The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-02 00:00:00

-- -
any letters he might receive, he would confine himself to
communicating to the persons who addressed themselves to
him the terms upon which they could be received into the
service of his country, so far as he was acquainted with
them. That appears to me to have been a promise of a
most solemn character, Mr. Crampton's own communica-
tion to Mr. Marcy resting upon Mr Crampton's allegations
now produced by himself in self-defence. Was that pre-
mise kept ? Did Mr. Crampton confine himself to
.that
in-
formation? Is there a man in this house who will rise
and say he did so ? If he did not, how are we to meet the
charge of the American Government, when they say we
deceived and deluded them, that we threw them off the
scent and induced them to believe that although proceed-
ings were going on in the Union we had nothing to do
with them, because they gave credence to our assurance,
as conveyed by Mr. Crampton, that whatever agency was
employed in the United States it was the agency of unsup-
ported and unrecognised volunteers with which the Go-
vernment had nothing to do. But was there nothing
more? There was a certain Angus M`Donald who appear-
ed to think that, free trade being a very good thing, it
might properly be applied to recruiting, who, upon re-
ceiving a remunerative price for the passage. offered to
take persons to the British dominions. Well, we laid
hold of this convenient despatch to Mr. Al`Donald, carried
it with great pomp to the American Minister, who read
the indignant and almost ferocious terms in which the
offer of Mr. Angus M'Donald was repudiated. Upon the
very day of the conversation with Mr. Marcy to which I
have referred this letter was written to Angus M`Donald,
and it will not be very uncharitable to suppose it was
written for the purpose of being exhibited to Mr.
Marcy. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was, however, read
by Mr. Marcy, was regarded by that gentleman as an
important fact, and led to the expression of great
satisfaction on the part of the American Government.
Let ms say I was very sorry to hear the criticisms
of the hon. and learned member for Leominster (Mr. J. G
Phillimore) upon the conduct of the American Govern-
ment upon this subject. If peace be our object, together
with the maintenance of the honour of England—(hear)
—I would ask whether the attainment of those objects are
promoted by private members setting themselves up as
judges of the conduct of the American Government? I
will give my judgment upon the conduct of that Govern-
ment upon the question before us ; but if it be true that
the American Government is pettifogging and litigious,
then I sly, instead of that being a reason for trampling
noon the law, it was a reason why, if not, out of regard for
them, at least in consideration for the great country which
we represent, we should have held those laws more sacred,
and have avoided still more carefully to give so litigious
and pettifogging a people the slightest reason for com-
plaint. A comparison has been made between the procla-
mation of Mr. Angus M`Donald and that of the Nova
Scotian Government, and it has been argued that what
was against the law if done within the boundaries of the
United States was not against the laws if done beyond
those boundaries. Upon that all I can say is, I cannot
conceive a sorrier answer than that things which were not
lawful for a man to do because done by a private indi-
vidual within the dominion of the United States might
lawfully be done by the British Government immediately
upon the borders of the United States. But that is not
the question at issue. Compare the proclamation of Mr.
Angus M`Donald with that of Mr. Wilkins, and with the
actual proceedings of the British Government in the
United States. Mt. M'Donald disseminated the informa-
tion that, upon 'certain terms, he was prepared to send re-
cruits to a British colony. Mr. Crampton and his agents
disseminated information, too, and advertisements ap-
peared in German newspapers published in the Union,
that personswere required to g 0 abroad—sometimes it was
said as mechanics, but everybody understood the kind of
machinery they would be expected to use. (near, and a
laugh.) The only difference was, that they provided a free
passage, or paid money for the purpose. Therefore, it
stands thus—that we actually paraded in the face of the
American Government our condemnation of the unfortu-
nate Angus M`Donald, and thus, perhaps, ruined his inno-
cent and well-intended enterprise, while at the same time
we were doing all that he proposed to do, superadding the
provision of a free passage, or paid weeny to meet the
expense. I think no one will deny that a Government who
by its agents pursued that course, and afterwards signified
its approval of their acts,is not only fairly chargeable with
concealment, but is also liable to the charge of having de-
luded the American Government. Therefore, nothing is
more unjust than the charge which is made against the
American Government of having at first confined its com-
plaints to the proceedings of unauthorised persons, and
subsequently extended those, complaints to the British Mi-
nister and his subordinates. The American Government
at first confined their repiesentations to the unauthorised
persons, because it believed the answer which was given.
