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

perfectly satisfied, and have uo complaint against you, but it
is different with regard to your agents ; and, therefore, we
arrive at an opposite conclusion in our views with regard to
their conduct." Now, that was the whole state of the matter
as placed by the despatch of Mr. Marcy. Now, he (the Soli-
citor-General) must submit to the house that that was one of
the very things that were deprecated by the hon member for
North Warwikshire (Mr. Spooner), and, he thought, most
wisely. He thought the mischief that would be produced by
that discussion in the House of Commons would be ten times
as great as any despatch of Mr. Marcy's. (Hear, and laughter,)
He observed in the course of the despatches, and of the argu-
ments used by hon. members, that there was a great deal of
misapprehension, and a great want of precision in their views
as to the Jaw upon the subject. At one time the eomplaint
was that there had been evasion of the municipal law—(hear,
hear)—at another time the American Government gave up
that ground of complaint, and rested their case more parti-
cularly upon what they called an evasion of the rights of na-
tions. Then there was a third argument and a third view of
the case put forward, especially by American writers and the
American Attorney-General, that the offence committed by
this country consisted not in a direct evasion of the municipal
law, not iu a breach of international law, but in an attempt
to evade, and by that evasion to violate, the municipal law.
He more particularly referred in these observations to the
opinion of Mr. Cushing, the American Attorney General,
which somebody had printed and circulated, he (the Solicitor-
General) supposed with a view to the present discussion. The
argument of Mr. Cushing was founded not so much upon the
language of the municipal law as upon the language of the
international law; and he (the Solicitor-General) would in-
vite the attention of hon. members to the citations which
were made from the jurists, which it would be desirable to
examine in the original language, and not to trust to the
translation given by Mr. Cushing. The result of those ci-
tations will be found to be that international law went only
to the extent of forbidding one nation actually to enrol or to
enlist soldiers in the territory of another nation. (Hear.)
The offence, therefore, was, the actual enrolment or enlist-
ment of soldiers. That was the 411 extent and limit of inter-
national law. It prohibited nothing more. In order to put
the matter beyond a doubt—and he would take the whole of
the materials furnished by the American 1 twyer—he would
refer hon. members to the great pamphlet of Mr. Cushing's,
which had been so generously circulated, where they would
find that the American Attorney-General specially referred
to two works - namely, a treatise by Mr. Wheaton on inter-
national law, and the admirable Commentaries of Chancellor
Kent. Mr. Wheaton's treatise contained this passage :—" The
authority both of W.llfins and Back goes to show that the
levying of troops is a prerogative of the sovereign which no
foreign power can lawfully exercise within the territory of
another State without its express consent " That was t'.e
only principle of international law upon the subject. The
municipal law of the United States went further for it not
only embodied the rule and principle of the international
law, but it also prohibited any person from hiring any citizen
of the United States, within the territory of the United
States, for the purpose of being enlisted in foreign service.,
(Hear.) It was to be observed that, to commit a breach of
the municipal law, the offence must be committed within the
terra ory of the United States. (Hear.) With respect to the
evasion of this law, it was to be borne in mind that an Ame-
rican citizen might expatriate himself with perfect liberty;
there was no such principle as that which pervaded the law
of England, and which was embodied in the Act of 1819,that
no citizen should engage in the service of any foreign nation
without the consent of the Sovereign. When, therefore, they
were speaking of the Government asbeing exposed to censure,
because the whole of their proceedings were admirably
adapted‘to enable parties to evade the law of the United
States, it must be remembered that there was no principle
embodied in the municipal law beyond the strict letter of the
enactment. Tho law was in restraint of natural liberty. The
spirit of such a law could not be violated without at the
same time its letter being violated also. That law which
restrained the natural liberty of the citizen was ono which
could not be extended by construction; it must be
construed strictly. Hon. members must bear in mind,there-
fore, that it was idle to speak of a breach of internationallaw
where there was no breach of municipal law, because the mu-
nicipal law went beyond the international law. If there was
no breach of the municipal law, d mulio fortiori, there was
no breach of the international law. As be had said, interna-
tional law pithibited the enrolment or enlistment of soldiers
within the territory of the United States for foreign service ;
those rights were embodied in their municipal laws ; and
therefore the question simply was, whether the English Go-
vernment had violated the letter of those municipal laws.
