrality and impartiality.'
" His reasons for withholding from me the details of the
enlistment system—the most important part of it for this
Governnment—are cot satisfactory. If Mr. Crampton be-
lieve
that what lie was doing, or intended to do, in the way
of recruiting was right, ho could have had no reluctance to
communicate it to me, for his instructions required him to
make that disclosure. Acting in duo frankness, a d with a
proper regard fir the dictates of international comity, Mr.
Crampton should, it would seem, have disclosed to use all
measures intended to be pursued within the United States by
the agents of his Government, including himself, in execution
of the Act of Parliament for raising a foreign legion. Nay,
lie was expressly commanded by his Government to practice
no concealment with the American Government en the sub.
ject, If ho had obeyed these orders all misunderstanding be.
tween the two governments would have been prevented.
" Mr. Crampton was the more imperatively called upon
to make full explanations on the subject, not only because he
was commanded by his government to do so, but for the fur-
ther reason that immediately after the breaking out of the
w a- between Great Britain and France on the one baud, and
Russia on the other, he had, by an official note addressed to
me, invoked the efforts of this government to enforce upon
the inhabitants of the country (citizens or others), the necese
pity of observing the strictest neutrality towards the belli-
gerent parties, and especially to enjoin upon them to abstain
from taking any part in armaments for the service of Russia,
or in any other measure opposed to the duties of a strict nen-
trality. To this application the undersigned, by exprese
direction of the President, replied, declaring that the United
States, while claim ng the full enjoyment of their rights as a
neutral power, will observe the strictest neutrality towards
each and all of the belligeaents.
" Reference was made to the servere restrictions imposed
by law not only upon citizens of the United States, but upon
ill persons resident within its territory, prohibiting the en.
listment of men therein for the psrpose of taking a part in
any fo eign war. It was added that the President did not
apprehend any attempt to vio'ate the laws, but should his
just expectations in this respect be disappointed, he will not
fail in his duty to use all the power with which he is in-
vest,ll to enforce obedience to them. In view of this formal
and solemn appeal by Mr. Crampton to the American Go.
vernment, and of the assurance he received of his deterinis
!cation to mai .taia a strict neutrality, it was not for a mo-
ment suspected that Mr. Crampton could misunderstand its
purposes, or believe he would be permitted to set on foot
and execute for a period of five ooasecutive months a syste-
matic scheme to obtain military recruits for the British Der-
vice in the United States.

" That Mr. Crampton did enter most deeply into this
scheme is proved by evidence already submitted to her Ma-
jesty's Government, but is still more conclusively established
by the additional proofs which accompany this despatch.
Whatever detraction from the value of the testimony against
gr. Crampton may result from the attempt to discredit Stro-
bel and Hertz, is much more thammade up be the additional
proofs now adduced. This body of strong cumulative evidence
confirms the President's former conclusion as to the cempli•
city of Mr. Crampton and the British consuls at New York,
Philadelphia, a❑d Cincinnati, in the illegal enterprise of re-
cruiting soldiers for the British army within the United
States, and the President does not doubt that when this new
evidence shall be brought under the consideration of her Ma-
jesty's Government it will not longer dissent from this con-
clusion.

" The gratification which the President feels at the satie•
factory s_ttlement of the recruiting question, in so far as
respects the action of the British Government itself, has
induced him to examine the case again with the view to
remove, if possible, from his mind the personal objections
against her Majesty's Minister and Consuls. The examina-
tion has not produced that effect ; bet, on the contrary; has
strengthened his conviction that the interests of both Go-
vernments require that those persons should cease to hold
their present official positions in the United States. He sin-
cerely regrets that Her Majesty's Government has net been
able to take the same view of the case, and to comply with
his request for their recal; but it has not consented to do so.
" If, in the earnest desire to act with all possible courtesy
toward Her Majesty's Government, the President could
have suspended his determination in the case iu order to sub.
mit the new testimony which ho is confident would havebeen
fou, d sufficient to induce compliance with his request for the
recal of the British Minister, he is precluded from any etch
thought of delay by the exceptional character of the despatches
of that gentleman, copies of which, having been recently laid
before Parliament, have thus come to the knowledge of this
Government, and which are of a tenor to render further in-
tercourse between the Governments through that Minister
alike unpleasant and detrimental to their good underetatcling.
The President has, therefore, been constrained by considera-
tions of the best interests of both countries reluctantly to
have recourse to the only remaining means of removing, with-
out delay, these very unacceptable officers from the connexion
they now have with this Government.
" Thi course has been deemed necessary Zen account of
their unfitness for the positions they hold, arising from the
very active part they have taken in getting up and carrying
out a system of recruiting which has been attended with
numerous infractions of our laws, which has disturbed our
internal tranquility, and endangered our peaceful relations to
a nation with which this Government is most anxious to
maintain cordial friendship and intimate commercial and
social intercourse, lie has, therefore, determined to send to
Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's Diplomatic Representative, his
passport, and to revoke the exequaturs of Mr. Matthews, Mr.
Barclay, aut Mr. Rowecroft, British Consuls at Philadelphiso
New York, and eineinnvi.

" I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient
Lsernt,
, MARCY.

" Geo. M. Dallas, Esq., &c., Loudon."
Mr. Mason spoke in complimentary terms of the ability
with which the question had been discussed by Mr. Marcy,
Mr. Cass thought that no pretext for war could aril, out
of the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, unless England was doter.
mined to go to war.
Mr. Toombs thought, if this Government was satisfied with
the explanation of Lord Clarendon, Mr. Crampton should not
have boon d stu!ssed.

Mr. Cass replied that this Government had not expressed
itself satisfied with Mr. Crompton's conduct, but with the
ssurance of the British Government that they (the Govern-
ment) had intended no violation of our laws ; but it has now
turned out that Mr. Crampton had acted in ♦iolation of the
intentions and directions of his own Government.
Mr. Toombs did not believe England or her officers bad
vi• fated our laws at all. While the matter was pending, be
did not choose to argue the question against our Government;
but ho would now say he disapproved the construction which
this Government had placed upon our neutrality laws.
Mr. Butler thought it would have been better to hate dis-
missed Mr. Crampton as soon as his complicity in the uni.tter
was discovered
Adjourned till Monday. _

HOUSE OF RErRESENTATIVES.
A message was received from the President, notifying Con.
gross of the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, and transmitting doe
cut-lints, being the same that were sent to the Senate. Re.
ferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Mr, Cr)w, representing the majority of the Committee •
Territories, made a report, proposing to admit Klima, into
the Union with the Topeka constitution,
passed.—Adj owned till Monday:
Several private bills were

NAPLES, Friday, June 13.—1 t is generally said
that the exportation of corn will be continued at
the same duty up to the 15th of July, at the price
of about 625. shipped.