Those representations were extended when they found that
the answer was not based upon truth. Aiming as I do at
a plain and intelligible statement, I must say the Ameri-
can Government was deceived by the proceedings of the
British Government. I say we intentionally broke the
law of the Union. My hon. friend (lfr. Spooner) tells us
not to judge generally of intentions. I agree with him,
except so far as we can infer them from acts. Mr. Cramp-
ton—and I give him credit for it—began his proceedings
by taking the opinion of a most eminent American
lawyer, one in whom, according to Mr. Crampton'.
significant description, he had perfect confidence, not only
as to professional ability, but also as to political principles
—that is to say, a man who, he believed, could confidently
be reckoned on as having no feeling adverse to the interests
of Great Britain. That gentleman seems to have given a
very prudent opinion' neon which, I conceive, Mr. Crampton
was bound to act. Why did Mr. Crampton take that
opinion? He himself, at page 131, gives us the reason.
He says he took it because he did not understand the neu-
trality laws, and therefore he says :
" I requested an eminent American lawyer, in whose judg-
ment and professional ability I felt entire confidence, to draw
up for me an opinion on the subject ; and a copy of this
opinion I thought it right to transmit to her Majesty's con-
suls in the chief cities of the Union, and a copy of it accom-
panied my despatch to your lordship of the 13th of March."
Now, in this opinion it is distinctly laid down that any
person would be found guilty of offending against thenen-
trality laws who either gave money or money's worth to
any other person within the territories of the Union in
order to induce or enable him to go abroad for the purpose
of enlisting in a foreign service. Why do I say that we
intentionally broke the law? I will show you from the
declaration of a British offieer how he understood the
meaning of that opinion. Mr. Lumley, who still remains
in America, and who has entirely identified himself with
the proceedings of Mr. Crampton, says at page 15, in a
letter to Consul Dyer,—
" But a promise to pay the travelling expenses or to pro-
vide for the fancily of any person who may join her Majesty's
service, as proposed by your correspondent, would not de•
prive such emigration of its voluntary character, but would
constitute a violation of the neutrality laws of the United
States, and no proposition of this nature can therefore be
entertained by her Majesty's Minister or consuls."
So it stands upon these documents that the counsel of the
British Government state 1 that giving oitber money or
money's worth to'persons to induce them to go abroad for the
purpose of enlisting would be a violation of the law ; and it
stands upon these documents, also, that Mr. Lumley,on the
13th May, representing Mr. Crampton, wrote to Consul
Dyer to say that a promise to pay travelling expenses con-
stituted a violation of the neutrality laws of the United
States. The meaning, therefore, of those laws, as ex-
pounded, was known and admitted by the agents of the
British Government. That was on the 13th of May. On
that day Mr. Lumley stated a promise to pay travelling
expenses would be a violation of the law. Where was Mr.
Crampton on the 13th of May ? He was at Halifax. What
was Mr. Crampton doing at Halifax at the time when Mr.
Lumley was thus soundly expounding the American neu-
trality laws? Mr. Crampton was committing that very
breach of the neutrality laws—aye, and something even
beyond that—which Mr. Ltiniley was denouncing from his
office at Washington. (Hear, hear.) if you turn to page
• 133, you will see that Mr. Crampton begins by saying that
he left Washington on the 2d of May to go to Freida:: ;
that he arrived at Halifax on the 11th ; it was there that
" Strobel, who had already brought with him seine men
from New York and Boston, and who appeared to be well
acquainted with the condition and desires of his country-
men in the States, positively asserted that be knew many
hundreds of Germans in the cities and country in the
vicinity of the great lakes who only required to be informed
of where they could be receive 1 in C la and to bo sup-
plied with the small sums which would cover' their travel-
ling expenses, immediately to present themselves on British
territory for enrolment in her Mejesty'a service." They
required something more than a promise of travelling ex-
penses; they wanted the money i; the promise of
travelling expenses was declaredi`l handegah by Mr. Lumley at
Washington. Mr. Crampton at says •—• " Th•
plan, seeming to me to present a batter
prospect ef suc-
cess, and at the same time to be uno'sjectionable as re-
garded the laws of the United States
wasi adopted." After
this, will any gentleman rise in this iawe, and state that
the laws of the United States have not been violated ?