Those laws must be construed strictly. The right hon. gen-
tleman who spoke last began by a reference to the handbill
published by Angus M'Donald; and if the right hon. gentle-
man bad understood that document he would have abstained
from the arguments which he founded upon it. He had
charge 1 against Mr. Crampton that he was guilty of a species
of fraud in respect tothat document. The right hon gentle-
inan'would observe that that was a handbill published in the
United States, pretending to issue with the authority, and to
speak in the came of, the British Government, and holding
out an offer in the name and in the behalf of the British Go-
vernment to every ono willing to accept a commission in her
Majesty's service ; so that it became the foundati m of a con-
tract the mo:nent that any individual acceded to the offer it
' conta lied. If that handbill had been circulated by Angus
M'Donald with the authority of Mr. Crampton, it would
amount in tho case of any individual accepting the offer to a
hiring and retaining within the territory of the United States.
Sir F. THESIGER pointed out that the handbill described
what the British Government had done.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the language was the
language of a present offer. But by theletter, a very proper
document, which was addressed to Mr. Marcy by Mr. Crampton,
enclosing a copy of that handbill, Mr. Crompton stated that
Angus M'Donald had no authority from the British Go-
vernment to issue the handbill, or to proceed with any
hiring within the United States. (Hear, hear.) It was
quite clear that Mr. Crampton put the' interpretation on
the document which he (the Solicitor-General) thought the
language of it naturally bore, and that he repudiated it
openly, instead of trying to throw dust in the eyes of the
American Government, as it was alleged, and sending his
agents throughout the United States to do the same thing
as Angus M'Donald professed to have authority to do In
fact, if they discarded the evidence of Hertz and Strobel,
which the right hon. gentleman said he gave up, there re-
mained not a particle of testimony anywhere throughout these
proceedings that any authority had been given by Mr. Cramp-
ton at all approaching to the authority alleged by Angus
Nl'Donald to have been given to him. Now, with regard to
Judge Kane,- he trusted that in that house they would give
all credit to American judges, and accept their interpreta-
tion of the law of that country, without attempting to bend
it to their own purposes or conclusions. He agreed in the
eulogy which was pronounced on the learning and upright-
ness of those judges by the right hon. gentleman, and from
that eulogy he would not except Judge Kane. But it was
too much for the right hon. gentleman to censure the Attor-
ney-Geueral as he did for the quotation which he made of the
opinion of that learned judge, ascribing ignorance to the At-
torney-General of what the opinion was of the judge whom
lee quoted. But the representation of that opinion, given to
the house by the Attorney-General, was affirmed by the re-
ference made to the same opinion by Mr. Cushing, the Attcr-
ney-General of the United, States. The opinion of Judge
Kane was delivered in May, 1855, when he laid it down as
the law of the country that the words " hiring or retaining"
included mutuality of engagement ; and that no offer of a
passage to those who were Oestrous of enlisting in a foreign
port, provided there was no enlistment in the United States,
came within those words to make such an act an offence
against the law. That now being the state of the case, what
became of the charge that money had been spent by Mr.
Crampto r ? Where was the allegation that money had been
spent by Mr. Crampton for the purpose of hiring or retaining
a single individual ? There was no such allegation anywhere
except in the testimony of Strobel and the confession of
Hertz. But Mr. Marcy made no complaint against the pro-
clamation of Angus M'Donald. That was left to the right
hon gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to do. Neither did Mr. Marcy
complain of Mr. Crampton having practised concealment
upon him. In the List despatch which Mr. Marcy wrote,
he distinctly said that he believed the agents of the British
Government had no communication with these parties, or
that they were in any way concerned in sending agents into
the Unite 1 States for the purpose of recruiting. Now the
word recruiting appeared to have been used by Marcy in the
most general and indefinite manner. The word was not to
be fou id in the American law. True, the complaint of Mr.
Marcy was that Mr. -Crmpt• n never represented to him that
agents had been sent to recruit, but that begged the question
—that was the point for inquiry, and where was the evidence
appiicalie to prove it? If they took the word recruit as mean-
ing to engage, where, he would ask, was the evidence to show
that agents were sent to engage or hire men ? There was not
a particle of evidence to support the charge which was made?
Could the house, in a matter of this kind, and in opposition
to its accredited Minister, accept such evidence and say that
they had arrived at a satisfactory conclusion? The house was
called upon to say that the-means of obtaining this evidence
of the American Government was satisfactory to them He
would now refer to the trials which took place, the evidence
then taken, and the manner in which the jury were said to
have been influenced. These things deserve the greatest con-
sideration of the house, and the real question was, whether
the Britis'i Government ought to have been satisfied with the
American inquiry, and have allowed their Minister to be sent
away condemnt.d by such a jury. In the last despatch of Mr.
