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

position is less defensible and no pretension lies tenable
than that we may exclude the question of international
law from the consideration of this subj set from the fri-
volous reason that the Americans have a municipal law.
But as the case is clear upon the municipal law, I am
ready to cmfine myself to that in the practical view of
the case which I have prescribed to myself. I am sorry
to say that the propositions that I have to support, as
embodying my conscientious convictions, are unfortu-
nately propositions which attach very strong blame to
the con'tuct of the Government. Sir, I shall not at-
tempt to qualify those opini ins by a,ey expressions of
regret. Tune things are of little value in hostile dis-
cussion. It is better for a man to speak out what he has
to say, and to tract to be contradicted, corrected, and
exposed if he has not spoken the truth. What I have
to say is this—le the first place, concealment was prac-
ticed towards the America,' Government ; and, in the
second place, not only was concealment practised, but
the American Government were deluded and misled by
representations, which I do not say were intended to
mislead, but were evidently such that they must mislead,
if properly consiclei ed. I say this----that the municipal
law was not only broken, but it was broken in defiance
of the advice of those who were chosen as counsellors—
it was knowingly broken on the part of she agents of the
British Government. Ido not say that in these papers
is to be found the proof that this was done under the di-
rection of the British Government. In that respect I
venture to differ from the hon. gentleman the member
for Mayo, and, permit me in passing to say, I could not
but listen with regret to the observations exoressed
fro-n the Treasury hi itch, not only on those portions. c f
the Speech of the hen, member for Mayo in which he
introduced, by Ivey of illustration, certain passages from
Irish history—(a laugh)—but on the general tendency of
that speech to throw blame on one particular member
of the Cabinet. I inust say, in justice to the hon. mem-
ber for Mayo, that although it may be good tactics to
strive to keep out of view one's own incapacity by in -
troducing exiting matter, the hon. gentleman has no
cause for any such expedient, because he has amply
proved by argument his full ability to dial with the
merits of the question. (Cheers.) But I differ from the
hon. gentlemau in that point. I think he stated these
things were done under the direction of her l‘fajesty's
Government. I confess I do not discern that on the
face of the papers. (Hear.) But, in my view, it matters
little whether they were done under the direction of the
Government or not, if the Government made themselves
parties to the acts by their subsequent approbation.
(Hear.) Anti here, sir, I cannot help regretting deeply
the injustice done Mr. Crampton by the hon. member
for Montrose. (Cheers.) One proposition that I state
with the greatest confidence is this—that injustice was
not done Mr. Crampton by any member of the Govern-
meut, but it was done by the hon. member for Mon-
tries°. (Hear.) The hon. member, with his regard for
America, was not willing to inculpate America ; and,
with his regard for the Government, was not willing to
inculpate the Government. (A laugh.) So, following
the example of President Pierce, and passing by both
the British and the American Governments, he threw
the blame upon Mr. Crampton, and said Mr. Crampton,
when he took the lawyer's opinion, ought to have stopped
the scheme of recruiting. I give Mr. Crampton credit
for taking a lawyer's opinion. It was a wise and pru-
dent step, but when it is said he should have stopped the
scheme of recruiting, did it rest with Mr. Crampton to
disobey crders from home ? (Hear,) In my opinion
Mr. Crampton sailed as near the wind as he could, and,
in justice to Mr. Crampton, it must be remembered that
ween he had taken the lawyer's opinion he sent home
that opinion to his Government and wrote to Lord Cies-
tendon—

" Your lordship will no doubt perceive that the provi-
sions of the Neutrality Act restrict our operations within
very narrow limits."
(Cheers.) 1 take it that it was a fair expression that in
his opinion the whole thing should be abandoned. That
suggestion was not adopted by the Government at home.
Mr. Crampton had begun to act in the spirit of what he
conceived to be there intentions, and the result is that
her Majesty's Government are unreservedly acquitted by
the Americans, and Mr. Crampton is no longer Minister
at Washington. (Cheers.) But with respect to Mr.
Crampton my proposition is this—that there is not one
hair's breadth of distinction between the position of Mr.
Crampton and the position of her Majesty's Government.
(Hear.) I think, as far as I can jadge, that the zeal of
Mr. Crampton, and, perhaps, what he believed to be the
intentions of the Government, but were not the instruc-
tions of the Government, were the source of the evils
which have arisen. (Hear.) Everything which Mr.
Crampton did was approved by the Government at home;
every claim that Mr. Crampton made was maintained by
the Government at home, and I entirely decline to draw
the least distinction between the original responsibility
of Mr. Crampton, as the subordinate person, and the sub•
sequent responsibility of the Government by its unre-
stricted posteri-r approval of Mr. Crampton's conduct.
(Cheers.) But I say that, at first, Mr. Crampton concealed
those proceedings from the American Government, and
that in a point of great importance. (Hear.) The hon.
member for Mayo has quoted a passage from Lord Cla-
rendon's despatch of the 15th July, in which Lord Cla-
rendon says that he has instructed Mr. Crampton, above
all, to bave no concealment from the American Govern-
ment. My right hen, friend the member for Manchester
says, that if that were so, then it was a high offence in Mr.
Crampton to practise concealment. The American Go-
vernment, not doubting the assurance conveyed by Lord .