(Hear, hear.) Is it possible t) r
C y evidence further ? I
have shown Yon the American constructionand I certainly hold that the American of the law,
Courts and G )1 ern ment were better entitled to construe their
law than any foreign Goverrment. I abot7ll' municipal
i
how we should deal with the A motican Minister
whoike toknow
in this country, doing certain acts contrary to was
con-
struction of the law, judicial, and o'herwise and
king forward some ingenious view t- ken on the othaehrjenit
of the Atlantic with respect to that construction in order
to justify his acts. But the case do s not stand neon the
opinion of your own Amos lean lawyer; it stands upon Mr
Lumley's declaration on the part of Vie British Govarn:
went, that it was a breach of the law to promise t 0 pay
these travelling expenses, combined with Mr. Crampton',,
simultaneous declaration that at that very isszij,t
Halifax, he agreed to a elan for pay'ne hard c ish po
eriod,
et
sons then in the United States to enable them to find their
way to Halifax and enlist. _ That is what I cull an inten-
tional breach of the Americao niutriali'y lava. It is u
necessary to go through the various cases; I am sorry to
say there are too many. My right hon. friend (Mr. M.
Gibson) has mentioned the case of Mr. Smolenski and the
contract with Mr. Howe. There is no answer to that case
except this—that Mr.. Howe was not diplomatically em-
ployed by the British Government in the United States.
There were, in fact, no means of getting hold of this gen-
tleman—as one of the npvspapers said of him, he was too
slippery. But there is one case to which I shall refer for
a few moments—l mean the case of C rnsul Mathew.
The Attorney-General yesterday seemed to suppose that
this was a question where the evidence was all on one
. side; that on the one side we had the testimony of fliiriz
and Strobel, and on the other the assurances of Mr.
Crampton and the three consuls That is one reason why
I congratulate the Attorney-General on his felicitous and
all but total ignorance of what the blue books contain, for
itis italtestsible he can have read the blue-books and ima-
tertetzhat that is the whole issue raised. Now, I throw over
and Strobel altogether, and am only sorry that that
mass of affidavits from one person and another, swearing
to all sorts of things, should have been pro lucid as public
documents—those affidavitebeing the most worthless trash
ever printed in this world.' I do more than reject the tes-
timony of Hertz and Strobel. I don'tattend to the allega-
tions of the American Covetnte
evidence afforded by our own
I won't remark on teh6eintlmovisse-ilniknes
of alnlr
okursolely to the
own agents.
rune of the Govern-
ment in conferring
gentlemen of this not very doubtful charlQaeen's service on
Hertz. and Stro-
bel, laugh.)
r
But, treating as you please the evidence oaf°
is it true thatthe charges are denied by Mr,
and thq three consuls ? With regard to these three e 1 ceadun l°sr,
I may observe that the evidence is not equally full
a
all. I have read a most manly letter mitten by Mr.; tr.
clay, and looking to the character of the allegations male
againstthatgentleman whether aeregerds the barque Maury
or as respects recruiting, I think it is clear that Mr. lear-
clay was free from all complicity. I should also give en-
tire credence to theassertionsof Consul Methew, but those-
assertions prove the very worst part of the ease. The At-
torney-General says there has been no breach of the mu-
nicipal law of America. I am clear, then, that his studies
must have stopped short of the 34th page of this blue-book,
. or he would have found there evidence which, to my mind,
is conclusive oar this case. In the first place, I think there,
is no doubt that Hertz was engaged in breaking the dew.
In the second place, there is no doubt that Howe was the
r ()muting agent in con-nee tion with Hertz, and if Howe s

was found supplying Hertz with money it must be pre-
sumed that Howe was cognisant of the use which Hertz
was about to make of it. That principle, at least, would
apply to such a case occurring in this country. I have
heard the Attorney-General speak most ably in this house
with respect to a charge of bribery at an election. If
the name of Howe had been Frail—(laughter)—and it had
been proved that Frail had handed money to Hertz for
certain purposes, theAttorney-General would not, I think,
have had much difficulty in identifying Frail with
those purposes. But between this Howe and Mr. Hertz
comes in a third person, and that third person is Comm)
Mathew. He says, in the 3lth page, that Hertz's confes-
sion was a tissue of falsehoods, and he was determined to
know nothing about Hertz or anything of his proceedings.
Well, that is the kind of answer we sometimes receive in
committee-rooms in this house when inconvenient questions
are put to witnesses about acts done at elections and money
misapplied there; in that case they tell us they know no-
thing of the use to which that money was applied. Consul
Mathew says :—" At his (Hertz's) earnest request I trans-
mitted a sealed letter to Mr. Howe, and handsel him a
reply, containing, I believe, money." Well, that is very
cautious on the part of Consult. Mathew, when we re-
member that his belief was not formed without good and
sufficient grounds, for this reason—that he took a receipt
for the money, " for which," he says, " Hertz gave me a
receipt, made out to Mr. Howe, and inclosed by me to him."