Crampton, the meaner in which the evidence wan brought be-
f ,re the jury was stated, but he would now read the re,;ort of
tire case from official documents. The hon. and learned gen-
tleman then read the speech of the district attorney for the
prosecution, and referred to the testimony given by Hertz
and by Strobel, and asked the house whether such evidence
could be received with credit He had no hesitation in saying
that if such a case had occurred in this country, in a prosecu-
tionby the Government, greater pains would have been taken
not to give offence to the United States than had been shown
by that country. That was the issue. The inquiry was, ought
they to have consented at once to the recall of their Minister
at the request of the American Government, in opposition to
the opinion of all with whom he bad acted in this country.
The American Ministry had accepted their assurance, as
they were borind to do. The Foreign Enlistment Act must
be taken as the law of this country, and that being so, to
what country in the world, he would ask, could her Majesty's
,government with greater propriety go than to the United
States of America, to which a great number of our natural
born subjects owed no other obligation than that of resi-
dence ? There was uo place where they could seek with
greater confidence to carry out the Foreign Eulistment Act,
the municipal laws there being morn easily relaxed than iu
any other country. And such being the state of things, he
blasted that the British House of Co r•mons would believe
that the Government were under no obligation to recall Mr.
Crampton upon the representation of the American GOvern-
ment. (Hear, hear ) _ _

,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he would leave it to the
house and to the country to determine between the hoe. and
learned gentleman the Solicitor-General and the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for the University of Oxford
(Mr. Gladstone) whether the right hon. and learned gen.le-
man was in earnest in the very able anti eloquent speech'
which he had made. After that speech, which be might say
had almost exhausted the subject, he would willingly give a
silent vote on the question, were it not for the circumstance
of his having been accused of using strong expressions on the
subject upon a former occasion. In those expressions he be-
lieved he had been fully supported by several hon. gentlemen
who had addressed the house during this debate. For his
part, ho (Sir J. Pakington) mu-t confess himself desirous to
assume the responsibility of stating frankly his opinion—an
opinion in which ho was supported by the right hon. gentle-
man the member for the University of Oxford—that the time
had now come when the House of Commons might fairly and
properly address itself to this painful subject. The papers
before them were now complete, and a most discreditab'e
tale they disclosed, rendered even worse by the last docu-
ment added to them. He could well understand that her
Majesty's Government desired to avoid discussion on the
subject ; the crisis, however, was one of no ordinary interest,
the &cum-stances attending it were peculiar and most im-
portant. The question was whether discussion. on the sub-
ject could be prejudicial to the public interests-1 (Hear,
hear.) He believed that, so far -from being' prodtictive
of any ill effects, it could do nothing but good; tend to aiel
the settlement of our delicate relations, and assist in the ne-
gotiations now pc-ding--(hear}--,if it were shown to the pub-
licand the Amorican citizens that there was an indepdndoat.
party in that house who dispassionately raised their protest
against the rashness and imprudence by which the peaceful
relations between the two countries bad been disturbed. With
Mese views, he thanked the bcpu member for Maya (Mr.

Moore) for the decision with which he resisted the efforts
made to induce him to withdraw his motion, and if that hon.
member pressed the question to a division ho would support
his motion. No one, he thought, could rise from a carefu
perusal of the blue book with° .t feeling that the conduct of
her Majesty's Government had been such as to compromise
the character of the Government of this country, endanger
thelNace of the world, and bring us to the verge of a war with
America— and conduct which had obliged us to make very
humiliating apoltgies to the United States, and to submit to
the indignity of having our ambassador dismissed. That, he
thought, a most painful state of affai s, to which he felt con-
vinced her Majesty's Government would never have sub-
mitted had they not felt conscious that their conduct had
been such as to show thatthey had deserved it. The Govern-
ment had involved them in this dilemma by showing a most
unwise and imprudent disregard of the most obvious require-
ments, both of the general international law and the munici-
pal law of the United States. He was amused by the extra-
ordinary ingenuity with which the Attorney-General last
night drew the house away to the only part of the American
law on the subject which had nothing whatever to do with
that point. The Secretary of State fur the Home Departme
had followed in precisely the same endeavour, and the Solici-
tor-General was not altogether free from the same attempt.