Clarendon, said the same thing and laid on Mr. Cramp-
ton's shoulders this burden—that, having received strict
instructions not to practise concealment, he did practise
concealment. The hon. member for Mayo has stated that
there does not appear in these papers any instruction to
Mr. Crampton not to practise concealment, and he has
called upon the Government to point out to him where
that instruction is. (Hear, hear.) The Attorney• Gene•
ral followed, and he did not answer that appeal. The
Home Secretary spoke later in the evening, and did not
answer that appeal. The appeal must be renewed, for
this house has a right to know from her Majesty's Go-
vernment whether it is true that Lord Clarendon in-
struett.d Mr. Crampton to have no concealment from the
American Government. If he did so instruct Mr. Cram-
ton, them undoubtedly the American Government are
justified in the distinction which they draw ; but, if Lord
Clarendon did not so instruct Mr. Crampton, and if the
reference ;n the despatch of July 15 is erroneous, then it
is impossible to find words to describe the injustice in-
flicted on Mr. Crampton, because Mr. grainpton has
been made to bear the responsibility of concealment,
which the hon. member for Montrose well said was the
fatal error from the outset, whereas the responsibility of
that concealment belongs to the Gavernment I frankly
own I think it does belong to the Government, for,
although reference is made in the• despatch of July 15 to
some instruction not to practise concealment, there is
no passage in any prior despatch, or indeed in any de-
spatcb, prior or subsequent to th;t effect. The material
point in the case is, whether concealment as Or was not
practised ? The Attorney-General said no concealment
was practised, for Mr. Crarnpt ' poiutol orit to Mr.
Marcy that the British Govern .had'established, or
intended to establish, a depot at alifax. And this is
te.
what induced me to say the Attorney• General had _not
read the papers, because my hon. and learned friend gays
two references to despatches, neither of which contain 0,
.void as to the depot at Halifax ; but there hapPenif to
be a third extract which does refer to it. I preauaisethe
person who prepared the references fur the Attorney. -...-
General had unfortunately placed the wrong figures in
the margio, or they were wrongly supplied at the mo-
ment, and my hon, and learned friend, not . having
read the papers, was unable to correct the error. --
(Laughter.) However, it is quite true Mr. Crampton
did say to Mr. Marcy that the British Governmerkt
intended to establish a depot at Halifax. It is not in,e'lle' '
bluebook, but it is in the 14th page of the le.stet3itpers
presented to Parliament. 1 think there ieenei 'doubt
it wits mentioned, but it is a fact, for which I doll 4 think
Mr. Marcy had any great reason to feel obliged, inthimucth
as this depot was the subject of great discussion in the - 't'"
public journals, and it is just possible Mr. Marcy..might' .
have acquired a knowledge of its existence withene, may
_.
such communication being made by Mr. Crampteme• The
question is, did you conceal from the American Giirerne '
meat that which was the matter and the cause ofenicoms-
plaint ? The American Government never complainedeef
the existence of the depot at Halifax. There is not a word
which implies such a complaint on their part: 'They knew
quite well that the establishment of such a depot at Hali-
fax, whether prudent or not, was perfectly within the
rights anal competence of the British Government, and I
am perfectly ready to say that I and my right hon. friend
near me (Sir J. Graham) are responsible for that act j 4
conjunction with the members of the present Government,
because that resolution was the last step--within our edge
uisance before we were compelled to quit the Cabinetor— -
my noble friend on a question arising _oil- the motion of
the hon, and learned member for Sheffield: But that was
never made the subject of complaint. What the American
Government have complained of is the employment of an-
agency within the United States not only to give informa-
tion, but to tempt to induce by the oireikof valuable.con- -
eiderations, the subjects of the United Stalies-ztoie beyond- .-
the United States for the purpose of enlisting. That is the
subject matter of their complaint, and I want an answer
to this question—Did Mr. Crampton tell the American.
Government that he, on the part of the British Govern-
ment, was about to establish such an agency or not? Mr.
Crampton says he did not tell the American Government-
the details. I must say that appears to me an unworthy t
mode of dealing with the question. This is not a question
about details. It is a question about a measure, conatitut• ~.
ing the corpus of the complaint, on the part of the Ameri- :.
can Government, namely—the employment of an agency
within the United States for the purpose of disseminating '
information and inducing men to go beyond the United
States to enlist. (Cheers.) Did Mr. Crampton communi-
cate theta, or did he not ? If not, it is useless to talk of not
concealing, when you conceal not a detail but the very head
and front—the very ground and fonadation of the whole
case. (Cheers.) I say, without the smallest,
is doubt, Mr.
Crampton did not communicate that to the American Go-
vernment, and I say so, because thete the declaration,
express and positive, `of the American Government, because
there is nothing in the statement of Mr. Crampton himself
which sustains the allegation that he made such a communi-
cation to Mr. Marcy. (Hear. hear.) This fact stands the '.
ninthtehtie case—thattetsh,efogroitnhgeapb
cliposeout to
first great prorgenßietyl°37.
American citizens to go beyond the border and
oe establish tianbdt iuschi
inducing
gn
be enlisted, was concealed from the American Governments
That is the charge of concealment, and it will be well if
the Government can give some answer to it. (Hear.)
But concealment was not all. There was more, unfortn,
nately. I request hon. gentlemen to look at the 14th page
of the last papers which have been laid upon the table,
and there they will find that Mr. Crampton, referring to his
despatch of the 22d of March of last year, gives us a large
part of a despatch which was not given in the original blues
book. He there gives hie account of his conversations with
Mr. Marcy, and states the substance of his communications
with that gentleman. ale says he told Mr. Marcy that to
the inquiries which had been addressed to him by persons
in that country be bad invariably replied by referring them
to the provisions of the act. After stating those provisions
he goes on to sayconsequently all he could do was to give
to such persons the information of which be was in Rorit•
session as to the terms and the time and place atwhk
they might, if so disposed, be received into the
service of the British Government. Therefore, Mr.
1 Crampton solemnly assured Mr. Marcy thati ill answer to