Mr. Mathew was always very judicious; the receipt was
' not made out to him ; Hertz swears wrongfully that the
receipt was made out to Consul Mathew; but it was made
out to Howe. Mr. Mathew handed money from Howe td
Hertz; he took a receipt from Hertz and sent it back to
Howe. "On a second occasion (he says) I declined to give
him the money, though merely the channel of transfer ;
and the amount was sent to the propriet3r of an hotel,
from whose bookkeeper he received it." Those are net
chance or casual expressions, for much further on in the
book Consul Mathew travels over the same ground. He
twice handed money from Howe to Hertz ; he sent the
money by a circuitous channel ; and there is no doubt he
sent it in that way in order that it might be the more dif-
ficult to trace. Can there be a doubt as to the character of
that act? Is there any lawyer who will say that in a com-
mittee of this house Consul Mathew would not have been
hold to be implicated in the proceedings of Howe, or that
the American Government were not right in the view
they took upon this point? (Hear.) Then shall I 'be told
that this was the proceeding of Consul Mathew—that the
British Government had nothing to do with it ? Now,
Consul Mathew, upon the whole, behaved with considerable
prudence and propriety, for although he had done these
acts, yet, at any rate, he was determined that the respon-
sibility should not rest with him, and therefore he took
took very good care to inform Mr. Crampton. Mr. Cramp-
ton, at page 35, acknowledges the receipt from Consul
Mathew of the letter to which I have just been retorting,
and says :
" I have in the meantime forwarded a copy of your de-
spatch to her Majesty's Government, and I have satisfaction
in assuring you that I can see nothing in any of your pro-
ceedings in regard to this matter which appear to me to be
incorrect, or derogatory to your office."
I apprehend, therefore, that Mr. Crampton is pretty clearly
responsible for the whole of Mr. Mathew's proceedings;
bat does the responsibility stop there ? Mr. Crampton
again, with perfect propriety, sent home to Lord Claren-
don Mr. Mathew's letter, together with his own letter of
approval, and on the 2d Nov. Lord Clarendon ackuow-
leiges the receipt of that communication in the following
terms :

" I have received your despatch of the 15th ult., and its
enclosures, respecting the proceedings which have been taken
in the United States District Court at Philadelphia, in the
case of Henry Hertz, who has been pronounced guiltyof hav-
ing violated the neutrality laws by enlisting recruits for the
British army ; and I have to state to you that I approve the
answer which you returned to Mr. Consul Mathew 's commu-
nications to•you upon this subject."

Consul Mathew thus identifies himself with Mr. Cramp-
ton, Mr. Crampton identifieshimself with Lord Clarendon,
and Lord Clarendon we can only regard as the organ of the
British Government. Whet is the explanation of these
facts ? There are plenty more, but I will not weary the
house with going through them, for the length of these dis-
cussions even now bewilders one, and it is necessary to
throw overboard much matter. The acts which I
have detailed were contrary to the municipal law of
America, not only as construed by the executive Govern-
ment, by the Courts, by the Attorney-Generalof America,
but as construed by the confidential adviser of Mr. Cramp-
ton, as construed on the 13th of Maybytheßritishmission
at Washington itself. Here, however, we are traversed by
the opinion of Judge Kane. In September Judge Kane de-
livered a judgment, in which he stated distinctly that the
payment of passage money, the giving an inducement iu
money or money's worth to people to enlist in a foreign
service, was a breach of the American law.; but it is smi,
"Oh, that was in September ; look at his opinion in May!
In September the American Government had entered int
a controversy with the British Government; in May it was
supposed that they were merely persecuting a fe w wretched
unsupported individuals." It is thus coolly insinuated
that Judge Kane prostituted the judicial conscience, anti
gave, in September, a contrary opinion as to the construc-
tion of a law to that which he had given in May, in order
to serve a political purpose. I hope that all members of
this house will show some respect for the feelings of the
Americans. There is nothing of which the Americans are
more justly proud, nothing in which they associate them-
selves more closely with the great country froin which they
have sprang than the character of their judicature, and the
character of their laws and their courts is established in the
world. How should we look upon a charge against one of our
own eminent judges, first, of having given two opposite con-
structions of a law within a few months, the second being a
false construction, in order to please a Government of the
day? But the charge rests upon a very sandy foundation ; there
is no evidence of any real contrariety in Judge Kane's opi-
nions. The allegation of the British Government is that in
May Judge Kane said it was not contrary to the American
law to pay the passage of a person going to enlist abroad, but
while the opinion of September is authentically reported
in the official reports of the proceedings of the Court, the
opinion of May is a paragraph out of a newspaper,
paragraph which grossly misquotes the American law, by
asserting that it is an offence in an American citizen to go
beyond the boundaries of the United States with intent to
enlist. Of course an abridgment, a mere synopsis of what
is said nloes not contain those details and explanations with-
out which it is impossible to give judicial force and mean-
ing to the words of a magistrate. Bat, after all, there is
nothing in Judge Kane's opinion, assuming the paragraph
to be correct. He says : 'I do not think that the pay-
ment of the passage from this country of a man who de-
sires to enlist in a foreign part comes Avithin the act."