They had all endeavoured to fix their attention on the part
of the American law under which, no doubt, American citi-
zens ware perfectly free to enlist in a foreign service when
they were not of the American States, but that was not the
real question; and they would have dealt more ingenuously
with the house if they had explained the municipal laws of
the United States, as well as the general international law, as
laid down by the best translations. He thought the Govern
ment had made a serious mistake in entertaining the idea of
drawing recruits from the United States for the army—but
if they had determined to adopt the plan, there was only
one mode in which they could carry it out with prudence—
viz., by limiting their efforts to 'our own colonial possessions,
and neither attempting to draw troops from the United
States nor communicating with any of her Majesty's officers
within the States. If they had opened recruiting offices at
Halifax and Quebec, where it was well known loyal colonists
were anxious to enter our servicee—cOlonists whose services
were unwisely rejected—and if they had abstained from com-
municating either with Mr. Crampton or any Lritish consuls
in America, they might possibly have succeeded in their
efforts; and if citizens of the United States had voluntarily
come to enter our army, there would have been no ground foe.
quarrel; but the very last persons they ought to have com-
mimic AM with on such a subject were Mr., Crampton and
our consuls, because they were certain to be involved in the
difficulties to which such measures might be expected to give
rise. He could not conceive how the Government, after receiv-
ing the legal opinion which was sent by Mr. Crampton, to-
gether_ with his intimation of what the feeling of the Ameri-
can Government was, could have persevered for another day
in the irrational course which they had adopted. He had no
intention of referring to the Earl of Clarendon in slightest
degree in terms of personal disrespect ; but no member ought
to be induced by personal feelings to compliment away the
interests of the country, or to abstain from expressing opinions
which, as a public man, he conscientiously entertained. It was
only the other evening that the noble lord the member for the
City of London, with a kind of rhetorical flourish, said lie hoped
the same statesman whose name was connected with the aci-
fication of the East would also have the honour of concluding
the disturbances in the West. Now, he could not subscribe to
the justice of that sentiment. As regarded the East, they
found the Earl of Clarendon's name attached to a resolu-
tion which he conceived uo English Minister ought to have
signed. Last night they wore told the fortifications of Is-
mail were to be dismantled—a measure against which the
noble earl had directed his efforts in Paris, but had entirely
failed. And then, again, in the West, the name most con-
spicuously connected with these transactions was that of
the Earl of Clarendon. In the despatch of the 12th of April.
the Earl of Clarendon, although warned by the despatch
of Mr. Crampton and the enclosed legal opinion, gave no
intimation to our agents in America to alter the system which
they had pursued. In the meantime the American Govern-
ment had taken alarm. It was urged by hon. •gentlemen at
the other side that the American Government had not inter-
fered ; but it was shown that the moment they were apprised
of Mr. Angus Macdonald's proceedings they gave instructions
to have him prosecuted for a violation of the neutrality laws.
Practically the American Government had been deceived, and
it was impossible to read the papers published by the autho-
rity of Parliament without coming to the conclusion that they
had been misled by Mr. Crampton and the other agents of
the British Government. The hon. and learned gentleman the
member for Aylesbury had said that the American Govern-
ment had made no complaint, but it was evident that the hon.
and learned gentleman had no \more read the blue book than
the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney-General, who
had argued the previous night in the same strain, for if he
had he would have seen that Mr. Marcy, on three occasions,
wrote a strong and indignant letter, expressing the feelings
of the American Government at the proceedings of the British
Government in'America. There were two facts in connection
with the subject which he asked her Majesty's Government
whether they were prepared to deny—one, that a cipher was
drawn up in order to enable Strobel and others to communi-
cate with Mr. Crampton; and the other, that when Strobel
went to the United States to enlist troops he adopted the
name of " Smith" for concealment ? If these facts were not
denied, what became of the assurance of the Government that
there should be no evasion of the law and no concealment ?
Was it true that these men had been engaged under the pre-
tence of being employed to go to Halifax to work on railroads,
and that a cipher had been used for that purpose ? He was
ashamed, as an English gentleman, of such practices. He would
touch for a moment on that part of the subject which related to
the conduct of the consuls. He thought that these gentlemen
had been most unfairly treated. He had been struck with the
reluctance of these gentlemen as well as that of Mr. Crampton
and of Sir G. Le Marchant to interfere in this matter. They
all wished to be out of it ; but they were afraid to act upon
the advice given by Vattel, that public officers under such cir-
cumstances ought to disobey the orders of their Government
Mr. Mathew, who had paid money for Mr. Howe to Hertz,
evidently wished to disconnect himself from the transaction.
The house had heard a great deal of the bad character of
Hertz and Strobel, but it was obvious that no honourable
man would have undertaken the duty which those men had
been asked to discharge for her Majesty's Government. Mr.
Marcy said that the acts which had been complained of,
though disclaimed by the British Government, had been com-
mitted by British agents. The hon. and learned gentleman,
the Solicitor-General, had stated that the charge against Mr.
Crampton was one of indiscretion and inadvertence. Instead
of being a charge of indiscretion and inadvertence, Mr. hi trey
stated that it was not the least of the acts of omission on the
part of Mr. Crampton that he had recklessly endangered the
friendly relations between the two countries. He (Sir J.
Pakington) could not understand the distinction which the
American Government had drawn between the conduct of
the Government and that of Mr. Crampton, But what was
the plea urged by the Government ? It was that they had
offered the most ample apologies. The right hon gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) doubted whether any apology had been made
at all. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought that Parliament and
the people had a right to complain that the government had
placed the country in a position as to require humiliating
apologies to be made on their part to the Government of the
United Stites. He could imagine nothing that eithercountry
could gain by such a calamity as war. Both might gain tem-
porary triumphs, and glory might be achieved; but what
compensation would that be for the interruption of social
progress, the wasting of millions of treasure, the shedding of
blood, and the animosity that would inevitably succeed any
such contest? If the national honour, or the interests of the
country should ever lead to such a struggle, no doubt the
people of this country, and our loyal colonists, would rally
round-the Crown, but they must all hope such a day was far
distant—(hear, hear)—and this,' he thought, was the feeling
of every well-re 'ulated mind on both sides of the Atlantic.
Mr. BENTINCK rose to move the adjournment of the
debate.

Lord PALMERSTON—Notwithstanding the doubt ex-
pressed by the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down,
as to Whether the hon. gentleman who made this motion would
press it to a division, and notwithstanding the effort made by
the hon gentleman who has just presented himself, unfortu-
nately for him, I admit, too late, I do hope the house will
feel it their duty to pronounce an opinion upon the motion
which is now submitted to them—(cheers) —which is no less
than a vote of censure upon her Majesty's Cove, merit ; and
I trust the house will feel it their duty not longer to protract
an opinion on that question, and that we shall not remain in
suspense as to whether the Government, which has hitherto
enjoyed the confidence of the country, are henceforward to
rest under a censure like this. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman
who made this motion began by stating that he called upon
the house to pronounce an opinion in a judicial capacity, and
to conduct their deliberations with judicial calmness ; but no
sooner had he announced that opinion- -no sooner had he
given to the house that exhortation —than for the whole
course of the time almost during which he enforced his mo-
tion by his speech, he did nothing but indulge in a tissue of
personalities and invective—(hear, hear)—raking up all that
he could find in the treasury of his memory of calumnious
attacks which had on former occasions been made ou my noble
friend the Earl of Clarendon, and by dwelling on the name of
the Earl of Clarendon in every alternate sentence of his speech
endeavouring to create au impression that there was some-
thing in these transactions which separated him from his col-
leagues, and that the censure of the house was to fall on one
member of the Government, and not equally to affect the
whole. The touour of that speech was as unconstitutional as
the object of the motion is, I trust, unfounded. It has been
well stated that there is no individuality in the person of that
member of a Government who is charged, by the office he
holds, to conduct a great operation, but that all his colleagues
are equally responsible with himself, and I can assure the
house that we are, in the fullest sense, willing to take entirely
upon ourselves the responsibility of all that the Earl of Cla-
rendon may have said (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman the
member for Inverness began his speech by referring to the act
which was passed enabling the Crown to raise foreign troops for
the conduct of the war. He told Us that in 1813 there were
I don't know how many thousand men more than were re-
quired, and yet that at the beginning of the late war we had
not a complete establishment. I will not follow the example
of the hon. gentleman and enter upon a discussion of what
took place when that bill was passed ; but the ground upon
which you proposed to Parliament to give that power to the
Crown was that, especially at the beginning of a war, you did
require, when the army was formed by voluntary enlistment,
and not by conscription, to use all the resources which could
bo put in request. That bill having been passed and become
law, it became the duty of the Government to carry it into
execution. We heardthat there were a number of persons re-
siding in the United States, some of them British subjects,
some of them Germans, who had removed from their own
country and settled for a time in America, who were desi-
rous of joining the ranks of the British army, and taking part
in a war which they considered rightful and just. Under
these circumstances, it was determined to endeavour to avail
ourselves of the aid of those persons; and my rigt,t hon.
friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and those
who sit near him, were parties to that arrangement. (Cheers.)