That is his bare and nakd proposition, but you insert in
it other words—you say that because the payment of the
passage of a man does not in itself constitute an offence,
ergo, the payment of the passage of a man by the British
Government does not constitute an offence. The two
cases are very different. Suppose my right hon. friend
near me and I reside in the United States ; he is rich and I
am poor; I tell him that my feelings are with the of
cruetry in the war in which she is engaged, and that I will
go to Halifax and enter her service if he will assist me. I
do not apprehend that my right hon. friend would be guilty
of an offence if he complied with my request. Would not
that be a totally different case from the payment of money
by the British Government to its agents for the purpose
of inducing men to go? That is not all. Judge Kane's
opinion was given at the end of May, but what were you
doing at the beginning of May, in April, in March? Then
you had the construction put upon the law by your own
lawyer, yet you fell back for your justification upon an un-
authenticated paragraph in an American newspaper com-
ing long after the acts with which you are charged had
been committed. Stich is the celebrated case of Judge
Bane's opinion ! In the beginning of March your own
lawyer told you the moaning of the American law; why
di I not you act upon it ? Why did you, long after it hen
been communicated to you, and lets before Judge Kane
opened his mouth, give men free passages and hard cash.
and offer them other inducements to enlist ? (Hear, hear.)
The two chief points urged in defence of the Government
are the apology and the abandonment. I have already
spoken of the apology —now where is the abandonment ?
This is one of the most mysterious and singular parts of a
case which contains much that is singular and mysterious.
The hon. member fur Montrose said the mistake was no
sooner discovered by the Government than it was correct-
ed, And last year a question was put by the vigilance of
the hon. en I learned member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck),
to which the noble lord at the head of the Government
gave an answer that was very satisfactory to the country.
The noble lord said that, not only had recruiting been
abandoned in the United States but even our depot at
Halifax had been abandoned, that the exercise of an un-
questioned right had been foregone rather than the risk
should be run of having the slightest misunderstanding
with the. American Government. I am astonished to
, see the evidence as to this explanation. On the 221
of Jane, Lord Clarendon addresses a letter to Mr.
Crampton, which may be construed as an order for the
abandonment of the recruiting scheme. The noble lord
states that the abandonment takes place by the detlren
of the Minister for War, and that similar letters will
be addressed to thektovernors of Nova Scotia and Canada.
If letters contaihing those- orders had been so sent
the proceedings would have been altogether discontinued ;
the subsequent correspondence assumes that they were die.
continued, and consequently, when the Arnet*.xa Gonern-
meut at a much later period complaine I of their continu-
ance, they were taunted with the fact that even before
they had had time to make a complaint a nktuely, on the
22.1 of June, the scheme had been abandon* Wassitti:-
w Li it not tebandoned —/fonenlnuttrneer/I.lant that the
lett 1r of the 22.1 of June was intended to be ant, but some
unfortunate mishap appears to have befallen et; we do not
know the course it took, and no explanation, respecting it
is given. A careful consideration of the dates of the al-
leged abandonment. is important, because the Americans
h we been condemned in this country as highly unreason-
able on account of having complained of acts which had
been put an end to long before those complaints were
made. That is a most important statement, if true, but a
most extraordinary figment, if not true, and a grievous
h
titetrhe
,Lwtat sna
en oat intentional
avai sdtoantemmeenntt
of the
wrong to the American Government. (Hear.) I am con-
Ivsi- ct
a regardthat
ante
recruiting system by her Majesty's
t Government took place,
but at the same time let us sea what time the abandon
went really did take place, and to arrive at that we must
consider the statements of
fir. Lrarapton and Sir Gaspard
le Merchant as to when they first beam
wishes of the Government in that
reeseeet.cog,uisant of the
Mr. Crampton
states that he first became aware of the desire of the Bti-
ti,h Government to abandon the scheme i recruiting
the 2tl of August. Sir Gaspard le nlarchantwhose posi-
tion was of still more importance, because II ' alifax was the
great centre of operation, states that it was on the 17th c f
August that he first received an intimation-that he was to
o
cease his proceedings, and even then he did t t receivothe
intimation from the Colonial Secretary at home, but
through Mr. Crampton. Her Msjesty'a Government fo l-
out, therefore, that driffirestlais pearioetheeaproeeedings
wore going on, `and were being coplstiner of, and yet to
those cOtnplaints they retorted= that they had abandoned
the scheme of recruiting-Nig ego, and Lord Clarendon, in
somewlest-noitemptuons tone, stated that recruiting had
long ceased, at the same time expressing the opinion that
the American Government had not appreciated as they
ought to have clone the conduct of her Majesty's
Ministers '_in abandoning those proceedinge. Hee
stated :list the abandonment of recruiting took place on
the 22d of June, but, as I have pointed out to the house,
the letters ordering a discontinuance of the sysleurreachen
Mr. Crampton only on the 2d of August, and Halifax an'.