I cannot allow my right hon. friend to admit himself to have
been a party to the arrangement for the establishment of a
depot in Nova Scotia for the distinct and avowed purpose of
enlisting persons who came from the United States, and then
to escape from it. (Hear.) The establishment of that depot
was determined upon, but at the same time the Government
determined that nothing should be done which might be at
variance with the municipal laws of the United States. A
distinction has been attempted to be drawn between interim-
' tional regulations and sovereign rights, but that sophistry has
been thrown to the winds by the speech of my right hon.
friend the Solicitor-General---a laugh) —who demonstrated
that the municipal laws could not be construed beyond their
enactments, and that, therefore, it was a fallacy to say. the
international law had been violated. Then the question is,
was the municipal law of the United States violated ? I re-
Main of pinion that it was not violated. It certainly was not
violated by the orders of the Government, or, to their know-
ledge by anyt.offleers acting tinder their instructions. It Was
contended that it had been violated by their officers acting in•
di: erectly and with over zeal, but those o IR !ers den ed the asser-
tion; and according to their interpretation of the law of the
United States, it was manifest that they did nothing at-vari-
ance with that law. But who is to interpret that law? It ;
said there is a counsel who gave an opinion one way, but
there is a judge who gave au opinion another way, and if
Judge Kane felt that lie was acting in accordance w th the
law, in the opinion which he gave, it is perfectly clear no-
thing was done by our agent iu violation of the laws. Judge

Kane altered his opinion afterwards, but when f In Septem-
ber His first opinion was given in May, and our. operations '
ceased iu July, and therefore so far as the conduct of our
officers was concerned it was borne out by the judicial opinion
of the United States during the period it continued. (Hear.)
It is stated, nevertheless, that proof was given to the Govern-
ment of the United States that things were, done vehicle were
a violation of their law. No doubt things were done which
amounted to a violation of their law by persons not autho-
rised to act by toe British Government, and prosecutions
took place, and in some cases they succeeded, and in other
cases they failed. It is said, towever, that no prosecution
could be instituted against Mr. Crampton, because he was
protected by his diplomatic character. That exemption did
not apply to the consuls ; and if Viey had violated the law,
why were they not brought to trial? We have been told by
theright hon. gentleman the member for Manchester (Mr. M.
Gibson) of the case of Consul Curtis in Prussia, but Consul
Curtis was prosecuted. We thought the proceedings at his
trial were not fair and just, and the Prussian Government so
ar concurred in that opinion that, though he was condemn d
still the King of Piussia released him. Of the three consuls
not one of them have been brought to trial, and with regard
to Mr. Stanley, proceedings against him have been discon-
tinued by the authority of the United States Government. I
am therefore warranted in saying that the accusation of the
United States Government agai ist the Government of this
country rests entirely upon the evidence of those men,
who are admitted upon all ban sto be men of vile and infa-
mous character, and totally unworthy of belief. We are said
to have practised a deceit upon the American Government,
and to have concealed our proceedings from them. Mr.
Crampton however, in his conversation of the 22d of March,
stated to the American Government, what they must long
before have been aware of, that the British Government was,
at Halifax, taking steps to engage men coming there who
might be willing to enlist in our service. (Hear.) But it
was said, why did not Mr. Crampton from time to time in-
, form Mr. Marcy of what was going on with regard to enlist-
ment ? Sorely if Mr. Marcy was otherwise informed that pro-
ceedings were taking place by British authority at variance
with the laws of the United States it was his duty to have
sent to Mr. Crampton and made inquiries of him as to the
circumstances. Could any one suppose that a Minister of
Foreign Affairs in this country, if he were informed that any
person was acting by the authority of another country in
violation of our laws, would not at once send for the accre-
dited Minister of that country, and sift the matter to.the very
bottom, so that there might be no misunderstanding between
the-two Governments on the subject ? (Hear.) But was that
the proceeding of the Minister of the United States ? On the
contrary, he allowed the causes of complaint to accumulate,
in order that when what he considered the proper time are
he might either take advantage of them or deal with
them as matters not worthy of notice. (Cheers.) I say then
that there was an absence upon the part of the United States
Government of those steps which it was their duty to take, if
they thought the agents of the British Government were vio-
lating the law of the United States. (Cheers.) Well, then,
when at an early period of these proceedings we found that
they were likely to lead to embarrassments between us and the
United States we stopped our arrangements. (Cheers.) But
an hon. gentleman says that though the letter was dated the
1d of July, it was not sent until the 2d of august. Now
really in a matter of this kind a few weeks' delay was not of
much consideration, and the fact still stood out that the Bri-
tish Government, when they found that these proceedings
were likely to lead to embarrassment, of their own accord di-
rected them to be stopped. (Hear.) Then an hon. member
said that no apology was made. But, I ask, what greater or
more acceptable apology could one Government make to an-
other than at once putting an end to the ground of offence ?
(Cheers.) DJ not tell me of verbal apologies ; I say that an
apology in deed was of infinitely more value, and infinitely
more satisfactory to the Government of America, as a proof
of the sincere wishes of her Majesty's Government to avoid
any rupture of the friendly relations which exist between the
two countries, than all the verbal apologies which ever could
be penned. •(Cheers ) I say, then, that there is no question
of concealment, and that reparation has been made f r the
offence, if any existed. But then it is seid that we ought to
have acknowledged that we had violated the neutrality laws
if the United States, But we do not believe that we have
violated them - we cannot acknowledge a wrong which we are
unconscious of having committed. Well, 'then, we received an
in imation from the United States Government that our agents
should be with irawn. We replied, as we hoped, satis-
factorily to the American Government, and proving, as
we thought, that there had been nothing done by our
agents which could justify the disapprobation of their con-
duct which the American Government had expressed. In
answer to that the United States Uovernme t •aid that they
were satisfied with regard to the conduct of her Majesty's
Government ; that all questions between the two Governments
were closed and settled, but that they still retained their ex-
pressed opinion as to the conduct of our agents, and consi-
dered them as unacceptable organs between the two Govern-
ments. What, then, was the • course her Majesty's Govern-
ment bad to pursue ? They had to determine whether they
would give measure for measure, and retaliate upon Mr. Dallas
the step taken with regard to Mr. Crampton, and upon the
American consuls in this country, by sending them their exe-
quaturs—that taken with respect to our three consuls in
A.merica. Her Majesty's Government did not think it their
, duty to advise her Majesty to take those steps; and, not-
, withstanding what has been said in the course of this debate,
I still am of opinion that that decision was a proper one, and
has met with, and will continue to meet with, the approbation
of this house and of the country, (Loud cheers.) It is curi-
ous to folio iv the language which has been used by hon. gen-
tlemen in the course of this discussion. All parties are, they,
say, most anxious to maintain peace between the two coun-
tries, and abound with the assertion that that wish is at the
very bottom of their hearts, and the chief object of their
lives —(a laugh)—and yet here happens to be a case in which
a question has arisen between the two Governments—expla-
nations have been made by one Government which are con-
sidered satisfactory by the other, and yet hon. members come
here and publicly declare that England and America have
both been insulted one by the other.
An HON. MEMBER—Not England, but the Government
' of England. .

Lord PALMERSTON- —Let me tell the hon. member that
the intercourse of nations takes place through their Govern
ments, and that an insult offered to the Government is an
insults to the country itself. (Cheers.) Well, then, it is said
that England has been insulted, has been treated with con-
tumely and indignity. What are such Assertions likely to
lead to ? Are they not calculated not to soothe the feelings
of the people of the two countries, but to excite in the breasts
of the people of England a spirit of bitter animosity and re-
sentment towards their kindred people in the United States ?