the 17th of the same month. It. appears to me, then, that
we originally commenced a system of concealment towards
the American Government; and not only did we do that,
but we also adopted measures calculated tb mislead them.
(Hear.) It appears that we took the most trustworthy
opinion as to the law of the United States, and not only
acted against that Opinion, but continued to do so for
many months after the time at which we profeuel to have
abandoned the course which we had hid commenced. After
this can the house-say that the American Government had
no just cause for complaint? Can we refuse to admit a
arrong to America because the -Goverpmentassert that on
wrong whatever has been clone? It appears to me to be
that sort of case which scarcely admits of further argument
or illustration. If it is to be made a matter of dispute that I

any cause of complaint has been given to the Government
of the United States, then I think that we may fold our
arms in despair and say, " Even in this imperfect world
some things have hitherto been held to bereal, and beyond
the possibility of a doubt, but henceforth nothing is cer-
ttin, there is nothing upon which reliance can be placed,
there is nothing which may not be made a subject for cap-
tious disputation." It is said that there is nothing in the
instructions of the British Government to cause a wrong
to the American Government. Now, what is the real
fact ? Lord Clarendon says that anything short of the con-
clusion of an actual contract to enlist within the limits of
the United States may be done, anti innocently done.
Now, that is one way of avoiding responsibility, because a
contract is governed by the lex loci, and therefore a con-
tract to enlist could not be concluded at all ; and he then
goes on to say to the agents of the Government,' "Yon may
persuade persons to enlist, you may assist them in so doing,
you may pay their passage to a place where they can be
enlisted," although such an opinion was contrary to the
opinion of the American courts, contrary to the opinion of
his own law officers,fand contrary to the declaration of Mr.
Lumley himself, the agent of the British Government. Well
but, says the hon. member for North Warwickshire, " the
American Government hasaccepted the apologies which have
been made." Now, sir, I cannot admit that such is the case,
although I do not seek to detract from the force of what they
have done. A most extraordinary state of things has been
brought about. (Hear.) The American Government
acquits the British Government, but at the same time
punishes Mr. Crampton and the three consuls, while the
British Government maintains and acquiesces in the acts
of its agents, and yet accepts with satisfaction its own
acquittal. (Cheers.) This is a simple, unadorned state-
ment, it contains no heightening epithets, and, indeed, I
do not think any epithet could heighten it. Mr. Cramp-
ton has been made a scapegoat—by whom is a question I
will not discuss—but I want to know whether it would
not be cuntraryto the character and practice of this House,
when there is no single action of Mr. Crampton which has
not met with the approval of the Government, to allow
any distinction to be drawn between the proceedings of
Mr. Crampton and those of the British Government.
(Loud cries of "Hear. ') I admiLfully the honourable con-
duct in this respect of thOse who sit upon the Treasury
bench, because they do not attempt to draw any such dis-
tinction. The dismissal of Mr. Crampton was either
right or wrong. Now the hon. and learned member for
Leominster says that it is the undoubted right of any
State to ask for the withdrawal of any Minister accredited
to it at its own pleasure, and without assigning any rea-
son. Now, lam not, like the hon. and learned gentle.
man, qualified professionally to deal with that subject ;
but, from referring to authorities upon the subject, I am
i dined to think that some reason should be assigned, and
in the present instance the American Government have
admitt el that principle, because they have assigned a
reason. But, Sir, what an extraordinary course is that
adopted by the hon. and learned gentleman ! The hon.
and learned gentleman says that the American Govern-
ment had a perfect right to demand the dismissal of Mr.