(Loud cheers.) Why, any one who knows the character of
the people of England must know that, to tell them that they
have been insulted, treated with contumely and conte,apt,
must excite in them the fee'ings I have mentioned; for the
bulk of the nation will take such assertions —coming as they
do from those who call themselves the country party—upon
trust, and believe in their truth without inquiry, and
they will say, " We must have been grossly insulted, and
let us punish and resist the insult which has been offered to
us." Hon. gentlemen opposite, by using the language they
have in the course of this debate, thus lay the foundation of
enmity between the two countries. (Cheers.) Then the
right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Ox-
ford told the Americans that they have been deluded and
cheated, and that their Government ought not to have accepted
the apology which was offered to them. He told them that
their law had been intentionally violated by her Majesty's
Government, and that their Government had accepted and
expresses themselves satisfied for that wrong with an apology
with which they ought to have expressed themselves dissatis-
fied, and which they ought not to have accepted. Was that
tbo way to secure between this country and the United States
the most friendly relations ? Many hon. gentlemen told the
hon. member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), when he brought forward
this motion, that to persist in that course would be injurious
to the interests of the public service; and certainly the dis-
cussion which had taken place that evening has proved the
wisdom and truth of the suggestions which these hon mem
' bora had offered to that hon. member ; for certainly this de-
bate, fnsteaess f tending to efface any pass'on and ill•feeling
which may existbetween the two nations, will tend rather to
embarrass their intercourse, and render it more difficult to
bring.about an amicable understanding between the two coun-
tries. I will not at this late hour further detain tbe house, for
I think it totally unnacessai7. The house is now called upon
to determino whether there shall be passed upon the Govern-
ment a vote of censure. The hon. gentleman the member for
Mayo should have come forward and expressed that which
was uppermost in ,his mind by moving a direct vote of cen-
tsure on her Majesty's Minister's. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
It would, I think, have been more manly on his part if he
I had come forward with such a vote of censure, instead of re-
fusing to us that approbation for the management of our
relations with the Government of the Unite -1 States which we
did not ask. My right hon. friend the memlspr for the Uni-
versity of Oxford says that he cannot refuse us his support,
and I accept his vote, and will not look a gift horse in the
mouth. (Great laughter.) The reason my right bon. friend
gives for thus supporting us is, that it is impossible to find
any persons capable of taking our places. (Hear, hear.) That
is, I think, rather complimentary to us. (Laughter.) There
are, nevertheless, I think in the house many gentlemen who
are of opinion that that difficulty could he easily got over—
that half an hour's conversation in private between my right
hon. friend and some of the gentlemen who sit opposite
would remove every difficulty which at present exists. (Great
laughter.) I would not, therefore, accept from the house a
vote founded on so great a political misapprehension. We
take our stand on fireater and higher ground. (Great cheer
ing.) We are of opinion that we have, during a difficult
period, conducted the affairs of the country with honour and
satisfaction. (Cheers.) We believe that the confidence re-
posed in us by the hone is shared in by the country at large.
It is on this ground we are prepared to go to a division. We
ask Parliament to support us, not because of the difficulty to
find persons to take our places, but because we have done
nothing to forfeit the good opinion of the nation. We trust
to the good opinion of the house, and to the goodwill felt for
us by the country. It is on this ground I challenge the hon,
gentleman the member for Mayo to come to a division, and
we are confident that the result will be such as our conduct
may deserve. (Great cheering.)
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR rose to address the house amid
loud cries of " Divide, divide" and was, from the impatience
of the house, scarcely intelligible. He was understood to say
that the conduct of the Government to a people speaking the
same language as ourselves was highly reprehensible.
Mr. BENTINCK moved the adjournment of the debate', to
give hon. gentlemen on the Conservative side of the house an
opportunity of expressing their opinions on the motion.
Mr. MOORE, in reply, said he had nothing to reply to—(a
laugh)—except to say a few words in his own vindication with
regard to the charge of " calumnious imputations" brought
against him by the noble lord the member of that house as
applied to the Earl of Clarendou—

Lord PALMERSTON was understood to intimate that he
only alluded to calumnies against the Earl of Clarendon which
had been made at a former time. (Hear.)
Mr. MOORE continued—With regard to the imputations
of the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary, ho could
state that ho hal not 13. en influenced by any personal feeling
towards the Earl of Clarendon. He could only say that such
imputations were entirely unjust and untrue. (Oh.) He re-
peated they were unjust and untrue. Not only had he no ill-
will towards the Earl of Clarendon, but ho believed it was
impossible for any man who had been brought within
the sphere of that noble earl to feel any towards
him, or to feel anything but respect for him, not only for
the success he had achieved, but for the many blunders out
of which he had escaped. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He had yet
to learn that he was not justified in stating the (public ante-
cedents of any public man when he felt they illustrated his
subsequent career. He had said nothing but what the noble
lord well knew to be true, and what the Earl of Clarendon
himself knew to be true.
Lord PALMERSTON—I used the word " calumnious"
with reference to those calumnies which were disseminated
against the Earl of Clarendon with reference to a trial to
which the hon. member alluded.
Mr. MOORE—I stated nothing but what was true.
The house then divided on the main question for going into
committee.
Before announcing the numbers, Mr. HATTER informed the
Speaker that three members were present in the house at the
time of time division, but had not voted.
Lie SPEAKER then directed the hon. members to appear
at the table. Thereupon Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. W. Jackson,
and Mr. Trail!, amid great laughter, appeared at the table ;
and upon beinz informed by them that they had heard th