Crampton, and he gives that as a reason for supporting
the conduct of a Ministry which, when the demand was
made, refused to comply with- it. (Hear, hear.) The,
Sir, appea-s to me a considerable anomaly. (Hear, bear.)
The American Government had either received just cause
for offence or not. If it had not, then it had no right to
make the demand for the recall of Mr. Crampton, and the
dismissal of that gentleman ought not to have been ac-
ceptel as it has been. (Hear, hear.) And, whatever
happens, the Government ought not to allow mat-
ters to remain in their present doubtful and
anomalous state ; for to allow Mr. Dallas to remain
here, and at the same time, by not replacing Mr.
Crampton, to exhibit a certain amount of ill-feeling to the
American Government, does not telound to the credit or
honour of the country. If we send a substitute for Mr.
Crampton, it is going far towards admitting that the Ames
ricens have received just cause for offence, and that they
have can any one in this house doubt? Thequestion is one
which the American Government had a perfect right to
raise. It might have been a more generous course not to
raise it, but no one can dispute its right to raise it. Wo
cammenced by a course of concealment, and even now, so
far as the vast majority of the public and even of members
of this house is concerned, the whole affair is so compli-
cated with dates and events, which require great pains and
study to extract from these papers, so long buried in the
archives of the Foreign-office, that very imperfect infor-
mation exists. The ultimate judgment, however, of this
hoase and of the country is not doubtful, as may be
gleaned from the character of this debate. The hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) has deprecated the policy
of raising the present discussion, but he carefully avoided
giving any opinion upon its merits. The hon. member for
Montrose carefully avoids de:ending the proceedings of the
Government, but he says that they do not deserve the
censure of this House of Commons, and ho has conde-
econded to throw upon Mr. Crampton the responsibility
which ought to belong to his employers. It is impossible
that the result of this discussion can be any but one. I
do not deny that it is a question which deserved discussion
in this house. Ido not know what may be the intentions
of the h in. gentleman who made the motion, not being in
Lis counsels, but he has acted on his privilege as an inde-
pendent member. (Hear, hear.) The debate which has
taken place will, I believe, not be altogether free from in-
convenience, but I am certain that it will have this great
advantage, that it will tend to the real elucidation of the
facts. (Hear, hear.) It is for the true, substantial, and per-
manent interest of the two countries that the facts should
be elucidated. (Hear, hear.) If the American people are
made aware of the facts, they will take care that their
Government does not heedlessly carry them into a quarrel.
The English people, too, when properly informed on the
subject, will also exercise a similar salutary influence, and
this debate is the first effort made to bring a knowledge
of the facts to the mind of the English people. Hitherto,
the facts have never been brought to the teat of argument..
They have been the property of the writers, or of persons
using them for purposes of their own; and they were now
for the first time exposed to free discussion. I was sorry
when the noble lord at the head of the Government at-
tempted to put a cl,se to this debate last night, but I do
not suppose that the discussion is of the most agreeable
character to the Government. I grant that my noble
friend acts on a sound general rule in giving the weight of
his authority against the practice of frequent adjournments
of debate; but the importance of this matter is hardly to
be overstated. The facts with respect to American law
are toe clear for sophistry itself to disguise. If it were
possible to insure the real study of the bluebook by all
the members of this house there would be no serious dif-
ference of opinion remaining as to whether .the American
law had been observed or not. If persons responsible for
the consequences of their opinions were prepared to take
up this question, I should not hesitate to give my adhesion
to an authentic expression of the sentiment of the house;
but, in an abstract vote of censure, I am not prepared to
participate. When the hon. gentleman opposite said this
was a party question, I could not help hoping that he
would not give the weight of his character against party
combinations in this house, which are associated with some
of the best chapters in our history. When I look bock to
the period when party combinations were strong in this
house—when Sir R. Peel was oa those (the Opposition)
benches, and Lorl John Russell on these, I think, though
many mistakes and errors were committed on both sides,
that, on the whole, the Government of the country was
honourably and efficiently carried on. I believe that the
day for this country will be a happy day when party com-
binations shall be restored on such a footing. But this
question, instead of being a party question, is a most re-
merkable illustration of the disorganised state of parties;
and of the consequent impotency of the House of Com-
mons to express a practical opinion with respect to the
foreign policy of the country. Under these circumstances,
the only resource left to me is the undieguised expres-
sioe of the opinions, which I strongly and conecien-
tiously (perhaps erroneously) feel after the study of
these papers. I leave had the privilege of expressing those
opinions freely and strongly—a privilege which I would not
have waived on any account 'when I consider the bearing
of the case with respect to the American alliance, which I so
highly prize ; or with respect to that which I still more
highly prize and more dearly love—the honour and fair fame
of my country. (Cheers.)
Mr. JOHN M‘GREGOR here caused much merriment by
attempting to address the house during the absence of the
Speaker, who quitted the chair for a few minutes for the pur-
pose of obtaining some slight refreshment. The bon. mem-
ber on having his attention drawn to the fact of the chair
being vacant resumed his seat amidst roars of laughter.
On the return of the SPeAKER,
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE explained that when he alluded -to
Judge Kane's change of opinion, he meant not to imply any-
thing but the change was conscientious.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was then about to address
the ho Ise. when

Mr. JOHN M'GREGOR, amidst general cries of " Order V
int aposod, lie said he ios3 to order, and moved the adjourn,
ment of the debate.

The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that, according
to the rules of the house, a member I icing to order must
speak to order, and could not move the adjournment of the
4tonse .(" Hear," and laughter.)

The SOIICITOR-GENERAL said he felt it to be an im-
possibility to believe that the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone) was in earnest in the arguments her-had brought
forward. In what way the right Imo. gentlem\au connected
his arguments with his conclusions it was utter:* laves:Vele
for him to understand. He said he could not vote an the same
lobby with the hon. member for Mayo ; and he (tile Solicitor-
General) could not but thi4 therefore, that they had heard
a.tn. • ' ifectual exereitaCion. It was undoubtedly true
le had proved, very well and very truly, what he should
wished to have seen. He complained of angels on the oppo-
site side being afrai l to tread where the hon. member for
May., had rushed in. But that was not all. The right hon.
gentleman had been bold enough, in his view of this subject,
to tell the house that the American Government did not know
their own case. Ife told them that the American Government
ought not to has e arrived at the conclusion at which they
hal arrived at, and that they ought to have been satisfied
with the termination of this matter. By some wonderful and
mysterious manner he OW them he would make them a pre-
sent of the evidence of Strobel and Hertz. He had taken a
view of this matter in which he at once pronurnc3d that the
Amerie4n lawyers did not understand their own business,
and that,. in pyint of fact, there were materials 'here for ar-
riving et a sorkelusion. Ho (the -,Solicitor-General) meant to
follow, as well as he could, the arguments and process of
ra-
tiocination of the right hon. gentle Man: And, first of all,
with regard to the position in which this matter stood. He
was surprised that the right hon. gentleman, who had studied
1 this matter evidently with great care,MsahroouyldhhEnostlfhhaavtel
var
v riar-
ved,
aatntlli asthcoouldu u.esxi opnecatt wthhoi ch M H
ouls..e of Commons should
accept an interpretation wholly at variance with that which
the American Government placed upon the last despatch.
Now, he (the Solicitor• General) apprehended the American
Government knew their own ground of complaint, and if so,
all who attended to the last despatch of Mr. Marcy, of the
• 27th May, 185 G, would find the most clear and satisfactory
nuouneemeut that the American Government were s .tisfied
with the explanations they had received at the hands of the
British Government, and that they were perfectly convinced
that there was neither intention nor design on the part of
the British iloVerinnent either to offend the municipal law or
the sovereign rightS of the United States. But the real state
of the case was this :-- The American Government said to us
in that despatch—" It is perfectly true you have abundantly
exonerated 3 ourselires, but your agents have acted unwisely,
and have been led into the commission of acts which we see
are foreign to your notions ; but, inasmuch as they have done
so, you are bound to refuse your sanction to acts by which
they have transgressed the limits of discretion." But the
'sir Government said, " Upon what grounds have you
a ritivo'
conclusion that our agents have trans-
gres3ed the lini-ra-44 discretion ?" And what was the
evidence which the .A.-meripi Government brought for-
ward ? Precisely that which the right hon. gentleman,him-
self admitted to be totally unworthy. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Marcy did not complain that we did. not accept the Ameri-
can view of' the matter. Mr. Marcy said' that different
views might, and would, be entertained, but he admitted
that the American Government were bound to accept the con,
elusion at which the British Government had arrived, and.to,
abide by the opposite view they entertained.; and aa, they
would not withdraw their Minister, they'(tho' American Go-
vernment) were bound to dismiss him. (Hear.) Now, was it
possible to construe that into an insult Could myth' ing be
more natural? The American Government say, " We are